Statement of Community Involvement Download

MORDEN WHARF.

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

REGENERATION RETHOUGHT

Lowick The News Building 3 London Bridge Street London, SE1 9SG

Report Author

Tom Dewey, Account Director [email protected] +44 (0)203 743 6250

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 2.2. The site and local area ...... 9 2.3. A brief history ...... 10 2.4. Planning policy context ...... 11 2.5. Scheme description ...... 11 3. STAKEHOLDER AUDIT ...... 14 3.2. Political stakeholders ...... 14 3.3. Local groups and organisations ...... 14 3.4. Local businesses, schools and community facilities ...... 15 3.5. Neighbouring developers ...... 16 4. CONSULTATION AIMS ...... 17 5. CONSULTATION ACTIVITY AND OUTCOMES ...... 18 5.2. Public exhibition (November 2018) ...... 18 5.3. Survey responses ...... 20 5.4. Key issues identified ...... 24 5.5. Public exhibition (September-October 2019) ...... 27 5.6. Survey responses (September-October 2019) ...... 29 5.7. Key issues identified ...... 34 5.8. Stakeholder meetings ...... 36 6. KEY ISSUE AND RESPONSES ...... 41 7. CONCLUSION ...... 53 APPENDICES ...... 56 Appendix 1 – Flyer promoting public exhibition (November 2018) ...... 56 Appendix 2 – Distribution map (November 2018) ...... 58 Appendix 3 – Public Exhibition boards (November 2018) ...... 59 Appendix 4 – Feedback form (November 2018) ...... 68 Appendix 5 – Data tables from November 2018 survey ...... 70 Appendix 6 – Feedback summary (March 2019) ...... 74 Appendix 7 – Flyer promoting public exhibition (September 2018) ...... 78 Appendix 8 – Distribution map (September 2019) ...... 79 Appendix 9 – News Shopper adverts (18 and 25 September 2018) ...... 80 Appendix 10 – Exhibition boards (September-October 2019) ...... 82 Appendix 11 – Feedback form (September-October 2019) ...... 94 Appendix 12 – Data tables from September-October 2019 survey ...... 96

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure 1: Riverfront view of the proposals for Morden Wharf

1.1.1. This Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) has been prepared by Lowick to accompany a hybrid application for planning permission for Morden Wharf, Greenwich Peninsula (“the site”). The application is submitted on behalf of Cathedral (Greenwich Beach) Ltd. (a subsidiary of U+I Group plc) and Morden College (“the applicant”).

1.1.2. The public engagement and consultation for the application was coordinated by Lowick, in conjunction with the applicant and the wider project team. Over the last eighteen months there has been extensive discussions with local residents, groups and societies, as well as elected members. The applicant has been particularly mindful of the need to engage closely with key neighbouring businesses, to ensure the proposals for Morden Wharf do not negatively impact their operations and respect the ‘agent of change’ principle.

1.1.3. Two rounds of public consultation have been held, with a public exhibition in November 2018 focusing on the principles of development and overall masterplan, and in September - October 2019 on the developed proposals for the site. Both were well attended by a mixture of local residents, businesses, workers and local groups.

1.1.4. As the design has progressed, a number of ideas raised by stakeholders and the public have been incorporated into the scheme such as enlarging the scale of the proposed riverfront park, incorporating more open green space. The design of the buildings has evolved considerably, with changes in massing and spacing, as well as providing a landmark river presence and architecture which references the industrial history of the site.

1.1.5. At the final consultation in September-October 2019, two-thirds of responses were supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There was particularly strong support for Morden Park, the illustrative design of the buildings and the employment offer supporting 682 direct jobs.

1.1.6. Chart 1: Overall, are you supportive of the proposals for Morden Wharf (Sept-Oct 2019)

27%

Strongly support 39% Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose 15% Strongly oppose

7% 12%

1.1.7. Some local community groups, while welcoming many elements of the scheme such as the proposals for public open space and employment uses, have expressed concern that the height and density of the development is excessive. This has been a view expressed by a minority throughout the consultation, predominantly from older residents, amenity societies and often those who have a negative view of the wider development of the peninsula.

1.1.8. Concerns about transport infrastructure on the peninsula, both current capacity and planned improvements, have been a consistent theme. Much of this is outside of the direct control of the applicant and action will require the collective investment and coordination of all the major developers, Transport for London (TfL) and the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) over a number of years. Where possible, the Morden Wharf site has sought to encourage and improve walking, cycling and public transport provision. This is encompassed by the Mobility Hub concept; embracing new technology and innovation and including elements such as a new bus stop on Tunnel Avenue, a shuttle bus to local stations, and facilitating discussion around a new riverboat pier on the western side of the peninsula. The scheme would also generate an estimated £11.3m in combined Mayoral and Local Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments, plus S106 contributions, £9.8m New Homes Bonus payments over four years, and Council Tax and Business Rates revenues of £3.4m per annum.

1.1.9. The applicant has engaged in extensive pre-application discussions with the local community in a transparent and constructive manner, incorporating feedback where possible and making a number of changes to the scheme in response to specific concerns or ideas.

1.1.10. On balance, the majority of those consulted supported the applicants’ vision of creating a vibrant new community rooted in the site’s heritage with public space at its heart. This public support for the Morden Wharf plans gives added weight to the planning case for the scheme and should give confidence to officers and members to grant consent.

1.1.11. Morden Wharf presents a unique opportunity to revitalise one of the last strategic sites on the peninsula. The proposals will bring together 1,500 new homes, amenities, employment and an extensive 1.57ha riverfront park to form an iconic destination for the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1.1. This Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) has been prepared by Lowick to accompany a hybrid application for the redevelopment of Morden Wharf, Greenwich Peninsula (“the site”). The application is submitted on behalf of Cathedral (Greenwich Beach) Ltd. and Morden College (“the applicant”).

2.1.2. Morden College is an independent Charity based in Blackheath, established over 300 years ago. Its purpose is to help older people by offering either a home for independent living, a home for supported living, or 24/7 residential care with nursing. The College is a long-term partner of the City of London (their independent Board of Trustees are all Aldermen of the City of London) and the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG). Its key objective is to create a financially viable scheme which releases value to allow Morden College to continue to help the older generations in London for the next 300 years.

2.1.3. U+I is a specialist regeneration developer and investor. With an over £11.5bn portfolio of complex, mixed-use, community-focused regeneration projects including a £147.1m investment portfolio, they are unlocking urban sites bristling with potential in the London City Region (within one hour’s commute from Central London), Manchester and Dublin. U+I have particular experience in the Royal Borough of Greenwich and neighbouring Lewisham. They exist to deliver create long-term socio-economic benefit for the communities in which they work, delivering sustainable returns to their shareholders.

Figure 2: Sea Witch Plaza showing the renovated Southern Warehouse with improvements to the Thames Path and new bar, restaurant and pub use on the riverfront

2.1.4. U+I, in collaboration with the freeholder of the majority of the site, Morden College, aim to transform the former industrial site into a vibrant mixed-use, Thames-side quarter comprising a mix of residential, employment and industrial buildings and associated public realm including a 1,57ha west facing riverside park.

2.1.5. The proposed masterplan is being submitted as a hybrid planning application for the following:

“Hybrid planning application for: Outline planning permission with all matters reserved, for the demolition of existing on- site buildings and structures (except the Southern Warehouse) and phased mixed-use redevelopment comprising: § up to 1,500 residential dwellings; § up to 17,311 (sqm GIA) of commercial floorspace (Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/B1c/B2/B8/D1/D2); and associated: § car and cycle parking; § public realm and open space; § hard and soft landscaping; § highway and transport works; and § associated ancillary works. And detailed planning permission for: Change of use of part of the Southern Warehouse from Class B1c/B2/B8 to B1c/B2/B8/A3/A4; refurbishment (including mezzanines) and external alterations to part of the Southern Warehouse; change of use of the Jetty to public realm and installation on the Jetty of Gloriana Boathouse (use class D1/D2); access; landscaping and public realm works including new river wall and upgraded Thames Path.”

2.1.6. The purpose of this report is to outline the community engagement undertaken by the applicant, and how the application submitted responds to the issues raised. It should be read alongside the Design and Access Statement (DAS) prepared by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), Chetwoods and Planit-IE, and the Planning Statement prepared by Lichfields, as well as the wider Environmental Statement (ES) and accompanying documents.

2.1.7. Concurrently, the applicant has held formal pre-application discussions with RBG and other statutory stakeholders including the Environment Agency, The Port of London Authority (PLA), Transport for London (TfL) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) amongst others. Multiple rounds of independent design scrutiny have also been undertaken with the Design Council (formerly CABE).

2.1.8. This report, while focussed on consultation with the local community, will make reference to consultation with statutory consultees and the local planning authority, and the response of the applicant, although these elements are discussed in more detail in both the Planning Statement and DAS.

Figure 3: Public exhibition at Sugar Studios on site in September/October 2019

2.1.9. The detailed elements of the application include proposals for the western portion of the Southern Warehouse (and including external alterations to the building) , the Thames Path, river wall works, Gloriana Boat House and landscaping proposals for part of Morden Park. The rest of the site is submitted in outline with all matters reserved. An illustrative scheme (Section 7 of the DAS) has been developed to fully test parameters of the outline scheme and to set guidelines within the Design Code. The illustrative scheme demonstrates the high-quality that can be secured through the parameters that are proposed by the outline element of the application. The illustrative scheme is for information purposes only and will not be approved as part of the outline application. It will be the parameters that will be approved and to ensure a high-quality design is secured, the accompanying Design Code provides detailed guidelines that any subsequent reserved matters application must adhere to.

2.1.10. Our consultation strategy was drafted in accordance with the relevant provisions and recommendations laid out in the Localism Act (2011), RBG Statement of Community Involvement (2016) and the Revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019) on community involvement in planning. It forms part of the documentation which informs the planning application.

2.2. The site and local area

Figure 4: Aerial view of Morden Wharf site

2.2.1. The Morden Wharf site is situated to the west of Greenwich Peninsula. Formerly a glucose refinery, it totals approximately 14 acres and is currently used for a range of storage and low- intensity industrial uses. Much of the site was cleared before the purchase of part of the site by U+I in 2012, with the large 1950’s Southern Warehouse saved from demolition. There is a small office block, Thames Bank House, which will be removed as part of the plans as well as some portacabins and storage on the site. The site is part owned by U+I (combination of leasehold and freehold) and Morden College.

2.3. A brief history

2.3.1. Like much of the peninsula, Morden Wharf was once marshland. The area came into the ownership of Sir John Morden in 1698-9 and was later endowed to the trustees of Morden College. The site was either marshland or used for agriculture until Charles Holcombe took the lease over in 1841. He likely named the site to curry favour with the trustees.

2.3.2. The site was involved in the early years of submarine cable manufacturing, including the first to successfully span the Atlantic in 1865. It is likely the final five nautical mile stretch of the first successful telegraph cable laid across the English Channel was also manufactured here in 1851. A series of uses followed on parts of the site including the Thames Soap & Candle Works, operated by Wilkie & Soames Ltd, from 1854.

2.3.3. Gas works came to dominate much of the peninsula from around 1883. This was a pivotal time for the embryonic trade union movement, which increased wages, reduced hours and won new rights and protections. The Sea Witch public house was located roughly at the end of the Southern Warehouse and was a meeting place for trade unionists. It was destroyed by a V-1 Flying Bomb on 12 July 1944.

