A Greenwich councillor has condemned her own town hall’s plans for new housing on a Plumstead estate, saying the new block would look like a “ghetto”.

The Greenwich Builds proposal for 24 flats at the edge of the Barnfield Estate was deferred on Tuesday night so councillors can visit the site. 

The six-storey block would replace the Barnfield Hub community centre – which is being replaced elsewhere on the estate – and a public toilet on Herbert Road, which would be moved across the road.

Greenwich Council is proposing the scheme under its Greenwich Builds scheme to build 1,750 council homes, and the project went before the planning board for approval.

Herbert Road via Google Streetview
Herbert Road was a hotspot for antisocial behaviour, Williams said. Image: Google Streetview

But Labour’s Ivis Williams, who represents Shooters Hill ward, branded the plans “unacceptable”, saying that residents in overcrowded flats in Acworth House, next door, would lose light because the new block would be just 9.27 metres from their homes.

“It gives the feel of a ghetto look – where you have minority groups living in impoverishment due to political, social and pressures, that’s the view this proposed block gives,” Williams said.

The former cabinet member for finance added that the block looked “very unwelcoming” and “didn’t sit well” with its surroundings.

Residents had asked her to object because they felt “ignored”,  Williams said. 

“There’s big antisocial behaviour on Herbert Road, pickpocketing by the Co-op, drug issues, flytipping, there isn’t any care for the area and there wasn’t any care into designing what this potential building would look like,” she added. 

The council’s planning officers said that Acworth House residents would lose light, but claimed that because their flats were accessed via walkways past their windows, they had curtains drawn to maintain their privacy.

Williams criticised this claim, saying it sounded as if the officers believed “it doesn’t matter”. She said the curtains were there because living rooms were being used as bedrooms in the overcrowded flats. 

“What is considered a living room space is actually a bedroom space, which is why sometimes they might have the curtain drawn, because it’s actually a sleeping area,” she said.

The area as a whole was overcrowded, Williams said, with other new council homes being built inside the estate.

“I am desperate for us to build more homes and desperate for us to reduce the [housing] waiting list, but we equally need to listen to our communities and balance their needs,” she said. “This application doesn’t do that. It should go back and be reworked.”

Google Streetview shot of Acworth House
Only nine metres would separate Acworth House from its new neighbour. Image: Google Streetview

Susan Masindi, a neighbour, said the building should be smaller and further away from Acworth House. “When that building goes up, the residents won’t have any sunshine or daylight,” she said. 

Peter Fernandez, of the council’s new builds department, insisted that neighbours’ concerns had been taken into account and the scheme was now in its sixth iteration.

“We started off at 47 flats on what was a very massive building of seven storeys, after the initial consultation we reduced that to 36-odd, we’re now down to 24 after the planning exhibition,” he said. “We feel like we’ve really listened.”

Of all the Greenwich Builds projects, the block was the one that had been shrunk down the most, he said. 

Steve Fitzwilliam of Rivington Street Studio, the architect, said that the police’s “designing out crime” officer had said the new scheme would reduce flytipping by introducing new residents to an alley into the estate who would be able to keep an eye on it.

However, no decision was made on the plan as Pat Greenwell, a Conservative councillor for Eltham Town, proposed a site visit so the planning board could see the issues for themselves.

“I feel with the topography and the distance between the houses – I just feel we would benefit from a site visit,” she said.

Greenwell’s colleagues agreed and the issue is due to return to the planning board on February 6.