The Royal Borough of Greenwich Council had originally ordered the second phase to be demolished back in September 2023.
At the time, the council’s investigation found 26 deviations from the original planning permission that was granted for the BTR scheme in 2012.
Comer Homes has since launched an appeal against the council’s decision and Mast Quay Phase II does not need to be demolished unless this fails.
This means a public inquiry is now taking place — beginning on 23rd July, the inquiry will be held for 15 days at the council’s offices and held by the planning inspector.
Members of the public may attend the inquiry and, at discretion of the inspector, express their views.
In his opening statement on behalf of the Comer Group, Chris Katkowksi KC argued that due to the detail of the case there was a risk of “not being able to see the wood from the trees”.
In his remarks, Chris explained how several of the 26 deviations raised by the council’s investigation could easily enough be remedied.
In particular, Chris pointed to the council’s deviation about the facade on to Block E. In these opening markets, the barrister revealed that in October 2021, Comer Homes had emailed the council to explain that a “different direction” was being taken in respect to fireproofing the building in light of the Grenfell Fire.
“As we understand it, the council argue that because building works had got underway at a time when Building Regulations had not yet been tightened up to the extent they now have in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy, there was no legal requirement to switch away from the facade treatment in the permission,” said Chris.
“As you know, we don’t think it’s quite as simple as the council portray it.
“We are also not sure what the council has to say about moral and ethical imperatives — there are things that one should do because one should do them, even if the law does not force you to.”
These opening marks also argued against the council’s view that the development would cause harm to nearby listed properties, with Comer Homes’ representation also highlighting the “obvious harmful consequences” of demolishing the buildings.
As well as arguing that the demolition, if required, would take longer than the 12-month window allows, Chris added: “It is our case that requiring us to knock down these buildings is utterly disproportionate, not least (but not only) because of the current residents’ Article 8 rights to respect for their homes.”
To this point, the council acknowledged in its update “this is an unsettling time for the tenants for Mast Quay Phase II”. It confirmed that all tenants will be given “sufficient time” to find alternative accommodation if needed.
The council added: “The council advised Comer Homes Group not to rent out apartments at Mast Quay Phase II while it completed its investigation, unfortunately Comer Homes Group ignored its request.”
Edward Smith, a resident of the Mast Quay for over a year, expressed his concern regarding the proposed demolition, and expressed his affection for the building.
He said Mast Quay provided homes for large numbers of individuals and families, with the scheme being a good example of accommodation needed for regeneration in Woolwich.
"The proposal to demolish with all its financial, environmental and personal disruption of so many people's homes is drastic — It's a move which does nothing to help solve the local housing crisis.
"I would hope that a compromise which met the acknowledged shortfalls in complying with the requirements identified by Greenwich Council could be agreed as a solution.
"This would be significantly less expensive than demolishment and the displacement of so many contented residents."
A spokesperson at Comer Homes also commented: “It is heartening to hear from the residents of Mast Quay that they are happy in their homes — we sympathise with each and every one of our tenants during what must be an unsettling time.
“We are disappointed and surprised that it has come to an inquiry. Since Greenwich Council issued the enforcement notice last year, we sought to engage constructively with them to agree a sensible resolution — and remain willing to do so.
“Notwithstanding, we would like to assure residents that in the meantime we are committed to robustly correcting the inaccuracies and addressing the council’s concerns at the inquiry.
“We value the concerns of our residents and hope to come to a resolution that addresses them.”
The inquiry continues. Details can be found here:
Should Comer Homes appeal the government’s planning inspectorate decision, they would need to challenge this by appealing to the High Court — this would be limited to legal, and / or procedural grounds only.
If Comer Homes does not appeal the council’s decision, it has 12 months to complete the demolition and restore the land to its former condition.
Leave a comment