黑洞社区

A London council is looking to demolsih a recently completed 204-home Thameside development because of significant differences between the consented scheme and the built-out version.

The Royal Borough of Greenwich has issued an enforcement notice demanding the demolition of the Mast Quay Phase II development at Woolwich, which comprises three blocks, the tallest of which is 23 storeys.

In a statement, the council said that 鈥渆xtensive investigation鈥� since the scheme completed last year had concluded that the development was 鈥渟o substantially different鈥� to proposals consented in 2012 that the build-to-rent scheme had effectively been constructed without planning permission.

Plans for the scheme on Woolwich Church Street were originally lodged in 2010, when the architect was Southwark-based Upchurch Associates. A decision notice was sent to the practice in 2012.

The original developer for the scheme was Mast Quay Developments Ltd, which went into administration. Comer Homes Group subsequently bought the second phase of the scheme and built it out. Comer Homes is the subject of Greenwich鈥檚 enforcement action.

Greenwich said the 鈥�26 main deviations鈥� it had identified included visible design changes to the external appearance of the buildings, leaving them looking 鈥渕ore solid and bulky鈥� and the removal of a stepped-back top floor and glazed curtain wall fa莽ade planned for a 15-storey block. The latter feature had been designed to 鈥済ive the appearance of a sail鈥�.

The authority said Mast Quay Phase II also featured different cladding, different balconies and smaller windows than the consented scheme 鈥� resulting in less sunlight and a reduced outlook for residents.

It added that two of the three blocks that make up the scheme had an increased footprint compared with the planning approval issued in 2012 but lacked expected features including roof gardens, green roofs, children鈥檚 play areas and landscaped gardens.

The council鈥檚 statement also said that supposedly 鈥渁ccessible鈥� apartments had non-accessible features, such as steps up to balconies, putting outdoor space out of reach for wheelchair users.

Council leader Anthony Okereke said seeking the demolition of the development was not a decision Greenwich had taken lightly but he insisted the move was 鈥渞easonable and proportionate鈥� to the scale and seriousness of the situation.

鈥淢ast Quay Phase II represents two prominent high-rise buildings on Woolwich鈥檚 riverside that just are not good enough, and the reason that they are not good enough is because the development that was given planning permission is not the one that we can all see before us today,鈥� he said.

鈥淲e will not stand by and allow poor quality and unlawful development anywhere in our borough.鈥�

Cabinet member for regeneration Aidan Smith said the built-out version of Mast Quay Phase II was a 鈥渕utant development鈥� and a 鈥渂light on the landscape, local conservation zone and heritage assets and views鈥�.

鈥淚f a scheme matching what has been built at Mast Quay Phase II was submitted for planning permission today, it would be refused,鈥� he added. 鈥淲e cannot let what has been delivered at Mast Quay Phase II go unchallenged.鈥�

Cabinet member for community safety and enforcement Ann-Marie Cousins said Comer Homes Group had started work on the site in 2015 but only recently engaged with the council about design changes.

鈥淭hey have had many years to engage with us regarding the amendments they claim it was necessary to make, due to changes in building regulations, yet there was no contact or application made,鈥� she said. 鈥淎n attempt was only made retrospectively as a consequence of the enforcement investigation.鈥�

Greenwich said it had advised Comer Homes Group not to let apartments in the development once it began its enforcement investigation last year, however it said the advice had been ignored. The council said existing tenants would be given sufficient time to find new accommodation as part of the enforcement process.

Comer has until 30 October to appeal against Greenwich Council鈥檚 enforcement notice, which was served on Monday.

A statement issued on behalf of Comer indicated the group intended to appeal.

鈥淭he group鈥檚 focus now is to urgently discuss this matter with the council,鈥� it said.

Upchurch Associates had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.