Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton Riverside
shirty5
Posts: 20,000
0
Comments
-
Like everything Greenwich council announces, add about 10 years and lots of brown envelopes.4
-
Far too much development in Greenwich and Charlton.3
-
Far too much development inside the M25 full stop.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:Far too much development in Greenwich and Charlton.
Plenty of open space across the UK ,
Leave inside the M25 alone3 -
I can’t see a single problem with this.8
-
Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.1
-
Riverside regeneration and development is an excellent thing to happen. Look at Liverpool, Manchester and Rotterdam as examples. If done right it is a huge benefit to the local area. Just depends on how it’s delivered4
-
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.2 -
It should be a high density areahoof_it_up_to_benty said:
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.7 -
And RomeAberystwythAddick said:Riverside regeneration and development is an excellent thing to happen. Look at Liverpool, Manchester and Rotterdam as examples. If done right it is a huge benefit to the local area. Just depends on how it’s delivered11 -
Like it or not undeveloped land in London on a prime riverside site is a very desirable place to live, work and commute from. 100% it should be sustainably developed to provide all the things announced.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
And we can’t attract any of them to The Valley🤔hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.0 -
Development in Greenwich hasn't been well managed. A lot of is poor quality and the density far too high with a lack of infrastructure.ShootersHillGuru said:
Like it or not undeveloped land in London on a prime riverside site is a very desirable place to live, work and commute from. 100% it should be sustainably developed to provide all the things announced.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.
It's unlikely that decades of poor planning is going to change.
There are numerous poor developments in Greenwich if you bother walking around the area.
5 -
No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.3 -
The main thing it needs is a better road network and more transport links.
However where all these new flats are going to be built is in a corridor between North Greenwich and Woolwich where the car seems to be enemy number 1, and long term disruptions to bus routes have exacerbated matters, not to mention the lack of investment into SouthEastern.
Instead of fucking about with a DLR extension to Thamesmead and nowhere else, an entirely new DLR line should be built alongside The Thames, it could even loop from Thamesmead, linking through Woolwich, Charlton Riverside, North Greenwich and down to Greenwich proper, but it would cost huge amounts and no-one will want to fund it as it's "Sarf a da Rivuh"5 -
Out of interest, where would this line of the DLR be? Where would the tracks go? To be clear, I do agree with you about we should have a dlr line up to North Greenwich and ideally joining the rest of the line at Canary Wharf. I have a feeling this might be what might be planned.sam3110 said:The main thing it needs is a better road network and more transport links.
However where all these new flats are going to be built is in a corridor between North Greenwich and Woolwich where the car seems to be enemy number 1, and long term disruptions to bus routes have exacerbated matters, not to mention the lack of investment into SouthEastern.
Instead of fucking about with a DLR extension to Thamesmead and nowhere else, an entirely new DLR line should be built alongside The Thames, it could even loop from Thamesmead, linking through Woolwich, Charlton Riverside, North Greenwich and down to Greenwich proper, but it would cost huge amounts and no-one will want to fund it as it's "Sarf a da Rivuh"Overall i disagree with others and that it’s absolutely a good thing to build more homes in the borough. Especially around the Woolwich area which has a lot of brownfield sites and excellent transport links.0 -
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually2 -
Walked into that one didn’t I.DaveMehmet said:
And RomeAberystwythAddick said:Riverside regeneration and development is an excellent thing to happen. Look at Liverpool, Manchester and Rotterdam as examples. If done right it is a huge benefit to the local area. Just depends on how it’s delivered0 -
Easiest way IMO would be an elevated line, running fairly close to the River. Almost all of the brownfield sites will be completely demolished and rebuilt, so if it's in the initial plans it won't be too hard to implement, even when you get towards NG you have a spine of under used land through the middle of the peninsula, that could easily be used to build a DLR line.Diebythesword said:
Out of interest, where would this line of the DLR be? Where would the tracks go? To be clear, I do agree with you about we should have a dlr line up to North Greenwich and ideally joining the rest of the line at Canary Wharf. I have a feeling this might be what might be planned.sam3110 said:The main thing it needs is a better road network and more transport links.
