Plans for a 33-storey tower and two 24-storey blocks on the west side of the Greenwich Peninsula were approved on Tuesday night – but two Labour councillors declined to vote for the scheme after voicing worries about the impact on views from Greenwich town centre.
The Enderby Place development of 564 homes – including 118 for people on the council’s waiting list – was deferred in May after an objection by the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Executive (WHS), which warned that the original plans – for a 35-storey tower and two 23-storey blocks – could put the town centre’s Unesco status at risk.
Criterion Capital returned on Tuesday with a revised scheme that was said to better complement the as-yet-unbuilt Morden Wharf development next door. Morden Wharf has a 36-storey tower, and its new owners Galliard Homes are yet to submit new plans. Even though the block has not been built, planners have to take it into account because it was approved in 2021.
The WHS dropped its objections and the plans were approved, but fears that Greenwich could follow Liverpool in losing its world heritage status still loomed over the meeting. Unesco stripped Liverpool of its status in 2021, after plans for a new football stadium for Everton at Bramley Moore Dock were approved, because of the impact of years of development along the Mersey waterfront.
Two Labour councillors – Maisie Richards Cottell (East Greenwich) and ‘Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi (West Thamesmead) – abstained when it came to the vote, while Conservative Pat Greenwell (Eltham Town & Avery Hill) voted against.
But four Labour councillors – planning chair Gary Dillon (Charlton Village), Clare Burke-McDonald (Charlton Hornfair), David Gardner (Greenwich Peninsual) and Dave Sullivan (Kidbrooke Village) – supported the scheme.
London mayor Sadiq Khan will have to endorse the scheme before it can go ahead.
The site at Enderby Wharf was previously earmarked for tall towers as part of a council-backed scheme to build a cruise liner terminal, which was scrapped in 2018. Smaller blocks have already been built on the south of the site.
Tim Barnes, of the Greenwich Society, said the scheme would still be a “major and permanent blight over Greenwich Park and the world heritage site at 33 storeys”, and called for another two floors to be lopped off the main tower. He cast doubt on whether Morden Wharf would ever be built as it had changed hands twice – from U+I to Landsec to Galliard – since being approved.
“Why has nobody found out from the world heritage site authorities whether these developments could jeopardise our status? As we understand it nobody as asked Unesco,” he said, pointing out that Bramley Moore Dock was further away from Liverpool city centre than Enderby Place would be to the centre of Greenwich.
Criterion’s Tim Bysted said “We believe the scheme now responds to the concerns raised and the building heights are now proportionate to the surrounding context.
“Not only is the site providing much-needed housing, we’re also making 65 per cent of the site available for public space, as well as providing a cafe, a community space that spills onto the riverside garden that we’re creating along the river.
“This site has been empty for way too long as those who live nearby know, and we can’t wait to develop the site and really fulfil its full potential for both the community and the borough.
Luke Raistrick, of Criterion’s planning consultancy Centric, said the development would not detract from views from Greenwich because buildings in both Enderby Place and Morden Wharf were of different heights, creating “a nice smooth bell curve”.
“The distance between the site and the General Wolfe statue is one-and-a-half kilometres,” he said. “It’s a considerable distance. And you’ll have seen that from the General Wolfe statue, the site is way off to the right in terms of view. It’s quite peripheral in terms of that view.”
Bysted said he was sure Morden Wharf would go ahead as planned. “The fact that it’s been sold and bought and sold a few times, for me that is actually even more an indication of that coming forward because somebody’s paid a high cost for that site,” he said. “[Galliard] not building that is not even conceivable for me as a developer.”
Questioned about whether Criterion would simply sell the flats to overseas investors, Bysted said: “We’ve certainly never sold a flat abroad. We’re not here to just do the glossy brochure, sell and leave.”
He promised fountains by the river, comparing the scheme to Granary Square in King’s Cross. “It’ll be a vibrant place to live, not just for local residents but for neighbours too,” he said.
Concerns were also raised about the state of the Thames foreshore, the closeness of the new blocks to existing homes in Enderby Wharf and the strain on already-busy public transport links to North Greenwich.
£1.66 million is going towards a Thames Clippers pier to serve both Enderby Place and Morden Wharf, but Richards Cottell said the boat service, which charges higher fares, did not count as “meaningful public transport”. Another £711,000 will go towards local NHS services, much of it towards a mental health unit at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich.
When it came to the vote, Gardner said he believed the scheme was too big and too sense, and too close to neighbours’ homes, adding: “There isn’t the underpinning for a sustainable community.”
But he said the past cruise liner scheme approval, London planning rules and Greenwich not meeting its housing targets – planning law means Greenwich has less room to refuse schemes if too few homes are being built – gave him no choice but to vote for it.
Both Greenwell and Olugbemi cited concerns about the world heritage site. Greenwell said: “Greenwich will lose out. It’s an attractive place to live with the world heritage site – once this 33-storey building goes up, that’s it.”
Sullivan, who lives close to the site, said that his wife was unhappy about the scheme, adding “I may not be getting any dinner this evening” before voting for it, saying it was “a better scheme than we had”.
He added that he did have concerns about vehicles accessing the site, which is served by narrow roads, “but it’s pretty well a nightmare around there anyway – I can often see a backlog of delivery vehicles serving the existing homes and I can see that getting worse, but we can manage that as we go along”.
Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.