It's always funny when big corporations who often flaunt their corporate citizenship think they can skirt regulations that regular citizens have to abide by. And then when they're held up to common standards acting all shocked and surprised.
Because they get away with it most of the time, because they think they can and often do work out some deal or leave someone else holding the bag. Because the deals/fines are often way smaller than the costs they save and large profits they make.
Just to add to mobility issue: Even if you dont need mobility aid now, doesn't mean you wont need it ever - aging people sometimes tend to need those, so good luck if you want to take your grandma for a weekend from the care home.
You don't even need to get older. While fractures happen more often to the elderly, my dad broke his leg and was using first a wheelchair and then crutches for about half a year in his late 30s.
100%. My boyfriend and I moved into a new flat in 2020 and 3 weeks later he broke his back and became paraplegic. We were lucky that our flat, in Inverness, had been built to a modern standard meaning that when he was discharged from the spinal unit he could come home and continue to live independently. It wasn't perfect but it worked. I couldn't have imagined the added horror of having to move out and find a new accessible-ish place to live.
Yep. Our retirement plan, since all our money has gone for the kids, will be to sell the house we are so fortunate to own and move to a much smaller flat. The idea being living on all one level, lowering costs, and being able to live without a car which is more eco friendly as well as saving money. When we move likely we'll still be able to use stairs, but if we plan to live there until we pass, between the two of us likely we would need the mobility access.
I have talked with councilors in this ward about this building specifically, the Developer was told not to move residents in because the enforcement decision was inevitable, they did anyway, basically to use them as hostages when negotiating.
They've essentially created a hostage situation. There's unfortunately only one good way to deal with those and that's not to negotiate or give in to demands, because if you do then others see you'll give in.
I fear that, on first hint that such an order is likely to be made by a court, the company will turn into an asset-less shell. The chances of them getting their money back from the developer is pretty low, I'd say.
@@abarratt8869agreed. A quick little bankruptcy, a new corporate shell and the behaviour will continue. They should be prohibited from ever working in the industry again.
I found it odd the cultural difference here. As a Houstonian, I'm appalled that the city dictates these requirements to absurd degrees. If the people want it (and they clearly do since the flats are all sold) then what gives these bureaucrats the right to demand luxuries like green roofs and underground parking? It's no wonder there is a housing shortage if you have soviet level imperial control of the design. Why shouldn't the market be able to decide what amenities a building includes? If this was a safety issue, I might agree, but I find this impingement flat out offensive.
@@Benjamin1986980is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No! Says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to god. No! Says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone
THANKYOU EVAN!!! When you said about them expecting to alter disabled people’s apartments one by one and “make them feel extra” THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! As a disabled person I’m so happy to hear a non-disabled person who gets it!!!! That’s how our daily lives go. Everywhere. Every day.
Although dept of environment (or levelling up communities etc) writes the specn for min dimensions of WCA internals I am not convinced they are always the best actual sizes, I suppose they are a step in the right direction but are difficult for semi-ambulant disabled or wheelchair users in specialised motorised wheelchairs
I'm not sure if you noticed, but Evan did also use the term handicapped which I understand to be offensive (I'm in a weird spot of being disabled but not feeling that the term is something I can personally complain about because my disability isn't physical) so I was wondering what you thought of it? I also totally get the experience you're referring to; I'm autistic so some days even just people talking to me 'normally' can be hostile.
@@BecauseICantEdit Evan is American. In the US, the term handicapped is perfectly normal and what we call ‘Blue Badge spaces’ they call ‘Handicapped spaces’ so stand down! No need to be offended!! Just a cultural difference
@@TraceUK okay, that helps to explain it but I was actually coming from a perspective of my mum being physically disabled, having lived in the states and finding it demeaning but that could still be blamed on cultural differences... There's something to be said here in that even if the term is more okay in the us it is really bad in the uk and this is an international platform so maybe it should still be avoided since that context exists to some of the audience and that language may be ostracising to (disabled) British users. TLDR is I can except the existence of cultural differences but when dealing with a mixed audience other cultures should be considered.
@@BecauseICantEdit I took that as Evan being Canadian/American and thus unaware of how the labelling of people with mobility issues has change in the UK. I have know over the years people with physical and mental reasons why there ability to independently or otherwise get around in their properties or communities. I have worked in both supplying and installing Disabled Facilities Adaptations to peoples own homes (owned or rented). The folk I knew were paraplegic, quadriplegic, some from birth, some from military incident or road/horse accidents to developing Motor Neuron Disease, and really there was a lack of non-institutional accommodation for many of them and it is good that planning regulations have provided a means to increase such provision, including carer accommodation and assistance inbuilt of hoists etc and level access to the outside areas. As to if "Handicapped" is a right word to use , in a way it is, but if is a word in school kids would effectively use as a negative label (to anyone) and thus its social meaning changed compared say to how my mum would refer to her neighbours - one was war affected in WW2 , the other had a birth oxygen depletion incident which both affected mobilty ( he used a hand propelled bicycle wheelchair, but also had communication difficulties (speech) like cerebral palsy where it demanded extra time and patience to understand what he said.
Good for Greenwich...these developers are always doing stuff like this, counting on the borough/councils not pursuing them in court, due to the cost of legal action.
Either not pursuing them in court or punishing them with a slap-on-the-wrist fine and a meaningless promise to fix the issues. A promise that we all know is worthless and a fine that is still cheaper than completing the build to the original standard.
This is a rare example of Greenwich stepping up to do the right thing. The Royal Borough of Greenwich is rotten to the core. I know because I used to live in the borough.
Once you serve the ban, you become eligible again. I ain't making apologies, but the system is weighted in favour of chancers and neglectful local authorities.
The fact that the underground carpark is not as large as planned, shows that the developers intended to cheat from the start, as it would have to have been the first thing they built. That they intended to cheat from the start throws a light on every other failure of how the building differs from the planning permission submitted and received.
Some flats were built near me, the developers did build the car park big enough, but due to an oversight in the planning permission, didn't have to assign a space to each flat. Social housing tenants didn't get any, some buyers got two. They had to park on the road. I doubt that developer will get an easy ride on any development in the borough. The next block in the area was built for the local housing association, and was built about 1-2 metres away from where it was supposed to be, the tenants could reach out and touch the roof of the building I worked in. No way were they going to be forced to rebuild it in the correct position.
You noted in the developer's response that it was good that the properties were below the average price for Greenwich, but what it does not say is that the Average price for Woolwich is lower than that of Greenwich as a whole, and they were actually priced above the Woolwich average.
How on earth did they think that they'd get away with this? UK planning law is pretty well established - did they just not get legal advice on planning when building it?!
How did they get to the point of having sold some/any of these flats, why would it not have shown up on a legal search (required for a mortgage) that the council and builder were in discussions about the property.
@@evan I assume builders worked to architects plans , but then have you seen the minature A4 planning permission sheets that get sent in for these massive developments
To think for 100s of years we were able to create the beautiful typical classic archetecture you see in london, and elswhere, now all we can make is....this..monstrosity
sounds like there needs to be more concequences for those at the top of the companies doing this. Not just a small fine to the business but personal fines and criminal charges for defrauding the public with their towers of shit.
@@kensmith5694 the problem tends to be if it applies to company or individuals something like £10k could ruin a person but for business be nothing so as you say the profit of the project or even a % of the company earning is a way to hurt them and not turn it into a cost of business
@@darkdonzaloog Some punishment ideas that could be fine tuned: - disown them and split the ownership of the building 10% city, 10% state, 31% bidding, 49% common shares that anyone can buy. - force someone to be responsible. change the law, so that there's a fitting person with the authority to make those changes to be the one to go to jail if there's grave misconduct. (like when a building collapses, the engineer is responsible, as they signed the vow) - Company pays 10% of their yearly revenue as a fine. DOUBLED if they are caught doing any similar misconduct.
@@darkdonzaloog fines never work. The solution here is actually really, really simple - You take the on-paper owner, and the on-paper board members... You put them in jail for 6 months without an appeal. _If_ building is not to spec _then_ jail for positions A, B, and C. And then you bar them from company ownership or serving on any board, for life. You also bar them from serving in the construction industry, in _any_ capacity, for life.
The developer is not only non-compliant to BOTH Planning and Construction rules, they are also in contravention of UK disability regulations for the provision of accommodation, access, and parking. The quality of materials, trade fix (plumbing, electrical etc) and finishes must also be questioned.
My dad is a wheelchair user and he had to make formal complaints to my school so they would build a lift to have access to the main hall. It shouldn’t be a second thought to add wheelchair access. It’s a necessity!
The thing that always confuses me is that if they always considered accessibility for disability it would automatically be accessible for everyone, but they still ignore us. My knees don't work properly, so steps, especially without a handrail, are a problem. It's such a basic access issue that has a number of solutions that can work for everyone.
"In September 2023 his trainer's licence was suspended for three years after twelve of his horses tested positive for anabolic steroids. He was fined €60,000 for the positive tests and an additional €5,000 for having incorrectly told the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) that he had an unblemished record. He was also ordered to pay 80% of the IHRB's legal costs, amounting to a bill of around £644,000. "
From what I'm seeing online seems the council told them not to let residents in as early as last September knowing there were issues. If thats true i would find it hard to hold much against anyone but the development company. Can't allow unapproved properties stand otherwise every developer would do the same stunt and no regulations would be followed.
That building was not built under cover of darkness in one night. Officials and building inspectors had plenty of opportunities to force compliance. Seems like public corruption is involved.
As a former NYC Department of Buildings employee, the only point I agree with the developers on is the standards changing since the original plans. But that is why we have people rewrite plans to fit current standards and still get the objectives done to the customers liking. That is literally why we get paid. We don’t want to demolish buildings and remove homes for people but if you paid for something and didn’t receive what you want or need, no one should be surprised when the city said “Yeah…….no.”
Agreed though UK law does allow for retrospective planning application, it is just an incredibly risky and dumb thing to do. If a private individual could loose their dream house that way so should a business loose their building. Building regulations are a separate thing to planning permission that must be adhered to all all time, this more like applying to the Borough Council for permission to build x. What they are trying to do, which is a desperate legal strategy is to try and muddy the waters between the two an hope for the best. I would be very surprised if the appeal succeeds. Planning permission can sometime be be bit arbitrary. My sister was told that she had to put a pillar on one side of her kitchen extension rather than have continuous glass sliding door. This wasn't for structural reason but becuase the said the original kitchen had that an they had to match it, but the problem was the kitchen the inherited wasn't original it was already a modern extension. They won that. She lost an appeal for another extension that others on he same street with the exact same terraced houses got approved for just before. It really does depend who desk it lands on and also other political pressures at the time. Though in thsi case they really screwed up.
Also any appeal even though it goes to court they are only testing if it adhered to the councils own rule or the councils discretion as they defined it (with except of a small number of national defined planning laws). Some councisl are strict some are not. Building regulations are national.
This is not really a legitimate excuse either because within a certain time frame, UK law does generally allow for plans approved under an earlier standard, to be built under the old standard. But regardless, the council has already acknowledged that some changes to integrate the new standards might be acceptable. The council also make clear that they are willing to negotiate with the developer on modifications and improvements to bring the development into compliance. This presumably is their preference, but a demolition order is the only compliance route the council has available to force the developer to act. It's also setting an important precedent to remind developers not to push their luck.
