Whose heritage, whose future?

[Tim Lund]

The Greenwich Society is doing its job, protecting its heritage and future as it sees them



It asks were we expecting this



or this



Changing the Face of Greenwich?

Well, this is what putting more housing on brownfield sites looks like, and they don't like it. Their strong objection to the planners has these principal grounds

1. An excessive increase in the number of dwellings proposed for the Peninsula area from 10,010 granted consent under the previous 2004 Masterplan to 15,720 dwellings proposed now, an increase of 57%;
2. No assurance given as to provision of affordable dwellings, and little information regarding provision of family dwellings;
3. The increase in density proposed leading to proposed very tall buildings of proportions which would radically change the riverscape and the landscape in Greenwich and more widely, and overstrain transport infrastructure

.

We have heard it all before. We all say we want more affordable dwellings, but those who really mean it for the long run do not have a fit of the vapours when their skyline changes. Rather they welcome the opportunity which new investment brings to finance additional infrastructure.

They write

Traffic and transport are major concerns. The scheme would add 9% more vehicles to the evening peak in East Greenwich and that doesn't take account of all the other developments coming on stream. Are we sleepwalking towards total gridlock?

Actually, if they chose to wake up themselves, they'd notice that the gridlock from which we suffer arises from a system whereby it takes ten years to get major development proposals through planning - thinking here of the redevelopment of Catford Greyhound Track

Groups such as the Greenwich Society may be concerned for their heritage and their future, and they may have their views, but they do not accord with the interests of future generations of Londoners.

[bensonby]

More pertinently: are the 15k new dwellings (with circa 30k more people) going to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in infrastructure? Trains are already heaving, hospital queues are already too long, you can't get children into primary schools and good luck getting a GP appointment this week. Are they going to put a new fire station there? Have they budgeted for more ambulances or police officers?

It's all very well advocating the need for new homes but no one seems to question the arrangements for better infrastructure to support them.

Meanwhile, Sunderland is cheap and low-density. If social landlords want to help a greater number of people why not sell up locally and purchase four-times as many homes for social rent elsewhere in the country?

[Tim Lund]

More pertinently: are the 15k new dwellings (with circa 30k more people) going to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in infrastructure? Trains are already heaving, hospital queues are already too long, you can't get children into primary schools and good luck getting a GP appointment this week. Are they going to put a new fire station there? Have they budgeted for more ambulances or police officers?

It's all very well advocating the need for new homes but no one seems to question the arrangements for better infrastructure to support them.

Indeed, no one does question the need for better infrastructure. That's what the planning system should do - identify what is needed, and ensure that it can be funded, either by immediate payments - Community Infrastructure Levy - or by borrowing against the increased local taxes which come with more housing and business.

Planning should not be a system with works mainly to protect the views of existing residents, and impoverish future generations. Let them eat heritage, one might say.

Meanwhile, Sunderland is cheap and low-density. If social landlords want to help a greater number of people why not sell up locally and purchase four-times as many homes for social rent elsewhere in the country?

Such social cleansing will be achieved by the new Conservative government's plans to force social landlords to sell existing properties cheap to existing tenants, and use the proceeds to acquire properties elsewhere - e.g. Sunderland.

Could it be what the Greenwich Society really wanted all along?