Greenwich Peninsula Scheme for 1,500 Homes Approved Despite Sharp Cut to Affordable Housing

When the plans were first reviewed by Greenwich Council’s Planning Board in February, the developer cited rising construction costs and evolving building regulations as the reason for lowering the affordable housing provision to 10%. At that stage, councillors deferred a decision, requesting further clarity and efforts to increase affordability in line with updated guidance from the Greater London Authority (GLA).

At a subsequent meeting on 14 April, Galliard confirmed the scheme had secured eligibility for GLA grant funding, allowing the affordable housing offer to increase to 20%. Under the latest GLA framework, the development will not be subject to mid- or late-stage viability reviews-mechanisms typically used to reassess whether additional affordable housing contributions can be delivered as a project progresses.

Despite clear reservations, the Planning Board ultimately approved the scheme. Chair Dave Sullivan acknowledged that members were uneasy about both the reduced level of affordable housing and the absence of future review mechanisms. However, the committee concluded that the project would still make a meaningful contribution to addressing local housing demand.

Alongside the tenure changes, councillors also backed amendments to the scheme’s design. These include a reduction in the number of tower blocks and a decrease in the height of the tallest building to 35 storeys, aimed at minimising the visual impact on Greenwich’s World Heritage Site. Even so, concerns about scale remained, with some members describing the height as excessive.

The development’s architect highlighted the scheme’s distinctive octagonal tower design, explaining that it improves wind conditions and increases the spacing between buildings, allowing for more natural light. While some councillors remained sceptical about the height, several welcomed the architectural approach, noting that taller buildings should aim to be visually striking and distinctive.

Overall, the decision reflects the ongoing tension between viability challenges and the delivery of affordable housing, particularly on large-scale urban developments.