What I don't understand, is there must have come a point where someone noticed that the building, in construction, didn't look like the plans - Did the council object? Did the developer just press on regardless? Is the demolition order the culmination of years of the council saying "Excuse me, but..." and the developer saying "Tough, what you gonna do about it, it's there now?"
The way the system works is the council do not check that planning permission is being followed during construction. They rely on members of the public to report buildings which are non compliant.
@@extrude22 But systems like electric wiring that aren't visible later, or structures being made properly and up to building code and the approved designs etc. are typically inspected and approved (or not) during construction. It's a failure by the government to not have someone checking all the other factors for being what was approved.
@@emjayay It’s mandatory that all buildings are inspected to check they comply with with the building regulations during construction. This includes things like electrics. But this is a different process to planning permission, it’s not the Building Control inspectors job to check that planning permission has been followed.
@@emjayay Planning is the responsibility of local government ,who have very little in the way of resources (the majority of councils are in serious danger of falling into the local government equivalent of bankruptcy right now). Checking every building project happening across the area they cover would have been difficult to do two decades ago when they did have a bit of money available. Doing it today would mean having to cut services that they are legally required to provide.
@@emjayay THIS!!! Not only did I take pics of various stages of my bathroom being redone, but also got regular visits from the Clerk Of Works (a member of the council who oversees building work). I'd assume London's Clerk Of Works was a frequent visitor to the site while the building was in construction, & if not, WHY NOT???
Nice to hear a council standing up against this kind of builders. We used to have far more checks as buildings went up. Lack of man power in councils means builders and rotten landlords have been getting away with so much.
But you could go to court and the builder could say there onsite planning officer or who ever it is who over looks the build permitted the build to continue as it is. how long did it take to build. and the council at no point said anything about its structure. The council are just as to blame they did not inspect the build or take or say anything during the build about this is not looking like what we agreed on. they waited till it was fully build and people had moved in. Who sign off on the building once completed.
@davidsworld5837 The councils manpower has been cut to the bone so I just hope the court see sense and demolish this new and yet so wrong in today's rules on wheel chair access alone it should not be standing.
I do not see why they were so blind to the access for WC, they should know that it would not be acceptable. But if you do not see that the builders can use the council officers signed off on the building during building, so they can put to the court that it was accepted. It does not matter there are not enough manpower, that is not the builder fault, but governments. the government powers did not complain during building. there has to be some thing in law, or there lawyers will find a loop hole. No matter that it is nothing like what was agreed.
Funnily in my area of South London developers are scared of local residents. Developers hold pre-consultations to ensure their developments don't have residents fighting them. They then do changes to decrease the number of objections. This means developments of just one bedroom flats to a Lidl don't get approved and the developers ask us what we want. Lidl tried really hard then just withdrew their application as even the local MP got involved. We now have a Lidl but they had take over the site of an existing retail store. Even then they had people complain over traffic measures.
They haven't done away with the commercial space and replaced it with gym facilities, instead they will charge the residents to use the gym thus making it a commercial space
As a wheelchair user the access stuff is so important. I'm struggling to find anywhere to live and not for lack of money but lack of any suitable housing at all. If a single person taking home 100k can't find any accessible housing what about everyone else? You never know when you will start having mobility issues or make friends with someone who is
Builders amongst all people should understand this. It only takes a very small mistake on a build site to put someone in a wheelchair, at least temporarily in the case of a badly broken leg or two.
Kinda reminds me of that old pub that got demolished without permission, and then the developers were forced to rebuild it using historical materials & techniques.
I think its important the developers get the message they are not above the law and this building needs to come down At the developer's cost.. What they said they would build, what they had planning permission for, they had no intention of doing. Grenfell is just an excuse (and I wonder how many buildings they have constructed with the flammable cladding?) And they never should have moved the residents in either. That was cruel. Its a tragedy for the residents (they are not ahappy with the accomodation - one claimed its too dark) and they need more support, but millions are being blighted by crappy substandard housing exctly like this. And that needs to stop.
"A well written answer for those who don't think critically" You hit the nail on the head with that one. So many fluffy words that say the right thing, even if they aren't true or even logical. During Covid I was my grandma's full time caregiver, taking her to Dr apts and such the handicap spots were a game-changer. the worst thing was going somewhere without proper handicap spots, I would park as far to the drivers side, squeeze myself out by the bush they placed far too close, and carefully open the passenger door to not ding the car next to us, especially when they were parked 1/2 in the loading zone spot between next to the spot. I appreciate how the council pointed out how the changes specifically affected disabled people, and how you gave examples of how it would affect them. "oh we just added a little step" might not be a big deal to able bodied people, but the rules and regs are there for everyone for a good reason. Also loved how you used the US as a how not to have cars.
Whilst buying a house on a fairly new housing estate in the east Midlands, my eagle-eyed and (as it turned out high value for money) solicitor noticed that whilst the estate had planning permission for several hundred houses (I forget the exact number), they had in fact built 10 more (somehow squeezing them in). That's not entirely unusual, but it's always accompanied with supplementary planning permission. However, in this case none could be found. It therefore became the responsibility of the selling vendor / solicitor to find it, or get it approved retrospectively. Without it, in theory the local council could come along and demolish the excess 10 houses (the estate wasn't old enough for the surplus houses to become de-facto approved). This was eventually sorted out, but it did make the vendors a lot more responsive and receptive about other things in the sale.
@@Zatnicatel Initially some kind of bond / insurance policy at their expense, paid for out of the purchase price. Council demolishes my house, insurance would pay up. Trick was ensuring that it accounted for appreciation. Though the right supplementary permission paperwork was eventually unearthed.
I'm a wheelchair user and honestly them cutting corners on the accessibility doesn't surprise one bit, it is rife in England. Thank you for bringing attention to the ever growing issues! Love these videos!
Yep 4 new houses were built by me on the site of old Asbestos filled garages. All 4 were built to cat C requirements for disabled access. And then the council moved in people who are not disabled in any way. I dont understand building disabled friendly homes and then never let disabled people live in them.
Thank you for speaking on an issue affecting disabled people. There might be a housing crisis in general right now, but seeking accessible housing is always a crisis for us. Aside from the bare minimum of physical navigation, which is difficult enough to secure, poor quality housing can cause additional symptoms and illness due to molding, poor ventilation, and other structural consequences of shit builders. As someone who also used to work in the construction industry, the quality of housing being built has declined steadily from the time I aged into adulthood. I witnessed structural problems covered with spackle and paint on a regular basis. I will never live in these new houses/buildings unless my dying wish is to be crushed in my own home. - From Canada
As a disabled person who is mobile, but I have friends who need to use walkers and wheelchairs, taking out all the ramps and disabled parking spaces should render the building unusable, and condemned. Able bodied people just do NOT understand how hard it is for the disabled to navigate, even with walkers. more corners means more harsh wear and tear on wheelchairs, oxygen users might lose balance with their oxygen tank, and unstable people using walkers are more likely to fall. Not to mention the building probably breaks A TON of rules for accessibility.
Did you notice the delay between getting planning permission and the build. It did not take 12 years to build. If you have ever worked in planning permission or housing development you will be familiar with that ploy. Good for Greenwich not being held to ransom by developers. Any buyers may not realise it but Woolwich Council has done everyone, including other boroughs a huge favour.
Thank you Evan - Great stuff - You might be interested to learn that, when Christopher Wren submitted his plans for the new St Paul's Cathedral, the City of London Authorities rejected the design, on the grounds that it was too papish being reminiscent of St Peter's Basilica in The Vatican City - Wren completed a new set of plans for a stucture of completely different dimensions and appearence and this new design received immediate approval and construction commenced - Over the the next 35 years of building, the design was modified a little at a time and, on completion, the finished structure had transmogrified into something completely different to that drawn in the approved plans, and virtually indistinguishable from the original rejected plan.
He hid the development behind scaffolding and is seems that no-one in authority noticed! The compromise design was hideous - it's just as well that he managed to subvert the original design committee.
@@evan Just explaining how Wren got away with it. I suspect that this developer used a similar tactic. With Wren, it was for the benefit of the generations to follow. With this developer, not so much 😒
I understand that the *original* Grenfell Building was safe from spreading fire. It was designed so that a fire in one flat could be contained in that flat without spreading. The problem came with the addition of the very flammable external cladding many years after the construction of the building, and a few years before the disaster. This, as well as being flammable - the origin materials were entirely concrete, steel and glass - introduced flues which acted as vertical corridors on the outside allowing flames to rise from floor to floor. Residents complained to the landlords and the Council many times about the potential danger, and were ignored.
council on that one were owner, developer and planning permission granter (and building control inspector) , though the documentation and control was piss poor and thanks to unhelpful EU regs on usable materials generated confusion in the supply chain
The original design was better, but still deeply flawed. There was only one escape route, and the smoke suppression measures were inadequate. Plus access for fire fighting vehicles was difficult on such a constricted site. It was always a disaster waiting to happen.
@@tullochgorum6323 As in the proposed design of the changes , indeed so . I still contend the cause of the fire was incorrect electrics (I am sure the sub-basement area of the building (it managed in part to be on a plinth such that "ground level" outside was above ground level on another side) had a laundry area and I reckon the three phase electrical supplies were changed when I think that went to a different community (or residential) space. This was probably tested as OK but at the same time the flats were re-wired and probably tested to the original cabling before everything got fully switched over , (but I dont have sight of paperwork that might have existed to confirm what, if any, tests happened)
@@highpath4776 None of this would have mattered if they had provided a flame and smoke proof escape route. Because escape was so difficult the fire chief advised residents to stay in their flats, which proved to be fatal because he hadn't appreciated how drastically the fire would spread up the cladding. The few who survived from the upper floors ignored the advice and made a dash for it...
@@tullochgorum6323 as the OP on this comment said , the concrete structure (and see a couple of documentaries on the estate design and area when it was first built ) the stay put was correct and one staircase considered sufficient for the tower as built. (in part Grenfell was designed to avoid the flaws of Ronan Point). There were similar concrete tower designs a bit later in Lambeth , but they had external balconies as an additional refuge where access tower appliances could rescue persons should the stairwell become unusable.. Near me are further concrete built towers - less tall but wider - and there have been two fires in 60 years that I know of , a stay put (other than floor of fire ) policy applied, and worked on the first one, changing metal windows for UPVC caused minor vertical external flame and smoke spread which could have been worse had windows about been open with net curtains flapping. For Grenfell although residents raised concerns of the cladding plans and build qualty even they did not appreciate the change would have the funneling effect ( never mind the lack of fire stop insertion that may have been needed with that change that the local council did not put in the plans (the original plans were on the council website, the revised ones were not )
I've just posted almost this exact comment. It's bizarre, how anyone, let alone a property developer thought they could do this - is it an American company or something maybe?
@@TheGramophoneGirl I just don't understand how they thought they'd get away with any of it. Absolutely agree on the removal of disability access being a big no go. But also, how did they think they were going to hide all those changes? It's not like it's a extension in the back garden or maybe a shed that they can hide for a few years, hoping no one objects - it's a fricking tower block!
Developers know the planning laws perfectly well. However, they also know that they can do as they want and get retrospective permission for changes because planning authorities are afraid of rocking the boat. It so happens that Greenwich have called their bluff this time.
The developer says a demolition order like this is unprecedented and they are probably correct. I'm sure they thought no council would actually order the demolition of an entire tower block for a planning violation. They were wrong...
