A developer has claimed post-Grenfell fire-safety reforms motivated it to breach planning permission on a luxury build-to-rent development that is now threatened with demolition.
A subsidiary of Comer Homes made the claim in a planning inquiry as part of an appeal against an enforcement notice by Greenwich Council to knock down the two residential blocks, both less than two years old.
The council issued the notice after concluding they “materially differed” significantly from what planners had granted in 2015.
In its opening statement, lawyers for Comer Homes referenced an email allegedly sent by Comer Group project director Jack O’Brien in 2021, informing the council that it would upgrade its cladding to an A-rated aluminium finish due to “company policy post-Grenfell”.
They wrote: “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.
“Aren’t we simply in a position where [Comer Homes] was convinced that it needed to build differently to the pre-Grenfell permission, whereas the council now advised by the consultants it has assembled for this inquiry consider that conviction was misplaced.”
But the council believes the changes to the facade are just part of one of the 26 ways in which the development differs from the agreed permission.
The council also highlighted changes to design and massing, poor wheelchair access and a lack of promised commercial space, car parking and green landscaping.
The inquiry, which started on Tuesday (23 July) and lasts until the end of August, will determine whether 204 homes at the Mast Quay build-to-rent development (pictured) should be demolished.
Greenwich Council claims Comer Homes was “wilful and deliberate” in not building to the agreed standard. It will argue during the inquiry that the development provides “low-quality living conditions” by breaching building regulations on overheating and failing to offer residents enough outdoor space or daylight.
Comer Homes does not dispute that the scheme breaches agreed planning permission. The firm will argue against demolition on grounds including the loss of 204 homes, carbon emissions, and the impact of works on neighbours. It will also offer to improve some elements of the building to better fit Greenwich’s planning strategy, including providing community space on roofs, landscaping, and improving wheelchair access and fire safety.
“The required remedy of demolition and clearance is out of all kilter with any conceivable tangible harm that would be caused by allowing these buildings to remain,” Comer’s lawyers wrote.
A council spokesperson said: “We are unable to comment further, as the applicant has exercised their right to appeal the enforcement notice.”
Comer Group has been contacted for comment.