Figure 5: Morden Wharf when in use as a glucose refinery

2.3.4. Generations of industry on Morden Wharf have left their mark; from soap and candle works, to its pre-eminent role in the manufacture of submarine cables, and latterly as a glucose factory. In the 19th Century, the Greenwich peninsula was a major centre of manufacturing and industry. While much of this has gone, replaced with the entertainment and residential development after the millennium, traces of its past remain in the landscape. These artefacts and other industrial

structures have helped inform the architecture of Morden Wharf.

2.3.5. The design seeks to peel back the layers of history and return the post-industrial landscape back to a more natural and ecologically diverse condition.

2.4. Planning policy context

2.4.1. The site falls within the Greenwich Peninsula Opportunity Area, earmarked for major growth. A minimum of 17,000 homes and 15,000 jobs are expected to be delivered. Overall the Intend to Submit version of the London Plan (December 2019) has increased the housing target for the borough to 28,240 homes on large sites by 2028/29. The Morden Wharf proposals would make a major contribution to meeting this target and the proposed 10-year supply.

2.4.2. RBG has also identified the area in their Core Strategy as a Strategic Development Location, one of six where 90% of the boroughs housing growth is expected to be delivered. It is also one of a few locations in the borough “where tall buildings may be appropriate” (Policy D2). Part of the site is designated as Strategic Industrial Location (SIL), which is protected for broad- industrial uses. However, the vast majority of the site is appropriate for housing.

2.4.3. The Greenwich Peninsula West Masterplan (2012) gives some guidance for the area but has been superseded by the 2013 Core Strategy and carries minimal weight. This envisaged a sports stadium on the northern site and housing on the southern site; however, the aims for the site have evolved since then. It is worth noting that following a GLA review, the existing safeguarded wharf designation for the southern site has been recommended to ‘flip’ to the northern site. This is currently being considered by the Secretary of State.

2.4.4. There are a number of other restrictions on the site including a hazardous materials zone (COMAH) relating to Brenntag, a chemical storage and distribution company neighbouring which places limitations on residential and employment uses on part of the site. The Thames Path also runs along the entire river frontage.

2.4.5. Morden Wharf is a 15-minute walk and less than a 5-minute cycle to North Greenwich Underground Station. It is approximately a 20-minute walk to Maze Hill Station and a 25-minute walk to Cutty Sark DLR. One bus route runs along Tunnel Avenue (Route 106) but changes to the road layout with the Silvertown Tunnel scheme, Knight Dragon masterplan and the applicants own proposals, would improve this provision significantly, with improved walking, cycling and public transport links.

2.5. Scheme description

2.5.1. The development proposals comprise sixteen new buildings, and refurbishment/change of use of part of the existing Southern Warehouse building. The proposals include a large general industrial/logistic building (W01), extension to the Southern Warehouse providing new industrial units (SW4) and a flexible office and light-industry building (B01). The remainder of the buildings are predominantly residential, incorporating active ground floor uses.

2.5.2. The western section of the Southern Warehouse itself would be renovated and a new mezzanine floor installed within part i.e. the area facing the river (SW1). this part of the building is proposed to include a restaurant/bar/public house use, approximately in the location of the Sea Witch pub destroyed in the Second World War.

Figure 6: Scheme overview and building names

2.5.3. Much of the ground floor of the residential buildings is proposed to include flexible commercial uses. The illustrative scheme includes a nursery, small supermarket and dedicated community hall/meeting space as well as cafés, restaurants and other retail uses.

2.5.4. Within the illustrative scheme building heights range from 2 to 36 storeys (including ground floor), with residential buildings ranging between 9 and 36 storeys. The maximum parameter height is 130.5m AOD (for T03).

2.5.5. Morden Wharf will deliver a mixed community with up to 1,500 new homes with 35% affordable housing by habitable room. The design is tenure-blind with shared access to open spaces.

2.5.6. The detailed residential mix will be determined via Reserved Matters in accordance with the Parameter Plans and Design Code and any limitations imposed via planning conditions / s106 clauses.

2.5.7. The landscape design is inspired by the site’s history, a journey through the transformation from marshland to industry to technology. It includes a hierarchy of public and semi-private open spaces, each with their own distinct character incorporating play space designed for all age groups and open to all residents.

2.5.8. Major improvements to the Thames Path are proposed along with a new river wall required by the Environment Agency. The jetty on site will be opened to public access, with a boathouse/visitor centre for the Queen’s Rowbarge, Gloriana.

2.5.9. Over 6 acres of high-quality open space are proposed across the site, equivalent to 3 ½ football pitches. This includes Morden Park, a new riverfront public park of 1.57 ha (1.28 ha in the detailed application). This will connect seamlessly with the upgraded Thames Path, and the Design Code notes that the detailed design of the proposed park will be modelled on the historical marshland character of the peninsula, including ponds and swales to enhance biodiversity and aid sustainable drainage. Large areas of open space for play and leisure will be incorporated, in line with planning policy and as reflected in the public comments during the consultation.

3. STAKEHOLDER AUDIT

3.1.1. Lowick conducted an audit of the relevant political, business and community stakeholders based in the local area. The stakeholders were either invited to have individual meetings with a member of our project team, offered to have a member of the team visit their group meeting or specifically invited to our public consultation events.

3.2. Political stakeholders

§ Cllr Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community and Corporate Services § Cllr Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth (to May 2020) § Cllr Sarah Merrill, Chair of the Planning Board (to May 2020), Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth (from May 2020) § Planning Board members § Cllr Denise Scott-McDonald, Peninsula Ward and Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport (to May 2020), interim Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Enterprise and Skills (From May 2020) § Cllr Chris Lloyd, Peninsula Ward and Chair of Overview and Scrutiny § Cllr Stephen Brain, Peninsula Ward and Chair of Digital Greenwich, Chair of the Planning Board (from May 2020) § Matthew Pennycook MP, Greenwich and Woolwich § Len Duvall AM, London Assembly Member for Lewisham and Greenwich 3.3. Local groups and organisations

§ East Greenwich Residents’ Association (EGRA) § The Greenwich Society § Greenwich Wildlife Advisory Group (GWAG) § Enderby Wharf Residents’ Association (not formally constituted, but residents are seeking to form an association for the residents of phase one of Enderby Wharf) § Enderby Group § Greenwich Industrial History Society § Greenwich Enterprise Board § Digital Greenwich § South East London Chamber of Commerce § The Conservation Volunteers (TCV) (Ecology Park managers) § Friends of Greenwich Peninsula Ecology Park § No to Toxic Cruise Port § City Peninsula Residents Association

§ Greenwich Millennium Village Association 3.4. Local businesses, schools and community facilities

§ Greenwich Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) § MDM Props § Sugar Studios (part of MDM props group) § Mo-sys engineering § Creekside Developments § London Kayak Company § Brenntag UK Ltd. § Sivyer § Go Ahead Bus Group § Alcatel Submarine Networks § Spicers § Hanson Ready Mixed Concrete § St Mary Magdalene School § Greenwich Millennium Primary School § Alphabet House Nursery School § Emergency Exit Arts (Rothbury Hall) § Greenwich Peninsula Ecology Park § Meantime Brewery § Holiday Inn Express, Bugsby’s Way § LCR Motorcycles § Aspect Press Ltd § Enva § Vetreland Selective Timber § Chris Hodge Commercial § Restore Datashred § Didiers Patisserie § Directive Office Ltd § Kier LoHAC § Glass Design § Greenwich Peninsula Energy Centre § Jewellery Box Ltd.

§ Kingsdown Water § Millcroft Services plc § O’Keefe Construction § Saikei Restaurant § Penlaw Fixings § Pririty TM Ltd § Qube Storage Solutions § Rayburn Ltd. § Romax § Studio 338 § Thrifty Greenwich § Menzies § Fun for All Crazy Putt Golf § Greenwich Peninsula Gold Range § Vinothec Compass 3.5. Neighbouring developers

§ Criterion Capital (Owners of Enderby Wharf phase 2 site, also known as ‘Enderby Place’) § Greenwich Millennium Village (Countryside & Taylor Wimpey) § Knight Dragon § Transport for London (Silvertown Tunnel)

4. CONSULTATION AIMS

4.1.1. The aims of the consultation and community involvement activity were as follows:

4.1.2. Allow the local community and local businesses to have their say on the proposals. Planning is a matter of public interest and the applicant is committed to best practice in engaging with the local community on proposals for the site. The aim was to proactively involve individuals and groups to ensure that feedback could, where appropriate, be incorporated into the design.

4.1.3. Ensure the consultation was fully accessible, in particular to:

§ People with little prior knowledge of the planning system; ensuring that the consultation was accessible and understandable to all, regardless of their level of knowledge of planning or development. We held public exhibition events for all members of the public, and afterwards uploaded our exhibition boards and an online survey to our website www.mordenwharf.com for those who were not able to attend.

§ To those with disabilities, by ensuring that all documents were available in accessible formats upon request and that the public consultations were held at accessible venues.

§ Reach a broad range of people, reflective of the areas demographics while also being mindful of protected characteristics. For those who were willing, basic demographic information has been recorded for consultation responses in an anonymised form and reported in this SCI.

4.1.4. Support the development of a scheme that meets the needs and aspirations of the local area. We want to ensure that through consultation and engagement with local residents, community groups, businesses and councillors, the scheme delivers on the specific needs of the local area and makes a positive contribution to the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

4.1.5. Be mindful of the “agent of change” obligations of new mixed-use development in an active industrial area, with proactive outreach to neighbouring businesses to identify and address their concerns.

5. CONSULTATION ACTIVITY AND OUTCOMES

5.1.1. This chapter provides a summary and analysis of all community and non-statutory consultation activity conducted, and feedback received, during the preparation of the planning application for Morden Wharf.

5.1.2. Feedback from statutory consultees and from formal pre-applications meeting with the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) and the Greater London Authority (RBG) is outlined in the Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement.

5.1.3. Public facing consultation began during the autumn of 2018. Over the last 18 months there have been two public exhibitions and numerous meetings with political, community and business stakeholders.

5.2. Public exhibition (November 2018)

5.2.1. The first Morden Wharf exhibition was held on 21 and 24 November 2018, with the first event taking place at Rothbury Hall on Azof Street between 4pm and 8pm and the latter at the Forum at Greenwich on Trafalgar Road between 10am and 4pm.

5.2.2. Both venues were accessible to those in a wheelchair or with constrained mobility via a ramp.

Figure 7: Public exhibition at Rothbury Hall on 21 November 2018

5.2.3. The event was advertised by flyers to 3,036 addresses in the local area. The flyer (Appendix 1 and below) included a short summary of the proposals, a map of the site and exhibition venue, event dates and times and contact details.

Figure 8: Flyer advertising the first public exhibition (November 2018)

5.2.4. The distribution area was bounded approximately by Edmund Halley Way to the north, pilot busway to the east, Trafalgar Road to the south and the Thames River. A map and distribution report with GPS tracking is included at Appendix 2.

5.2.5. Invitations to key political stakeholders, local groups, businesses were sent via email to all those whose details were publicly available. Local news blogs also covered the exhibition and publicised the details.

5.2.6. Information about the scheme was presented on eight A1 boards, alongside a scale model of the proposed massing in context and projected images of a larger working model of the scheme. The focus of the first exhibition was on the overall masterplan for the site, and proposed mix of uses. The design of the illustrative scheme proposals was at a very early stage, with no facades or materials yet developed. The exhibition materials have been included at Appendix 3.

Figure 9: (left) public exhibition held at the Forum at Greenwich on 24 November 2018, (right) massing and context model for public exhibition.

5.2.7. Paper feedback forms were provided at the exhibition venue and included at Appendix 4. An identical online survey and electronic copies of the exhibition materials were hosted on the website: www.mordenwharf.com after the event.