However where all these new flats are going to be built is in a corridor between North Greenwich and Woolwich where the car seems to be enemy number 1, and long term disruptions to bus routes have exacerbated matters, not to mention the lack of investment into SouthEastern.
Instead of fucking about with a DLR extension to Thamesmead and nowhere else, an entirely new DLR line should be built alongside The Thames, it could even loop from Thamesmead, linking through Woolwich, Charlton Riverside, North Greenwich and down to Greenwich proper, but it would cost huge amounts and no-one will want to fund it as it's "Sarf a da Rivuh"Overall i disagree with others and that it’s absolutely a good thing to build more homes in the borough. Especially around the Woolwich area which has a lot of brownfield sites and excellent transport links.
The major issue is then running it from NG to Greenwich/Cutty Sark, I suspect you'd have to spend an awful lot and go underground at some point, especially once you pass Morden Wharf and get towards the new builds and the old power station, unless you did the almost unthinkable and build out over the water along the south bank edge0 -
A new hospital should be a priority, the QE is really struggling to cope with all the new developments we already have in Woolwich and Greenwich.ShootersHillGuru said:
Like it or not undeveloped land in London on a prime riverside site is a very desirable place to live, work and commute from. 100% it should be sustainably developed to provide all the things announced.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.12 -
Sponsored links:
-
No. We need more cycle lanes (not) instead…😡sam3110 said:The main thing it needs is a better road network and more transport links.
However where all these new flats are going to be built is in a corridor between North Greenwich and Woolwich where the car seems to be enemy number 1, and long term disruptions to bus routes have exacerbated matters, not to mention the lack of investment into SouthEastern.
Instead of fucking about with a DLR extension to Thamesmead and nowhere else, an entirely new DLR line should be built alongside The Thames, it could even loop from Thamesmead, linking through Woolwich, Charlton Riverside, North Greenwich and down to Greenwich proper, but it would cost huge amounts and no-one will want to fund it as it's "Sarf a da Rivuh"0 -
“Affordable homes” was/is one of the finest bits of politicking from the tories. A rubbish policy that’s effectively developers agreeing to not make money on building things, making it less likely for them to build more, keeping house prices high whilst simultaneously looking like you’re trying to solve the problem and making it politically nuclear poison for anyone to get rid of. It’s extraordinary, actually.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually1 -
Also room for a football stadium !! I know I’m going to get pelters but it wouldn’t be so badDiebythesword said:
Out of interest, where would this line of the DLR be? Where would the tracks go? To be clear, I do agree with you about we should have a dlr line up to North Greenwich and ideally joining the rest of the line at Canary Wharf. I have a feeling this might be what might be planned.sam3110 said:The main thing it needs is a better road network and more transport links.
However where all these new flats are going to be built is in a corridor between North Greenwich and Woolwich where the car seems to be enemy number 1, and long term disruptions to bus routes have exacerbated matters, not to mention the lack of investment into SouthEastern.
Instead of fucking about with a DLR extension to Thamesmead and nowhere else, an entirely new DLR line should be built alongside The Thames, it could even loop from Thamesmead, linking through Woolwich, Charlton Riverside, North Greenwich and down to Greenwich proper, but it would cost huge amounts and no-one will want to fund it as it's "Sarf a da Rivuh"Overall i disagree with others and that it’s absolutely a good thing to build more homes in the borough. Especially around the Woolwich area which has a lot of brownfield sites and excellent transport links.0 -
AberystwythAddick said:Riverside regeneration and development is an excellent thing to happen. Look at Liverpool, Manchester and Rotterdam as examples. If done right it is a huge benefit to the local area. Just depends on how it’s delivered
Probably on a 32 tonne hi-ab offload.
1 -
If it means the public transport infrastructure improves into the area then great….bit of a problem if nothing changes in that regard thoughhoof_it_up_to_benty said:
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.0 -
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.2 -
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.8 -
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
3 -
London and in fact the whole country needs more homes. London Riverside developments where land costs are very high are never going be suited to much in the way of affordable homes. It’s a reality. Burnham and his plans for a massive council house building programme is where homes that are affordable will have the biggest impact. I really don’t see any of the 8000 proposed new homes being low rent enough to be considered affordable.0
-
What percentage of the London living wage would you consider to be affordable?jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.0
