Charlton office-to-residential plan at recently completed estate
Plans are in to convert designated office space to housing at a newly constructed estate in Charlton.
Victoria Way saw 330 homes recently complete with one block named Walsh House on Victoria Way itself was supposed to be office space.
Developer Fairview claim they had no takers, and so now seek to create eight flats.
The development was contentious upon approval, and in 2021 as it was approaching completion I took a fair number of photos around the site intending to do a post.
I never got around to it as it didn’t seem particularly interesting architecturally.
It’s mostly boxes and tacked-on balcony’s. Fairview aren’t known for design flair.
Alas, I do have photos of various areas. There’s a far bit of surface level parking; with 144 spaces in total across the site.
For an area projected to see quite a bit more traffic in coming years due to Silvertown Tunnel, permitting extensive car parking isn’t going to help too much with congestion.
Recently I covered how registered cars in Greenwich borough has increased quickly and far above many other London boroughs. This kind of estate is why.
Parking is more akin to what is expected out in a Kent town rather than near zone 2 and 3 tube and rail stations.
Bear in mind this has only just completed and approved in 2018. It was years and years ago.
The main entrance is lined with parking.
I couldn’t see any evidence whatsoever that any improvements had been made to pedestrian facilities in the area. This has prompted me to look at the final Section 106 agreement, and it paints a sorry picture that again ignores many stated aims of the authority.
Crumbling estates are also seen nearby.
Why is this? Well, Greenwich Council allocated just £10,000 for pedestrian improvements in the area under the Section 106 agreement.
However they managed to allocate GLLaB £339,990.
Yet more evidence all those reports encouraging walking seen over the past decade have never really been backed up with action and money.
Community Infrastructure Levy income was also very low as Greenwich set one of the smallest rates on developers in London.
They like to state the Planning Inspector forced them to have such a low levy, which is a nonsense for most of the borough including this area.
The end result is local estates, streets and public services have all missed out.
Makes sense to seek planning permission to convert the office building in to residential flats rather than leaving the building empty for years waiting to see if any company will use the offices.
Would be nice if these additional eight flats could be for rent.
Greenwich Council are reaping the rewards for having approved dozens of developments with massive amounts of car parking on site. The riverside developments in East Greenwich have well over a 1000 spaces in underground parking and yet Developers Bellway are still trying to get some last minute street parking added into the mix. Apparently no-one in the Council can count as the cumulative total of parking is now far more than any residential street would have generated. It’s all very well going “car-free” or “car-lite” now but the damage has already been done and we will live with the consequences. Mind you, the developers are laughing with underground parking spaces raking in around £30,000 a pop on top of the price of a flat.
One question which needs to be asked, and I don’t know if it is being asked, is whether GLLaB is value for money and offering significant and long last benefits to the Borough?
From reading this website it feels like there are two certainties:
1) Greenwich is a bit of a soft touch with developers and regularly gets less S106 (etc) money, and less council / truly affordable homes from developers than other councils. This needs fixing.
2) But…given the shear quantity of development across the Borough, the (lower than it should be) S106 money is still a substantial amount of money.
GLLab is clearly a very well intentioned recipient of this money: who can honestly argue against more jobs and training for those currently out of work? And will have positive impact on the local economy, ability to lift people out of council housing (freeing up spaces for others), etc.
But, should (some) of that money be repurposed to tackle the crumbling and poor quality infrastructure so vividly highlighted by this blog?
In policy circles there is an interesting hypothesis at the moment: if you fix housing then that in turn can fix most of other most pressing issues. Better quality and more affordable housing =
– improved health outcomes
– lower crime
– lower pollution (assuming the house is well sited and connected)
– better education outcomes
– happier, more content, and more productive citizens
Let’s make the most of this development-led opportunity to make housing and our public realm better?
There never was going to be any takers for the office space. I don’t know why developers even pretend there is a market for retail or office space in residential developments.
Whenever I read GLLab funding I assume it’s a slush fund. If it’s as effective as the illegal Greenwich Time publication at giving residents news then I’d be surprised if many have found jobs.
As a local resident I have asked the council about putting in a crossing by the width restrictions by the estate’s pedestrian entrance on Victoria Way. No funding/we’ll get back to you (they didn’t).
It did at least open up access to Gurdon Road but no funding to make the foot crossing at the Angerstein branch accessible, eg a tunnel. And the gate to the neighbouring estate on Fairthorn Road remains locked.
Other improvements that should happen but won’t – cycle path to the Thames Path from Woolwich Road. If so much is being spent training cyclists make it easy to get to the best cycle path in the borough. It’s downright dangerous trying to get from Victoria Way to the Thames Path by bike.
But will we vote out the Friends of Developers (the Party formerly Known as Labour) not a chance, they are cruising on safe votes. We need an SNP style shake up to remove them from complacency.