The site, behind the derelict Victoria pub, is billed as a “significant residential development opportunity” that currently generates £167,300 a year in rent, according to sales documents.
A neighbouring site, to be developed by the housing association Optivo, is unaffected by the possible sale.
There are plans to build up to 7,000 houses on the riverside, but the Aitch site is one of just three major projects to win planning permission and no work has started on any scheme so far.
Plans for a low-rise neighbourhood have been hampered by advice from the Environment Agency warnings that ground floors should not be occupied because of flood risks.
The Aitch development site as it is now, viewed from Eastmoor Sreet
There are also fears that a shortage of land for warehouses in inner London could mean that Charlton remains more valuable for industrial developers rather than homebuilders. One site once earmarked for homes – the VIP Trading Estate off Anchor & Hope Lane – has been bought by a company specialising in logistics hubs.
Representatives for Aitch and the company itself have not responded to requests for comment.
Optivo, which plans to build 67 homes for London Affordable Rent on the site next door, said: “We can confirm our plans for Evelyn House have not been affected. We’re still planning to deliver 67 homes with work due to start by the end of the year.”
But plans for a school fell through during the summer when the Department for Education pulled out of plans to buy part of an industrial estate on Anchor & Hope Lane, citing reduced demand.
The two schemes would bring 255 new homes to what is currently industrial land
A planning inspector has approved two new housing developments on the Charlton Riverside, including 107 homes for people on housing waiting lists, overturning Greenwich Council decision to refuse the schemes last year.
The twin schemes, for land behind the disused Victoria pub on Woolwich Road, are the second and third housing developments to get approval on the riverside after plans for 1,200 homes close to the Thames Barrier were approved in March.
A lobby group representing residents’ associations, Charlton Together, had objected to the Aitch scheme, but both were thrown out by Greenwich’s Labour-dominated planning committee last July for not fitting in with the masterplan drawn up for the Charlton Riverside.
Optivo’s plans for Eastmoor Street, with the Aitch scheme in white next door to it.
In that area, the masterplan suggests building three or four-storey townhouses to fit in with the Victoria and the former Lads of the Village pub – now a vets’ surgery – near by. Optivo is planning blocks of up to seven storeys, while the Aitch scheme goes up to 10 storeys.
But the planning inspector, Patrick Hanna, said that townhouses did not fit in with plans to build up to 7,000 homes on the riverside – or guidance from the Environment Agency that the lower floors could not be occupied in case of flooding.
“The townhouse typology is unlikely to be a realistic or optimal option at the appeal site, which in turn affects the ambitions for an intimate village feel in this location,” he wrote.
“As a consequence of these site constraints, it follows that when the [masterplan] is taken as a whole, and bearing in mind that it represents guidance only, its general thrust can reasonably and sensibly be taken to encourage medium rise developments.”
Having commercial units on the lower floors would be more attractive than townhouses with ground-floor garages, Hanna added.
Optivo’s site as it is now with the Aitch site to the right
Hanna also said that the council should have approved the schemes because the borough did not have a big enough supply of new housing coming up.
Despite the clear flaws in the masterplan, Labour councillors Gary Dillon and Jo van den Broek – elected last week for the new Charlton Village & Riverside ward – put it centre stage in a leaflet delivered to residents.
In a passage that may only have made sense to those involved in residents’ groups that have fought for lower-rise buildings on the riverside, they promised to “ensure that the communities’ voices are heard and that the spirit of the masterplan is respected”.
However, the inspector’s decision – and his explicit acknowledgement that aspects of the plan are flawed because they do not take into account flood risks – may now give future developers the confidence to aim higher when they submit their plans.
The development would make use of a jetty on the Thames. The Tarmac plant at Riverside Wharf is on the left
A plan to approve more than 1,200 homes by the Thames Barrier was approved by Greenwich Council last night on the casting vote of its controversial chair of planning, Stephen Brain.
The Labour councillor, who is standing down after the elections in May, goaded objectors by inviting them to send abusive emails as he broke a 4-4 tie by approving the project from the housing association Hyde.
“Start tapping now and I’ll read them in the morning,” he said.
Some of the future residents in the Herringham Quarter development in Charlton will face living in homes where they will not be able to open their windows because of concerns over air quality from an asphalt plant next door at Riverside Wharf.
