24-28 Greenwich High Road, with Maurice Drummond House seen to the rear
A DEVELOPER has proposed knocking down three Victorian houses in Greenwich High Road to build new homes.
Four 4-bedroom townhouses would replace the houses at 24-28 Greenwich High Road if the scheme gets planning permission.
“The houses, though possessing a certain dour simplicity, are unremarkable examples of later Victorian housing and do not have any notable heritage significance or architectural merit,” notes a Heritage Statement accompanying the planning application.
The plans for the 4-storey homes, each with an added basement, have been revised following an earlier application and a public exhibition held in January.
The developer behind the scheme is Periquin Limited, which lists Lady Rona Zara Delves Dowager Broughton as its sole director.
The same company is also redeveloping Maurice Drummond House in Catherine Grove, adjacent to 24-28 Greenwich High Road, as a new hotel which is due to open in the next few weeks.
Scaffolding starts to come down at the former police section house about to reopen as a hotel.
Why knock em down, they are nice buildings which need some TLC.
…..Lady Whoodie What-Now?
While the exterior of these houses may possibly salvageable (bigger windows and a refurb of the frontages are a minimum), I expect the interior layout and plumbing/wiring are extremely outdated.
Outdated layout and plumbing?
That’s what they were saying 50 years ago when they were building lots of nasty council blocks.
Luckily they didn’t do that with most of Greenwich 50 years ago – so why do that now? It’s a typical example of developers letting houses run down so that can make more money with a new development – which definitely won’t last 150 years.
Paul,
The proposed design is very sympathetic to the buildings they are replacing and the area is badly in need of refurbishment.
http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/53623_1.pdf
There’s no point keeping these buildings if they are becoming increasingly difficult/costly to maintain.
IN what respect are they sympathetic? The Borough’s own Conservation Area appraisal commented how much weak pastiche buildings have damaged the historical fabric of Greenwich and this is just more of the same.
If you want to see decent period-style buildings in a historical context, go to the back streets of SPitalfields – developers there have taken much more care, probably because the council officers were more exacting. In Greenwich developers seem to lower their standards.
IIRC these buildings are on the edge of the Ashburnam Conservation area – it is against most policies to knock down old buildings unless the replacement positively enhances the area. The new buildings won’t. It will be a lot less expensive to refurbish the old buildings, and will be better for the environment. Knocking down old buildings and replacing them with a weak pastiche, in order to pack more buildings in, is a discredited policy and I hope the council officers throw it out without it even getting to committee.
But what ir does need is Greenwich people who don’t want more bland characterless buildings taking over the High Road, to object. Otherwise, another vital bit of the texture of Greenwich will be gone.
These look great… the high rd def needs reinvention! The best thing would be decent suzed plain trees down the whole rd.
With Waitrose coming, high spec developments, olympic advertisement and crusieliner terminals etc coming, hopefully over this decade Greenwich is going to come into its own to become a genuine first class and very expensive area (of choice).
We can but hope…
Paul,
From the Heritage Appraisal of this development by an independent agency (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/53622_4.pdf):
“This version of the proposed development, having been
revised after comments made by the Council, is more
positive in heritage than its predecessor scheme. It is well
designed and responds positively to its historic context. It
will undoubtedly preserve the setting of the listed house
in Burgos Grove, the setting of the locally listed buildings
and the character and appearance of the conservation
area. The development will also enhance these heritage
assets. It will greatly improve their setting with not just a
well-designed and contextual architectural scheme, but
that scheme will underpin and reinforce the significance
and wellbeing of these heritage assets with regeneration –
by replacing redundant residential property with more
and better accommodation, the proposed development
secures the context in which these heritage assets exist.”
LOL do you believe everything you read in Party Political Broadcasts as well?
The counter-case to that load of old spiel (“We are saving heritage by getting rid of it”) comes from the Greenwich Society. Their point about only getting rid of heritage buildings as a last resort is exactly right. Here’s an extract:
“We consider that the three existing houses should be retained in support of the Council’s policy seeking to preserve a mix of modern and historic properties, especially for surviving pre-1914 buildings to be conserved. There is a developing pattern of building overriding the conservation policies in the Ashburnham Triangle CA and we consider further loss of the areas historic heritage should only be as a last resort, which we do not consider to be the case here. That so much other new building development has been allowed along this road should be not a case for allowing this development; rather the contrary: it becomes more than ever to keep what remains of the historic heritage here.”