I shared this video with my dad who spent his career as an urban planner in New York State. I'd like to share some of his thoughts. "The external differences between the approved vs constructed buildings seemed insignificant to me. I kept looking, and am not sure which I think is better. They are both bad. Were the differences important at the time of approval? For example, the building should not be approved unless the balconies were the original way? Were they required to be that way in order to offset something the builder wanted that was detrimental to the public? "How can changes occur during construction without city approval? Doesn't the city do daily progress inspections? Don't builders check with inspectors about every change? It is inconceivable that that would happen in NY. Also, the commission does this after the building is largely occupied. How could the owner be given approval to occupy a building that does not conform to the approved plans? "How could balconies require a step? Aren't they at the same level as the floor? "Changing the 1st floor from commercial to a gym might be a legitimate gripe or might not depending on the code definition of "commercial." "The above ground parking and the lack of accessibility are bigger problems. "Requiring the demo of the building seems draconian. Additionally it is a waste of energy and matter. It seems that everything should be made wheelchair accessible, and that the builder be required to make benefits (open space, aesthetic, transportation, etc) to offset the violations. They should be proportional to the violation, plus some extra to set an example so that other builders would not try the same thing."
Great video Evan, highlights the problems local authorities have with developers. Although people complain about planning permission bureaucracy, it is there for a reason, otherwise developers run roughshod over people's living standards, affordable housing provision and the environment, all in the name of profit. Just a point on council support, the government has stripped back funding for councils to such an extent that it is difficult to support the community in instances such as this, just not enough council workers to deliver services. We do our best, it's not that we don't care, we just have to prioritise.
The fact that the building next door still looks the same say that external cladding is not the reason for lack of windows and balconies - as windows and balconies don't have external cladding ... Building Control is there to make sure the building is safe, and well built, it's even more likely to get a building demolished it it doesn't meet building control ... Planning permission violations can get the building demolished easily, it is not unprecedented, or even unusual Methinks the building firm protest too much ... and the council are making an example of them on an easily proven case to send a warning to other building firms ... the appeals process is fairly simple, the council will hear it's arguments ...
Well done Greenwich. It's time developers are held to account. Until people learn the difference between right and wrong these sorts of things will continue.
Whether you think that Planning Permission is good or bad is irrelevant. It is the law and the developer knows, or damn well should do, exactly what it is and how binding the planning permission you are given is. I agree with them that planning permission and building control are different. Unfortunately they don’t seem to know which camp each of their transgressions falls into. Either way, building control provides minimum standards and not an absolute. Planning permission granted can exceed those minimum standards. It seems that the developer was just on a massive cost cutting drive. When this development it is demolished it is 100% on them. What happens to the residents is completely on them too. They need to be prosecuted too. I have zero sympathy for developers like this.
It's great to see that 1960s East Germany building designs finally get recognized for their grace, functionality, and modern looks. Good job, the developer, boo to the stuffy council.😁
Tbf there were some beautiful East German public buildings… that all got knocked down after reunification for various sometimes bullshit reasons. For example the Palace of the Republic which had asbestos in it, instead of just renovating the beloved building they tore it down entirely and built a reconstruction of the older Berlin Palace(that had been destroyed by bombing in WW2.
I'm glad big corporate have to abide by the same rules as us mere mortals. The planning permission my parents had to go through to convert the loft of their house into my now bedroom was a loonnngg process and it had to be up to standard. And this was a pretty standard renovation of one house, not a multiple flat skyscraper!
PP is seen as red tape, but in actually documenting what you are going to do , it helps with fitting into the building regs side of things , which keeps you safe and stops the roof falling in (literatly) it can also be adapted to give you the step by step gulde of order of work to be done and finished outcome.
There’s something seriously wrong about this story in that Councils do not appear to have the wherewithal to appropriately monitor what’s going on once plans are approved. This build should have been halted as soon as it became obvious that the builder and regulators WERE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE. Let’s get real here. The building is there. It’s not going anywhere. Of course it shouldn’t be demolished. That’s insane. The builder should be fined. The proceeds from that fine should go towards building “adjustments” . If the penalty is substantial enough….any remaining funds should be used to subsidize rents over a three to ten year period. Those council members obviously have an ax to grind. There’s a happy medium between the “Nanny State” and crooked overzealous developers.
I surprise myself (as I think Evan has) by thinking that the block has to be demolished. I was involved in local planning issues back in the 1980's and 90's and even back to the 1960's there was a concept called "planning gain" whereby the local council gave planning permission on the basis of some sort of gain to the community. It normally takes the form of a small allocation of public/affordable housing in a much more luxurious housing development but I do remember that the upstream Shell Building on the South Bank had a full size swimming pool in it, primarily for their employees. As part of the planning permission for the whole Shell Centre, Lambeth got Shell to agree that local residents would also have access and, just like all other planning gain, this was made so difficult to take up that I never was able to find one Waterloo resident who even knew of it let alone visited. The housing for social need agreements also always seem to get seriously downgraded or fall apart as a fait accompli. I think there have to be one or two examples made where developers who do not comply with the agreed permission get a potentially ruinous penalty as a clear signal to others that when you go ahead with a development you have to follow all to which you have agreed.
As a lifelong wheelchair user, it is so refreshing to see a biped angrily translate bureaucratese to plain language for those who have "never really thought about it." Usually I'm the one doing the translating and the biped's going "well, but they didn't *say* they're barring you..." Yeah! They don't! They just say "we could... we're not gonna... but we *could*... so you can't prove we wouldn't... and it's not like you have the money to sue us to prove we're doing it on purpose ... so y'know... drag your chair up the stairs, or don't. No one cares." So yeah. A+ translation skills. Would watch again for the catharsis alone. :D
Reminds me of a story I heard, where a developer demolished a listed building (An old Pub) and they got ordered to rebuild it exactly as it was, with the very materials it was originally made of :D
Evan, I do appreciate there are two sides to every issue. I think in this case the developers should be allowed to supervise the demolition of the building from inside it 🤗😉
I feel like the big question that isn’t brought up is why these planning committees aren’t checking in on these projects along the way? To wait until it is completed and full of residents is just so ridiculous and wasteful
Planning Enforcement departments will only open a case if it is brought to their attention, they dont go looking for them as in law developers have to notifiy if a development occurs ( and some will only take action if the community is negatively impacted by the development (diff rules for conservation areas / national parks )
I was a modelmaker for a massive re-development on the South Bank of Brisbane Australia. I pointed out to the Architect (one of Australia"s best known), that the Discrimination Act, the National Building Code, and the State Laws required wheelchair and baby pram access. I changed all the stairs to ramps, and all the public toilets to wheelchair minimums. This actually gave more space for lawns and gardens. Joni Mitchel's "Big Yellow Taxi" springs to mind.
I'm a green beest, and I hate the wastefulness of demolitions early in a building's life - but if no punitive, deterrent action is taken when developers cut corners in this way, there'll be more and more of this. Excellent, illuninating presentation, E. Thanks, and well done.
If the company in charge insists to not demolish that building, force them to do all of the following at their own expense 1. Fix all the issues that are fixable including installing bigger windows, wherever indicated by the original planning permission, levelling all areas inside and in conjunction with the building to be wheelchair accessible, build additional parking space with a garden area on top. While they are doing so, they have to provide and pay for alternative accommodation for all tenants 2. Fine them for a substantial amount for those issues that cannot be fixed or alternatively make them reduce rent permanently for all apartments in the buildings I can imagine they will plea to being allowed to demolish and rebuild the building then.
I'm an American living in London, and I'm really enjoying these "deeper dive" videos. You're filling in the knowledge gaps for some viewers, and opening the eyes of other viewers who had no idea. I like all your videos, but I'm here for it if this type of video becomes a regular part of your rotation!
My presumption (could be wrong) is that the reason that Greenwich is resorting to a demolition order is because UK government doesn't actually give the local authority many effective options for dealing with developers like this. I'd think that a massive fine (like a substantial percentage of the value of the building massive) would be more appropriate. But I'm guessing that Greenwich don't have that power.
They should tear it down and they should be responsible for finding the residents suitable homes if rentals and/or if purchased a full refund. I'm excited to see a gov't holding a company accountable.
“Affordable housing” doesn’t mean housing the average person can afford, it’s generally housing the developer must sell to a housing association- usually at a loss - to receive planning permission. This has an inflationary effect on the market housing to claw back profits. Not saying that’s bad, just that a lot of people don’t realise.
I think the building should not be demolished, but the company should lose their ownership of it (to the city). That would avoid the waste of material and work that went into it, but set a financially similar precedent as demolishing it.
I look forward to an update on this. I am hoping the developers do not win and have to demolish the building. Why? because the big guys get away with this sort of thing so often that it’s about time someone said NO.
As it would be completely against the best for the environment to actually demolish the development i think they should instead be forced (as long as it is actually structurally safe and sound) to give back any money they have made from it to buyers/renters currently occupying it and then donate the whole thing to the council for social housing. This would be a huge shot across all developer's bows but also mean that there is actually a decent amount of social housing suddenly available in an area that i'm sure does not have nearly enough.
What I find weird is that it took them so long to find out/bring it up and that the developer was able to sell/rent out those flats. In Slovakia, once you finish the construction, you need safety inspections (which I'm sure they do in the UK), but they also check if everything was done the way it was stated in your planning permission (To get a planning permission in Slovakia is even more difficult than it is in the UK). Until everything is 100% accurate, your building won't get a house/flat number. Without this number, you will never be able to sell/rent out that flat. You can try living in such building, but you will never be able to get internet/tv, water, gas, electrics, even your mail won't get delivered there. Your bank won't recognise it either...you can't get a mortgage for a flat that does not officially exist. I like this approach because it eliminates the hustle of fighting for your money in case this demolition goes ahead, and I'm talking about the residents of this tower. Developer will find a way to get out of this
Definitely has to come down. The bill will go to the freehold company. Could start in 2025. The council will push the court. Failure to be 'ready' by the freehold company would be seen as hinderence and rulings would be made in their absence.
The fees the freehold companies incures gets passed onto the leaseholders or if the council fines the companies directly they could liquidate meaning the freehold goes to the crown giving a missing freeholder which is a total nightmare
Not sure how it is in the UK, but in Finland commersial space in buildings is extremely important and seen as a massive perk. This is because the rental profit from those spaces go directly to the maintenance of the whole building, profiting anyone living there and reducing living cost.
regarding colour palette... it's an industry standard to slightly tweak a 'ral' colour so you own the specific gradient. you see this a lot with brand specific tile or framework. it's good to see the 'accessory' issue being looked in to (apple being put to task about leads and accessories becoming obsolete and then land fill) but it's basically the equivalent of a video game 'game as a service' monetary cash grab. 'You want more of this? Pay us serfs!' I wouldn't be surprised to find out the 'orange' is brand specific... not taking away from the fact that it looks like crap anyway lol
you may be right, to be honest - but contacts have been renegotiated so often recently it just rang a bell with me - I've had so many project's held or the original contractors shut down that its become a nightmare to them, so thought it could be a factor. @@juliannicholls
Orange (and other pigments with lots of red) is also notoriously known for bleaching in the sun over time. My new orange sunshade of the exact specified (per regulation) RAL colour is significantly more vibrant than the old one.
As a Town Planner that is also disabled, I find developers like this beyond infuriating in so many ways. What really gets me aswell it that they would have had employed professionals to redesign and plan the new building form. How they could take the job and not see (or perhaps more concerning, care about) the ethical and moral implications is incredibly disheartening.