The development site as it is now, as seen on Google Streetview
A representative of Tarmac, which operates the plant, said that the business would be under threat because the new blocks would tower over the plant’s chimney, and residents would be subjected to nauseating smells.
A string of residents’ lobby groups also complained that the development was too dense. But their complaints were dismissed by Brain, meaning the first major development on the Charlton Riverside – earmarked for up to 8,000 homes in a City Hall blueprint – has been given the go-ahead.
Hyde plans to build 718 homes along with commercial units at Herringham Road and New Lydenburg Street, close to the Thames Barrier, in blocks of up to 10 storeys. The first residents could move in by 2026. Hyde was also given outline permission for a further 494 homes, and will return with more detailed plans in the future.
The land concerned – Plots A and C could be finished by 2026. Plot B is the Tarmac plant. Detailed plans for plots D and E will follow
Of the first phase, 263 homes for London Affordable Rent, about half market rent and available to people on housing waiting lists, comprising 37 per cent of the total number of homes. Another 133 homes (18 per cent) will be for shared ownership, with the remainder going on private sale.
There will be more private homes in the later stage, taking the proportion down to 40 per cent “affordable” housing across the site.
Some of the blocks will be built on the site of Maybanks Wharf, currently a recycling yard for Westminster Waste, but the Tarmac yard will remain.
Tito Arowobusoye, a planning consultant representing Tarmac and other local wharf operators, said a third of London’s construction aggregates were processed in the local area – a local industry that could be put at risk if new neighbours were not protected from air quality and pollution.
An air quality expert, Gordon Allison, said the Tarmac plant would be eventually be hemmed in on two sides, with Hyde’s block just 60 metres from the chimney. “In my 25 years in the industry I’ve never seen a proposal where the building will be hit by a plume from an industrial chimney stack,” he said.
Herringham Road, close to the development site, in 2020: Planning chair Stephen Brain said the area was “not pleasant”
“It’s not a sensible proposal – when the wind blows, it will hit the nearest building. Chimneys should be taller than the buildings nearby.”
Allison warned that odours from the plant could also be an issue. “I find it nauseating, even though I’ve worked in the industry my whole career,” he said.
The solution – to fit affected flats with sealed windows and mechanical ventilation – was “unproven”, he added. “There is a genuine risk of nuisance complaints that hasn’t been recognised.”
Asked by Brain if he thought development by the Tarmac plant was impossible, he said that it was not – but that the buildings should be set further back, or the developer should pay to make the chimney taller.
A view from the Thames, with the Tarmac plant on the left
Trevor Curson of Buro Happold, an environmental consultant to Hyde, said that the developer had planned for a worst-case scenario of the plant operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – something it does not do.
After hearing of complaints from residents of Greenwich Millennium Village whose homes back onto the Murphy’s Wharf aggregate depot, said that future residents would be better protected from noise than in other nearby developments. One 10-storey block was to shield residents from the noise of the Tarmac plant, the committee heard.
Representatives of several overlapping lobby groups in the Charlton area criticised the scale of the development. Jodie Coughlan, speaking for the Derrick and Atlas Gardens residents’ association – the only group actually based on the riverside – saying it was an “unreasonable and untenable level of deviation” from the local masterplan, which sets maximum heights of three to five storeys for much of the area.
While Hyde said that their blocks, which would step down to six storeys at street level, were at a human scale, the groups disagreed, with the Charlton Central Residents Association’s David Gayther calling it “monolithic in nature”.
Maybank Wharf has been used for waste paper processing since the 1960s – but will soon see new housing
Hyde’s Jaime Buckley said that the housing association had “a limited window” in which to build the scheme because it depended on a £22.5 million grant from City Hall – £60,000 for each affordable-rent home.
Promising the scheme would be a “catalyst” for redeveloping the rest of the riverside, she urged councillors to balance “not just what is desirable, but what is achievable”.
While Hyde will be paying towards new bus services and new roads, Charlton councillor Gary Dillon voiced concerns about the effect of the development on local infrastructure.
Pointing out that the Charlton Riverside masterplan was created with up to 5,000 new residents in mind, but now City Hall was expecting up to 8,000, he said: “Those people who live between Greenwich and Woolwich Dockyard know how fragile the infrastructure is. We’re sometimes waiting for two hours to move five minutes up the road.