5.2.8. 85 people attended over the two days of the events, with 49 people leaving feedback either via the feedback forms at the event or the online survey link on the website. Data tables have been included at Appendix 5.

5.3. Survey responses

5.3.1. The age profile of respondents was significantly older and slightly more male than the profile of Peninsula Ward; with nearly triple the proportion of over 65-year old residents responding (22%).1 Polling in London generally indicates that attitudes to development are far more positive amongst younger residents, and most negative amongst older ones.2

5.3.2. Data tables for the closed question elements of the survey are included at Appendix 5 with a summary below. There was a mixture of closed and open questions in line with best practice. A summary of the feedback received was sent to key stakeholders and hosted on the website; it is included at Appendix 6.

5.3.3. Chart 1: Do you agree that new developments on the Greenwich Peninsula have improved the local area?

33%

Strongly agree

7% Agree Neither agree not disagree 27% Disagree 15% Strongly disagree

18%

5.3.4. We asked an initial question to understand the general attitude of respondents to development on the peninsula. Age was a key determinant in the way in which this question was responded to, with nearly two-thirds of over 65s either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that new developments had improved the local area. Conversely, half of 20-44-year-olds agreed and only a fifth disagreed. The answer to this question was a strong determinant of the attitude towards the Morden Wharf proposals.

1 Peninsula ward has a very high proportion of working age adults (54.6% age 20-44 and 17% age 45-64), and a lower proportion of over 65 (8.3%) than the borough as a whole. Royal Borough of Greenwich Ward profiles: 2011 Census Data, Peninsula ward profile (RBG, 2013), page 1. Across the whole Royal Borough of Greenwich, 26.7% are aged 0-19, 42.3% are age 20-44, 20.6% are aged 45-64, and 10.3% aged over 65. Royal Borough of Greenwich Ward profiles: 2011 Census Data, borough profile (RBG, 2013), page 1. 2 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/meet-the-yimbys-more-londoners-happy-to-say-yes-to-building-homes-in-their- backyards-a3811146.html

5.3.5. Chart 2: Are you supportive of up to 1,500 new homes at Morden Wharf, with the aim for 500 of these to be affordable housing?

5.3.6. There was support for a target of 35% affordable housing, although the delivery of new housing was the most divisive element of the proposals consulted on. Verbal and written comments suggested some concern about the overall density and height, and a desire for social housing to be included and not concentrated only in the linear apartment blocks on the eastern side of the site. Many of those who opposed the provision of new housing at the site stated in their comments that they did not support any significant amount of new housing in the area without new infrastructure delivery. Concerns about the number of new residents and public transport capacity were expressed by many of those with neutral views.

30%

Strongly support

7% Support 27% Neither support nor oppose Oppose Strongly oppose 25% 11%

5.3.7. Chart 3: Are you supportive of new employment space at Morden Wharf, providing around 600 jobs?

30%

Strongly support Support 2% Neither support nor oppose 48% Oppose

20%

5.3.8. There was little, if any, opposition to the proposed commercial offer though some scepticism was expressed that these elements of the scheme would ever come to fruition due to previous schemes in the area not delivering on promised retail and leisure uses. There was a desire for additional detail on the employment and economic offer to be provided in future consultation events, and particularly on the community offer. Some comments indicated general industrial and logistics uses were not appropriate due to noise and other impacts, despite the site’s history and part designation as a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL).

5.3.9. Chart 4: The proposals for Morden Wharf will provide new retail, leisure and community space. What types of uses would you prioritise? (Please rank your preferences 1, 2, 3 etc.)

5.3.10. We asked people to rank their priorities for ground floor uses across the site. The highest levels of support were for a local supermarket and GP surgery. While there were no negative comments about pubs or bars, they received the lowest preference.

5.3.11. Write in suggestions proposed more extensive green space, sports facilities, play space or dedicated community meeting space. One person suggested the site was flooded and turned into a marina, another referred to the historic masterplan suggestion for an arena instead of new homes.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Local supermarket 13 6 5 3 2 1 1

GP surgery 11 8 4 1 2 3 2

Café 3 6 7 10 1 4

Shops 4 7 6 1 5 3 2

Restaurant 2 6 5 4 8 2 4

Nursery 3 4 4 2 3 6 7

Bar or pub 3 1 1 6 4 5 6

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7

5.3.12. Chart 5: Are you supportive of the following proposals at Morden Wharf?

A new riverfront Improvements to New cycle routes park the Thames Path 4% 2% 2% 14%

96% 84% 98%

5.3.13. There was overwhelming support for the proposals for a new riverfront park, improvements to the Thames Path and for new cycling routes. Many had more in-depth feedback around the

specific design, planting and layout of the public realm which is discussed below.

5.3.14. Chart 6: Do you support the provision of new bus stops on Tunnel Avenue, with routes running in both directions?

5.3.15. There was support for new bus stops on Tunnel Avenue, with a southbound stop proposed when the new road alignment is delivered as part of the Silvertown Tunnel proposals. Many respondents raised the existing frustrations they had with local bus capacity, particularly the AM peak crowding on routes towards North Greenwich station. Concerns over transport were stated as the key barrier for many respondents to their support for the proposals, with frustrations that new development over the last decade had not been accompanied by equivalent new infrastructure to support the rising population.

35%

Strongly Support Support Neither support nor oppose 3% 37% Oppose 9% Strongly oppose

16%

5.3.16. Chart 6: Broadly speaking, are you supportive of the proposed masterplan for Morden Wharf?

5.3.17. There was a significant difference between the levels of support expressed in person at the exhibition and online survey responses. On the day 37% were supportive and 29% opposed to the masterplan and online 28% supported and 61% opposed, often without any detailed comment.

Overall support

29%

Strongly support 24% Support 5% Neither support nor oppose Oppose Strongly oppose 20%

22%

Event Online

33% 22% 11%

4% 6% 33% 17% 22% 44% 8%

5.3.18. It is arguable that many of those completing the survey online were putting forward a pre- determined view, without fully engaging with the proposals. The vast majority of the negative online responses did not include any written response to open questions.

5.3.19. As stated above, the key concerns for those who neither supported nor opposed the proposals were public transport capacity, social infrastructure (GP’s, schools etc.) or the height of the tallest elements.

5.4. Key issues identified

5.4.1. Employment, retail and community space

5.4.2. There was strong support for the new retail, leisure and community spaces. Of all the options provided, a local supermarket and GP surgery had the highest priority.

5.4.3. A general retail and leisure offer were also popular amongst respondents, although many local residents expressed scepticism around delivery noting long-empty units on other developments nearby. As well as new local amenities, there was 78% support for the 600 new jobs which the development (as exhibited in November 2018) would create and the mixed commercial offer, though a number felt alternatives to large industrial/logistics uses should be considered.

5.4.4. A wide range of community space options were suggested including sports facilities and meeting space, and there was emphasis on outdoor, play and open green spaces as a priority.

5.4.5. Open space and Morden Park

5.4.6. Keeping the Thames Path open as much as possible during construction was a key priority for many local groups and ward councillors. Respondents noted that the area would benefit from more green spaces, as well as children’s play areas for all ages, and that there was a notable deficit of open public space on the western side of the peninsula. Detailed comments on the proposed Morden Park expressed a preference for larger, open spaces with grass, trees and planting rather than hard landscaping, more akin to a traditional municipal park.

5.4.7. Respondents were overall very supportive of the proposed public realm improvements. There was unsurprisingly almost no opposition to the principle of a new riverfront park and to improvements to the Thames Path. Additionally, there was little opposition to new cycle routes being created in the local area.

5.4.8. Transport

5.4.9. Whilst residents were very keen to see new amenities and housing provided in the local area, a key concern which was raised was that the current infrastructure would not be able to cope with the arrival of more people to the area. They stated that they already struggled to get on buses or tubes during peak hours and believed that extra housing would have to be accompanied with improvements to local public transport in particular. Over two-thirds of respondents supported the creation of new bus stops and bus routes. In addition to this, a new riverboat connection at the site was also strongly supported if it could be agreed with the relevant parties.

5.4.10. Most detailed comments on parking expressed a desire for lower parking levels due to the traffic in the surrounding area. How the site connected to Enderby Wharf to the south was raised by a number of respondents as an area to clarify. At this stage of the consultation it had just been announced that the proposals for a cruise liner terminal had been scrapped and the owner announced their intention to sell the site. The site is now owned by Criterion Capital who are in discussions with the Council about an amended scheme, but the approved scheme remains extant and can be built out.

5.4.11. Design

5.4.12. A number of respondents felt that the proposed podium car park structure was unattractive, and any parking should be underground. This has subsequently been removed with all parking at lower ground level and with a lower proportion of car parking spaces to homes. Additional detail on the design of the buildings, in particular the towers, was requested and a design code is provided alongside the application to guide future reserved matters applications. At this stage of the consultation there was no detail on the visual appearance of buildings or material, which were rendered just as maximum massing envelopes.

5.4.13. The overall layout of the masterplan was criticised by some for its grid design, and a number suggested the towers should be set back further from the river or located on the northern side of the site away from Phase 1 of Enderby Wharf to preserves those resident’s river views.

5.4.14. Height and massing

5.4.15. Those who were supportive of the scheme noted that they were pleased that the underused site would provide new housing and include a significant number of affordable homes. There was little concern around taller buildings within this group. The main concern raised was that the affordable housing should be distributed around the site, be tenure blind and a substantial amount of social housing should be included.

5.4.16. Respondents who were opposed to the proposals for Morden Wharf generally also held negative views about recent development on the Peninsula. The height and massing of the scheme was a key issue for this group. Many regarded tall buildings as being inappropriate for the area and either wanted “houses not tower blocks” or suggested maximum heights of five to ten storeys. Respondents stated that they would prefer a more “village-like feel” with houses set amongst green space. A number wanted the housing element reduced very significantly with the site largely devoted to a park.

5.4.17. A substantial number of people neither supported nor opposed the proposals. The most frequent issues raised were concerns over the number of homes and the impact on transport and local services rather than overall height, though this remained a cause of reservations for some.

5.4.18. Some respondents living nearby also noted that the new development would block part of their views of the river and may consequently affect the values of their homes. Few were aware of already consented proposals at Enderby Wharf phase 2 (Enderby Place), which will be between their properties and Morden Wharf and as such would already limit or remove their river view.

5.4.19. Feedback summary

5.4.20. A summary of the feedback to the first public exhibition was sent to officers, key stakeholders and hosted on the website; it is included at Appendix 6.

5.5. Public exhibition (September-October 2019)

5.5.1. The second Morden Wharf exhibition was held over three sessions between 28 September and 2 October 2019 at Sugar Studios in the eastern end of the Southern Warehouse on the Morden Wharf site. Public exhibition times and dates were:

§ Saturday 28 September: 12:00 to 16:00 § Tuesday 1 October: 17:00 to 20:00 § Wednesday 2 October: 17:00 to 20:00

5.5.2. The venue was fully accessible, with signage at the entrance and along Morden Wharf Road.

Figure 10: Public exhibition at Sugar Studios on Saturday 28 September 2019

5.5.3. The event was promoted with a combination of flyers to 6,770 addresses on the peninsula and in East Greenwich, an advertisement in the News Shopper (Appendix 9), and invitations to key political stakeholders, local groups, businesses and previous exhibition attendees. Two local news blogs, ‘From the Murky Depths’ and ‘853 London’ also covered the exhibition and publicised the details.

