One Woowich estate project set to see cut in new Greenwich Council homes
The next phase of the “One Woolwich” estate demolition and rebuilds could see a reduction in agreed council homes if Greenwich Council’s Cabinet agree to Officers recommendations next week.
A total of 90 council homes agreed to be built by Lovell at Maryon Grove in Charlton could be reduced to 53 despite homeless households quadrupling in just four years to 2,000 – with huge costs both to those in temporary and emergency housing and taxpayers.
A report suggests losing 37 agreed council homes homes is acceptable as a “preferential outcome is mixed tenure developments”.
The report also states that homes previously designated as shared ownership from PA Housing would become social housing – thus the impact is lessened. While true, the sheer scale and exponential growth in homelessness in the borough surely means both PA and Greenwich Builds (the council’s name for new council homes) housing is required.
The same meeting next week also looks at the borough’s finances, and despite millions more allocated due to housing pressure another overrun is forecast.
The report states that while grant funding helps convert the PA Housing units to social housing, there isn’t enough funds for the council to take on all allocated 90 council homes themselves in addition. The site sits in Housing Minister Matt Pennycook’s own constituency, though the government show little sign of increasing grant funding beyond previous Conservative levels.
One Woolwich
The project to demolish and rebuild three estates has been ongoing for many, many years.
In total 1,064 predominantly council homes were demolished across three areas with just 35 per cent of 1,600 replacements being “affordable” in a project alongside developer Lovells – and far from all of those were social or council housing.
You don’t have to be Carol Vorderman to see that’s a substantial loss of public housing. It’s a factor in the ever worsening crises seen in the borough – though by no means the only one.
In recent years an attempt was made to boost council housing totals but the latest report still show only 700 in total will be social housing managed by Greenwich Council and PA Housing.
Charlton blocks
The last phase in Charlton saw tenants evicted and the estate left in squalor – as covered here.
The site was left entirely open and reports came in of people living on site (a clear sign of the housing crises in and of itself) as well as fires being set within homes.
Lovell have since demolished it with costs underwritten by Greenwich Council.
Lovell are supposed to secure full planning consent by the end of 2025 for this phase but as yet no application has been submitted.
The council argues that keeping all previously agreed 90 homes as council housing could jeopardise the project and Lovell walk away. Greenwich would have to refund demolition costs but would then own the entire site according to Officers.
That leaves the option of the council’s off-shoot Meridian Homestart (not mentioned at all) building and/or more Greenwich Builds homes – though the report notes there is no funding for that. That’s something this government could address but so far little desire seems evident.
They seem intent on retaining Conservative levels of grant funding. This was evident in their manifesto and Rachel Reeve’s speeches have given little indication that will change – ensuring billions continue to flow to private landlords and providers of emergency housing.
Rationale
I’d expect Greenwich Council to defend such a reduction highlighting the increase in social housing from PA Housing Association, yet with such a chronic housing shortage and lack of truly affordable housing the loss of council units – if agreed – will hurt.
We don’t have to travel far to see the brunt of the housing shortage, with Greenwich Council likely to spend £5 million on housing households in the hotel down the road.
There’s no sign the crises will abate anytime soon. Nationwide costs for temporary housing were up to £1.7 bn in 2023 – and that looks set to spike yet further. That’s enough to build many new council homes.
The scale of the problem on the one hand is now so vast losing 37 previously agreed new council homes may seem a drop in the ocean, but on the other if it’s happening on former public estate land due to a lack of grant funding – even under a Labour government – then how will this problem and ensuing costs ever be met?
Council homes (social housing) should be replaced with new council homes.
The Borough of Greenwich also needs more sheltered accommodation and one and two bedroom accommodation for older and disabled people..
This will allow some older people to move to more suitable accommodation for them. This can also help to free up some larger family homes.
Sadly in Greenwich we have seen the council sell off sheltered accommodation sites to private developers in the past. Leaving a lack of sheltered accommodation and homes for the over 55″s.
what a depressing pictures..
A bit biased to only focus on that one development, if the outcome is that 670 social housing units are being built by a commercial party. You make it look like these people are being dumped on the street.
There is something to be said for the argument that mixed private & social might lead to better maintenance.
It’s three estates. This is one phase of overall project as mentioned in the post. Around 1000 council homes across the three sites have reduced to 700.
In time losing hundreds of council homes leads to increased homeless cases owing to reduction in stock and people housed in emergency housing. I don’t think anyone believes social tenants are thrown onto the streets. Private tenants would have been though as not entitled to compensation. The issue is longer term lack of stock contributing to an ever worsening picture and cost pressures.
I’m covering this phase now in particular as it’s this phase being discussed at next week’s cabinet meeting. Previous phases and overall loss of council housing has been covered many times before.
I take the point on quantity but also need to think about quality and ongoing management.
Firstly, the quality of the new homes in trinity walk at least is so much higher, they are stunning flats.
Secondly the ongoing management and maintenance of the buildings and also managing tenants requires money and resource, PA housing might be better placed to do it.
Greenwich could have an agreement with PA Housing to do so while still seeing 37 extra homes.
What sort of hare brained financial logic proposes 37 homes changing from council to private when the council are spending such vast and growing sums on B&Bs and the like.
If the cost has increased for those 37 to become council housing it’s still worth meeting it as in time it saves elsewhere on additional costs. Penny wise and pound foolish.
As for maintenance it’s likely the council or a specific company will conduct it regardless of the fate of 37 homes. PA Housing may take the lead on that but the tenure of 37 homes makes no odds to overall picture so that’s not really a factor.
It’s shocking. I’m interested in interviewing some of the local residents that are being forcibly displaced from their homes and community in the name of profit. Really hope Starmer tackles this rather than wasting time focusing on nonsense like small time benefits.
Financially illiterate. The same council buying existing homes at super high expense won’t cough up a bit more to secure 37 units they’ve already agreed to?
So dumb. So so dumb. No wonder councils are on the brink and council tax rising so much.
What a sorry scenario when it rests on Lovell. Why on earth give so much public land to private developer?
Best thing now may be to take full control. Site could see fully affordable homes which actually are affordable to alleviate local pressure. If they must have 37 private could sell via Meridian Homestart and retain profits to reinvested elsewhere rather than Lovell taking it. This “Labour” council’s managers seem more interested in boosting private developers so can’t see that happening.
This government seems wedded to failed old New Labour and Tory orthodoxy. This is the very sort of project they should be funding. Better for taxpayers too let alone moral standpoint. But developers are very close to the new bunch in power. Same old rubbish