”My concern is that developers are looking at this [City Hall] aspiration taking at gospel, but it has no support – there’s no infrastructure development plans or TfL budget to develop new links, and there’s the possibility of extra traffic from the Silvertown Tunnel.”
Hyde’s vision of Herringham Road in the future
Conservative councillor Nigel Fletcher also said he would turn down the scheme, saying that the whole point of the Charlton masterplan was to create somewhere distinct from the towers of Greenwich Peninsula and Woolwich: “It’s really frustrating that when we want to see regeneration here, we’re presented with things we can’t accept because they’re inconsistent with the masterplan.”
Of the three women on the committee on International Women’s Day, none gave their views, while four of the five men did.
Brain said: “I know this area very, very well, how many objectors live near this site? Not many. I see one hand out of all the speakers. It is not residential, it is not pleasant, I’ve had my car serviced there for 30 years.
“The area is horrible, this provides an opportunity to improve the area. If we turn this down, how do any of the applications for the riverside go forward?
“I wouldn’t like to be on the doorsteps saying I’d turned down a great big chunk of social housing. We’d be turning down the futures of many of our residents.”
Brain was joined by fellow Labour councillors Sandra Bauer, Clare Burke-McDonald and Averil Lekau in supporting the scheme, but Labour’s Dillon and Fahy voted to turn it down, along with Fletcher and Geoff Brighty for the Conservatives.
The Aitch development site as it is now, viewed from Eastmoor Sreet
Greenwich councillors dealt a blow to their own town hall’s plans to redevelop the Charlton Riverside after they rejected a second housing scheme for a site near the Thames Barrier.
The developer Aitch Group had hoped to build 188 homes land behind the derelict Victoria pub, between Eastmoor Street and Westmoor Street, along with shops, workspace and a new green space. But Labour and Conservative councillors objected to the height of the development on Coopers Yard, which had been recommended for approval by their own planning officers.
A three-year-old masterplan for the Charlton Riverside – which both Greenwich Council and City Hall have long earmarked for thousands of new homes – suggests a maximum height of ten storeys for buildings, with guidelines of three to five storeys in that particular area.
But Aitch wanted to build up to nine storeys – insisting that the masterplan provided guidance, not strict rules – enraging local lobby groups, including the Charlton Society and the Charlton Central Residents Association, who believe this breaks the terms of a masterplan they were closely involved in writing.
The situation is complicated by the Environment Agency objecting to ground-floor housing close to the Thames Barrier because of the risk of flooding – an objection which calls parts of the masterplan into question.
Aitch wants to build 188 homes close to the Thames Barrier
Labour and Conservative councillors sided with the lobby groups for the second time in three weeks, rejecting Aitch’s plans – leaving Aitch to decide whether to appeal to a planning inspector or try to rework the proposal with council officers.
Tuesday’s vote saw the rejection of another 40 homes for London Affordable Rent that would have been included in the Aitch development along with 10 shared-ownership homes, making 30 per cent “affordable” housing.
The two refusals now plunge the Labour council into a high-stakes gamble on the future of its own masterplan – successful appeals from Aitch or Optivo would take much of the decision-making out of the hands of local officials and could result in less money being spent on local infrastructure to support the new developments and their neighbours.
With other developers waiting to present their plans for the riverside to councillors – some much bigger than Aitch’s scheme, like the Faraday Works project on the old Siemens factory site, the decision is a significant setback for the Charlton riverside’s transformation into a new neighbourhood.
The meeting was split into two parts because of Covid-19 restrictions – Woolwich Town Hall’s only meeting space fitted with cameras is its cramped council chamber – with the first meeting two weeks ago seeing planning chair Stephen Brain clash with local lobby groups.
Tuesday night saw Aitch’s associate planning director, Luke Cadman, tell councillors that the scheme would be of a “human scale and very much in contrast to Greenwich Peninsula and Woolwich town centre”, adding that there would be a net increase in jobs and that existing businesses would be given help leaving. Feedback from residents had resulted in changes to the scheme including a reduction in height, he said.
Referring to his company’s own proposals, Optivo’s scheme and others in the pipeline, he warned: “These proposals, many developed over years of discussion, could result in 5,000 new homes and 1,500 jobs. By not supporting [your] officers’ recommendation tonight, and reiterating an absolute test of heights and density, this potentially jeopardises the delivery of the [masterplan] vision, and thousands of new homes and jobs.”