5.5.4. The flyer included a short summary of the proposals, a map of the site and exhibition venue, event dates and times and contact details. A delivery report and map including GPS tracking is included at Appendix 8.

Figure 11: Flyer promoting the second public exhibition (Appendix 7)

5.5.5. The distribution area for the second round of consultation was widened in consultation with Greenwich planning officers. One person complained that the area should also have included the northern side of the Thames River due to impact on views and potential for construction noise to travel. London Borough of Tower Hamlets are a statutory consultee and will be notified at the time of an application. It would be highly unusual for a consultation area to cross the Thames for a scheme of this type given the lack of any nearby road or pedestrian links.

5.5.6. The consultation area extended north to North Greenwich Station, east to the Ecology park and Southern Way / Commercial Way and south to Trafalgar Road.

5.5.7. Information about the schemes was presented on eleven A0+ boards, alongside a 1:500 scale model of the proposals and surrounding context, and a working model of the façade detailing of the tower. The exhibition boards are included at Appendix 10.

Figure 12: Public exhibition photos including 1:500 scale model and feedback materials

5.5.8. Paper feedback forms were provided at the exhibition venue. An online survey and electronic copies of the exhibition materials were hosted on the website: www.mordenwharf.com after the event. The feedback forms are included at Appendix 11.

5.5.9. Although there was a significantly higher level of publicity than the first exhibition, slightly fewer people attended than the first round of events. There were 66 people across all of the sessions, compared to 85 who attended the first round of events in November 2018. There was also heavy rain on Tuesday 1 October, which may have suppressed attendance to that specific event.

5.5.10. The site is also fairly isolated from existing residential properties, with the nearest residents in phase one of Enderby Wharf. There were no comments that the venue on site was hard to find or inappropriate.

5.6. Survey responses (September-October 2019)

5.6.1. 46 feedback forms were returned in total (including via the online survey) There was an excellent conversion rate from attendance to providing feedback, at around 50%. Almost all the major local groups and stakeholders attended, including EGRA, Greenwich Society, Greenwich Wildlife Advisory Group (GWAG), Enderby Wharf residents’, Enderby Group / Greenwich Industrial History Society, local journalists and local councillors.

5.6.2. The attendees were younger and more representative than in the previous round of exhibitions.

This included a number of people who worked on the site currently from MDM Props and Mo- sys Engineering.

5.6.3. An online survey was also opened on Monday 30 September and ran until Thursday 7 November. There were 13 responses submitted. Two further detailed responses were received by email, including one from the Greenwich Society.

5.6.4. Of those who filled out a feedback form or online survey, 65.2% stated they were aged between 20 and 44, 23.9% were aged between 45 and 64, and 10.9% were aged over 65.

5.6.5. As a comparison with the demography of the local ward from the 2011 census, this is much closer to the profile of the area than the first exhibition, and broadly representative. Peninsula ward has a very high proportion of working age adults (54.6% age 20-44 and 17% age 45-64), and a lower proportion of over 65-year-olds (8.3%)3 than the borough as a whole.4

5.6.6. Below are the headline results from questions on both the paper and online survey. A list of verbal and written key themes, and excerpts from answers to open questions is also included. Full data tables are included at Appendix 11.

5.6.7. Chart 7: Broadly speaking, are you supportive of the wider development taking place on the Greenwich Peninsula?

27%

Strongly support 39% Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose 15% Strongly oppose

7% 12%

5.6.8. The first question we asked residents in our survey was their view on the wider development taking place in the area. This would allow us to see how many people were generally opposed to development within the area, and those who had specific concerns about our scheme in particular.

5.6.9. 22% of respondents were either opposed or strongly opposed to the wider development taking place on the peninsula. This matches exactly with the percentage of people who later say that overall they are opposed to our proposals for Morden Wharf, with very few of those opposing wider development expressing support for the specific proposals at Morden Wharf.

3 Royal Borough of Greenwich Ward profiles: 2011 Census Data, Peninsula ward profile (RBG, 2013), page 1 4 Across the whole Royal Borough of Greenwich, 26.7% are aged 0-19, 42.3% are age 20-44, 20.6% are aged 45-64, and 10.3% aged over 65. Royal Borough of Greenwich Ward profiles: 2011 Census Data, borough profile (RBG, 2013), page 1

5.6.10. Chart 8: Do you support the emerging design of the scheme?

27%

Strongly support 36% Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose 15% Strongly oppose

7% 15%

5.6.11. We asked residents whether they support the emerging design of the scheme. Out of the 45 respondents to this question, 62% were either supportive or strongly supportive while fewer than a quarter opposed the design. Younger respondents, between the ages of 20 and 44 were slightly more supportive of the design with 65.5% in favour.

5.6.12. The average was lowered by the 65+ age group in which only two of the five respondents supported the scheme. The scale of the proposals, and maximum heights were the main reasons stated for opposition to the design. However, the majority of design comments were positive particularly about Morden Park and the design of the ‘silo’ tower base.

5.6.13. Chart 9: Do you support our proposals for a new public 4-acre riverfront park at Morden Wharf?

78%

Strongly support Support 4% Neither support nor oppose 2% Strongly oppose

16%

5.6.14. We asked if there was support for a public riverfront park as part of the scheme. There was overwhelming support for the proposed Morden Park and indicative landscape design.

5.6.15. Within the comments, delivering the park was noted as very important as, “many promises have been broken on other developments on the river about green space.” Verbal comments indicated attendees felt the applicant had responded positively to comments from the first consultation, with a larger, more open park and emphasis on planting, areas of open grass and trees.

5.6.16. Chart 10: Do you support our proposals to deliver up to 1,500 new homes as part of the development, including a target of 35% affordable housing?

22% 36% Strongly support Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose 13% Strongly oppose

9% 20%

5.6.17. We asked respondents if they were supportive of the proposals to deliver up to 1,500 new homes as part of the development, including a target of 35% affordable housing. Over half (57.8%) of the respondents said that they are in favour of this proposal, with just 22% of respondents opposed. Most of those opposed stated that the number of homes should be reduced, with pressures on local transport infrastructure their primary concern.

5.6.18. Chart 11: Do you support the creation of approximately 600 new jobs on the site as part of the commercial and industrial uses?

42%

Strongly support Support 2% Neither support nor oppose Oppose

18% 38%

5.6.19. We asked respondents their views on the creation of approximately 600 new jobs on the site. There was only one person opposed to this. Indeed, this respondent was also opposed to all other questions in the survey including a new park.

5.6.20. Chart 12: We are looking at various options for spaces which will help foster a sense of community for Morden Wharf. Which of the following options would you prioritise? (Please rank 1,2, 3 etc.)

5.6.21. The below graph shows the priorities among respondents for various options for community space. The option that was given the most first preference votes was a community garden. Another popular option was a convenience store or local supermarket (top in the first round),

allotments/growing space and community space or hall. Some paper forms ticked rather than ranked options, and these have been attributed a median score for the purposes of overall ranking.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Community garden 11 9 9 1 3 8

Convenience Store 8 7 6 4 4 1 7

Allotments and growing gardens 2 8 8 5 5 2 1 6

Community space/hall 9 4 3 7 5 2 4

Nursery 1 4 4 7 7 6 4

GP surgery 2 1 4 1 1 1

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Tick

5.6.22. A new GP surgery, which came second highest in the first round was ranked the lowest overall in this round, perhaps reflecting the younger demographic who responded. None of the options generated negative comments, however.

5.6.23. We also gave the option for contributors to give their own suggestions. One option that was suggested was to include some sports facilities, for example, tennis courts or football/netball space. Other suggestions were; public transport, a pub or restaurant, a conservation area, flexible working spaces or a gym with a swimming pool.

5.6.24. The emphasis on green space and outdoor community facilities is notable and aligns with wider positive comments on Morden Park.

5.6.25. Chart 13: Overall, are you supportive of the proposals for Morden Wharf?

27%

Strongly support 39% Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose 15% Strongly oppose

7% 12%

5.6.26. The headline question generated a clear majority in support of the proposals for Morden Wharf (66 per cent), with only a small number strongly opposed to the scheme. This was a significantly improved level of support compared to the first exhibition with little difference between online and in-person responses.

5.7. Key issues identified

5.7.1. Height and massing

5.7.2. Concerns about the height of the towers were often accompanied with comments about overdevelopment or density. Additionally, shadows cast by building and therefore the amount of sunlight over the rest of the plot was raised. Nevertheless, the issue of height was only mentioned by a minority of respondents as a concern.

5.7.3. The key worries of those opposed was that development was too large, although some concerns over height were stated amongst those who generally supported the plans (with preference for slightly lower overall heights). However, it was also stated by a supporter that it will not impact views due to the development at Enderby Place. An example of a comment was that the proposal was ‘‘too high and inappropriate density for this relatively small area. This is not Manhattan. The height of the proposed towers is unacceptable. It will obstruct the views of the river, Canary Wharf end of the O2 for existing residents of the peninsula”

5.7.4. Public transport capacity

5.7.5. There was a desire for clear commitments and assurance about the delivery of increased public transport capacity. While many understood that much of this was outside the applicant’s direct control, and the site boundary, there was some frustration that there seemed to be little sign of investment to tackle already overcrowded public transport. An indicative response stated they were “concerned about volume of people in the area given poor transport links. Buses to North Greenwich are already packed and the walk is a bit grim.” Another stated, “I think that pedestrian links between the east and west of the peninsula need to be vastly improved.”

5.7.6. Strong support existed for Thames Clippers to come to the area (aside from one opponent to all river-based freight and transport). However, there was a concern over the cost of the Clippers service, particularly for commuting.

5.7.7. As in the first round of exhibition, many of the concerns around the number of new homes were linked to the issue of public transport infrastructure and a perception that capacity has not increased in line with the number of new homes. This remained in the second round of consultation.

5.7.8. Construction impact

5.7.9. There was some concern expressed by respondents over the impact of construction on the local area, including from those living on the other side of the river. A number referred to the length of time required to build the proposals, exacerbated by construction fatigue from nearby developments at River Gardens and Enderby Wharf. One stated “10 years of a dusty building site is not appealing. Would be good to find a nice use in the meantime e.g. the driving range upriver.” However, not all of the comments around construction indicated opposition, with one stating “it’s just a shame all this takes so long to get started.”

5.7.10. Thames Path improvements

5.7.11. There were some concerns expressed over the delivery timescale of Thames Path improvements, with a strong desire for any closures to be minimised as much as possible and diversion through the site (rather than around it) during construction. The inclusion of the river wall and Thames Path improvements into the detailed application and first phase was welcomed.

5.7.12. There was support for the design approach proposed. Some respondents wanted the improvements to be made as soon as possible. One respondent commented that they “very much welcome green space and renovation of Thames Path” and another that they were a “big fan of the riverfront pedestrian/cycle path.”

5.7.13. Design and architectural language

5.7.14. Some respondents were opposed to the modernity of the facades and felt a more traditional approach would be preferable. However, overall the response to the design was very positive, with support for the emerging architecture. One stated they “really like the giant Morden Wharf sign, the green walls on the buildings the public space and creating new jobs and places for the community.”

5.7.15. There were also a small number who felt that it was architecturally bland and lacked character, although elements remain in outline and have only been developed indicatively. The major architectural features had strong support, one indicative comment stating, “the silo proposals on the lower floors are an interesting concept and could add some interesting character.”

5.7.16. Parking and deliveries

5.7.17. Concerns were raised by some residents over the impact on surrounding roads arising from the increase in traffic. There was a particular worry in relation to the junction onto Blackwall Tunnel, which some respondents felt was already over congested. There was little or no awareness of proposed highways changes which were proposed to accompany the Silvertown Tunnel plans, which include the reconnection of Tunnel Avenue as a two-way street.