I’m assuming this block was the block developers have to build to provide social housing flats for tenants from the council. So the council are stuck. Hence why they have built a load of crap. If they knock it down the council will have to re house those people are there own expense.
Are we to believe the council only noticed the changes at the end of construction? Building regulations and planning departments don’t talk to each other and this leads to serious issues I have seen planning demand things that are not compatible with building regulations It’s positively insane
I am in the process of designing a single stand-alone suburban house to wheelchair accessibility standards. Yes, the space you need for that is huge. But a parent who uses a wheelchair still needs to be able to live in the same house as their kids and read them goodnight at bedtime. Wheelchair accessibility is not a luxury - it's a basic requirement.
Well as the Building clearly does not meat health and safety laws as in Wheel chair access and none access to certai9n areas like the gym means it must be taken down at the builders own expense plus they should be taken to court in the first place.
The developers are ignoring wheelchair accessible means it is accessible for everyone. This is whether you have a baby to if you are normally able bodied and injury one of your legs.
Yeah, in theory the big companies are being held to the same standards, until they ignore the local authority and appeal to a higher court and get approval because the government just wants to say that more homes have been built
The builder was told not to move residents in because of the problems, they did anyway. The residents have to claim against the builder for misrepresentation etc. This isn't and shouldn't be a consideration for the council planning enforcement.
@@AndyFletcherX31 With a builder that dishonest and shady--EVERYONE involved will need as much LEGAL PROTECTION they can possibly get or EVERYONE dealing with the builder will get shafted!
@@nanabutner Well, yes. Unfortunately the planning department don't have "standing" in a dispute between builder and owner/tenant. They can provide documentation showing that they advised the builder not to let occupants into the building but this particular issue isn't their bag. In any case the council will almost certainly be asking the builder why they are letting people move in without a Planning Department completion certificate.
knock it down & have the developer compensate the residents for decorating & moving costs and anyone else that their mess has caused. simply this isnt what they had permission to build. it has way too many changes and all downgrades rather than any improvements - will not only teach them to stick to what they have permission to build in future but will be a clear example to others of what to expect. needs to happen more often. expected - the council probably needs to build and pay for a kids play park in the area & developers will probably be allowed to pay for that or donate a nice car or free flat to the council leader & all will be forgiven.
I think demolished is extreme action when none of the issues seam to deal with safety of building. Just throwing away £90 million + cost of demolished dosent help anyone. I am not sure if the housing laws are just extreme restricted on what possible remedies are available. If it's possible I think far outcome would be the council seize the building. Potential pay the developer the cost of just the land at or below fair market value. ( this would have developer in the same position as if demolished happen). They could fix any deficiency(dealing with wheelchair accessablity ) using the potential value of selling the tower to cover the cost. Then the council has two options with this new £90 million building they got for almost free. Either sell to different owner with requirements attached or simple keep and rent out themselves as a low income housing. Either way the build gets required fix done.
This is what I thought too. Is there some reason that the building is actually unlivable, or does the law simply not allow the council to take over the building, only ask it to be demolished?
Nope. Why should the council foot the bill to make the adjustments. Which would range from very expensive to impossible. The developers had no intenton of building why they had planning permission for. They do not give a f*ck about the peopel who would have to live there buult with pokey little windows and substanrd materials. They thought they wuould get away with a pathetic fine and the residents would have to put up with this substandard shit. Developers get away with so much in this country and I am overjoyed that Woolwich is calling them out for their antics. Demolish it and send them the bill and make them build what they said they would.
@chrishartley4553 It is not really the council footing the bill. They seized atleast £90 million assets. Simply use this value to cover the cost. ( I know I am using building cost to equate to current value but if this is not the case the project would have been built at loss which is likely given the housing market has such high demand.) I am not sure if this is how works in the UK but in NA most construction projects are special companies strictly set up for that development. The partner companies would own shares in this special company but would be protact from most liability. There would be no way to force the company to fund another £90 million project. The special company would simple file for bankruptcy and never fit the demolished bill let alone cover the replacement cost. By going with demolishing your simple pass the cost on to rest of the market. Your basically lighting £90 million on fire remove it from the area infrastructure. The rest of the marlet will carry this cost by increasing rent due to lower supply. This solution isn't simple slap on wrist. It removes any investment the company put into project along with all there profits.
@@abrodeurI take your point on the funding. Its not my expertise. But... I do not want a slap on the wrist. I want somebody to at last hold the developers' balls to the fire to stop them building crappy affordable housing. Because that is a blight and in the long-term, a very costly blight And do you not think this tower is possibly an example of embezzlement? Cheaping out on the building standards and materials and pocketing the difference? Right from the start they had no intention of building what they said they would. And we know that because one of the first things they would have had to do is landscape the ground for the basement car parking they never built before pilings were sunk. They are not beyond pushing the letter of the law (and sometimes just breaking it) and they get away with it time and time again with meagre fines (a slap on the wrist). And people suffer from these poor housing they have to live in because they can't afford anywhere else. Developers have a lot of power in the UK; they use this to dictate what gets built, brow-beating local authrorities (in short they will do all they can to not build affordable housing - because 'profits') and they enjoy many political connections with the UK govt. They are doing very nicely from the housing crisis because scarcity in affordable housingis pushing up the selling price of any new build no matter how poorly done. Letting this stand sets a poor example, showing other developers just what they can get away with. Leading to more poor housing blighting peoples' lives with low ceilings, tiny windows, poor heat and sound insulation, and will often need repairs (from a few years time to immediately) because they have been built so badly.
3:16 Just a quick correction, you apply for a retrospective planning application, it is put to the same tests as a normal application. The main difference is because it's already built, you cannot ammend plans and therefore is more likely to be refused and refusal in this case will mean demolition.
I very much hope that large capital will not be able to avoid this. The residents may be disappointed now, but otherwise that will happen later and they will have to pay for the costs.
As an American, I have questions. Are there not building inspections all throughout the building process? If so, wouldn’t these irregularities have come up at the inspections during the building process? I’m just confused as to how a building that I would expect, took multiple years to build, could only come to light to be so deficient at the end of the process. When my house was being built for every stage of building, there was an inspection. There was an inspection when the, foundation was complete. There was an inspection where when plumbing was complete; there was an inspection on the electrical was complete. All those had to be done before walls were closed in so that the areas were accessible for said inspections. And this went on all the way up to the point of final completion and the final inspection.
Bearing in mind that we aren’t short of taxes this would need to replace another tax rather than just “oh, let’s add another tax”. That is lazy and serves no one other than accountants.
@@StephenWestrip yeah, the point of the land value tax is to replace all or most taxes on labour/property. This would incentivize building more housing while disincevising speculation
@16:00 To play Devil's Advocate, maybe they meant "the commercial space hasn't been removed, we've just already filled it with our own commercial venture rather than leasing it to a third party".
The building can be left standing if enough money is taken away from the builder. Basically, they should make zero profit on the building including any profit they could expect to make in the future by charging for additional stuff or doing repairs.
So, they tried and failed and all they lose is the profit? That's supposed to discourage them from trying again? The individuals who had a hand in this need personal punishment. Jail comes to mind. THAT will discourage them from trying again.
@@bobmazzi7435Yes, taking all of their profit is a cost they won't like. In business there is a thing called "opportunity cost". Basically in the years since building the structures, they would have at least gained bank interest if they left the money in the bank. If they built something, they expected to get a lot more than bank interest
It also assumes nobody will need a wheelchair during occupancy. Like, absolutely nobody ever gets injured or in car accidents that might immediately need a chair and not have a ramp in their building
First I think the council has a right to demolish it, the council derives its money from rates that are based on property values. A building like this is lowering such. Secondly the unit owners deserve the build they paid for or their money back. Thirdly as a neighbour in the other building I'd definitely want it gone or at least fixed! Sadly the developer is probably foreign, which means their financial resources are too, even if you sue they will probably move on to another country to do business and wait you out or drop this shell company and start under a new name. Furthermore, how did the building get a certification of occupancy? The council has to sign off on it before people move in. Also buyer beware, this is why you don't purchase off the plan or new builds.
I could see how they can say that the commercial space wasn't removed, if they have one company owning the commercial space and another the residential space and they have a lease between the two companies with a tiny rent. So, the space is a commercial space that is currently being rented.... To themselves... And like, I could easily see that having been done so that they can decide in the future to cut the gym out and rent the space for real without having to lower the rents. Because the amenities will affect how hight the original rents are. And not much has to be done to a space to make a gym. So, they would keep the same revenue from the residential portion, lower their costs and have a new revenue for the commercial space.
@@GamesFromSpace With Planning Permission it tends not to be lawyers but Planning Agents, as the form of words is somewhat quasi legal. I dont know if Evan was able to quote the exact schedule of planning permission for the space given ( the schedules changed during the build time in law so maybe it move from one sui-generis to another). A local authority can insist on one category type normally occuring where it is for the better development of the facilities and economic (etc) well being of an area.
New Capital Quay in Greenwich is also believed to be one of the areas in the uk with the largest concentration of Grenfell style cladding and so I really think Greenwich council are trying to turn around this image of unsafe housing in the area and the MP is the shadow minister for housing and planning (he’s really not good unfortunately)
It seems to me that, as you pointed out, this developer was fully aware that they were not in compliance with the permissions as granted, but continued construction anyway. There are mechanisms to submit non-material amendments to planning for minor changes (e.g. changes to the colour or cladding to make it compliant), but this is a totally different building to the one for which planning permission was granted. This is like submitting planning for a 3 bed bungalow and building a 3 storey, 5 bed house. And I strongly suspect that profit was the major factor driving these changes, e.g. windows are an expensive part of a build, by reducing the size and type of glazing they cut construction costs significantly. Likewise, the structural requirements to support the weight of a roof garden and large balconies would have required significantly more structural steel (another expensive building material). Well done to the Council. Our homebuilding model is not broken because of planning restrictions, but because it protects and maximises profit for the developers over quality of development. Don't get me started on the practice of land banking.
A) They should be forced to just pay disabled people a settlement for their obvious pure hatred for them & blatant ignoring the law...B) Isn't it possible to fix these issues rather than demo?
15:37 I think what they're trying to claim is that the gym is technically a commercial use. Without reviewing the exact definition of "commercial space", this does seem at least plausible. It's not really compatible with the public policy goals of having commercial space, though. Is it within the council's power to order demolition and rebuild, or just the demolition?
Councils don't have the power to force people to actually use the planning permission they've been given for a site. So they can only order the developers to demolish the block, and not to rebuild it.
It seems to me that the council should have had building inspectors actively watching over construction sites like this and made sure that the plans were stuck to. Stop work orders should have been issued when the builders started changing plans.
It's always funny when big corporations who often flaunt their corporate citizenship think they can skirt regulations that regular citizens have to abide by. And then when they're held up to common standards acting all shocked and surprised.
Regular citizens? How often are they citizens?
Because they get away with it most of the time, because they think they can and often do work out some deal or leave someone else holding the bag. Because the deals/fines are often way smaller than the costs they save and large profits they make.
True but who will pay for this issue?
Some flats have been sold? And thus bought.
@BestInTheWest-in1xx WHEN they're held up to the same standards. It doesn't mean every corp is, most aren't
I mean I guess but that's what happens like less than 1% of the time
Just to add to mobility issue: Even if you dont need mobility aid now, doesn't mean you wont need it ever - aging people sometimes tend to need those, so good luck if you want to take your grandma for a weekend from the care home.
good point!