Failing to permit development could see “pressure for housing development shift to other more sensitive parts of the borough”, he added.
Pointing out that Greenwich Council itself is the largest landowner on the riverside, with its he said that refusal would have “far-reaching ramifications for the council and its redevelopment aspirations, and for the ability to deliver new homes and jobs”.
Optivo’s plans for Eastmoor Street, with the Aitch scheme in white next door to it. Both plans have been rejected
Challenged on this by Abbey Wood Labour councillor Clive Mardner, Cadman said: “There are a lot of developers that are seeking planning approvals to deliver on the [masterplan] vision – I’ll just leave it there. It’s not really what anyone wants to see.”
Mardner – who chairs the council’s housing scrutiny panel, so may have been expected to know the answer already – also asked who would be eligible for the London Affordable Rent homes, which charge half market rates and are for people on the council’s waiting list. The rent level is an initiative of Labour mayor Sadiq Khan.
Optivo’s site as it is now with the Aitch site to the right. Both proposals have been rejected. The cash and carry warehouse to the left is not part of any scheme
Charlton councillor Gary Dillon said he was “disappointed that height and density is not important to the project”.
“If every developer walks into this room and says the same thing, we’re going to get 20,000 dwellings in an area earmarked for 8,000, and that throws the transport and infrastructure out,” he said. “Every part of the [masterplan] has been calculated. To dismiss it is pretty disappointing.”
Cadman insisted that Aitch had not ignored the masterplan, saying that there was more to it than height and density, and that the scheme fitted Sadiq Khan’s London planning policy. “When you weigh it all up, on balance, as your officers have done… we’ve done a huge amount to meet its aspirations and we haven’t just ignored the height, the heights and density have all been a consideration in what we’ve done.”
Dillon sits on the committee of the Charlton Society, one of the groups that objected. He declared at the start of the meeting that he was a society member and had not taken part in its discussions on the proposals.
Woolwich Riverside councillor John Fahy, whose ward includes the development site, repeated a question his two Labour colleagues had put to Cadman, asking if Aitch had “had any regard for the masterplan” when drawing up its proposals, accusing the company of ignoring residents’ views.
“I’ve answered that a few times, the masterplan required a few things,” Cadman said, pointing out that the plan also allowed for a new road and green space which were set out in the plans. He added that the company had spent two years consulting local people and had recently made changes as a result of local lobby groups’ feedback.
Conservative Nigel Fletcher said that it was clear that the masterplan had divided the riverside into plots, and the maximum for that plot was five storeys.
Simon Camp, from Alan Camp Architects, said that the masterplan did not take into account the risk of flooding and that homes had to be above a certain height. “The town houses in the masterplan are impossible due to the constraints,” he said.
“We’ve taken that on by maximising the commercial and maker spaces, and the community facilities, we’ve expanded the green link [open space] – so we’ve taken into account other aspirations in the [masterplan] and then we’ve looked at the height.”
The masterplan showing lower-height buildings around Eastmoor Street, the white gap to the east. (Click to enlarge)
A view from the Barrier vets’ clinic. Red lines represent storeys lopped off the scheme after lobby groups’ objections
Fahy complained that the riverside, where land ownership is split, was “being developed piecemeal” and that the planning board had a duty to ensure that developments there reflected the area’s heritage.
Allowing the Aitch scheme would allow other developers to build tall buildings, he said, adding: “If that’s the case, we might as well chuck the masterplan in the bin and allow developers to carry on regardless. The applicants were well aware of the requirements to meet the masterplan. It’s not something you pluck out of the air – it’s a legal document and we have to have some principles that guide us in our decision making.
“They say they got the green light from our officers – I find that hard to believe.”
Fletcher said he did not believe it was a straightforward refusal, but said the developer had not justified why it wanted to build higher than suggested in the masterplan.
“We see this masterplan as being very important. We think it’s important, the heights and density are important,” he said. “We have a different reading of [the masterplan] than the applicant and it should be something we are prepared to defend.”
A view of the Aitch scheme looking east from Penhall Road
But planning chair Stephen Brain spoke up for the proposal, criticising “emotive terms” made by local lobby groups at the last meeting. He said it was possible to be flexible with the masterplan “if a balance is achieved across the area”.