5.7.18. Principle of regeneration

5.7.19. There was strong support for regeneration in the area. This was particularly true of the green space elements of the site. There was also a desire for the riverfront improvements to take place as quickly as possible. One comment stated that it “would be great to see this area developed from inaccessible land covered in shipping containers to housing gardens and shops etc.” Another stated they thought it was “important that improvements to the river are undertaken as a priority, to help bring benefits to existing residents in the area and bring them onside ASAP. The landscaping and the permeable amendment of the buildings relative to the river are great and the sooner this can be delivered the better!”

5.7.20. Landscaping

5.7.21. The support for the landscaping elements, and Morden Park, was near universal. One person stressed it was “essential to provide the public parkland…Too many promises have been broken on other developments on the river about green space etc.”

5.7.22. Position of towers

5.7.23. One respondent expressed a desire for the tallest towers to be away from the river in the northern part of the site; a comment repeated from feedback to the first exhibition. He noted “the tallest towers located at the southernmost point of the plot will cast shadow to the rest of the plot and other proposed buildings.”

5.7.24. Traffic and pollution

5.7.25. There was some concern expressed about the pollution from the nearby highway impacting residents. One noted “the pollution coming from the nearby highway would severely affect the potential new residents, especially the ones closer to the new entrance of the Silvertown Tunnel.”

5.7.26. There was also concern expressed around increased traffic in the area resulting from the increased population, one respondent stated, “if the new Silvertown Tunnel ever gets built, it will be essential to ensure smoother traffic in the whole area.”

5.7.27. Schools

5.7.28. One respondent felt that local schools were already overcrowded although this view has not been supported by any other feedback from stakeholders.

5.8. Stakeholder meetings

5.8.1. The applicant has also held a significant number of meetings with local stakeholders, which are summarised below.

5.8.2. The purpose of the meetings was to give key stakeholders the opportunity to ask questions regarding the development and provide feedback to the project team, as well as gain a deeper understanding of the proposals.

5.8.3. We began a series of meetings with businesses near the site, community groups and political stakeholders in the autumn of 2018. Meetings have included the immediate site neighbours and tenants focussing on any operational requirements or concerns relating to the proposals.

5.8.4. The applicant has also met with all levels of political representation, including the ward councillors on three occasions, the Leader and Cabinet Member on two occasions, and presented to the Planning Board twice. Two joint meetings with The Greenwich Society and East Greenwich Residents’ Association have also taken place.

5.8.5. In addition to formal meetings and site visits there has been ongoing contact with a number of local businesses and organisations, such as the South East London Chamber of Commerce. Meetings and site visits with potential future occupiers, including for the local supermarket or convenience store and proposed riverfront bar, restaurant or pub, have been held over the last year. Various craft brewery companies have expressed an interest in taking up space in the Southern Warehouse.

5.8.6. Summary of stakeholder meetings

5.8.7. Len Duvall AM, London Assembly Member for Lewisham and Greenwich (07/11/2018): Len Duvall expressed strong support for the significant commercial and employment offer on the site. He was supportive of the delivery of a target 35% affordable housing, although advised that there may be some community opposition to the heights of building proposed.

5.8.8. Spicers (27/11/2018): Spicers, occupy a warehouse adjacent to the applications site and are a distribution company for office supplies. They were supportive of the principle of regenerating the site as long as their operations were not impacted. They were keen for a barrier and screening to be maintained between their facility and new homes and did not support any new link through their site. New retail spaces and facilities for employees would be welcomed.

5.8.9. Cllr Thorpe, Cllr James and officers (11/12/2018): Cllr Thorpe and officers were broadly supportive of the principles and uses set out for the site, and the direction of the masterplan. Emphasised the importance of the park, and a desire for larger, open ‘municipal’ space. Employment offer strongly supported and encouraged engagement with local affordable workspace providers. Requested a presentation to the Planning Board.

5.8.10. Enderby Group (22/11/2018): The applicant met with members of the Enderby Group, local historians who have a particular interest in the submarine cable manufacturing heritage of the area. How to best ensure the history of the site in communicated was discussed, with ideas around the architecture and public art. There was a desire for Morden Wharf to incorporate QR tags to link to online historical resources, as part of structured walks around Greenwich history.

5.8.11. Cllr Brain, Cllr Scott-McDonald (Peninsula ward) (17/12/2018): Cllr Brain noted that there was an issue with anti-social behaviour in the area and would like to see play space designed for 8-15-year olds within the proposals. Councillors also wanted to see more detail on the length and lease terms on the affordable workspace elements, though were supportive of a strong employment offer. Cllr Scott-McDonald has some concerns about potential pedestrian and cyclist conflict in the designs and was keen for opportunities around public transport and electric vehicles to be maximised. Both councillors present had some concern about the distribution of affordable housing and the unit mix. However, they had no in-principle objection to the proposed mix of uses in the development.

5.8.12. Matthew Pennycook MP, Member of Parliament for Greenwich and Woolwich (08/01/2019): Matthew Pennycook had a presentation on the scheme and was broadly supportive of the principles and uses set out for the site.

5.8.13. East Greenwich Residents’ Association (EGRA) & The Greenwich Society (29/01/2019): A joint presentation was given to both groups, followed by a discussion. The scale and breadth of employment uses was supported, although there was a desire for jobs to go to local residents and for strong links to local businesses. Both groups expressed strong scepticism about retail spaces being occupied. A future role for MDM Props and Mosys Engineering were hoped for in the scheme. Comments made by members at the first exhibition about the Thames Path remaining navigable during construction were repeated. There was interest in making the jetty publicly accessible but concerns that it was not structurally sound (a survey has since confirmed it is). Achieving a minimum of 35% affordable housing was seen as essential, including homes at London Affordable Rent or social rent and a better distribution of affordable tenures away from the eastern side of the site. As high a proportion of family sized housing as possible was

requested. The height of the towers was a significant concern, with wind and microclimate effects raised as challenges.

5.8.14. Planning Board Briefing (20/02/2019): Councillors confirmed that the peninsula was appropriate for taller buildings and that the broad principles of the masterplan were correct in their view. The Planning Board asked questions about the proposed unit mix and tenure, noting concerns about shared ownership affordability and ensuring the development was truly tenure blind. The commercial offer was broadly welcomed, with a range and diversity of industry and uses emphasised as important. The impact of the towers on sunlight reaching the park was queried, with justification for the height requested, and this was covered in the second presentation in September 2019. They asked for a summary of consultation responses from the first exhibition, which was shared by email.

5.8.15. Cllr Brain, Cllr Lloyd, Cllr Scott-McDonald (Peninsula ward) (10/04/2019): As before the employment and commercial offer was seen as important component of the scheme. An explicit commitment on community space in the scheme was suggested. There updated plans for Morden Park were discussed, with size comparisons seen as very helpful. Councillors requested clear commitment on the space remaining truly public and non-segregated. Activating and making the jetty public were seen as a positive idea and councillors keen to see year-round uses. The location of affordable housing was questioned, and a desire to maximise the distribution of tenures. The design direction was seen as positive.

5.8.16. Digital Greenwich (19/04/2019): Discussed the opportunity for new technologies such as autonomous vehicles, on trial on the peninsula, to be included. Digital Greenwich were keen to ensure that the site was future proofed for smart infrastructure and electric vehicles. Opportunities around wayfinding and mapping were discussed. Subsequently Digital Greenwich have joined the project team to help develop plans for the Mobility Hub.

5.8.17. Brenntag UK (29/04/2019): Brenntag, who are the largest chemical distribution company globally, has one of its 24 UK sites neighbouring Morden Wharf. While some restricted products are stored at the Brenntag site, there have been reductions in risk over recent years and the hazardous material zone (COMAH) is smaller. Their key conditions were that the proposals should not restrict current operations, impact critical capabilities to service their clients and that there should be some benefit to their employees in terms of facilities. Traffic and deliveries were discussed in detail, with the site operating 24hr a day but with most departures’ early morning and arrivals mid-afternoon. The applicant committed to coordinate around construction. Some minor boundary issues were also resolved concerning the respective leases.

5.8.18. Enderby Group (public art walkabout) (09/05/2019): The applicant visited the Ley Lines public art outside Enderby House, with members of the group and the artist. Opportunities for site specific artwork at Morden Wharf were discussed.

5.8.19. Cllr Thorpe, Cllr James, Cllr Merrill and officers and officers (30/07/2019): There was an update on the scheme, focussing on design, history and specific uses. The architecture was discussed, in particular early concepts for the tower base, green walls and signage. More detail on the tower greening and the practicality of maintenance was requested. The landscape and park proposals were considered to have responded well to previous comments. The inclusion of a pub at the end of the pier had a positive response and activation of the jetty and potential for bringing the Queen’s Rowbarge to the site was strongly supported by Cllr Thorpe.

5.8.20. Planning Board Briefing (11/09/2019): There was a discussion with the Planning Board about the updated Morden Park proposals, and a request to engage with the Greenwich Wildlife Advisory Group. There was extensive discussion on the architecture, with comments on the towers, and desire for the greening to be developed in greater detail. Councillors were ideally looking to see a diverse housing mix, including larger family sized homes for LAR or social rent and smaller, more affordable, units for sale. The commercial offer was seen as a key element, with a desire from councillors for an emphasis on local labour and businesses to be involved in both construction and ongoing operations.

5.8.21. Greenwich Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) (correspondence 17/09/2019- 26/09/202): Following requests from both Planning Board members and public consultation feedback to consider the need for medical facilities and capacity, enquiries were made with the CCG. Simon James, Primary Care Delivery Manager confirmed that both the Vanbrugh Practice in East Greenwich and also the Peninsula Practice in Millennium Health Centre were well-set for residential growth in their catchment area, and both have potential to take more clinical rooms in their respective buildings.

5.8.22. Greenwich Wildlife Advisory Group (GWAG) (site visit) (5/11/2019): GWAG have worked closely with the ecology park and there have been concerns about non-native species impacting on the area. The marshland inspiration was strongly supported, particularly the incorporation of wilder areas, ponds and swales. There were detailed discussions about specific species and habitats, including on shoreline planting. Engagement with the Ecology Park was suggested.

5.8.23. Greenwich Peninsula Ecology Park (20/11/19): Site visit to the Ecology Park with landscape architects Planit-IE. Attendees included Joanne Smith (TCV) and Catherine Ramsden (Useful Studio). The history and background of the park was explained as well as how it is operated. There was discussion about which elements were successful and specific flora and fauna worked well in this location.

5.8.24. East Greenwich Residents’ Association (EGRA) & The Greenwich Society (EGRA) (16/12/2019): A detailed presentation and discussion on the scheme was held, with a number of issues explored in depth. Social infrastructure and public transport on the peninsula were a key concern, although it was acknowledged that U+I could not resolve these issues on their own. The park, employment offer, and engagement with local groups such as GWAG and the Ecology Park was welcomed. Loss of shore trees regretted, but in context of river wall works this was understood as necessary. Community gardens and allotments were encouraged. A clear commitment on public access to piers and the Thames Path were requested, with early delivery and including diversions through the site during construction (rather than up to Tunnel Avenue). A range of play provisions and spaces were encouraged, including for older children and provision for older people. Concerns over wind and microclimate effects remained although the applicant re-assured attendees that a wind assessment would need to accompany the outline element of the application and subsequent reserved matters applications. The linear blocks were seen to be too canyon like, and it was explained that options to break them up were under consideration. Overall, while aspects of the design were supported, such as the park and tower base, some felt the scheme was too linear and boxy, or did not reflect the history of the area sufficiently. The overall height and density were regarded as overdevelopment, particularly by EGRA who raised concerns about local views and did not support prominent signage proposed to the tallest tower.

