Charlton Riverside

Like everything Greenwich council announces, add about 10 years and lots of brown envelopes. 

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Far too much development in Greenwich and Charlton.

Far too much development inside the M25 full stop.
Plenty of open space across the UK , 
Leave inside the M25 alone 

ElfsborgAddick said:

Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.

I just hope it goes to the right people.

We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.

There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.

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 

And Rome

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

ElfsborgAddick said:

Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.

I just hope it goes to the right people.

We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.

There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.

And we can’t attract any of them to The Valley🤔

https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2026/08/03/charlton-riverside-regeneration-greenwich-gla-tfl-2026/

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"

Diebythesword said:

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"

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. 

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. 

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.

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 edge 

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"

No. We need more cycle lanes (not) instead…😡

Diebythesword said:

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"

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. 

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. 

Also room for a football stadium !! I know I’m going to get pelters but it wouldn’t be so bad 

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

ElfsborgAddick said:

Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.

I just hope it goes to the right people.

We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.

There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.

If it means the public transport infrastructure improves into the area then great….bit of a problem if nothing changes in that regard though 

jose said:

AberystwythAddick said:

jose said:

No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossary

It’s pretty well explained actually 

I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.
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, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?

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.