You don't even need to get older. While fractures happen more often to the elderly, my dad broke his leg and was using first a wheelchair and then crutches for about half a year in his late 30s.
There’s other things as well - strollers, bikes, briefcases, etc. etc.
100%. My boyfriend and I moved into a new flat in 2020 and 3 weeks later he broke his back and became paraplegic. We were lucky that our flat, in Inverness, had been built to a modern standard meaning that when he was discharged from the spinal unit he could come home and continue to live independently. It wasn't perfect but it worked. I couldn't have imagined the added horror of having to move out and find a new accessible-ish place to live.
Yep. Our retirement plan, since all our money has gone for the kids, will be to sell the house we are so fortunate to own and move to a much smaller flat. The idea being living on all one level, lowering costs, and being able to live without a car which is more eco friendly as well as saving money. When we move likely we'll still be able to use stairs, but if we plan to live there until we pass, between the two of us likely we would need the mobility access.
I have talked with councilors in this ward about this building specifically, the Developer was told not to move residents in because the enforcement decision was inevitable, they did anyway, basically to use them as hostages when negotiating.
I'm not surprised. The developers would think they can appeal to the government and get away with their crappy development.
They've essentially created a hostage situation. There's unfortunately only one good way to deal with those and that's not to negotiate or give in to demands, because if you do then others see you'll give in.
@@MsPeabody1231 if they bung Honest Jenrick a few quid I'm sure he'll be most accommodating...
Why doesn’t that surprise me!?
@@garethaethwy fancy seeing you here! See you in the natter chat Wednesday
The developer should be required to 100% (+ interest since the moment they paid) compensate people who lose their homes because of this
I fear that, on first hint that such an order is likely to be made by a court, the company will turn into an asset-less shell. The chances of them getting their money back from the developer is pretty low, I'd say.
@@abarratt8869agreed. A quick little bankruptcy, a new corporate shell and the behaviour will continue. They should be prohibited from ever working in the industry again.
and the council too for cost of legal actions and rebuild at their own expense to the exact specifications as per the planning permissions.
I found it odd the cultural difference here. As a Houstonian, I'm appalled that the city dictates these requirements to absurd degrees. If the people want it (and they clearly do since the flats are all sold) then what gives these bureaucrats the right to demand luxuries like green roofs and underground parking?
It's no wonder there is a housing shortage if you have soviet level imperial control of the design. Why shouldn't the market be able to decide what amenities a building includes?
If this was a safety issue, I might agree, but I find this impingement flat out offensive.
@@Benjamin1986980is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No! Says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to god. No! Says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone
Technically, cutting the ramps actually adds corners...
Have an angry thumbs up
hahaha
😂
Indeed
I am sure Greenwich love the joke (of course I laughed).
THANKYOU EVAN!!! When you said about them expecting to alter disabled people’s apartments one by one and “make them feel extra” THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! As a disabled person I’m so happy to hear a non-disabled person who gets it!!!! That’s how our daily lives go. Everywhere. Every day.
Although dept of environment (or levelling up communities etc) writes the specn for min dimensions of WCA internals I am not convinced they are always the best actual sizes, I suppose they are a step in the right direction but are difficult for semi-ambulant disabled or wheelchair users in specialised motorised wheelchairs
I'm not sure if you noticed, but Evan did also use the term handicapped which I understand to be offensive (I'm in a weird spot of being disabled but not feeling that the term is something I can personally complain about because my disability isn't physical) so I was wondering what you thought of it?
I also totally get the experience you're referring to; I'm autistic so some days even just people talking to me 'normally' can be hostile.
@@BecauseICantEdit Evan is American. In the US, the term handicapped is perfectly normal and what we call ‘Blue Badge spaces’ they call ‘Handicapped spaces’ so stand down! No need to be offended!! Just a cultural difference
@@TraceUK okay, that helps to explain it but I was actually coming from a perspective of my mum being physically disabled, having lived in the states and finding it demeaning but that could still be blamed on cultural differences...
There's something to be said here in that even if the term is more okay in the us it is really bad in the uk and this is an international platform so maybe it should still be avoided since that context exists to some of the audience and that language may be ostracising to (disabled) British users.
TLDR is I can except the existence of cultural differences but when dealing with a mixed audience other cultures should be considered.
@@BecauseICantEdit I took that as Evan being Canadian/American and thus unaware of how the labelling of people with mobility issues has change in the UK. I have know over the years people with physical and mental reasons why there ability to independently or otherwise get around in their properties or communities. I have worked in both supplying and installing Disabled Facilities Adaptations to peoples own homes (owned or rented). The folk I knew were paraplegic, quadriplegic, some from birth, some from military incident or road/horse accidents to developing Motor Neuron Disease, and really there was a lack of non-institutional accommodation for many of them and it is good that planning regulations have provided a means to increase such provision, including carer accommodation and assistance inbuilt of hoists etc and level access to the outside areas. As to if "Handicapped" is a right word to use , in a way it is, but if is a word in school kids would effectively use as a negative label (to anyone) and thus its social meaning changed compared say to how my mum would refer to her neighbours - one was war affected in WW2 , the other had a birth oxygen depletion incident which both affected mobilty ( he used a hand propelled bicycle wheelchair, but also had communication difficulties (speech) like cerebral palsy where it demanded extra time and patience to understand what he said.
Good for Greenwich...these developers are always doing stuff like this, counting on the borough/councils not pursuing them in court, due to the cost of legal action.
Either not pursuing them in court or punishing them with a slap-on-the-wrist fine and a meaningless promise to fix the issues. A promise that we all know is worthless and a fine that is still cheaper than completing the build to the original standard.
This is a rare example of Greenwich stepping up to do the right thing. The Royal Borough of Greenwich is rotten to the core. I know because I used to live in the borough.
@@eattherich9215hey man it beats tower hamlets that elected a mayor that was banned for running for 5 years due to proven corruption
@@evan It looks like the US could elect a president with 91 felony charges. The court of public opinion may outrank the law.
Once you serve the ban, you become eligible again. I ain't making apologies, but the system is weighted in favour of chancers and neglectful local authorities.
The fact that the underground carpark is not as large as planned, shows that the developers intended to cheat from the start, as it would have to have been the first thing they built. That they intended to cheat from the start throws a light on every other failure of how the building differs from the planning permission submitted and received.
Some flats were built near me, the developers did build the car park big enough, but due to an oversight in the planning permission, didn't have to assign a space to each flat. Social housing tenants didn't get any, some buyers got two. They had to park on the road.
I doubt that developer will get an easy ride on any development in the borough.
The next block in the area was built for the local housing association, and was built about 1-2 metres away from where it was supposed to be, the tenants could reach out and touch the roof of the building I worked in. No way were they going to be forced to rebuild it in the correct position.
Underground car parking spaces are usually sold to whoever pays. Some never get used. But yes, you are probably right about that!
You noted in the developer's response that it was good that the properties were below the average price for Greenwich, but what it does not say is that the Average price for Woolwich is lower than that of Greenwich as a whole, and they were actually priced above the Woolwich average.
How on earth did they think that they'd get away with this? UK planning law is pretty well established - did they just not get legal advice on planning when building it?!
I don't think they thought at all
How did they get to the point of having sold some/any of these flats, why would it not have shown up on a legal search (required for a mortgage) that the council and builder were in discussions about the property.
@@stephenlee5929 either in on tenancies or some folk dont bother with searches (cash buyer investors)
@@evan I assume builders worked to architects plans , but then have you seen the minature A4 planning permission sheets that get sent in for these massive developments
@evan they did, they just ASSumed they would get away with it again. Only this time, they haven't. Unless they win an appeal.
To think for 100s of years we were able to create the beautiful typical classic archetecture you see in london, and elswhere, now all we can make is....this..monstrosity
Sad innit
Not many colonial holdings to extract wealth from to afford the cost of stonework and masonry
@@j377yb33n that ol chestnut
They created hideous shit too, but that shit was destroyed and replaced years ago
@@jacklovejoy5290 or lasted long enough to be beloved. There's something like a 30-50 year timescale for that
sounds like there needs to be more concequences for those at the top of the companies doing this. Not just a small fine to the business but personal fines and criminal charges for defrauding the public with their towers of shit.
I think it should be a "huge fine". They should lose at least all the profit from the project.
@@kensmith5694 the problem tends to be if it applies to company or individuals something like £10k could ruin a person but for business be nothing so as you say the profit of the project or even a % of the company earning is a way to hurt them and not turn it into a cost of business
@@darkdonzaloog Yes and taking 100% means they don't just think of it as a tax.
@@darkdonzaloog
Some punishment ideas that could be fine tuned:
- disown them and split the ownership of the building 10% city, 10% state, 31% bidding, 49% common shares that anyone can buy.
- force someone to be responsible. change the law, so that there's a fitting person with the authority to make those changes to be the one to go to jail if there's grave misconduct. (like when a building collapses, the engineer is responsible, as they signed the vow)
- Company pays 10% of their yearly revenue as a fine. DOUBLED if they are caught doing any similar misconduct.
@@darkdonzaloog fines never work. The solution here is actually really, really simple - You take the on-paper owner, and the on-paper board members...
You put them in jail for 6 months without an appeal. _If_ building is not to spec _then_ jail for positions A, B, and C.
And then you bar them from company ownership or serving on any board, for life. You also bar them from serving in the construction industry, in _any_ capacity, for life.
The developer is not only non-compliant to BOTH Planning and Construction rules, they are also in contravention of UK disability regulations for the provision of accommodation, access, and parking. The quality of materials, trade fix (plumbing, electrical etc) and finishes must also be questioned.
I agree!☝🏻
My dad is a wheelchair user and he had to make formal complaints to my school so they would build a lift to have access to the main hall. It shouldn’t be a second thought to add wheelchair access. It’s a necessity!
no we just need to develop drone-chairs
The thing that always confuses me is that if they always considered accessibility for disability it would automatically be accessible for everyone, but they still ignore us. My knees don't work properly, so steps, especially without a handrail, are a problem. It's such a basic access issue that has a number of solutions that can work for everyone.
Luke Comer, is resident in Monaco “for tax purposes”. Tells you everything you need to know about Comer Homes.
Could have guessed as much!
"In September 2023 his trainer's licence was suspended for three years after twelve of his horses tested positive for anabolic steroids. He was fined €60,000 for the positive tests and an additional €5,000 for having incorrectly told the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) that he had an unblemished record. He was also ordered to pay 80% of the IHRB's legal costs, amounting to a bill of around £644,000. "
Monaco’s status as a parasite on European taxes?. Why does it continue?.
@@FoxFox0077they are a sovereign nation. They can do what they want.
From what I'm seeing online seems the council told them not to let residents in as early as last September knowing there were issues. If thats true i would find it hard to hold much against anyone but the development company. Can't allow unapproved properties stand otherwise every developer would do the same stunt and no regulations would be followed.
Most likely Greenwich registered those residents at those new addresses anyway, so no
@@2adamast They're legally required to register them
any idea how did the building have utilities if it hadn't been signed off?
@stevey-xw4gz you make deals with the utility companies not the council
That building was not built under cover of darkness in one night. Officials and building inspectors had plenty of opportunities to force compliance. Seems like public corruption is involved.
As a former NYC Department of Buildings employee, the only point I agree with the developers on is the standards changing since the original plans. But that is why we have people rewrite plans to fit current standards and still get the objectives done to the customers liking. That is literally why we get paid.