5.8.25. Cllr Brain (Peninsula ward) (29/01/2020): Discussed the interaction of the scheme with Silvertown Tunnel and Knight Dragon masterplan and Cllr Brain encouraged U+I to work jointly on connectivity issues. Discussed biodiversity and liaison with EGRA and other groups around the details of design. The Thames Path upgrades, removal of trees for river wall work and northern site planning application (Sivyer) also mentioned and considered.

6. KEY ISSUE AND RESPONSES

6.1.1. For full details of the design development process, and response to comments raised by RBG and other statutory stakeholders please read this section in conjunction with the DAS and Planning Statement. A significant number of issues have been raised by both members and the public in the course of the last 18 months, of which the key ones are discussed below.

6.1.2. Pre-application consultation with the community is not a referendum, and while overall there has been majority public and stakeholder support for the Morden Wharf proposals, a number of issues have been raised. Where possible, ideas and suggestions have been incorporated into the proposals. In some cases, planning policy or practical constraints mean that the applicant could not accommodate all views. In other cases, opinions vary, or subjective views have been expressed. The applicant has sought to bring forward the best scheme possible in this location, balancing the needs of existing and future residents and businesses, policy, deliverability and viability.

6.1.3. As this is a hybrid application, significant elements remain in outline and will be subject to future reserved matters applications. As a result, definitive responses to many matters cannot be given at this stage.

Figure 13: Aerial view of illustrative scheme

6.1.4. Principle of development

6.1.5. Morden Wharf presents a unique opportunity to revitalise one of the last strategic sites on the Greenwich Peninsula. There has been almost no community disagreement with the broad principle of a housing-led mixed-use redevelopment of the site, which has remained underutilised for over a decade and has been identified as a strategic site for development by RBG in their Core Strategy (2013), Greenwich Peninsula West Masterplan (2012), and Site Allocation Preferred Approach (August 2019).

6.1.6. The applicants’ vision is to create a vibrant community rooted in the site’s heritage with public space at its heart. Morden Wharf will bring together new homes, retail, leisure, employment and an extensive riverfront park to form an iconic destination for Greenwich.

6.1.7. Mix of uses

6.1.8. There has been strong support for the mix of uses across the site, particularly the emphasis on delivering around 20,000sqm of employment floorspace and a range of retail and community uses alongside new homes.

6.1.9. A small number of respondents have raised concerns about general industrial and logistics uses on the site, noting concerns about dust, noise, traffic and air quality. Many noted their concerns were pre-existing and related to dust and noise from the Sivyer aggregates facility on the northern site. Part of the site, including the Southern Warehouse and area adjacent to the A102 are a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) reserved for broad industrial uses. Indeed, the industrial uses in the area pre-date much of the residential development. Co-location of industry and homes is encouraged in the London Plan, and the Southern Warehouse is proposed for industrial and creative uses with an element of retail to support the SIL uses. A buffer building (B01) between the large warehouse (WH01) and residential uses is also proposed.

Figure 14: Illustrative view of the Southern Warehouse from Tunnel Avenue

6.1.10. Retail, Leisure and Community space

6.1.11. Morden Wharf, together with the surrounding developments, will have the critical mass of residential, employment and leisure use to become a vibrant and successful destination in its own right. While clearly subordinate to the local centres around the O2 Arena and along Trafalgar Road, there is demand and interest around a local community and retail offer, with the added benefit of discouraging car use.

6.1.12. The applicant has actively sought the local communities’ views on what specific uses would make Morden Wharf a great place to live, work and visit. At the first exhibition the most popular uses were a local supermarket or convenience retail offer, and a GP surgery. However, there

was scepticism about units finding occupiers, with negative experiences from recent schemes in the area.

6.1.13. Feedback from the first consultation, as well as from local groups and councillors, indicated a desire for clarity on a community offer, although there has been no specific occupier or use suggested which has a clearly identified need or local demand. In addition, there was a desire for independent and local businesses to be prioritised. The detailed application included smaller units and small workshop spaces in the Southern Warehouse extension and the illustrative scheme includes units lining the Seawitch Street façade of the new warehouse. Given part of the application is in outline it is not possible to fix specific uses at this time, but a broad range of different uses are proposed at ground level to ensure that a true mixed-use development is delivered.

6.1.14. At the second consultation, a question was asked specifically about community uses on site. As before a convenience retail or local supermarket ranked highly, although a new GP surgery came as the lowest priority in the second round. There was also strong interest in outdoor community uses, with a community garden ranking first, and allotments or growing space ranking third. The semi-private residential gardens include space for communal gardening in the indicative scheme.

6.1.15. The applicant has included a range of uses in the detailed element of the application This includes an ancillary use in the Southern Warehouse facing the River Thames (SW1) in the detailed application for a new bar or restaurant, approximately in the location of the Sea Witch public house, destroyed in the Second World War. The illustrative scheme includes café/bar/restaurants, a children’s nursery, community space and retail space and this range of uses are included in the parameter plans submitted as part of the outline element of the application.

6.1.16. Conversations have taken place with Greenwich Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), and there was no request for a health facility on the Morden Wharf site in the foreseeable future, and residential growth could be accommodated within exiting practices. 2,000sqm (GIA) of floorspace is proposed for community or leisure uses (D1/D2) which could accommodate health uses if required at a later date.

6.1.17. The total amount of retail (A1/A2/A3/A4), community (D1) and leisure (D2) floorspace across both the detailed and outline elements of the application is limited as follows:

1. A maximum of 3,500sq.m (GIA) could be A1/A2 retail of which:

a) A maximum of 1,500sq.m could be A1 convenience retail floorspace with no single retail unit larger than 500sq.m (GIA)

b) A maximum of 2,000sq.m (GIA) could be A1 comparison retail floorspace

2. A maximum of 3,000sq.m (GIA) could be A3/A4 food beverage floorspace

3. A maximum of 2,000sq.m (GIA) could be D1/D2 community/leisure floorspace

6.1.18. The above parameters have been set to ensure that the proposed uses do not compete with other town centre locations.

6.1.19. Play Space

6.1.20. The importance of play space for all ages, including areas for older children and for interaction between ages, has been strongly emphasised by both local councillors and local groups including EGRA and the Greenwich Society.

6.1.21. The strategy is to provide sufficient levels of dedicated play in line with the requirements set out by the Greater London Authority. The public realm offer intends to create a successful playscape with all ages considered therefore creating places for adults to relax or socialise while their children play or do other activities, which is vital for the landscape to be effective. Play elements, both prescribed and informal, will be a recurring feature throughout a landscape scheme that is designed to encourage exploration, imagination and playfulness.

6.1.22. Much of the prescribed play will be centred in the residential gardens and roof terraces. Morden Park, however, will be interspersed with natural play elements such a stepping stones, hidden play rooms, and informal hidden routes through sensory planting. The Morden Park design aims to provide a landscape that encourages exploration and discovery in a safe and controlled environment.

6.1.23. The illustrative scheme demonstrates that a policy compliant level of play can be delivered on site.

6.1.24. Height and massing

6.1.25. A minority of comments have consistently raised concerns about the maximum heights of the towers, including from the local amenity societies. This has been partially caused by concern over the overall number of new homes, but also a fear that the character of the area is changing negatively, the impact on local and strategic views, and in some cases a dislike of taller buildings.

6.1.26. Heights and overall massing changed subtly through the public consultation period. Key changes have included increasing the separation of buildings and altering the profile of the towers to be slimmer. The linear apartment blocks B02-B07 have been broken up into smaller buildings to aid with daylight and a podium structure including in the November 2018 masterplan has been removed, with the vast majority of parking now underground. Most consultees, including amenity societies, have indicated the changes have been a positive response to their comments, if not always sufficient to garner their full support.

6.1.27. The Greenwich Peninsula, an Opportunity Area, has seen planning approvals for over 17,000 homes and towers up to 40 storeys. It is identified as an area in the borough where tall building may be appropriate. The second phase of Enderby Wharf, Enderby Place, has planning consent for towers up to 32 storeys, and while a revised scheme is expected, a cluster of taller buildings is expected and appropriate in this area.

6.1.28. If delivering a similar number of homes, substantially lower maximum heights would inevitably lead to a substantial reduction in open space, which would adversely affect daylight and sunlight and overshadowing. The approach taken has created a large 1.57ha park, with good daylight and sunlight levels, a range of housing typologies, as well as landmark towers marking this prominent site. This has been subject to multiple rounds of pre-application discussions and independent design scrutiny over a prolonged period of time.

6.1.29. The Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment, including in this application, has considered a variety of views including from the Wold Heritage Site. The composition of the blocks in the outline proposals can be clearly understood at an urban scale from the view at Old Royal Naval College. Here, looking north, Morden Wharf can be seen as stepped articulated blocks that offer a smooth transition with the higher scale development surrounding the peninsula, and the lower scale wharfs.

6.1.30. Transport capacity

6.1.31. North Greenwich station on the Jubilee Line is approximately 15 minutes’ walk or 5 minutes cycle from the site, generally along well-lit routes with crossing facilities. The crossing of the A102 is proposed to by upgraded as part of Silvertown Tunnel proposals, and improved routes are proposed in the latest Greenwich Peninsula Masterplan (2019) which has yet to be determined.

6.1.32. The applicant has received significant representations from residents that public transport capacity is strained, and this has been a key reason for many withholding support for the scheme. While there is understanding that the applicant has no direct control over matters outside their boundary, the general need for improved transport is not disputed, notwithstanding the very unusual circumstances at the time of submission. The applicant has held positive discussions with TfL about public transport capacity in the area (bus and tube) and like all major developments financial contributions will be sought through Mayoral and Local Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and S106. However, as a proportion of existing passenger trips the impact of the proposals will likely be very small. Both buses and the Jubilee Line will benefit from the opening of the Elizabeth Line, with many passengers likely to choose alternative routes into central London other than North Greenwich station.

6.1.33. With respect to buses, when the Silvertown Tunnel opens, Tunnel Avenue is proposed to become two-way. This could potentially allow a new bus service to run between the area and North Greenwich station as well as cross-river. New/relocated bus stops could be provided on Tunnel Avenue and the proposals will provide for a new stop on the Tunnel Avenue frontage. A new shuttle bus service to North Greenwich station and Maze Hill station directly from the site, will also reduce pressure on local bus routes.

6.1.34. The Thames Clippers river bus service is expected to add a stop on Greenwich Peninsula West, at Enderby Place. However, this could be at some other location along this stretch of river if those plans do not come forward. Positive discussions are ongoing with Thames Clippers; however, the capital sums and initial revenue subsidy is substantial and would likely require contributions from a number of sites.

6.1.35. Considerable work has been done around transport and the Morden Wharf scheme, including with Digital Greenwich Cities. Our world is changing, and within that, how our urban environment must change in order to accommodate an influx of people, technology and new forms of power. The built environment has the opportunity to utilise available and emerging technologies to create a place that is sustainable, future-proof and offers an enhanced quality of life for its inhabitants and the surrounding area. However, this requires a holistic and strategic urban design approach and a forward-facing, long-term strategic outlook.

6.1.36. For this approach, integrating new technology into the development and maintaining an adaptive flexible approach to accommodate the emerging technologies and trends is key the

success of the development’s build out and future proofing.