“It has 30 per cent ‘affordable’ homes, which we need for Londoners, it has designated play space – there’s very little in the area. I do know the area – I’ve had my car serviced down there for 32 years, I’ve walked around that site a lot,” he said.
“One speaker said that children could cause noise – it’s what children do. It provides green space, and retail – the area desperately needs retail, the only thing you can buy down there is a burger from a dodgy van and you wouldn’t be wise to do such a thing.
“It’s an area where people work but don’t live. You can see from all the Range Rovers down there – they drive down there and go back to Kent in the evening.”
Referencing the Environment Agency’s objection to ground floor homes, Brain referred to last week’s flood disaster in western Germany, which left scores dead, saying it had brought the issue into “sharp relief”.
“One of the main German newspapers said all of the people living on habitable spaces on the ground floor were dead. That’s why the Environment Agency makes these guidelines, it’s in a flood plain and the heights may have to be higher.”
Brain mocked the notion put forward by one of the local lobby groups, who spoke of “protecting Charlton from the river to the slopes and into the village – they didn’t say how far it went, does it go beyond the village to Charlton [sic], or to Bexley? I couldn’t understand that at all.”
“I can’t see what turning this application would do for the area. It’s an area that is industrially blighted and I can’t see many bungalows being built down there.”
But the vote was lost and the plans rejected on grounds of height and massing – leaving the immediate future of the Charlton riverside up in the air, and possibly out of the hands of local people.
Optivo’s scheme was rejected by councillors. A separate planning application from another developer is in for the scrapyard
Greenwich’s Labour-dominated planning committee threw out plans for 67 flats that would be available for affordable-rent levels last night – further delaying the redevelopment of the Charlton riverside.
One councillor complained that the rents would be too expensive – even though Greenwich Council’s own new-builds, which he had helped give permission for, are to be offered at the same rates.
While residents’ groups criticised the proposals, some called for the scheme to be approved with conditions to reduce its density and improve its design.
Of the six councillors present last night, only two voted for the scheme, with two opposing and two abstaining, meaning the proposal was rejected. Because of the restricted nature of the webcast, it was not clear to online viewers which councillors voted for the scheme, or even who was present. Only two of the nine councillors on the planning board are Conservatives, and one of those was absent.
Last summer a plan for 771 homes at Anchor and Hope Lane was rejected by a planning inspector for being too dense – meaning the Optivo scheme could have been the first major project on Charlton Riverside to be approved.
The Optivo scheme pictured as if the neighbouring proposal had been approved
Charlton Riverside has long been earmarked for redevelopment by City Hall, with thousands of new homes planned for the area – but with a tightly-defined masterplan which suggests developers should keep most buildings to 10 storeys or less, to differentiate the area from Greenwich Peninsula and the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich.
Planning for the area is complicated by the fact that the land ownership is fragmented – despite Greenwich Council quietly buying up plots over the years – making it harder to co-ordinate an approach to the area. Other major development schemes usually have one or a handful of dominant landowners.
The guidance for the Eastmoor Street area is for heights of three to six storeys – just smaller than Optivo’s plans. Local objectors fear that allowing higher would give the green light for developers to propose even higher buildings, making the masterplan worthless.
However, there are worries that an unwillingness to compromise will simply take vital planning decisions out of the hands of the town hall and into the hands of City Hall or planning inspectors – again, risking the integrity of the masterplan.
Last night’s rejection of the Optivo scheme – against the advice of their officers – could put the Labour council in the awkward position of having to explain to a planning inspector why it did not want homes that would be available to the 23,000 households on its waiting list.
While Optivo had cut their original proposals down from nine storeys to seven, residents’ groups criticised the proposals – even though some called for it to be approved subject to a reduction in density.
A view of the Optivo scheme from Eastmoor Street. The scheme in white is a separate development which is awaiting a decision
Roden Richardson, from the Charlton Society, said that while Optivo’s scheme was the nearest to the masterplan heights he had seen, he still wanted to see the proposals cut down to six storeys with a “far less monolithic design”.
Richardson also said he was concerned about Environment Agency flood risk guidance which he said was being used by developers to justify taller buildings.
Brenda Taggart, a member of Charlton Central Residents Association and Charlton Together, a group representing a number of local organisations, said the land ownership issues on the riverside meant that companies were “squeezing as much development in as they can to minimum standards” and this applied to Optivo’s scheme.
