The next large Greenwich housing scheme to be segregated?
With the controversy of Silvertown Tunnel and a planned three-storey lorry distribution centre north of the Thames I thought I’d take a look at apparently similar plans south of the Thames at Morden Wharf on Greenwich Peninsula.
Whilst doing so I once again found consultation documents for new developments on part of Morden Wharf, and what immediately stuck out was the segregated nature of planned housing in this development from U&I. Take a look.
It appears that private units are located together and “affordable” homes are away from the river and closer to Blackwall and Sivertown tunnels:
U&I – who sponsored a Greenwich borough award ceremony earlier this year– are behind this development which is looking to provide at least 1,500 homes including a 36-floor tower.
There will also be 500 car parking spaces.
There is mention of a possible new bus route running along Tunnel Avenue. The road is due to be altered becoming two-way and permitting general traffic to join tunnel approaches. That could attract far more local traffic – which may make any bus routes liable for delays and disruption.
A follow up post will look at plans for a distribution centre at Morden Wharf. It wasn’t mentioned in consultation documents but is included in a scoping opinion submitted to Greenwich Council.
Unfortunately affordable housing has no catchy symbols, hashtags or celebrities championing it. As such, its a burden to both the council and the private sector who must be seen to pay lip service to the idea whilst privately discouraging the poor from swarming into the area. A chap I know in the housing department told me that applications from Haringey have increased significantly since around March, hence the renewed interest in sending them on to Kent. Until it becomes acknowledged as a human right/be effectively monetized, the poor door will always be open
As for the change to Tunnel Avenue I’m not surprised – it’s exactly the kind of backward thinking I’ve come to expect from the Council.
Separating Private Housing from Affordable Housing is the sensible (notice that I didn’t say right) way to go. I live in Affordable Housing (Trinity Walk), and if I had the ability to pay for Private Housing, I would be out of here in a flash!
Since, I moved in to this Estate, I’ve watched how the building I’m in get used and abused to the point that it’s already a beat down building. This, of course, is directly attributable to the residents, AND the Management Company’s lack of enforcement and repair of damages.
Frankly, the majority of Residents in the building seem to prefer to live in a state of subpar circumstances. It reflects their mentality.
Every time another door is smashed into disrepair, another diaper, beer bottle or cigarette butt, or other rubbish is thrown from a flat on to the street below, I feel a little more worthless, a little less human. Thanks to Greenwich and the Management Company’s lack of enforcement, this Estate will only continue its downward spiral.
Sensible comment Paul, you sound like a reasonable chap and I’m sorry you’re having to deal with those kinds of residents in your block. I also live in one of the Private blocks in Trinity Walk and there is definitely a clear different in behavior, and general respect between private and affordable residents. I don’t mean all, but there a definitely some living in Percy Eagles Court that leave a lot to be desired. I think the housing association has to take some responsibility for ensuring the well being of tenants like yourself Paul. I hope you’ve raised the issues you’ve had with them and make reference to specific individuals/flats that are causing these issues so they can be evicted for the good of everyone. Until people starting treating themselves and their homes with respect, there will never be proper integration.
Completely agree with the OP in terms of keeping private and social separate. I live in a privately rented (market rent) apartment by L&Q. Whilst my building is completely private rent the three others have social housing components. I see the social tenants hang about outside smoking and drinking. Also how can they afford Audi and BMW? I know cause their abusing the system. I kid you not they all drive expensive cars. Whilst I pay 1700 a month rent and can’t afford a car. I would rather they not be in the same neighborhood.
The cars are probably funded by DLA/Mobility car scheme. The larger the deposit, the better the car. The deposit being far less than the free insurance on the car that the could never afford.
I agree totally with PaulSuperUnknown, Alex and Ian Glass I think social housing developments should be separate from the privately owned or rented flats in private developments, I feel for you all and know first hand some of the problems you are experencing.
Until Greenwich start taking the matter of anti social behaviour more seriously the situation will not improve.
To be fair I do think these inicidients are isolated to social housing properties. You can still have problems with anti social behaviour in privately rented proprties and owner occupier properties as well. I
I hope the council will ensure the Thames pathway is kept open, I think it’s disgraceful the way it was closed off for 2 whole years because of the work aound the Enderby wharf area.
I wholly agree with GreenwichRes that Pubic Throughways should, in no way, be obstructed, or co-opted by Private Property boundaries. In this spirit, I much admire the public right to amble.
Not all social tenants smoke, drink or drive expensive cars. Not all congregate with people of this mentality.
Have you researched the private tenants to find out how they get their income? Perhaps they’re fiddling their expenses and/or dodging their taxes.