30-floor Deptford tower to be decided tomorrow
Plans for a 30-storey tower beside Trinity Laban in Deptford is due to be decided by Lewisham Council’s planning committee tomorrow (Tuesday 17th November).
Another 26-floor block is proposed beside the taller tower. The site ownership is split three ways between Lewisham Council who formerly had a depot on site, developer Kitewood and Trinity Laban who had a car park on the western strip of land.
It’s been a long time coming to reach this point. I first covered submitted plans over two years ago. After that the Greater London Authority then heavily criticised the scheme.
Earlier plans for a new bridge are nowhere to be seen. Lewisham seems to have gained a poor deal given that they posses a large chunk of land on site. In November 2016 the Council’s Mayor and Cabinet gave approval to the disposal of land in return for just 16 flats on a 250 year lease out of 393 proposed and a payment of £500,000.
Aside from that there is no housing which meets the truly affordable level. The developers have responded to GLA criticism over “affordable” housing by increasing shared ownership from10 to 15% – still well below Lewisham borough expected levels. There are 59 shared ownership flats which often require substantial incomes given rent is payable on top of a mortgage plus service charges. Lewisham planners state anymore would make the project “unviable”. The council’s report states “this would not meet the Council’s definition of genuinely affordable
housing” yet recommends approval.
A previous plan in 2016 that did not include Lewisham Council and Trinity Laban land was rejected.
This plot sits right at the borough boundary between Greenwich and Lewisham. Greenwich gave approval for a tower block which completed recently.
Trinity Laban are to receive new buildings in return for selling their car park.
A new Creekside walkway is proposed which would extend new space outside Union Wharf.
Hopefully this one does actually open. Over the other side of the creek a public walkway remains shuttered years after completion.
Earlier designs showed design flair that had been removed in later iterations.
In its place is a tower that is prominently dark grey and could well prove extremely overbearing in this location.
A decision should be made on the application tomorrow night. Click here to view reports on the scheme.
- Help support the site bring you news by becoming a sponsor at Patreon or make a one-off donation at Ko-Fi and Paypal.
- There is also now a From The Murky Depths Facebook page. Click here to follow and see stories on your Facebook feed.
I guess Deptford sold down the river again. Would be good if decent environmental credentials and afforabable or social housing but no. It’s not even a compliant scheme. A shame. My guess is it will get through and we get a bad deal.
So the full canyonisation of Deptford Creek nears completion. Planning committees in both boroughs should hang their heads in shame. I have never read in any planning guidance that open water-space should be turned into a slough of despond in the name of more unaffordable “luxury” cells, particularly in the light of recent events and rising unemployment. Perhaps a little more care for the environment rather than a few token box bushes. Where is the employment space to support such an influx in the population?
Application was agreed and referred to Mayor of London for approval. 15 % affordable. Such a shame our council have no backbone. But it will be there problem in 20 years time. I don’t understand why they cant push for better buildings. Its even compliant with thier own rules and they still vote for it. As for its carbon impact, it makes a mockery of all the climate emergency side of things too….
Having lived around this area for more than 20 years, I don’t want to be here anymore. Greeenwich and Lewisham councils continue to allow developers to put up ugly tower blocks with no ameneties. The developers throw some bribe to the councils but do nothing to improve infrastructure. Only one option left, move away from the area.
The 15% affordable level was only offered by the applicant at the meeting, strictly conditional on the council approving the plans there and then. If not, the applicant said the affordable level would be only 10% going forward. It seems completely unreasonable to use affordable housing levels as a bargaining chip in this way. It also makes a mockery of the financial viability report, stating that 10% was the absolute maximum.
One of the councillors used to be on the board of governors for Trinity Laban – how was that not considered a conflict of interest?
It’s a complete farce that so much council money and land was given to Trinity Laban at the expense of affordable housing.