We don’t want to demolish buildings and remove homes for people but if you paid for something and didn’t receive what you want or need, no one should be surprised when the city said “Yeah…….no.”
Agreed though UK law does allow for retrospective planning application, it is just an incredibly risky and dumb thing to do. If a private individual could loose their dream house that way so should a business loose their building. Building regulations are a separate thing to planning permission that must be adhered to all all time, this more like applying to the Borough Council for permission to build x. What they are trying to do, which is a desperate legal strategy is to try and muddy the waters between the two an hope for the best. I would be very surprised if the appeal succeeds. Planning permission can sometime be be bit arbitrary. My sister was told that she had to put a pillar on one side of her kitchen extension rather than have continuous glass sliding door. This wasn't for structural reason but becuase the said the original kitchen had that an they had to match it, but the problem was the kitchen the inherited wasn't original it was already a modern extension. They won that. She lost an appeal for another extension that others on he same street with the exact same terraced houses got approved for just before. It really does depend who desk it lands on and also other political pressures at the time. Though in thsi case they really screwed up.
Also any appeal even though it goes to court they are only testing if it adhered to the councils own rule or the councils discretion as they defined it (with except of a small number of national defined planning laws). Some councisl are strict some are not. Building regulations are national.
This is not really a legitimate excuse either because within a certain time frame, UK law does generally allow for plans approved under an earlier standard, to be built under the old standard. But regardless, the council has already acknowledged that some changes to integrate the new standards might be acceptable. The council also make clear that they are willing to negotiate with the developer on modifications and improvements to bring the development into compliance. This presumably is their preference, but a demolition order is the only compliance route the council has available to force the developer to act. It's also setting an important precedent to remind developers not to push their luck.
Thye way I read it was: We used the flammable outer coating because it's cheap and you can't have those balconies then, so we removed them.
What I don't understand, is there must have come a point where someone noticed that the building, in construction, didn't look like the plans - Did the council object? Did the developer just press on regardless? Is the demolition order the culmination of years of the council saying "Excuse me, but..." and the developer saying "Tough, what you gonna do about it, it's there now?"
The way the system works is the council do not check that planning permission is being followed during construction. They rely on members of the public to report buildings which are non compliant.
@@extrude22 But systems like electric wiring that aren't visible later, or structures being made properly and up to building code and the approved designs etc. are typically inspected and approved (or not) during construction. It's a failure by the government to not have someone checking all the other factors for being what was approved.
@@emjayay It’s mandatory that all buildings are inspected to check they comply with with the building regulations during construction. This includes things like electrics.
But this is a different process to planning permission, it’s not the Building Control inspectors job to check that planning permission has been followed.
@@emjayay Planning is the responsibility of local government ,who have very little in the way of resources (the majority of councils are in serious danger of falling into the local government equivalent of bankruptcy right now). Checking every building project happening across the area they cover would have been difficult to do two decades ago when they did have a bit of money available. Doing it today would mean having to cut services that they are legally required to provide.
@@emjayay THIS!!! Not only did I take pics of various stages of my bathroom being redone, but also got regular visits from the Clerk Of Works (a member of the council who oversees building work). I'd assume London's Clerk Of Works was a frequent visitor to the site while the building was in construction, & if not, WHY NOT???
Nice to hear a council standing up against this kind of builders. We used to have far more checks as buildings went up. Lack of man power in councils means builders and rotten landlords have been getting away with so much.
But you could go to court and the builder could say there onsite planning officer or who ever it is who over looks the build permitted the build to continue as it is.
how long did it take to build. and the council at no point said anything about its structure.
The council are just as to blame they did not inspect the build or take or say anything during the build about this is not looking like what we agreed on. they waited till it was fully build and people had moved in.
Who sign off on the building once completed.
@davidsworld5837 The councils manpower has been cut to the bone so I just hope the court see sense and demolish this new and yet so wrong in today's rules on wheel chair access alone it should not be standing.
I do not see why they were so blind to the access for WC, they should know that it would not be acceptable.
But if you do not see that the builders can use the council officers signed off on the building during building, so they can put to the court that it was accepted. It does not matter there are not enough manpower, that is not the builder fault, but governments. the government powers did not complain during building. there has to be some thing in law, or there lawyers will find a loop hole. No matter that it is nothing like what was agreed.
Funnily in my area of South London developers are scared of local residents. Developers hold pre-consultations to ensure their developments don't have residents fighting them. They then do changes to decrease the number of objections. This means developments of just one bedroom flats to a Lidl don't get approved and the developers ask us what we want. Lidl tried really hard then just withdrew their application as even the local MP got involved. We now have a Lidl but they had take over the site of an existing retail store. Even then they had people complain over traffic measures.
You didn't state what part of South zLondon but I am hoping it's Lambeth that still has teeth.
I hope the council is successful, these companies need to be shown that they cannot get away with this behaviour
They haven't done away with the commercial space and replaced it with gym facilities, instead they will charge the residents to use the gym thus making it a commercial space
Lmao
As a wheelchair user the access stuff is so important. I'm struggling to find anywhere to live and not for lack of money but lack of any suitable housing at all. If a single person taking home 100k can't find any accessible housing what about everyone else? You never know when you will start having mobility issues or make friends with someone who is
Builders amongst all people should understand this. It only takes a very small mistake on a build site to put someone in a wheelchair, at least temporarily in the case of a badly broken leg or two.
Kinda reminds me of that old pub that got demolished without permission, and then the developers were forced to rebuild it using historical materials & techniques.
I think its important the developers get the message they are not above the law and this building needs to come down At the developer's cost.. What they said they would build, what they had planning permission for, they had no intention of doing. Grenfell is just an excuse (and I wonder how many buildings they have constructed with the flammable cladding?)
And they never should have moved the residents in either. That was cruel.
Its a tragedy for the residents (they are not ahappy with the accomodation - one claimed its too dark) and they need more support, but millions are being blighted by crappy substandard housing exctly like this. And that needs to stop.
"A well written answer for those who don't think critically" You hit the nail on the head with that one. So many fluffy words that say the right thing, even if they aren't true or even logical.
During Covid I was my grandma's full time caregiver, taking her to Dr apts and such the handicap spots were a game-changer. the worst thing was going somewhere without proper handicap spots, I would park as far to the drivers side, squeeze myself out by the bush they placed far too close, and carefully open the passenger door to not ding the car next to us, especially when they were parked 1/2 in the loading zone spot between next to the spot.
I appreciate how the council pointed out how the changes specifically affected disabled people, and how you gave examples of how it would affect them. "oh we just added a little step" might not be a big deal to able bodied people, but the rules and regs are there for everyone for a good reason.
Also loved how you used the US as a how not to have cars.
Whilst buying a house on a fairly new housing estate in the east Midlands, my eagle-eyed and (as it turned out high value for money) solicitor noticed that whilst the estate had planning permission for several hundred houses (I forget the exact number), they had in fact built 10 more (somehow squeezing them in).
That's not entirely unusual, but it's always accompanied with supplementary planning permission. However, in this case none could be found.
It therefore became the responsibility of the selling vendor / solicitor to find it, or get it approved retrospectively. Without it, in theory the local council could come along and demolish the excess 10 houses (the estate wasn't old enough for the surplus houses to become de-facto approved).
This was eventually sorted out, but it did make the vendors a lot more responsive and receptive about other things in the sale.
By "sorted out" I assume you mean retrospective permission was given.
@@Zatnicatel Initially some kind of bond / insurance policy at their expense, paid for out of the purchase price. Council demolishes my house, insurance would pay up. Trick was ensuring that it accounted for appreciation. Though the right supplementary permission paperwork was eventually unearthed.
I'm a wheelchair user and honestly them cutting corners on the accessibility doesn't surprise one bit, it is rife in England.
Thank you for bringing attention to the ever growing issues! Love these videos!
Yep 4 new houses were built by me on the site of old Asbestos filled garages. All 4 were built to cat C requirements for disabled access.
And then the council moved in people who are not disabled in any way.
I dont understand building disabled friendly homes and then never let disabled people live in them.
Thank you for speaking on an issue affecting disabled people. There might be a housing crisis in general right now, but seeking accessible housing is always a crisis for us. Aside from the bare minimum of physical navigation, which is difficult enough to secure, poor quality housing can cause additional symptoms and illness due to molding, poor ventilation, and other structural consequences of shit builders.
As someone who also used to work in the construction industry, the quality of housing being built has declined steadily from the time I aged into adulthood. I witnessed structural problems covered with spackle and paint on a regular basis. I will never live in these new houses/buildings unless my dying wish is to be crushed in my own home.
- From Canada
As a disabled person who is mobile, but I have friends who need to use walkers and wheelchairs, taking out all the ramps and disabled parking spaces should render the building unusable, and condemned. Able bodied people just do NOT understand how hard it is for the disabled to navigate, even with walkers. more corners means more harsh wear and tear on wheelchairs, oxygen users might lose balance with their oxygen tank, and unstable people using walkers are more likely to fall. Not to mention the building probably breaks A TON of rules for accessibility.
Did you notice the delay between getting planning permission and the build. It did not take 12 years to build. If you have ever worked in planning permission or housing development you will be familiar with that ploy. Good for Greenwich not being held to ransom by developers. Any buyers may not realise it but Woolwich Council has done everyone, including other boroughs a huge favour.
Thank you Evan - Great stuff - You might be interested to learn that, when Christopher Wren submitted his plans for the new St Paul's Cathedral, the City of London Authorities rejected the design, on the grounds that it was too papish being reminiscent of St Peter's Basilica in The Vatican City - Wren completed a new set of plans for a stucture of completely different dimensions and appearence and this new design received immediate approval and construction commenced - Over the the next 35 years of building, the design was modified a little at a time and, on completion, the finished structure had transmogrified into something completely different to that drawn in the approved plans, and virtually indistinguishable from the original rejected plan.
He hid the development behind scaffolding and is seems that no-one in authority noticed! The compromise design was hideous - it's just as well that he managed to subvert the original design committee.
Good extra input - Thank you
Very interesting but comparing this developer to Christopher Wren is like comparing me to Gandhi
If you keep on putting out great stuff like this new type content, then I'm ready to believe that you may be following in The Mahatma's footsteps
@@evan Just explaining how Wren got away with it. I suspect that this developer used a similar tactic. With Wren, it was for the benefit of the generations to follow. With this developer, not so much 😒
I understand that the *original* Grenfell Building was safe from spreading fire. It was designed so that a fire in one flat could be contained in that flat without spreading. The problem came with the addition of the very flammable external cladding many years after the construction of the building, and a few years before the disaster. This, as well as being flammable - the origin materials were entirely concrete, steel and glass - introduced flues which acted as vertical corridors on the outside allowing flames to rise from floor to floor.
Residents complained to the landlords and the Council many times about the potential danger, and were ignored.
council on that one were owner, developer and planning permission granter (and building control inspector) , though the documentation and control was piss poor and thanks to unhelpful EU regs on usable materials generated confusion in the supply chain
The original design was better, but still deeply flawed. There was only one escape route, and the smoke suppression measures were inadequate. Plus access for fire fighting vehicles was difficult on such a constricted site. It was always a disaster waiting to happen.