6.1.37. A ‘Mobility Hub’ is considered key to successfully deliver the development’s transport strategy. The hub is designed as part of the development to build on current trends by providing all the functions, services, facilities and infrastructure required to assist and enable more sustainable, efficient and seamless travel.

6.1.38. The hub is not a single site, but a collection of spaces, services and facilities located throughout the site. There would be a progression of different services over time, from those already available towards the shift from private ownership towards shared, on-demand services and Mobility as a Service (MaaS).

6.1.39. Density

6.1.40. Often allied to height or transport concerns, a minority have expressed concerns about the density of the proposals and overall number of homes. The density of the proposals would support new shops, restaurants and community space, as well as a target of 35% affordable housing and is acceptable in an opportunity areas. With planned improvements to public transport and accessibility the applicant believes the site can support up to 1,500 new homes and space to directly support approximately 600 jobs. Overall, the density of the proposals is in line with permissions granted across the peninsula

6.1.41. A significantly lower density, in reality substantially fewer homes, would not be able to deliver on the broad range of uses, target level of affordable housing, provide a retail and leisure ‘place’ or such extensive community benefits. This will be a place where people choose to live and work and in time lay down roots. And where people in the wider Peninsula area will wish to congregate to enjoy the riverfront experience.

6.1.42. A more in-depth justification for the proposed residential density is included in the Planning Statement.

6.1.43. Open Space & Morden Park

6.1.44. The public realm, open space and Morden Park proposals have received very strong public support, with almost universal support in the final round of consultation. The applicant has responded positively to early feedback that the park should be larger, more open, and be predominantly soft landscaping rather than more formal squares and piazzas. The scheme will also be delivering substantial public realm, in an area which currently has a known deficit of open space. In total there will be over 6 acres of open space, equivalent in total size to 3 ½ football fields.

6.1.45. The flagship element of our public realm offering is the 1.57 ha west-facing public riverfront park, Morden Park. The park has fantastic views of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site and Canary Wharf.

6.1.46. Morden Park leads directly off the Thames Path and is open to workers, visitors and residents alike. The landscape is inspired by the original marshland, adding a new ecological resource to the area and includes native planting, ponds and swales, as well as open areas of grass. The applicant will also be making major improvements to the Thames Path itself, fully integrated into the site and neighbourhood, rather than separated by flood defences or level changes.

6.1.47. The illustrative scheme and detailed application include:

§ A hierarchy of public and semi-private open spaces, each with their own distinct character;

§ Play space designed for all age groups and open to residents, including spaces for sport;

§ Major improvements to the Thames Path, fully integrated into the site and neighbourhood;

§ Family housing with access to residential garden space, community gardens and growing space;

§ Underground car parking that creates a scheme with the car as a ‘visitor’, thereby prioritising walking and cycling;

§ Public access to the jetty on site, including proposals for a boathouse / visitors centre for the Queen’s Rowbarge, Gloriana;

§ A new public plaza, Morden Park Square, which together with the jetty, could provide opportunities for activity, market stalls and public art.

6.1.48. Thames Path

6.1.49. The redevelopment of the land gives the opportunity for the Thames Path to be upgraded and feel part of Morden Park. The applicant understood from the outset that any works to the path had special sensitivity, and there was considerable frustration at the long periods of closure which had accompanied other nearby schemes. EGRA and other local residents and path users have requested early delivery of upgrades, and for alternative routes to be provided through the site (rather than via Tunnel Avenue) whilst construction takes place. U+I have committed to this as far as feasibly possible and provided that public safety can be assured.

6.1.50. The Environment Agency also require the river wall to be upgraded to the 2100 flood level, this will require considerable works to the river frontage of the site, and at certain pinch points may require temporary closures. Shoreline trees will have to be removed, although none are covered by a Tree Protection Order and overall the scheme will see a huge net increase in tree planning and biodiversity.

6.1.51. EGRA and other groups have been supportive of the Thames Path design approach, which contrasts with the neighbouring schemes. The route follows the existing alignment but will be raised up to the same level as Morden Park and will include a pedestrian lane and cycle lane, both 3m wide. The route includes a proposed bridge to allow for a much improved and safer journey along the Thames Path, addressing early comments around potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.

6.1.52. The Jetty will become a visitor attraction in its own right with the creation of a permanent home for the Queen’s Rowbarge, Gloriana. The landscape proposal keeps a simple palette of materials with an industrial influence. Local groups have requested public access is delivered as soon as possible, and that any boathouse does not require the jetty to be closed off to the general public. The jetty is publicly accessible and is flush with the adjacent Thames Path. Full access around the proposed boathouse is to be provided.

Figure 15: Illustrative view of the Gloriana Boathouse

6.1.53. Traffic

6.1.54. The Woolwich Tunnel and its approaches are a major source of congestion in north Greenwich and are one of the key drivers behind the Silvertown Tunnel plans, though much of the traffic is passing through the area rather than generated locally. The number of new vehicle trips due to the proposals is expected to be relatively low and are set out in the Transport Assessment.

6.1.55. There will be three points of access from Tunnel Avenue, as existing. A key concept is to separate the traffic for the new warehouse and industrial uses in the Southern Warehouse, bus garage and Sivyer from access to the new residential area. The access to the new residential area will include cycle and pedestrian priority from Tunnel Avenue to the Thames Path, providing a new east-west link between the riverfront and the rest of the Peninsula, connecting with the upgraded crossing over the A102.

6.1.56. The residential areas have been designed on a ‘car as guest’ basis, with vehicles kept away from surface areas, pedestrian and cycle routes wherever possible. The combination of walking and cycling links and the provision of local retail, leisure and community uses on site, will provide significant opportunity for residents and employees alike to reduce their reliance on the use of the private car and the need to travel on/off-the site.

6.1.57. Parking and sustainable travel

6.1.58. In line with the RBG policy, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the draft London Plan which are focussed on encouraging sustainable travel for Londoners, the scheme has been designed to encourage walking, cycling and public transport wherever possible.

6.1.59. Data trends suggests nearly half of Greenwich households already do not own a car, and that proportion is rising. To support sustainable travel at Morden Wharf, community facilities, employment opportunities, remote workspaces, broad-band and leisure spaces all on-site are proposed, thereby enabling reduced travel demand.

6.1.60. For travel on or off site new and improved pedestrian and cycle links, a shuttlebus, future Silvertown Tunnel related improvements (bus stops and footbridge), and a future additional river bus wharf will together enable maximum choice for non-car travel to other local destinations and public transport interchanges.

6.1.61. This is further supported by reduced car parking provision and extensive cycle parking provision together with a site-wide travel plan including measures such as electric cycle hire, shuttle bus and travel demand monitoring.

6.1.62. For those trips which do require motorised or private car use, the proposals include a provision of car parking for residents at a parking rate of c.0.2 spaces per unit, including disabled parking and electric charging spaces, and a balanced approach for the employment uses in line with policy, together with car club bays across the site. Car parking will be managed through a site wide Car Park Management Plan.

6.1.63. In addition, to manage and co-ordinate delivery and servicing demands and utilisation of loading facilities associated with the residential and commercial uses across the site, a Delivery & Servicing Plan will be developed. Key issues will relate to waste collection, residential and retail deliveries, and internet related deliveries.

6.1.64. Pollution and sustainability

6.1.65. Residential spaces are positioned away from heavy industrial uses to the north and A102 to the east by the Southern Warehouse, the proposed warehouse (WH01) and by the office building (B01). The truly mixed-use approach to co-location should be seen as a positive; collocating jobs, homes, shops, leisure, community uses and open space together.

6.1.66. The A102 is the key local source of noise and air pollution on the peninsula. Residential uses are separated by a considerable distance and on certain areas of facade facing the road, winter gardens (rather than open balconies) have been proposed in the Design Code. The Environmental Statement has additional information on surveys and mitigation strategies.

6.1.67. The developer has also committed to achieving a rating of ‘Excellent’ under the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) for new commercial buildings. This rating system incorporates areas of environmental sustainability including materials, ecology, pollution, and transport as well as energy etc. BREEAM is the most prevalent assessment methodology in Europe, and an Excellent rating will place Morden Wharf in the top 10% for environmental sustainability nationally.

6.1.68. Wind and microclimate

6.1.69. Both EGRA and the Greenwich Society have raised concerns about taller building causing localised wind impacts. Wind Mitigation tests were carried out against the maximum parameter (outline) plans, within the context of existing developments. A comprehensive wind tunnel testing approach was adopted, with the scheme tested on four separate occasions during the design development process. Results for mitigation measures are proposed as part of the parameter plans and Design Code. Wind conditions would be suitable for the intended uses of specific areas, including comfortable levels in areas of open space or seating which have particular sensitivity.

6.1.70. Daylight and sunlight

6.1.71. Daylight and Sunlight assessments were undertaken against the illustrative scheme. The scheme takes advantage of the west facing riverfront for Morden Park, where daylight is most prominent in afternoon hours when it would most frequently be in use.

6.1.72. The resulting design, as developed, shows that whilst the availability of light will be more limited in some areas of the scheme, by adopting a range of the design options incorporated in the Design Code, there is the potential for the overwhelming majority of units to achieve levels of daylight and sunlight that are entirely appropriate for a high-density inner urban scheme. The full daylight and sunlight analysis can be found in the submitted report.

6.1.73. Design and materials

6.1.74. The illustrative scheme has been developed to fully test the viability of the outline scheme, assist in setting out the parameters for the Design Code, and to better explain the design intent to stakeholders and the Design Council, who are inevitably interested in details that are beyond that submitted for outline planning consent. Elements described are included as parameters or guides in the Design Code, which is the controlling document for future reserved matters applications.

6.1.75. Public feedback has focussed largely on the design of the residential elements of the proposals, submitted in outline. There has been a strong desire for the architecture to communicate the industrial history of the site.

6.1.76. Taking cues from the industrial past of the site: the brick at the Southern Warehouse, the iron- laced structure of the nearby gasholder, and the machine-led infrastructure of recent industry, the design reinterprets the materiality of the past.

6.1.77. The fades of the three clusters for the residential buildings in the illustrative scheme have individual thematic approaches, relating to the above:

§ Morden Gardens, primarily clad in brick, are animated with columns, windows and balconies expressing a vivid and colourful container of life.

§ With inset balconies, Morden Park Square buildings emphasizes the horizonal.

§ A structural exoskeleton, resembling the erector-set visual of the gasholder, surrounds Morden Towers. At the north and south elevations, this exoskeleton is offset, to contain balconies, winter gardens, bay windows, and a vertical greening system.

6.1.78. The design intent for the towers is that they read as a single entity rather than a pastiche of shapes, with therefore façade design and outer plan dimensions rigorously consistent, where modifications within the frame can be made in endless variation.

Figure 16: Silo transformed base of T03

6.1.79. One tower, T03, has been singled out to make a statement. Rather than modifying the shape at upper levels where differences would only be perceivable from great distance, the base of the building has been modified in an expression referencing an industrial silo. Not only does this stand out against the regularity of its surrounding blocks but provides increased daylight and permeability at the human level groundscape. There has been very strong support for this feature from both the public survey and stakeholders. Earlier proposals for prominent signage on one of the tower’s (T02) had mixed reactions and has been removed.

6.1.80. A proposal for façade greening has been included for blocks B08 and B09 (Morden Park Square buildings) and Morden Towers. The design intent is that those blocks that sit within Morden Park express the green of the park as they rise. Again, this has had strong support from both the public and stakeholders, although a number have expressed concerns about the practicality and servicing requirements. Additional detail has been provided in the DAS and Design Code about how this feature would be maintained.