“The consequence is over-development and this supports the community recommendation to try to reduce the height and further reduce the density,” she said, adding that she backed the scheme being allowed.
The site as it is now
Jane Bland, speaking for Charlton Together, said the group supported the scheme but also raised concerns about heights.
Another resident, David Gayther, said the masterplan had been endorsed by City Hall and national planning authorities as “an exemplar of its kind” and should be foremost in councillors’ minds.
“The plan [from Optivo] does not reasonably adhere to a human scale of development – it’s close – we’re aware of the pressures on this site but we want to see something less commonplace,” he said.
“This is going to be the precedent, this will be the plan for the next 40 to 50 years.”
Gayther urged that the scheme be approved subject to revisions to its design, but said: “The council spent a million pounds on this masterplan – support it.”
A view of the scheme from Woolwich Road
Pete Woodford, of the architecture firm behind the scheme, BPTW, said the development would be a “modern, warehouse-inspired building”, designed to fit in with an emerging residential neighbourhood and surrounding industrial buildings.
Abbey Wood councillor Clive Mardner, who is also the chair of the housing scrutiny panel, questioned the use of London Affordable Rent, a level endorsed by Labour mayor Sadiq Khan which is about 50 per cent of market rent – higher than most Greenwich Council rents. However, the council’s new Greenwich Builds homes – which Mardner has voted for in the past – are being let at these higher levels, on the grounds that they still qualify for benefit payments.
When it came to the determination, Charlton ward councillor Gary Dillon – who is listed as a committee member of the Charlton Society, but told the meeting that he had not taken part in discussions about the scheme – complained about the increasing numbers of homes planned for the Charlton Riverside area.
“The [masterplan] has taken a lot of time from the council and the community to come together. But in the short time I have been on this planning board, I have watched the number of mooted dwellings increase from 3,500 to 8,000,” he said.
A view down Eastmoor Street with both schemes in place
Dillon said that if the rest of the riverside area was built out to a similar density as the Optivo scheme, then it would be expected to take between 12,000 and 16,000 homes.
Thamesmead Moorings councillor Olu Babatola backed the scheme: “I can understand the concerns, but I believe the benefits outweigh all of those things. The number of people we have on the waiting lisyt – the building will relieve us in some way but it is a way forward.
But Woolwich Riverside councillor John Fahy said he would be voting against, saying: “We either have policies or we don’t. If we don’t defend the masterplan now, we will have a root and branch problem across the area.”
Voting for the scheme would be “doing an injustice to the community we serve”, he said.
After the vote, when councillors formalised their reasons for voting against, Fahy referred to the masterplan and said: “Let’s test it.”
The Optivo scheme had been due to be decided alongside a neighbouring plan for 188 homes in blocks of up to nine storeys. The meeting was cut short due to Covid-19 concerns – the government has banned councils from hosting most meetings online – and this is now due to go before the committee next week.
37 Bowater Road was listed by English Heritage last year – U+I wanted to demolish it (photo: Neil Clasper)
The developer behind plans for hundreds of new homes on a riverside factory site has launched a new consultation on its plans after abandoning plans to demolish a key building.
U+I is asking residents to comment on revised plans for Faraday Works – the old Siemens factory on the Charlton/Woolwich border – after 37 Bowater Road, which was due for demolition under its original proposal, was given a Grade II listing.
The former cable factory was given the listing in February 2020, shortly after an application for planning permission went in on the site. It is not known if any local campaign group pushed for English Heritage to take action on plans to demolish the site; no group announced the listing at the time.
The long-derelict wire factory could become a hub for new businesses
But – as with the case of the covered market in Woolwich – keeping the listed building could come at a cost. Plans for 35 per cent “affordable” housing – which Greenwich Council demands in new developments – have been scaled back to “zero to 8 per cent”, with U+I and the council seeking funding to increase this amount.
Last month Greenwich councillors approved plans for the Woolwich covered market site that offered just under 20 per cent “affordable” homes but kept the market after it was listed: original plans were to demolish it and have 35 per cent “affordable” housing.
The original plans for Faraday Works included building 492 homes on the site, restoring the crumbling former wire workshop on Bowater Road as a centre for new businesses and building 13-storey blocks in other parts of the site.
Now its plans are for 380 homes and include building a roof extension on top of 37 Bowater Road to “reflect the engineering legacy of innovation … [this] has been supported by Historic England in early consultation”. New housing will be cut down to 10 storeys, while plans for the wire workshop and a light industrial site remain unchanged.