If there is so much heated discussion on this topic, how come I am only 1 of 2 people who have objected to it on the council website? There has been more than 1 other voice against above, which is unfortunately silent on the council’s own website.
Why do you want greenwich to become expensive? Doesn’t benefit you unless you want to move out. As for Waitrose and “high spec” developments (there’s a phrase you can trust) – why not push off to Canary Wharf?
Seems a bit ironic, we’ve just had the Deptford documentary highlighting the errors of previous plans to destroy Victorian buildings and here we are again.
I think any proposal that can be paraphrased as “This plan is much better than our previous plan” should be thrown out immediately.
I fully agree with everything Paul has said. The overriding priority in planning policy should be preservation of the historic fabric of the area – regardless whether some hired guns allege that the existing buildings are “unremarkable”.
That said, one must acknowledge that the architects have done a good job with the rather difficult brief of cramming four terraced houses into a space designed for three.
If nothing else, Council Planning Officers should reject the application out of basic humanity for future occupants forced to trudge up four flights stairs of stairs to reach their shoebox-sized rooms – all in the interests of the developer’s profits maximisation!
The proposed buildings are awful. Poor imitation of a building that already exists. Of course the old buildings don’t suit because they can squeeze more on to the plot with a new development rather than refurbish existing dwellings.
If you think that shiny and new is always right, have a look at this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jt9bv/The_Secret_History_of_Our_Streets_Deptford_High_Street/
Ah, so an independent agency’s report is somehow discreditable but the Greenwich Society’s opinion is beyond all question. The Greenwich Society, the group of NIMBY’s who go so far as to complain about excess lighting on shops.
Gotcha.
You appear to know how much it would cost to bring the existing buildings up to a modern standard, how much they would sell for and therefore what the profit would be for the developer.
Please enlighten us.
I could find endless material on how old buildings are very often inadequate for modern building standards and living requirements but, let’s be honest, that would be equally irrelevant.
As I just asked above, I would really like to hear your alternative vision.
Councillor Pennycook has tweeted in relation to this:
“I requested this application come to the Area Planning Committee some time ago given the sensitivities around it.”
Poor Nelson, you are indeed blind.
An “Independent Agency”? they are being paid to produce a report saying why the buildings should be pulled down so the developers can make more money. The Greenwich Society, meanwhile, are architects, and others, who care about Greenwich and give their time free.
If they’re like other High Quality buildings that have replaced old ones in Greenwich, the proposed development will be made of Brieze block or poured concrete, with a one-brick deep facade; MDF mouldings, laminated wood floors and thin plasterboard throughout. In 20 years they will look worse than these 150 years old buildings do already.
Good new buildings are always welcome. But cheap pastiches, with as many rooms crammed in as possible to make the developers more money, all have a cumulative, damaging effect on an area.
Nelson’s Left Eye
Your description of Greenwich Society members is deeply offensive, sir, and betrays your ignorance of both Greenwich and the Greenwich Society.
It was the Greenwich Society who in the 1960s and 1970s blocked plans to run a four-lane motorway through the town centre and saved dozens of Georgian and Victorian buildings from demolition in the name of precisely the same short-sighted twaddle that you and these developers are now peddling.
In the 50+ years since the foundation of the Greenwich Society, its members have volunteered their time and energy to preserve and enhance Greenwich’s built environment – a large part of the reason that Greenwich today is such a exceptionally lovely place to live and to visit.
You have made it clear here and on other local blogs that you rather like the new pier buildings, and that you find objections to the illuminated signage that has been erected without planning permission, which was subsequently refused, to be petty – thus revealing something about your taste and preferences.
However, you are in a minority of local opinion in that view. The overwhelming majority of commenters on local blogs are appalled by both the buildings themselves and, particularly, by the illuminated signage. Many of these commenters are not members of the Greenwich Society. But the Greenwich Society’s vocally expressed view on this are at one with the local majority.
For these reasons I am proud to be a longstanding member of the Greenwich Society – and find your comment to be particularly offensive.
