Is this one of the slowest new-builds in London?
A block of flats under construction in Charlton is vying for the record of slowest progress of any new housing development in London as progress trundles on years of construction.
Valley House, which include 73 flats, has looked close to completion for some time now but doesn’t really seem to ever really progress – unless looking closely. A recent visit appeared to show some of the external brick finish on display.
From the vast car park outside Sainsbury’s the brickwork actually looked unfinished to my eye. Only heading closer does it reveal complete brickwork.
It’s probably just my perception but far larger schemes, that started much later are ahead of this block. Looking back through this site shows a post in March 2017 when the previous building was nearing complete demolition.
It may also be because I was expecting a green tinge to the facade as renders showed:
Peabody are behind the project.
Pedestrians will be glad when complete as paving has been blocked for years.
Assuming all goes to plan it should complete in 2020.
I’m running a Christmas appeal for the site. Click here to become a Patron or here to donate via Paypal. Thanks
Let’s hope the slow build means high standards and good quality materials. Wait, what am I saying?
They also plan to make massive planning permission changes – see https://i.imgur.com/vXKL4YR.jpg or search for 18/4094/MA on planning portal.
“Former Valley House, 445 Woolwich Road, Charlton, SET 7AP
Applicant: Peabody Housing
Proposal: An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990
for a minor material amendment in connection with the planning permission
1 6/01 321F, dated 19/09/2016 for the demolition of existing building and construction of
buildings up to 7-storeys in height to provide 73 new residential dwellings and one
ground floor flexible use Class AllA21A3 or A4 unit with associated car and cycle
parking at basement level, access, landscaping and amenity space to allow:
– A variation of Condition I (Approved Drawings) to provide for various internal and
external changes to the approved plans including: 22 studio flats to be converted into
I-bed flats, changes in size and layout of approved units, removal of Block A/B
concierge, relocation of Block A/B refuse store to basement, changes to wheelchair
ramp access on Woolwich Road frontage, removal of access from street to duplexes
and replaced by amenity spaces to three apartments, alteration to Block C access to
provide ramp to new lobby area, removal of bollards and on-site loading bay, removal
of internal lift within Block A, replacement of steel balconies with concrete balconies,
relocation and alterations to sub-station resulting in change to Gallions Road facade,
provision of external wheelchair ramp and Steps at entrance to Block C, changes to
windows; alterations to ground floor access arrangements to rear of Blocks A/B and—
C; addition of balconies to two apartments to rear of Block A (6th floor); changes to
roof plant configuration; and changes to floor to ceiling heights within the building
revised layout and reduction in size of commercial (Flexible use Class Al IA21A31A4)
unit from 275sqm to 257.287sqm; relocation of visitor bike stands;
– A variation of Condition 14 (BREEAM) to alter wording from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Very
Good’;
– Removal of Condition 2 in respect of the affordable housing mix;
– A variation of Condition 32 (Use of commercial floor space) to reflect the reduction
in the amount of commercial floorspace and;
– A variation of Condition 49 (Mechanical Ventilation and Plant) with regard to the
timing of the submission of details to ensure that no Class A3 or A4 use commences
until details of the extract and ventilation system for the commercial unit have been
submitted and approved.”
We have until 5 Jan to respond.
So this means:
1. Studio -> 1 bedroom flats. I think that’s for the best of whichever poor soul eventually buys there alongside Woolwich Road at the developer’s minimum 20% profits
2. Condition 14 (BREAAM) Excellent -> Very good. What a con, the document states ‘“The development hereby permitted shall be built to a minimum of BREEAM Excellent (or its successor).” Why are they asking to have worse standards at this stage?
3. Remove condition 2 for affordable housing mix. I can’t find condition 2 anywhere in the 77 documents. However the letter of Feb 2019 says ” the proposed development is now completely affordable and therefore no issue in terms of viability arises. The scheme will deliver a significant contribution to the local housing stock in terms of affordable units.” Hmmmm
4. Rest of it seems fairly standard, apart from reducing commercial space.
Condition 2 was in a separate link. It was to have a minimum of 15.1% affordable houses across the site. And this is broken down into 64% affordable social rented units and 36% affordable housing intermediate units.