Richard Upton, the chief executive of U+I, said: “Shortly after submitting the application in late 2019, 37 Bowater Road was designated Grade II Listed by Historic England, the only building on site planned for replacement. As a result, U+I are bringing forward revised proposals for the site, that retain much of the ambition and ethos of the previous scheme, and centre the restoration of the historic buildings as a key piece of the Faraday Works story.
“We agree that Charlton Riverside needs to be truly unique and distinctive, with the site’s heritage being a key component of that identity. Our ambition is an exemplar heritage-led scheme, featuring new homes, retail and employment spaces, all wrapped in beautiful public realm. This will deliver space for 800 jobs and around 380 new homes.
“37 Bowater Road will be sensitively restored and adapted along with all of the other existing buildings on site. The building will feature commercial and light industrial uses on the ground floor, and residential above, where unusually high ceilings and large open floorplates will create stunning new heritage apartments.
“We also want to reflect some of the legacy of engineering innovation on this site through contemporary additions and extension. We are pleased that the key move of cantilevered roof extensions to 37 Bowater Road has been supported by Historic England and the Design Review Panel in early consultation.
“Over previous public consultations, and through extensive discussions with our neighbours, we’ve listened to and learned from their feedback, and we’re once again asking for input in order to create an exemplar London neighbourhood.”
Residents can visit faradayworks.com to find out more, while there will also be a chance to talk to the developers over Zoom on Thursday, with in-person tours of the site on 15 and 17 June.
The plan for the Victoria was submitted last August
Plans to convert the crumbling Victoria pub on Woolwich Road into a pizza takeaway with a flat behind it have been approved by Greenwich Council.
The Gillingham-based Zaan Group, a Domino’s Pizza franchisee, was given permission for the conversion by council officers after only one person complained about he proposal. The pub, known for its sloping floor, is locally listed but has been unused for over 20 years, and has been recently damaged by fires.
Earlier proposals to turn the pub, into a takeaway and build four flats behind it were thrown out in 2019 because the new flats would “appear as an incongruous addition which would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the locally listed host building and Thames Barrier and Bowater Road Conservation Area”. Plans for student flats have also been rejected.
But Zaan’s latest plans, which feature a single three-bedroom flat, were given the nod just before Christmas by council officers. As there was only one objection and no local councillors called it in, the scheme did not have to go before a planning committee – so the approval has only just come to light.
Inside the Victoria after the May 2019 fire.
“Given the poor structural condition retention of the building requires creative thought and use. This is an isolated building that does not relate to any existing use in the area. Therefore, new uses are required,” the submission from architects Cook Associates says. The developer warned that the pub would face demolition if it could not be redeveloped.
Zaan has three years to start work on the site, council officers have said. The sole objection pointed out the takeaway’s proximity to local schools, but a report by a council officer states: “The specific intention is not to cater to pupils of nearby schools. In light of this [the] proposed change of use to a takeaway would be unlikely to significantly undermine efforts to combat childhood obesity.”
The Victoria in 2018
The scheme is also the first Charlton Riverside development to get approval – even if it may end up being the smallest with just one home, with thousands more planned for future years.
Seven schemes are in the pipeline:
Housing association Optivo plans 67 flats in a seven storey-development just behind The Victoria, replacing the old Beaumont Beds warehouse.
Developer Aitch Group wants to build 192 flats in blocks of up to ten storeys on land bounded by Eastmoor Street, Westmoor Street and Mirfield Street
Greenwich Council also owns significant portions of land on the riverside, and next week its cabinet is due to approve plans to buy more, The town hall is set to buy land on other side of Penhall Road from Leopard Guernsey Anchor, a company involved in the ill-fated Rockwell scheme rejected last year. The purchase price has not been disclosed. The plot is next to land the council already owns.
Another formal council document, the Site Allocation Plan, will also come up before the cabinet next week. This reiterates the council’s plans for housing and employment on the riverside, and gives guidance for developers looking at various plots of land. This includes the Makro site at Anchor & Hope Lane – where it says any development “should accommodate a mix of small and medium sized commercial, retail, leisure and community uses and flexible SME space”, although there is currently no suggestion the the cash and carry retailer is planning to leave the area.
The Charlton Champion 