Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Deptford's rise: swish new riverside homes and a flagship Waitrose


Swish new riverside flats and a Waitrose are giving SE8 lifestyle appeal - but it is refusing to get 'too grand', says David Spittles

* A new village of 980 homes will be built by 2014 at Deptford Creek overlooking the Thames.


* A flagship Waitrose will be opening at New Capital Quay between Deptford and Greenwich.


* Deptford train station and its surroundings are benefiting from a ?42 million mixed-used development with 121 apartments and three town houses. Derelict arches are being transformed into workspaces and shops are being renovated.


* A riverside plaza, featuring an art gallery, museum, cr?che, design studios, bars and resturants, will be opening at New Capital Quay.



Depends Mickeymouse if you define an area by its postcode or not. Looks like Deptford to me.

No Mick Mac its definitely in Greenwich proper. Regardless of the postcode, per google maps the store will be less than a 5 minute walk from the Cutty Sark in central Greenwich, whereas it will be a 15 minute walk from Deptford station, in central Deptford. Geographically and postcode wise its 100% in Greenwich and the ES is basically lying for its advertisers. I am not sure what you are looking at?


The ES article is annoyingly mixing up the developments which are currently being built in Deptford and causing confusion.


The "new village of 980 homes" is a different development in Deptford. One which I imagine when being sold will be in the estate-agent made up place of "West Greenwich SE8", as developers increasingly try to erase what they see as grubby Deptford from marketing brochures, like this place: http://www.paynesandborthwick.com/. This website makes me laugh, the development must be 20 minutes from Greenwich station and less than ten from Deptford station yet they blurt on about the wonderful connections in "West Greenwich SE8". Such clap trap.


New Capital Quay cannot be "between Deptford and Greenwich", its either in Deptford or Greenwich, unless its being built on stilts above the Creek which it is not. That is just the Evening Standard trying to rationalise its incredibly incorrect article.


"a ?42 million mixed-used development with 121 apartments" - again this is a different development in Deptford.


Sorry for writing so much, just bugs me how bad that ES article was!

This is like Hoopers (R.I.P) claiming to be in Dulwich. Why do people do it, who gives a shit.


Anyway, glad to hear the station area is having a lot of investment, that part is pretty run down. I do like Deptford though, and had some great nights out around there back when I had a life.

Deptford has a fantastic array of interesting shops. Yes it is a bit front line but that adds to the attraction.


Why are you lot so shallow? I'm proud not to have a Waitrose or M&S and I can always sneak off to Beckenham in disguise for a crafty shop. Or Greenwich by the sounds of it (which in defence has always been posh).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...