Wednesday 26 June 2013

Convoys Wharf transport #1: parking

The density of development proposed for Convoys Wharf will undoubtedly create significant demands on the local transport network, in terms of travel requirements, traffic and parking.

A total of 3,500 residential units is proposed, which translates to an estimated 9,697 new residents for the area. On top of this the site has 98,100 square metres of non-residential space which Hutchison Whampoa estimates will generate ‘up to 2,150 permanent jobs’ on the site.

The site is planned to be developed over ten years, during which time construction work will be under way on the site practically non-stop.

HW estimates that the site will employ 1,200 construction workers at its peak, which will presumably extend throughout most of the ten year period. As well as the traffic generated by residents and workers entering and leaving the site, the site transport requirements will also include deliveries to and from the businesses and other facilities on the site, service vehicles and deliveries of materials and removal of spoil from the construction work.

All of these demands will put heavy pressure on the local roads, parking facilities and public transport. 

A total of 1,540 residential parking spaces is proposed, along with 300 non-residential parking spaces.

The transport strategy submitted by the developer includes extensive arguments justifying the number of parking spaces in relation to the number of residential units. We believe it is more appropriate to provide fewer residential units so that the ratio is more suitable to the site.

The transport strategy states that the number of parking spaces that are being provided is well below what would be acceptable in terms of planning guidance for this number of residential units. This document seems to consider this fact a demonstration of the developer’s ‘green’ credentials.

However the presence of the remaining dockyard structures in situ limits the developer’s options on the site – no basement car parking is allowed - and all car parks are accommodated in podium parking at street level and above. In fact the developer has chosen to forego additional parking spaces in preference to using the building envelope for other, potentially more profitable uses, ie luxury housing. 

With restricted on-site parking and such a high density of occupancy, it is inevitable that parking will spill over on to the adjoining streets.

Prince Street next to the main entrance to the site
In anticipation of this, the developer has agreed to contribute to the cost of research into the possibility of controlled parking zones being introduced on roads around the site. It is not clear whether this will apply only to the roads in Lewisham borough, or whether it also extends to Greenwich borough, which also borders the site along Watergate Street and is likely to be similarly affected.

It is also worth noting that the survey on which the assumptions about parking supply and demand are based dates from 2009.

Blue roads were those included in the 2009 parking survey

Many of the residential blocks surrounding Convoys Wharf do not have their own car parks, so residents will most likely have to pay for parking permits whereas now they are able to park on the road for free. 

Parking spaces on New King Street will go
What's more, the developer proposes that the existing 65 on-road parking spaces on New King Street will be removed, to allow site access for construction traffic.

However the establishment of controlled parking zones will only kick in once residents move onto the site. We believe the parking overspill is likely to be just as bad – if not worse – during the construction phase when potentially 1,200 construction workers will be seeking parking spaces. This has been a major issue for residents during the redevelopment of the Paynes & Borthwick Wharf site, which is a relatively small development.

No measures are proposed to control parking by site workers during the construction phase. 


  1. Plans look a lot better than the current eyesore at least. What a depressing drab rubbish dump it is at the moment. Sooner improved and developed the better.

    Companies are quite good at construction now in a small space with minimising disruption to others.. Look a the Shard, the station and hospital were kept open during construction.

    1. There is currently no eyesore except for the privileged who pass it by river. Would that be you? I suppose it's OK that everything built here will be as tall as the current Paynes and Borthwick tower, and then also three towers three times as tall?

      Companies are quite good at hoarding in Romanians working for ganglords, and that, dear Anonymous, is how London is being built right now.

    2. Its an utter dump and a waste of space. You say there is no eyesore. Clearly you don't live in (or visit) Grove Street like me. Your comment about the the privileged passing it by on the river indicates that you never even go near the site. You probably comment from a trendy coffee shop in New Cross in between clues in the Guardian crossword. What would you know? Give me a modern hotel, flats, supermarket or whatever it is instead of this dump. And take your NIMBY attitude elsewhere. Yes Please In My Back Yard.

    3. What a bore you are. I live close by and cannot afford coffee shops or The Guardian. I won't be able to afford anything on this site either. Do you live in a tower block or 4th floor flat overlooking the site? Is that how you know what the site looks like, because you can't see it from the road. You'll be one of few that will enjoy the new view as the big blue sky and river that you can currently see will be blocked out by massively tall buildings. You're the waste of space.

  2. very good images which attracts the people. For more

  3. just let them build it... its London.. what do you expect from a major international country i.e people want to live here.... you have to build.. i.e people need places to live, companies need to make money to employ people........

    major internal countries wont last long on a wooden ship im afraid Sir...

  4. With reference to the comments of Anonymous 2nd July 2013 23:29. I don't think we should be quite so hasty to rubber stamp this. For years Deptford has been in decline, precious little has been done by Lewisham BC to reverse this trend. The area now finds itself in a very strong position, having one of the last undeveloped stretches of river frontage in the inner London area, and one of the nations most historical sites (birthplace of the Royal Navy). As a long term Deptford resident and business owner (also based in Deptford), we need to be sure that this development isn't going to short change our local community. From personal experience with other developers (Acorn and Hambridge Homes) who have moved in on Deptford sites, once planning permission has been granted, despite the caveats laid down in the planning permission to supposedly protect those with homes and businesses adjoining the sites. The reality is a free for all with demolition contractors and building workmen stomping roughshod over local residents (and the so called caveats in the planning permission document to protect the interest of local residents). And believe me, the Borough Council, simply turn a blind eye.

    1. absolutely right....why be hasty. We should hold out for something a bit special.

      Deptford deserves it. Needs it even if it is ever to imporove.

  5. The assumption by objectors is that the alternative to this design is a better design. I think that is a misplaced assumption. The counter factual whic you get may be another 30 years with an empty rubbish dump. Look at Battersea Power Station - how long has it been sitting wasting space? It could happen here too. A developer is prepared to cough up and develop this eyesore. Thank goodness for that.

    1. The brand new buildings will look like a rubbish dump or ghetto in thirty years. A developer is prepared to cough up to make ten or a hundred times as much money. How naive of you.

  6. Agree with the vast majority.. time to build here ASAP.. new facilities for all.. more money for the economy and local businesses, more jobs that why it will get planning permission.