Developer rejects council claims over ‘mutant’ Woolwich towers

The developer responsible for a 204-home towers scheme in south London has accused the Royal Borough of Greenwich of presenting the public with false information about the project to support its case for the newly-completed scheme to be demolished.

Last month Greenwich issued Comer Homes Group with an enforcement notice calling for the Mast Quay Phase II development to be taken down because of a litany of significant differences between the planning permission granted in 2012 and the version of the scheme that was completed last year.

Cabinet member for regeneration Aidan Smith said the built-out version of the Woolwich scheme, which has towers of 23 and 15 storeys – as well as lower-rise elements, was a “mutant development” and a “blight on the landscape, local conservation zone and heritage assets and views”.

The consented version of Mast Quay Phase II was designed by architecture practice Upchurch Associates for a developer that subsequently went into administration. Comer bought the scheme and construction began in 2015, completing last year.

Comer issued a brief holding line when Greenwich went public with its decision to seek demolition of the development, but has only now given a detailed response to the authority’s concerns, which included changes to the buildings’ façades, fenestration and balconies.

Greenwich also said two of the scheme’s three blocks had larger footprints than the planning consent permitted and that supposedly accessible features had not been incorporated into “accessible” apartments.

In its rebuttal, Comer said it fully intended to appeal Greenwich’s enforcement notice and accused the authority of not understanding the planning system.

“Comer Homes Group is shocked and surprised by this decision, especially following continued unsuccessful attempts to engage with the council on various matters over the past five years,” it said of the enforcement notice.

“Comer Homes Group remains steadfast that the council’s position is inaccurate and misrepresents the situation.”

Comer accused Greenwich of attempting to “exaggerate the differences” between the planning consent issued for Mast Quay Phase II in 2012 and the built-out scheme.

“Comer Homes Group maintains that this issue with the council is one focused on building control and not planning permission,” it said.

The developer said the original designs for Mast Quay Phase II had an external façade that would not comply with post-Grenfell building regulations.

It said the built-out version of the scheme was lawful and fully complied with all current building regulations, including stringent fire-control measures and that it had a fully fireproof façade.

Comer questioned whether its use of a different council’s services as building-control authority had driven Greenwich to voice safety concerns about the development.

The firm rejected any suggestion that the development could not accommodate disabled tenants and said all flats were built to lifetime home standards.

“All homes at Mast Quay Phase II can be adapted for disabled residents,” it said. “The issues regarding thresholds, steps, etc are all matters that can be addressed by Comer Homes Group on an individual/apartment-by-apartment basis subject to the needs of tenants.”

Comer said it was “fully prepared to work constructively” with Greenwich to address the authority’s concerns about Mast Quay Phase II.

“There is no reason why changes to the development cannot be made and Mast Quay II receive a retrospective planning permission,” it said.

The firm said it had called on Greenwich to withdraw its enforcement notice, but vowed it would appeal if that did not happen.

It said demanding the demolition of the scheme was “unprecedented, unreasonable, extreme, and wholly disproportionate”.

The company has until the end of the month to launch an appeal if Greenwich does not withdraw the notice.