Summary
The Mast Quays tower block in Woolwich, previously slated for demolition due to significant deviations from approved plans, has been granted a reprieve. Following a planning inquiry, the developer, Comer Homes, has been given three years to implement design changes and pay nearly £7 million in fines and contributions. This decision highlights the evolving landscape of UK building regulations and the complexities of balancing development needs with regulatory compliance.
Focus360 Energy: property compliance services – pre-planning to post-construction. Learn more.
Main Story
Okay, so you’ve probably heard about the Mast Quays tower block in Woolwich, right? Well, it’s had quite the rollercoaster of a time, let me tell you. It’s a story that really shows just how tricky things can get with building regulations here in the UK.
Originally approved way back in 2012, this development wasn’t exactly smooth sailing. Fast forward to September 2023, and bam – an enforcement notice demanding demolition! The Royal Borough of Greenwich Council had spotted a whopping 26 major deviations from the original plans. I mean, that’s a lot, isn’t it? We’re talking everything from changes to the cladding and window sizes, yeah, and even the roof gardens were gone! But it went deeper too. There were issues like fewer accessible apartments than agreed, parking was a mess, and the commercial space was all wrong. Talk about a headache.
Anyway, the developer, Comer Homes, they obviously didn’t just throw in the towel. They appealed, leading to this big public inquiry. After all that, the decision finally came out in January 2025. And guess what? Mast Quays gets a second chance! However, there’s a massive ‘but’ attached. It’s not a free pass by any means.
Comer Homes has three years to make all the necessary changes. And they’re not minor tweaks. For starters, that bright orange cladding? It’s gotta go, replaced with something less…eye-catching, something that blends in better. You know, to keep the neighbors happy! They also have to fix up those accessible apartments that weren’t really accessible, plus sort out fire safety stuff and improve the area around the building. Oh and, get this, they’re also on the hook for nearly £7 million in contributions for things like affordable housing. It’s a hefty bill.
This whole saga, really, it highlights the UK’s changing building rules. Especially after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the focus on safety, accessibility, and sticking to the plans has gone way up. And it should. The Mast Quays case is a perfect example of the possible consequences when developers get a little too creative with the original plan. It can end up costing a lot more in the end, and its a real reputational risk, which no-one wants.
On the other hand, the decision offers a real lesson for developers. It shows that careful planning and transparent communication with the authorities are key and don’t be thinking you can just ignore the approved designs either! While Mast Quays can stay, the costs are significant, both financially, and lets be honest in terms of their image.
Furthermore, beyond this specific case, the Mast Quays story shows the growing pains of the construction industry in the UK. Adapting to these stricter rules, it’s not easy, right? Balancing the need for housing with safety regulations? It’s a real balancing act. And honestly, cases like this are incredibly important, to see how the future of construction will develop. So, as of today, January 24th, 2025, Mast Quays’ future is still hanging in the balance. It really depends on Comer Homes pulling through. And honestly? It’s a pretty good real world example for anyone working in the sector to pay attention to.
So, they built a tower block, then played a 26-deviation game of ‘Spot the Difference’ with the original plans? Sounds like someone needs to learn the meaning of the phrase “stick to the script” and the definition of “orange”.
That’s a great way to put it! The “Spot the Difference” analogy really hits the nail on the head. It’s interesting how many changes slipped through, and the cladding is certainly a striking example of how things deviated from the initial plan.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
So, the building played ‘Simon Says’ with the original plans, and ‘Simon Says’ ended up costing them 7 million? I guess the lesson here is, orange cladding and a rebellious spirit are expensive choices.
That’s a great way to frame it! The cost of not sticking to the plan certainly serves as a cautionary tale for all involved in construction. It really does demonstrate the importance of adhering to the original design and regulations and the impact of even minor deviations.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
So, they ignored 26 deviations, but the orange cladding is the *real* problem? It’s not the broken promises on accessible apartments, or the other missing safety bits is it?