@@tullochgorum6323 As in the proposed design of the changes , indeed so . I still contend the cause of the fire was incorrect electrics (I am sure the sub-basement area of the building (it managed in part to be on a plinth such that "ground level" outside was above ground level on another side) had a laundry area and I reckon the three phase electrical supplies were changed when I think that went to a different community (or residential) space. This was probably tested as OK but at the same time the flats were re-wired and probably tested to the original cabling before everything got fully switched over , (but I dont have sight of paperwork that might have existed to confirm what, if any, tests happened)
@@highpath4776 None of this would have mattered if they had provided a flame and smoke proof escape route. Because escape was so difficult the fire chief advised residents to stay in their flats, which proved to be fatal because he hadn't appreciated how drastically the fire would spread up the cladding. The few who survived from the upper floors ignored the advice and made a dash for it...
@@tullochgorum6323 as the OP on this comment said , the concrete structure (and see a couple of documentaries on the estate design and area when it was first built ) the stay put was correct and one staircase considered sufficient for the tower as built. (in part Grenfell was designed to avoid the flaws of Ronan Point). There were similar concrete tower designs a bit later in Lambeth , but they had external balconies as an additional refuge where access tower appliances could rescue persons should the stairwell become unusable.. Near me are further concrete built towers - less tall but wider - and there have been two fires in 60 years that I know of , a stay put (other than floor of fire ) policy applied, and worked on the first one, changing metal windows for UPVC caused minor vertical external flame and smoke spread which could have been worse had windows about been open with net curtains flapping. For Grenfell although residents raised concerns of the cladding plans and build qualty even they did not appreciate the change would have the funneling effect ( never mind the lack of fire stop insertion that may have been needed with that change that the local council did not put in the plans (the original plans were on the council website, the revised ones were not )
Which developer thought they could get away with all that? Sounds like they aren't experienced in UK planning laws at all.
I've just posted almost this exact comment. It's bizarre, how anyone, let alone a property developer thought they could do this - is it an American company or something maybe?
@@vijay-c That was my thought. There is NO WAY that removing the disabled access would fly. It's been that way for a decade or more.
@@TheGramophoneGirl I just don't understand how they thought they'd get away with any of it. Absolutely agree on the removal of disability access being a big no go. But also, how did they think they were going to hide all those changes? It's not like it's a extension in the back garden or maybe a shed that they can hide for a few years, hoping no one objects - it's a fricking tower block!
Developers know the planning laws perfectly well. However, they also know that they can do as they want and get retrospective permission for changes because planning authorities are afraid of rocking the boat. It so happens that Greenwich have called their bluff this time.
The developer says a demolition order like this is unprecedented and they are probably correct. I'm sure they thought no council would actually order the demolition of an entire tower block for a planning violation. They were wrong...
I shared this video with my dad who spent his career as an urban planner in New York State. I'd like to share some of his thoughts.
"The external differences between the approved vs constructed buildings seemed insignificant to me. I kept looking, and am not sure which I think is better. They are both bad. Were the differences important at the time of approval? For example, the building should not be approved unless the balconies were the original way? Were they required to be that way in order to offset something the builder wanted that was detrimental to the public?
"How can changes occur during construction without city approval? Doesn't the city do daily progress inspections? Don't builders check with inspectors about every change? It is inconceivable that that would happen in NY. Also, the commission does this after the building is largely occupied. How could the owner be given approval to occupy a building that does not conform to the approved plans?
"How could balconies require a step? Aren't they at the same level as the floor?
"Changing the 1st floor from commercial to a gym might be a legitimate gripe or might not depending on the code definition of "commercial."
"The above ground parking and the lack of accessibility are bigger problems.
"Requiring the demo of the building seems draconian. Additionally it is a waste of energy and matter. It seems that everything should be made wheelchair accessible, and that the builder be required to make benefits (open space, aesthetic, transportation, etc) to offset the violations. They should be proportional to the violation, plus some extra to set an example so that other builders would not try the same thing."
Great video Evan, highlights the problems local authorities have with developers. Although people complain about planning permission bureaucracy, it is there for a reason, otherwise developers run roughshod over people's living standards, affordable housing provision and the environment, all in the name of profit. Just a point on council support, the government has stripped back funding for councils to such an extent that it is difficult to support the community in instances such as this, just not enough council workers to deliver services. We do our best, it's not that we don't care, we just have to prioritise.
Can we make it clear, Woolwich and Greenwich are in South East London, we have a SE post code.
The fact that the building next door still looks the same say that external cladding is not the reason for lack of windows and balconies - as windows and balconies don't have external cladding ...
Building Control is there to make sure the building is safe, and well built, it's even more likely to get a building demolished it it doesn't meet building control ...
Planning permission violations can get the building demolished easily, it is not unprecedented, or even unusual
Methinks the building firm protest too much ... and the council are making an example of them on an easily proven case to send a warning to other building firms ... the appeals process is fairly simple, the council will hear it's arguments ...
Some COULD be fixed but, overall, it demonstrates the developer's contempt for the people who will use the property
Well done Greenwich.
It's time developers are held to account.
Until people learn the difference between right and wrong these sorts of things will continue.
Whether you think that Planning Permission is good or bad is irrelevant. It is the law and the developer knows, or damn well should do, exactly what it is and how binding the planning permission you are given is. I agree with them that planning permission and building control are different. Unfortunately they don’t seem to know which camp each of their transgressions falls into. Either way, building control provides minimum standards and not an absolute. Planning permission granted can exceed those minimum standards.
It seems that the developer was just on a massive cost cutting drive. When this development it is demolished it is 100% on them. What happens to the residents is completely on them too. They need to be prosecuted too. I have zero sympathy for developers like this.
You are teaching me so much about this stuff and exposing me to world that I *really* need to know more about. Thank you!
Thanks! My vids go all over the place depending on what I’m interested in. :)
It's great to see that 1960s East Germany building designs finally get recognized for their grace, functionality, and modern looks. Good job, the developer, boo to the stuffy council.😁
Tbf there were some beautiful East German public buildings… that all got knocked down after reunification for various sometimes bullshit reasons.
For example the Palace of the Republic which had asbestos in it, instead of just renovating the beloved building they tore it down entirely and built a reconstruction of the older Berlin Palace(that had been destroyed by bombing in WW2.
yep, finally bringing about that Prison design that so many have been looking forward to. That's progression i guess 🙄😒
I'm glad big corporate have to abide by the same rules as us mere mortals. The planning permission my parents had to go through to convert the loft of their house into my now bedroom was a loonnngg process and it had to be up to standard. And this was a pretty standard renovation of one house, not a multiple flat skyscraper!
PP is seen as red tape, but in actually documenting what you are going to do , it helps with fitting into the building regs side of things , which keeps you safe and stops the roof falling in (literatly) it can also be adapted to give you the step by step gulde of order of work to be done and finished outcome.
There’s something seriously wrong about this story in that Councils do not appear to have the wherewithal to appropriately monitor what’s going on once plans are approved. This build should have been halted as soon as it became obvious that the builder and regulators WERE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE.
Let’s get real here. The building is there. It’s not going anywhere. Of course it shouldn’t be demolished. That’s insane. The builder should be fined. The proceeds from that fine should go towards building “adjustments” . If the penalty is substantial enough….any remaining funds should be used to subsidize rents over a three to ten year period. Those council members obviously have an ax to grind. There’s a happy medium between the “Nanny State” and crooked overzealous developers.
I surprise myself (as I think Evan has) by thinking that the block has to be demolished. I was involved in local planning issues back in the 1980's and 90's and even back to the 1960's there was a concept called "planning gain" whereby the local council gave planning permission on the basis of some sort of gain to the community. It normally takes the form of a small allocation of public/affordable housing in a much more luxurious housing development but I do remember that the upstream Shell Building on the South Bank had a full size swimming pool in it, primarily for their employees. As part of the planning permission for the whole Shell Centre, Lambeth got Shell to agree that local residents would also have access and, just like all other planning gain, this was made so difficult to take up that I never was able to find one Waterloo resident who even knew of it let alone visited.
The housing for social need agreements also always seem to get seriously downgraded or fall apart as a fait accompli. I think there have to be one or two examples made where developers who do not comply with the agreed permission get a potentially ruinous penalty as a clear signal to others that when you go ahead with a development you have to follow all to which you have agreed.
As a lifelong wheelchair user, it is so refreshing to see a biped angrily translate bureaucratese to plain language for those who have "never really thought about it." Usually I'm the one doing the translating and the biped's going "well, but they didn't *say* they're barring you..." Yeah! They don't! They just say "we could... we're not gonna... but we *could*... so you can't prove we wouldn't... and it's not like you have the money to sue us to prove we're doing it on purpose ... so y'know... drag your chair up the stairs, or don't. No one cares." So yeah. A+ translation skills. Would watch again for the catharsis alone. :D
Reminds me of a story I heard, where a developer demolished a listed building (An old Pub) and they got ordered to rebuild it exactly as it was, with the very materials it was originally made of :D
This same story has happened a lot throughout the UK - it's incredibly disturbing.
Evan, I do appreciate there are two sides to every issue. I think in this case the developers should be allowed to supervise the demolition of the building from inside it 🤗😉
I feel like the big question that isn’t brought up is why these planning committees aren’t checking in on these projects along the way? To wait until it is completed and full of residents is just so ridiculous and wasteful
They did, but the developers ignored them and let people move in anyway.
Planning Enforcement departments will only open a case if it is brought to their attention, they dont go looking for them as in law developers have to notifiy if a development occurs ( and some will only take action if the community is negatively impacted by the development (diff rules for conservation areas / national parks )
The developers were specifically told not to move people in. They did it anyway on the basis the council wouldn't be prepared to turf people out.
@@erebusvonmori8050 They should have filed for an injunction that would have allowed them to chain the doors to prevent occupancy of the building.
I was a modelmaker for a massive re-development on the South Bank of Brisbane Australia. I pointed out to the Architect (one of Australia"s best known), that the Discrimination Act, the National Building Code, and the State Laws required wheelchair and baby pram access. I changed all the stairs to ramps, and all the public toilets to wheelchair minimums. This actually gave more space for lawns and gardens. Joni Mitchel's "Big Yellow Taxi" springs to mind.
On fixing individual apartments for accessibility they are not going to be able to make too small balconies for wheelchairs bigger.
I'm a green beest, and I hate the wastefulness of demolitions early in a building's life - but if no punitive, deterrent action is taken when developers cut corners in this way, there'll be more and more of this.
Excellent, illuninating presentation, E. Thanks, and well done.
If the company in charge insists to not demolish that building, force them to do all of the following at their own expense 1. Fix all the issues that are fixable including installing bigger windows, wherever indicated by the original planning permission, levelling all areas inside and in conjunction with the building to be wheelchair accessible, build additional parking space with a garden area on top. While they are doing so, they have to provide and pay for alternative accommodation for all tenants 2. Fine them for a substantial amount for those issues that cannot be fixed or alternatively make them reduce rent permanently for all apartments in the buildings
I can imagine they will plea to being allowed to demolish and rebuild the building then.
You forgot the one about decreasing the floor area. 😀
I did include fines for issues that cannot be fixed. I am pretty sure that reducing the buildings size or footprint would fall into that category. 😉
I'm an American living in London, and I'm really enjoying these "deeper dive" videos. You're filling in the knowledge gaps for some viewers, and opening the eyes of other viewers who had no idea.
I like all your videos, but I'm here for it if this type of video becomes a regular part of your rotation!
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Well, sometimes.
usually depending on how much money you have
My presumption (could be wrong) is that the reason that Greenwich is resorting to a demolition order is because UK government doesn't actually give the local authority many effective options for dealing with developers like this. I'd think that a massive fine (like a substantial percentage of the value of the building massive) would be more appropriate. But I'm guessing that Greenwich don't have that power.
