Woolwich: Developers ordered to demolish 'mutant' apartment blocks

[editor]

Here's a story to cheer everyone up - a pisstaking developer gets their come-uppance. I hope the residents are adequately compensated.

A developer has been ordered to demolish two apartment blocks in south-east London over breaches of planning conditions.
The high-rise blocks in the Mast Quay Phase II development in Woolwich were "substantially different" to the approved plans, Greenwich Council said.
The council said there were "at least" 26 deviations to the plans originally approved in 2012.
The developer, Comer Homes Group, can appeal against the decision.
Both blocks comprise 204 apartments and the council said it would support existing tenants in the build-to-rent development in finding alternative accommodation.
Councillor Aidan Smith, the council's cabinet member for regeneration, described the blocks as a "mutant development".
"We cannot let what has been delivered at Mast Quay Phase II go unchallenged," he said.

Woolwich: Developers ordered to demolish 'mutant' apartment blocks

Greenwich Council made the order after they found at least 26 breaches of the agreed plans.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[equationgirl]

I read this earlier, it's a practically unprecedented development although I would expect an appeal.

Imagine you had bought one of the flats on a mortgage - it's demolished then you're stuck paying a mortgage for literally nothing. That developer is going to be getting sued into oblivion (and rightly so).

Who in their right mind says 'fuck the playground, we're building a carpark, and the plans are more of a guide than a rule??!!' Not a quote, more a summary of events.

 

[Lord Camomile]

build-to-rent

Possibly behind the times, but that's a new one on me!

Looks like it's down by the ferry. Don't get down that way much, but nice that someone's getting held to at least some account for once.

Plenty of other huge new developments in the area, of course.

 

[cesare]

We've watched these going up

 

[Pickman's model]

We've watched these going up

What goes up...

 

[DaveCinzano]

Who in their right mind says 'fuck the playground, we're building a carpark, and the plans are more of a guide than a rule??!!'

All developers, ever?

 

[Lord Camomile]

Who in their right mind says 'fuck the playground, we're building a carpark, and the plans are more of a guide than a rule??!!'

[Comer Homes Group] a pisstaking developer

 

[cesare]

What goes up...

Two of these aren't enough.

 

[cupid_stunt]

If they don't win an appeal, expect Comer Homes Group to go bankrupt, thus walking away from it.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Is it just the angle of the photo that makes it look like the Wobbling Tower of Woolwich, or is that actually how they've built it??

 

[Lord Camomile]

If they don't win an appeal, expect Comer Homes Group to go bankrupt, thus walking away from it.

Aye, there's always a way out for their kind

Who will be responsible for the demolition? Could some clever accounting and contracting somehow see them cash in on that??

 

[cesare]

I'm fairly sure that these are the blocks where the lift shafts went up first and the blocks were built around those. It's no mean feat to sort this out - do the lift shafts get demolished as well?

Couldn't they be fined instead and ordered to make reparations? Just thinking about the people that have bought homes.

 

[skyscraper101]

It was also mentioned in the Take down your 'castle thread

I'm 99% sure that this was the building I saw a flat in back in February when I was looking to move. I'm very glad I decided against.

 

[Sue]

All developers, ever?

I'm all for a bit of 'pour encourager les autres' action.

 

[scifisam]

It's a build-to-rent development, so nobody needs to worry about people buying with mortgages there. The developer will be the one on the hook for rehousing the tenants. They will, of course, try to find a way to get out of that.

The company didn't even wait for the block to be signed off as safe to occupy before moving tenants in, which is actually illegal rather than just a breach of planning regulations.

(There's another part of the development that has homeowners in, but that's not affected by this).

 

[DaveCinzano]

I'm all for a bit of 'pour encourager les autres' action.

It's the only way they will learn

 

[Cerv]

Couldn't they be fined instead and ordered to make reparations? Just thinking about the people that have bought homes.

always sensible to open your negotiations with a position in excess of what you'd settle for.
onus is on the developers now to come back with a counter proposal on how the development can be remediated satisfactorily.
sounds like it'll be difficult though.

 

[Cat Fan]

Should have been possible to identify the problems a bit earlier on in the project? Isn't that what building control does? I don't feel sorry for the developers but it's a huge waste of resources and making the tenants who live there homeless obviously.

 

[skyscraper101]

Tearing it down seems like a terrible idea - on the surface. Mandatory possession by the local authority would seem a better way to solve it but then the law probably wouldn't allow this.

 

[editor]

Tearing it down seems like a terrible idea - on the surface. Mandatory possession by the local authority would seem a better way to solve it but then the law probably wouldn't allow this.

The ideal penalty woiuld be for the developer to forfeit the entire property and the flats be turned over to council tenants. But it'll still be an eyesore.

 

[skyscraper101]

The ideal penalty woiuld be for the developer to forfeit the entire property and the flats be turned over to council tenants. But it'll still be an eyesore.

Yeah, that was my thoughts too. I don't think the law would allow it because the developers still legally own the land and presumably still have the right to make good or tear down the development. It would be a nice outcome though.

 

[platinumsage]

I don't think it would be a nice outcome if the flats have not been built to an acceptable standard. For a start it would obligate the council to maintain them in perpetuity. And generations of future tenants would be condemned to living in substandard accommodation.

 

[newme]

Looks like its about to fall down by itself

 

[two sheds]

compulsory purchase - it can't be worth a lot with no planning permission and all

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

I'm generally very pleased about this decision, and hope it sets a precedent for future developers who decide to take the piss. Cant help but feel for the residents though, who's lives will be disrupted through no fault of their own.