Greenwich ‘urban palazzo’ flats thrown out despite councillor’s plea

Plans for a distinctive five-storey block of flats in east Greenwich have been thrown out at the third time of asking, despite an appeal from the council’s former deputy leader to have the project approved.

The Estate Charity of William Hatcliffe, which owns several properties in the area, wants to build nine flats and a shop on Woolwich Road, opposite the Greenwich Square development.

Charity bosses have described their plans as a “small scale, free standing ‘urban palazzo‘” that would replace a small block containing a DIY store and barbers’ shop with flats above that were said to be empty.

Greenwich’s planning officers recommended refusing the proposals, saying that the block was “incongruous and overbearing”. 

They said that two of the nine flats were too large – in effect suggesting that the charity should be building ten or more flats in the block so “affordable” housing was provided. Developers building just nine flats can sell or rent them all privately rather than offer them to people on the housing waiting list, or for discounted rent or shared ownership.

The larger flats “result in a development which does not make efficient use of the land and therefore optimise the housing potential of the site, including the provision of affordable housing”, the officers said.

Thursday night’s meeting of the Greenwich area planning committee was the third time councillors have met to consider the plans. It was deferred early last year so alterations could be made, while it was delayed again in November after the charity tried to bypass planning officers by only sending councillors details of further alterations. 

Greenwich Peninsula Labour councillor and former deputy leader David Gardner insisted that the development did comply with planning rules and that the larger flats, which would have four bedrooms, were of a size that  councillors had kept calling for in other developments.

“You only have to look over the road at the Greenwich Centre, which I happen to think is really hideous,” Gardner said. The Greenwich Centre is inside the eight-storey Greenwich Square development, which opened on the site of an old hospital nine years ago.

“This building is actually quite iconic, quite exceptional, and far more in keeping with the streetscape. 

“The current premises are of very poor quality, with empty flats above which are unusable. It’s being proposed to be replaced by modern, larger commercial space, bringing more jobs and nine new homes.”

The charity owns almshouses in the area and issues grants to locals in financial difficulties, and Gardner said the private rents collected would help the organisation continue.

“This will help them sustain the work they do, which is all about supporting people through the cost of living crisis and our equalities agenda,” he said.

Gardner turned on the planning officers’ verdict that the flats were too big, saying: “The borough’s littered with penthouse flats and so forth which are far larger. Are we going to say they can’t exist? No, we don’t.”

None of the three councillors for East Greenwich ward, which is where the development would be, attended to express a view.

Andrew Blundy, the chair of the William Hatcliffe Estate Charity, said the design was “entirely in keeping” with its neighbours. 

He added: “I absolutely accept that these flats are all generously proportioned and I make no apology for that. We are not in the habit of building Barratt homes. We like our flats to be nice places to live in.” 

Creekside councillor Calum O’Byrne Mulligan, said the charity had not adequately addressed the lack of “affordable” housing in the plans. “It looks like there’s potential inefficient use in order to avoid making that additional social contribution,” he said.

Charles Mills, the charity’s planning consultant, said it was acting on advice from its letting agent, saying that the large flats could be used for shared accommodation. 

“These minimum space requirements as they are predate the ways that we work and that we live [today] and people actually want a bit more space in their living spaces, particularly sharers,” he said. “Where you do have sharers that space is highly prized because otherwise everyone lives in their bedrooms.”

But Luke Sapiano, the Greenwich planning officer who wrote teh critical report, said: “There’s space for an extra four-bedroom unit and you’re not providing it.”

Mills said the large apartments were designed for “the types of people that will be living in these properties” while providing the best return for the charity. 

Charlton Village councillor Jo van den Broek said she felt “very uncomfortable” with the plans, although she had no problem with the way the building looked. “The four-bedrooms that we encourage in Greenwich are for large families, not for HMOs,” she said.

“I would love to see another flat there. I would love to see that other flat being used for social housing.”  

Blundy said that the large flats were meant to be used “flexibly”, saying: “If a family comes along and says we want a four bedroom flat, we would let it to them, you know, without a moment’s thought. They are intended to be flexibly used.”

Councillors on the Greenwich area planning committee rejected the plans, meaning the charity will have to try again with new proposals or appeal to a planning inspector.