6.1.81. At blocks B08 and B09, planters would be provided within the inset balconies of the units and would be maintained by the tenant.

6.1.82. For Morden Towers, a system has been developed whereby planters are included in the exoskeleton structure to be maintained by a building maintenance unit (BMU). These are placed on alternate levels, with plant growth therefore over a two-storey heights by means of a Jakob

Rope system. This has been used for other developments, with a success rate to up to 65m high before wind and climate proves an issue. The vertical greening has the added advantage of providing a privacy screen between units.

6.1.83. The new structures retain a strong industrial aesthetic; they are both new and modern, whilst also native to their surroundings and the site’s history.

7. CONCLUSION

Figure 17: Illustrative view of proposed Morden Park

7.1.1. In accordance with local and national guidelines, the applicant has undertaken a pre-application consultation process with local residents, businesses, groups and political representatives. This process has been carried out alongside the formal pre-application meetings between the project team, the Royal Borough of Greenwich and other statutory consultees.

7.1.2. The project team has been available to discuss the proposals with stakeholders, both in person and through various communication channels, during the pre-application phase. The community engagement process has helped shape our proposals to ensure it complements the vision for the area and delivers on the wider policy goals of the Local Plan and emerging London Plan.

7.1.3. Morden Wharf presents a unique opportunity to revitalise one of the last strategic sites on the Greenwich Peninsula and the applicants’ vision is to:

§ Build a genuinely mixed community of around 1,500 new homes with 35 per cent affordable housing.

§ Provide a site that, together with surrounding developments, will have the critical mass of residential, employment and leisure uses to become a vibrant and successful destination in its own right. In addition to delivering new and refurbished employment accommodation, a riverfront bar or restaurant, children’s nursery, community space and retail space are all proposed.

§ In an area with a known deficit in open space, over 6 acres of high-quality public realm would be provided (around 3½ football pitches), including a new 1.57 ha riverfront Morden Park for all to enjoy.

§ Deliver a mix of commercial and employment uses that will help bring life to the site, part of which is protected Strategic Industrial Land (SIL). This would directly support 682 jobs and provide £42m of economic output (additional GVA per annum). Morden Wharf was a major employment site for well over 150 years, and our proposals seek to integrate an industrial legacy with a new mixed-use neighbourhood with a commercial ecosystem built around the retained Southern Warehouse.

7.1.4. Based on the feedback the applicant has received, the proposals have broad support from the local community. At the second public exhibition, two thirds of respondents either supported or strongly supported the overall proposals for Morden Wharf. The applicant has also had constructive discussions with the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the GLA over a number of years, with multiple rounds of design scrutiny and revisions.

Figure 18: Illustrative view down Sea Witch Street

7.1.5. As the design has progressed, a number of ideas raised by stakeholders and the public have been incorporated into the scheme such as enlarging the scale of the proposed riverfront park,

incorporating more open green space. The design of the buildings has evolved considerably, with changes in massing and spacing, as well as providing a landmark river presence with the cluster of towers.

7.1.6. At the final consultation in September-October 2019, 66% were supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There was particularly strong support for Morden Park, the indicative design of the buildings and the employment offer.

7.1.7. The illustrative scheme proposals and the Design Code should also give confidence about the quality of the architecture, landscaping and residential mix which can come forward through later reserved matters applications.

Figure 19: Interior view of proposed bar, restaurant or pub use in SW1

7.1.8. The applicant has engaged in extensive pre-application discussions with the local community in a transparent and constructive manner, incorporating feedback where possible and making a number of changes to the scheme in response to specific concerns.

7.1.9. This public support gives added weight to the planning case for the scheme and should give confidence to officers and members to consider the proposals on their own merits.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Flyer promoting public exhibition (November 2018) ...... 56 Appendix 2 – Distribution map (November 2018) ...... 58 Appendix 3 – Public Exhibition boards (November 2018) ...... 59 Appendix 4 – Feedback form (November 2018) ...... 68 Appendix 5 – Data tables from November 2018 survey ...... 70 Appendix 6 – Feedback summary (March 2019) ...... 74 Appendix 7 – Flyer promoting public exhibition (September 2018) ...... 78 Appendix 8 – Distribution map (September 2019) ...... 79 Appendix 9 – News Shopper adverts (18 and 25 September 2018) ...... 80 Appendix 10 – Exhibition boards (September-October 2019) ...... 82 Appendix 11 – Feedback form (September-October 2019) ...... 94 Appendix 12 – Data tables from September-October 2019 survey ...... 96

Appendix 1 – Flyer promoting public exhibition (November 2018)

Appendix 2 – Distribution map (November 2018)

Appendix 3 – Public Exhibition boards (November 2018)

Appendix 4 – Feedback form (November 2018)

Appendix 5 – Data tables from November 2018 survey

Do you agree that new developments on the Greenwich Peninsula have improved the local area?

Answer Choices Responses Event Online Strongly agree 6.7% 3 3.7% 1 11.1% 2 Agree 33.3% 15 29.6% 8 38.9% 7 Neither agree not disagree 26.7% 12 25.9% 7 27.8% 5 Disagree 17.8% 8 22.2% 6 11.1% 2 Strongly disagree 15.6% 7 18.5% 5 11.1% 2 Answered 45 26 19 Skipped 4 4 0

Are you supportive of up to 1,500 new homes at Morden Wharf, with the aim for 500 of these to be affordable housing?

Answer Choices Responses Event Online Strongly support 6.8% 3 3.7% 1 11.1% 2 Support 29.6% 13 33.3% 9 22.2% 4 Neither support nor oppose 27.3% 12 25.9% 7 27.8% 5 Oppose 11.4% 5 11.1% 3 11.1% 2 Strongly oppose 25.0% 11 22.2% 6 27.8% 5 Answered 44 26 18 Skipped 5 4 1

Are you supportive of new employment space at Morden Wharf, providing around 600 jobs?

Answer Choices Responses Strongly support 29.6% 13 Support 47.7% 21 Neither support nor oppose 20.5% 9 Oppose 2.3% 1 Strongly oppose 0.0% 0 Answered 44 Skipped 5

The proposals for Morden Wharf will provide new retail, leisure and community space. What types of uses would you prioritise? (Please rank your preferences 1, 2, 3 etc.)

Options Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Total Score Local supermarket 13 6 5 3 2 1 1 31 5.58 GP surgery 11 8 4 1 2 3 2 31 5.26 Café 3 6 7 10 1 4 0 31 4.61 Shops 4 7 6 1 5 3 2 28 4.54 Restaurant 2 6 5 4 8 2 4 31 3.97 Nursery 3 4 4 2 3 6 7 29 3.48 Bar or pub 3 1 1 6 4 5 6 26 3.23 Answered 39 Skipped 10

Are you supportive of the following proposals at Morden Wharf?

Improvements to the Answer choices A new riverfront park New cycle routes Thames Path Support 95.7% 44 97.8% 44 84.1% 37 Neutral 4.3% 2 2.2% 1 13.6% 6 Oppose 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 Answered 46 45 44 Skipped 3 4 5

Do you support the provision of new bus stops on Tunnel Avenue, with routes running in both directions?

Answer Choices Responses Strongly Support 34.9% 15 Support 37.2% 16 Neither support nor oppose 16.3% 7 Oppose 9.3% 4 Strongly oppose 2.3% 1 Answered 43 Skipped 6

Broadly speaking, are you supportive of the proposed masterplan for Morden Wharf?

Answer Choices Responses Event Online Strongly support 4.4% 2 3.7% 1 5.6% 1 Support 28.9% 13 33.3% 9 22.2% 4 Neither support nor oppose 24.4% 11 33.3% 9 11.1% 2 Oppose 22.2% 10 7.4% 2 44.4% 8 Strongly oppose 20.0% 9 22.2% 6 16.7% 3 Answered 45 27 18 Skipped 4 3 1

Appendix 6 – Feedback summary (March 2019)

Appendix 7 – Flyer promoting public exhibition (September 2018)

Appendix 8 – Distribution map (September 2019)

6770 Addresses

Appendix 9 – News Shopper adverts (18 and 25 September 2018)

Appendix 10 – Exhibition boards (September-October 2019)

Appendix 11 – Feedback form (September-October 2019)

Appendix 12 – Data tables from September-October 2019 survey

Broadly speaking, are you supportive of the wider development taking place on the Greenwich Peninsula?

Answer Sat 28/9 Tue 1/10 Wed 2/10 Online Total % Strongly support 6 4 4 5 19 43.2% Support 5 3 3 6 17 38.6% Neither support nor oppose 2 0 3 0 5 11.4% Oppose 1 0 1 1 3 6.8% Strongly oppose 0 0 0 0 0 0% TOTAL 14 7 11 12 44 Skipped 0 0 0 1 1

Do you support the emerging design of the scheme?

Answer Sat 28/9 Tue 1/10 Wed 2/10 Online Total % Strongly support 6 0 2 4 12 26.7% Support 2 7 5 2 16 35.6% Neither support nor oppose 2 1 2 2 7 15.6% Oppose 2 0 1 0 3 6.7%

Strongly oppose 2 0 1 4 7 16%

TOTAL 14 8 11 12 45

Skipped 0 0 0 1 1

Do you support our proposals for a new public 4-acre riverfront park at Morden Wharf?

Answer Sat 28/9 Tue 1/10 Wed 2/10 Online Total % Strongly support 11 6 10 8 35 77.8% Support 2 2 1 2 7 15.6% Neither support nor oppose 1 0 0 0 1 2.2% Oppose 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Strongly oppose 0 0 0 2 2 4% TOTAL 14 8 11 12 45 Skipped 0 0 0 0 0

Do you support our proposals to deliver up to 1,500 new homes as part of the development, including a target of 35 per cent affordable housing?

Answer Sat 28/9 Tue 1/10 Wed 2/10 Online Total % Strongly support 4 1 3 2 10 22.2% Support 3 6 3 4 16 35.6% Neither support nor oppose 2 1 3 3 9 20.0% Oppose 2 0 1 1 4 8.9% Strongly oppose 3 0 1 2 6 13% TOTAL 14 8 11 12 45 Skipped 0 0 0 0 0

Do you support the creation of approximately 600 new jobs on the site as part of the commercial and industrial uses?

Answer Sat 28/9 Tue 1/10 Wed 2/10 Online Total % Strongly support 6 5 4 4 19 42.2% Support 4 3 5 5 17 37.8% Neither support nor oppose 4 0 2 2 8 17.8% Oppose 0 0 0 1 1 2.2% Strongly oppose 0 0 0 0 0 0% TOTAL 14 8 11 12 45 Blank 0 0 0 0 0

We are looking at various options for spaces which will help foster a sense of community for Morden Wharf. Which of the following options would you prioritise?

Item Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Tick Score Community garden 11 9 9 1 3 0 0 8 221 Convenience Store 8 7 6 4 4 1 0 7 186 Allotments and growing gardens 2 8 8 5 5 2 1 6 166 Community space/hall 9 4 3 7 5 2 0 4 165 Nursery 1 4 4 7 7 6 0 4 128 GP surgery 2 1 0 4 0 1 1 1 43

Overall, are you supportive of the proposals for Morden Wharf?

Answer Sat 28/9 Tue 1/10 Wed 2/10 Online Total % Strongly support 6 0 2 3 11 26.8% Support 1 7 5 3 16 39.0% Neither support nor oppose 2 1 1 1 5 12.2% Oppose 2 0 1 0 3 7.3% Strongly oppose 2 0 1 3 6 14.6% TOTAL 13 8 10 10 41 Blank 1 0 1 3 5