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?
That’s a really good point. The focus on the cladding does seem to overshadow the more serious issues like accessibility and safety. It definitely highlights that, in this case, the aesthetic deviation was perhaps the most visible, but certainly not the most impactful. It would be great to see more focus on those critical factors too.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
The revised deadlines and financial penalties highlight the significant accountability now expected from developers. It makes you wonder if proactive compliance measures will become standard practice in the future.
That’s a really interesting thought, and I agree, the increased accountability does make you wonder if proactive compliance will become the norm. It would be great to see more developers adopting a preventative approach rather than a reactive one. It could save a lot of time, money and reputational damage in the long run.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
So, a £7 million “rethink” on orange cladding and other minor details? I wonder what else they decided was… optional?
That’s a really interesting way to look at it! It certainly highlights the cost implications of not sticking to the original design. The financial penalties incurred will surely make other developers think twice about making similar ‘optional’ changes.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
So, 26 deviations, and the orange cladding is the villain? Did they use it to lure in rogue planning inspectors or something?
That’s a fun take on the situation! It does seem that the cladding became a focal point, maybe because of its visibility. It’s interesting to consider if certain changes get more scrutiny than others, and why.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
£7 million for a paint job and some “oops, forgot the accessibility” add-ons? Seems like they were aiming for “architectural surprise,” not “compliance.”
That’s a very insightful way to put it. The idea of ‘architectural surprise’ rather than compliance definitely highlights a key issue. It’s interesting how these deviations were allowed to happen in the first place, and the potential future implications on development projects.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
The sheer number of deviations, 26, is quite startling. It raises questions about the oversight process and what allowed so many changes to occur without earlier intervention.
That’s a really insightful point about the oversight process. It definitely highlights how important it is to have robust checks in place. It would be interesting to explore what measures could prevent so many deviations in future projects.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
The number of deviations is striking, suggesting a breakdown in communication and perhaps a lack of clear oversight from the start. I’d be interested in exploring what specific steps could be taken to establish better stakeholder engagement on projects of this scale.
I agree, the breakdown in communication is a key factor. Exploring specific steps for better stakeholder engagement, particularly in large scale projects is definitely something worth discussing further. It’s clear that better processes are needed in these instances.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
£7 million to make things “less eye-catching”? Did they accidentally build it in Las Vegas and need to dial down the sparkle now?
That’s a great analogy! It really does highlight the striking difference between the initial plans and the final construction. It makes you think about how design choices, even those that seem purely aesthetic, can have significant cost implications. Perhaps there were lessons learned about local design preferences.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk
£7 million to dial down the “eye-catching” – were they planning to enter it in a luminous building competition first? Maybe the orange was a bid for a record-breaking tan on the cladding.
That’s a fun thought! It really does make you wonder about the initial design intentions. The sheer cost of the changes certainly highlights the price of ‘eye-catching’ design that doesn’t meet regulations. It would be interesting to know the design process they went through!
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy – https://focus360energy.co.uk