Finally, I find it simply bewildering that you would choose to live in Greenwich without valuing and wanting to protect the local built environment and the area’s extraordinary architectural heritage. You should perhaps consider relocating to an area without any ‘outdated old buildings’ to clutter your daily life.
franklin, don’t get offended by Nelson’s Left Eye, he’s the kind of person believes that all Developers only have the benefit of the community at heart – and that Frankie and Benny’s is a genuine old school New York Italian joint.
Looking at the Developer’s spiel, it’s pretty laughable: reading between the lines it basically says, “Well, the buildings are newer than the old ones – and much better because we’ve crammed four in where the silly old Victorians only managed three.”
Errr….easy. Renovate and re use.
My opinion isn’t irrelevant just because you don’t agree with it, by the way.
That part of Greenwich High Rd needs to be refurbished. The current buildings are plainly ugly and not fit for purpose. The Greenwich Society and the Ashburnham Society will oppose anything. Its what whitle middle class middle aged people with too much time on their hands do. I have no idea why these organised NIMBYs are given any time at all by any official body. They are simply self selecting groups of people who do not reflect the views and composition of the wider community.
…says Richard, a self-selecting individual who has no claim to represent anyone but himself.
The Greenwich Society has more than a thousand members, who elect the leadership according to the democratic principle of one member, one vote.
That makes the views of its leadership a damn sight more reflective of the views of the wider community than one twat commenting anonymously on a local blog.
I do not claim to represent anyone’s views other than my own. I do not need to retrort to childish abuse either. My view of the Greenwich Society is based on my dealings with them. I stand by my claim. NIMBYs. By your own admission they represent 0.4% of the borough’s population. In statistical terms its not that much than the .0004% that I personally make up.
Ha ha ha!! Oh, that’s classic!
“I do not need to retrort to childish abuse…”
Other than calling other people “white middle class middle aged people with too much time on their hands” and “self selecting groups of people who do not reflect the views and composition of the wider community”.
And your statistics are great Richard – the Greenwich Society only makes up 1,000 times more of the borough’s population than you do, or 100,000% more.
I’d love to know what your “dealings with the Greenwich Society” were that led you to these views. Did they oppose your planning application to knock down some old buildings, by any chance?
Dreadful proposal – I hope Greenwich Council blocks the demolition the first chance they get. These are lovely old buildings which if refurbished would make three lovely family homes.
Greenwich High road has been ‘developed’ into such low quality stuff over the past few years its lost all character. Between this, the horrendous Pier and the ever more coffee and burger chains blighting Greenwich, the town is at risk of losing all its charm.
Has anybody actually seen the interior of the Houses, I viewed them a couple of years ago and was quite shocked. The cost to refurb is really unrealistic, it’s such a shame that they are in disrepair, but on the back of that I think it’s great that somebody actually wants to take on the project of rebuilding them.
It’s great to see the application is for houses to be rebuilt and not apartments, also the plans show good elevations to match the adjacent properties.
It’ would be nice to see a whole row of terrace houses running across the car park, i do feel that it would help Greenwhich High road, let’s be honest if the plans are rejected god only knows how long they will be left empty and more than likely the return of squatters!
I’m sure the developer is open to ideas on what would suit the area, also it’s not always that simple, as planners at the council do have a major say in future Plans!!
My stats are just fine Franklin. May get a yourself a calculator.
This comment has been edited by a moderator.
Errrmm, OK. Your insults are almost as impressive as your stats. But glad to know that you don’t “retrort” to childish abuse. I actually “have a myself a calculator”, but don’t really need it to calculate 1,000/1: it’s 1,000, or 1,000 times more than 1, or 100,000% more than the unweighted average of a lone dingleberry voicing crude, offensive and uninformed comments on a local news and OpEd website.
I am quite capable of working out 1 number as a percentage of another. That wasnt the point I was making. The greenwich society make up 0.4% of the overall population. Hardly representative. The crude remark (which has been deleted) was simply a response to your childish insult (which hasnt been deleted). “That makes the views of its leadership a damn sight more reflective of the views of the wider community than one twat commenting anonymously on a local blog.”
There use to be a nice row of houses all the way to the pub called Kent House. Those three houses are all that’s left. See below a link to a photo from 1972.
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external/Item&sp=ZGreenwich+road&sp=66135&sp=X