Enderby Wharf plans in with 564 homes and changes to Greenwich riverside site
A new planning application is in for a riverside site in Greenwich at Enderby Wharf after controversial plans for a cruise liner terminal were ditched.
The site previously saw towers and a cruise liner approved before the site was then sold. New owners dropped the cruise liner terminal back in 2019.
Sitting next to Morden Wharf where 1,500 homes have been approved this site will see “part-3, part-23, part-35 storey buildings, providing up to 564 residential apartments, light industrial and community / café use”.
Homes have increase from 477 in the previous application to 564. The number of “affordable” units increases from 15.7 per cent (79) to 35 per cent (by habitable room). That totals 118 low cost rented homes (London Affordable Rent) compared to circa 50 before. The remaining affordable homes are more expensive rentals (London Living Rent) and shared ownership.
It previously featured 179 parking spaces and is now down to 20. There are nearly 1,000 cycle space but many will probably try that once and ditch it if heading to the nearest tube station. More on that later.
Design
With the cruise liner gone new plans now include a small patch of green space beside the Thames with commercial space at street level.
There’s three main towers now evident across the site. Materials include glazed tiles are “proposed to the base of the River Tower, to emphasise the cafe and community space, along the riverside.”
While the cruise liner is no more there are plans for a riverboat stop We saw one included next door at Morden Wharf where £225,000 every year is due to be allocated and another proposed just north beside the intercontinental hotel. This appears to share the pier.
There was talk of a bus through the site but the developer wants it to run alongside. Morden Wharf’s approved plan sees a bus loop within the site for the 108 route.
Local environment
The Design and Access Statement touches upon nearby amenities such as St Mary Magdalene school. The walk to the site isn’t good.
Of course this is ignored in the Transport Assessment which states (try not to laugh): “The local pedestrian environment is of good quality and offers access to many local amenities, as well as various modes of public transport.”
Yeah, that’s a nonsense. It’s dismal in places. This is how it is walking to a major school nearby (St Mary Magdalene) or towards shops.
There’s one part within the application showing the “daily life” of someone moving in, which shows someone taking a cycle to school. Yeah right. When it’s that dangerous?
Link to tube station and o2
The walk to the o2 and North Greenwich station is little better, passing along the atrociously bad Tunnel Avenue and then over onto this stretch of road.
There’s been so many developments and so many more coming it’s a miracle it still looks this bad. But Greenwich planners and Highways somehow conspire to achieve the near impossible.
It’s not just a complete lack of maintenance but non-existent parking enforcement alongside broken street furniture and obstacles on paving.
In terms of revenue for Greenwich Council to aid the local area and services borough-wide, once again their lethargy in revising low rates upon developers (eight years behind schedule and counting) ensures much potential income will again be lost.
An absolute scandal not to seek greater revenue given how pressed they are from central government.
It should never have taken this long to revise extremely low rates particularly in prime areas beside the Thames such as this.
And even now they’ve excluded hotels and student accommodation from revisions.
In terms of Section 106 allocation it probably goes without saying that public realm improvements are not mentioned in draft head of terms to improve walking and cycling routes to nearby transport nodes and amenities such as shops and schools on the peninsula.
That Transport Strategy recently adopted? Seems it meant little. As suspected we can add it to the many others adopted prior (green strategy, carbon reduction, healthy living et al) which never translated warm words into action.
You can view the application and its myriad documents by clicking here.
I find it absolutely bewildering that even more residential development can be approved *without* express commitment from the developers to fund public services/realm improvements. Once again, money talks and bullshit walks.
The onus here is on Greenwich Council. Their planning officers could allocate more income to improve streets from section 106 and be having those discussions with developers. They never seem too interested and ignore recommendations to do so from various public bodies time and again.
It’s also the authority that opted for low rates to be levied on developers back in 2015 when their own report stated it was possible to go higher. They then failed to revise low rates in 2018 (as they’d committed to in 2015) and they took a further 7-8 years to get the ball rolling. Even now they’re deciding to not revise low rates on hotels and student accommodation.
Developers will pay higher sums if Greenwich set a suitable level via the set rate CIL or in discussions (negotiated s106) as we see in other boroughs. Greenwich have failed to do so time and again with both revenue sources.
It’s very disappointing that the location of the larger tower effectively would now block any future trunk route through Morden Wharf.
The reasons given are that in order to fit with the new design they’d either need to cut a bus route through the central garden or, for single decker buses, contort around the podium of the new ‘bow-tie’ design of the larger block. It feels like a much easier option would be either moving the larger tower slightly forward or amending the rear first few floors to a larger/boxier design that can fit a double decker in. Interesting that TfL have pressed for a route that can accommodate a double decker, implying that if the space were provided for the route it could have made use of the Silvertown tunnel, perhaps something linking Greenwich and Royal Docks. Alas.
Also think it’s terrible that they’re adding all these new homes without improvement to the public realm. The walking/cycle routes are laughable. And all these additional homes will bring further strain to the public transport system and the already-oversubscribed local schools, nurseries and doctor/dental surgeries.
The population and demographic changes are leading to increased pressure anyway alongside issues of funding or lack of it. New homes at least helps alleviate overcrowding, gains revenue for services and can be used to better measure and plan services compared to homes becoming HMOs (sometimes unlicensed) and/or divided into smaller dwellings. Not building doesn’t alleviate stresses but makes them worse.