They should tear it down and they should be responsible for finding the residents suitable homes if rentals and/or if purchased a full refund. I'm excited to see a gov't holding a company accountable.
“Affordable housing” doesn’t mean housing the average person can afford, it’s generally housing the developer must sell to a housing association- usually at a loss - to receive planning permission. This has an inflationary effect on the market housing to claw back profits. Not saying that’s bad, just that a lot of people don’t realise.
I think the building should not be demolished, but the company should lose their ownership of it (to the city). That would avoid the waste of material and work that went into it, but set a financially similar precedent as demolishing it.
I look forward to an update on this. I am hoping the developers do not win and have to demolish the building. Why? because the big guys get away with this sort of thing so often that it’s about time someone said NO.
As it would be completely against the best for the environment to actually demolish the development i think they should instead be forced (as long as it is actually structurally safe and sound) to give back any money they have made from it to buyers/renters currently occupying it and then donate the whole thing to the council for social housing.
This would be a huge shot across all developer's bows but also mean that there is actually a decent amount of social housing suddenly available in an area that i'm sure does not have nearly enough.
What I find weird is that it took them so long to find out/bring it up and that the developer was able to sell/rent out those flats.
In Slovakia, once you finish the construction, you need safety inspections (which I'm sure they do in the UK), but they also check if everything was done the way it was stated in your planning permission (To get a planning permission in Slovakia is even more difficult than it is in the UK). Until everything is 100% accurate, your building won't get a house/flat number. Without this number, you will never be able to sell/rent out that flat. You can try living in such building, but you will never be able to get internet/tv, water, gas, electrics, even your mail won't get delivered there. Your bank won't recognise it either...you can't get a mortgage for a flat that does not officially exist.
I like this approach because it eliminates the hustle of fighting for your money in case this demolition goes ahead, and I'm talking about the residents of this tower. Developer will find a way to get out of this
Definitely has to come down. The bill will go to the freehold company. Could start in 2025. The council will push the court. Failure to be 'ready' by the freehold company would be seen as hinderence and rulings would be made in their absence.
Easier for the Development company to go bankrupt , building then passes to the Crown
The fees the freehold companies incures gets passed onto the leaseholders or if the council fines the companies directly they could liquidate meaning the freehold goes to the crown giving a missing freeholder which is a total nightmare
Not sure how it is in the UK, but in Finland commersial space in buildings is extremely important and seen as a massive perk. This is because the rental profit from those spaces go directly to the maintenance of the whole building, profiting anyone living there and reducing living cost.
regarding colour palette... it's an industry standard to slightly tweak a 'ral' colour so you own the specific gradient. you see this a lot with brand specific tile or framework. it's good to see the 'accessory' issue being looked in to (apple being put to task about leads and accessories becoming obsolete and then land fill) but it's basically the equivalent of a video game 'game as a service' monetary cash grab. 'You want more of this? Pay us serfs!' I wouldn't be surprised to find out the 'orange' is brand specific... not taking away from the fact that it looks like crap anyway lol
I wondered that, but I'm assuming that the other buildings are also built my them (this is phase two), so they'd 'own' the colour anyway.
you may be right, to be honest - but contacts have been renegotiated so often recently it just rang a bell with me - I've had so many project's held or the original contractors shut down that its become a nightmare to them, so thought it could be a factor. @@juliannicholls
@@juliannicholls not sure , sometimes diff developers build on large sites to minimise financial risks .
Orange (and other pigments with lots of red) is also notoriously known for bleaching in the sun over time. My new orange sunshade of the exact specified (per regulation) RAL colour is significantly more vibrant than the old one.
These documentrie style content mix with your amazing character makes it a joy to watch
Evan Edinger: Aka, Tom Scott of specifically just London
He needs to start doing videos on location though
@@MarkNealon is he not recording from London?
As a Town Planner that is also disabled, I find developers like this beyond infuriating in so many ways. What really gets me aswell it that they would have had employed professionals to redesign and plan the new building form. How they could take the job and not see (or perhaps more concerning, care about) the ethical and moral implications is incredibly disheartening.
So where were the inspectors while it was being built?
I’m assuming this block was the block developers have to build to provide social housing flats for tenants from the council. So the council are stuck. Hence why they have built a load of crap. If they knock it down the council will have to re house those people are there own expense.
Are we to believe the council only noticed the changes at the end of construction?
Building regulations and planning departments don’t talk to each other and this leads to serious issues
I have seen planning demand things that are not compatible with building regulations
It’s positively insane
The building control may be private sector (aka an Approved Inspector).
I am in the process of designing a single stand-alone suburban house to wheelchair accessibility standards. Yes, the space you need for that is huge.
But a parent who uses a wheelchair still needs to be able to live in the same house as their kids and read them goodnight at bedtime. Wheelchair accessibility is not a luxury - it's a basic requirement.
Well as the Building clearly does not meat health and safety laws as in Wheel chair access and none access to certai9n areas like the gym means it must be taken down at the builders own expense plus they should be taken to court in the first place.
The developers are ignoring wheelchair accessible means it is accessible for everyone. This is whether you have a baby to if you are normally able bodied and injury one of your legs.
Yeah, in theory the big companies are being held to the same standards, until they ignore the local authority and appeal to a higher court and get approval because the government just wants to say that more homes have been built
Breaking the law, breaking the law !
“DEMOLISH THE BUILDINGS--BUILDER MUST COMPENSATE RESIDENTS AND FIND NEW HOMES FOR THEM AT THE BUILDERS EXPENSE”!
The builder was told not to move residents in because of the problems, they did anyway. The residents have to claim against the builder for misrepresentation etc. This isn't and shouldn't be a consideration for the council planning enforcement.
@@AndyFletcherX31 With a builder that dishonest and shady--EVERYONE involved will need as much LEGAL PROTECTION they can possibly
get or EVERYONE dealing with the builder will get shafted!
@@nanabutner Well, yes. Unfortunately the planning department don't have "standing" in a dispute between builder and owner/tenant. They can provide documentation showing that they advised the builder not to let occupants into the building but this particular issue isn't their bag. In any case the council will almost certainly be asking the builder why they are letting people move in without a Planning Department completion certificate.
You said "it's not done here" many times but I'm actually surprised because your last video left me thinking things are actually done like that there.
lol good point
knock it down & have the developer compensate the residents for decorating & moving costs and anyone else that their mess has caused.
simply this isnt what they had permission to build. it has way too many changes and all downgrades rather than any improvements - will not only teach them to stick to what they have permission to build in future but will be a clear example to others of what to expect. needs to happen more often.
expected - the council probably needs to build and pay for a kids play park in the area & developers will probably be allowed to pay for that or donate a nice car or free flat to the council leader & all will be forgiven.
I think demolished is extreme action when none of the issues seam to deal with safety of building. Just throwing away £90 million + cost of demolished dosent help anyone. I am not sure if the housing laws are just extreme restricted on what possible remedies are available.
If it's possible I think far outcome would be the council seize the building. Potential pay the developer the cost of just the land at or below fair market value. ( this would have developer in the same position as if demolished happen). They could fix any deficiency(dealing with wheelchair accessablity ) using the potential value of selling the tower to cover the cost. Then the council has two options with this new £90 million building they got for almost free. Either sell to different owner with requirements attached or simple keep and rent out themselves as a low income housing. Either way the build gets required fix done.
This is what I thought too. Is there some reason that the building is actually unlivable, or does the law simply not allow the council to take over the building, only ask it to be demolished?
Nope. Why should the council foot the bill to make the adjustments. Which would range from very expensive to impossible.
The developers had no intenton of building why they had planning permission for.
They do not give a f*ck about the peopel who would have to live there buult with pokey little windows and substanrd materials.
They thought they wuould get away with a pathetic fine and the residents would have to put up with this substandard shit.
Developers get away with so much in this country and I am overjoyed that Woolwich is calling them out for their antics.
Demolish it and send them the bill and make them build what they said they would.
@chrishartley4553 It is not really the council footing the bill. They seized atleast £90 million assets. Simply use this value to cover the cost. ( I know I am using building cost to equate to current value but if this is not the case the project would have been built at loss which is likely given the housing market has such high demand.)
I am not sure if this is how works in the UK but in NA most construction projects are special companies strictly set up for that development. The partner companies would own shares in this special company but would be protact from most liability. There would be no way to force the company to fund another £90 million project. The special company would simple file for bankruptcy and never fit the demolished bill let alone cover the replacement cost.
By going with demolishing your simple pass the cost on to rest of the market. Your basically lighting £90 million on fire remove it from the area infrastructure. The rest of the marlet will carry this cost by increasing rent due to lower supply.
This solution isn't simple slap on wrist. It removes any investment the company put into project along with all there profits.
@@abrodeurI take your point on the funding. Its not my expertise. But...
I do not want a slap on the wrist. I want somebody to at last hold the developers' balls to the fire to stop them building crappy affordable housing. Because that is a blight and in the long-term, a very costly blight
And do you not think this tower is possibly an example of embezzlement? Cheaping out on the building standards and materials and pocketing the difference? Right from the start they had no intention of building what they said they would. And we know that because one of the first things they would have had to do is landscape the ground for the basement car parking they never built before pilings were sunk.
They are not beyond pushing the letter of the law (and sometimes just breaking it) and they get away with it time and time again with meagre fines (a slap on the wrist). And people suffer from these poor housing they have to live in because they can't afford anywhere else.
Developers have a lot of power in the UK; they use this to dictate what gets built, brow-beating local authrorities (in short they will do all they can to not build affordable housing - because 'profits') and they enjoy many political connections with the UK govt.
They are doing very nicely from the housing crisis because scarcity in affordable housingis pushing up the selling price of any new build no matter how poorly done.
Letting this stand sets a poor example, showing other developers just what they can get away with. Leading to more poor housing blighting peoples' lives with low ceilings, tiny windows, poor heat and sound insulation, and will often need repairs (from a few years time to immediately) because they have been built so badly.
3:16 Just a quick correction, you apply for a retrospective planning application, it is put to the same tests as a normal application. The main difference is because it's already built, you cannot ammend plans and therefore is more likely to be refused and refusal in this case will mean demolition.
I very much hope that large capital will not be able to avoid this. The residents may be disappointed now, but otherwise that will happen later and they will have to pay for the costs.
As an American, I have questions. Are there not building inspections all throughout the building process? If so, wouldn’t these irregularities have come up at the inspections during the building process? I’m just confused as to how a building that I would expect, took multiple years to build, could only come to light to be so deficient at the end of the process. When my house was being built for every stage of building, there was an inspection. There was an inspection when the, foundation was complete. There was an inspection where when plumbing was complete; there was an inspection on the electrical was complete. All those had to be done before walls were closed in so that the areas were accessible for said inspections. And this went on all the way up to the point of final completion and the final inspection.
They've been cut by the Torries. There aren't enough people to check
London needs a land value tax asap
The entire UK needs it.
Bearing in mind that we aren’t short of taxes this would need to replace another tax rather than just “oh, let’s add another tax”. That is lazy and serves no one other than accountants.
@@StephenWestrip yeah, the point of the land value tax is to replace all or most taxes on labour/property. This would incentivize building more housing while disincevising speculation
@@grimaffiliations3671 just bring back rates
@@highpath4776 just tax land
@16:00 To play Devil's Advocate, maybe they meant "the commercial space hasn't been removed, we've just already filled it with our own commercial venture rather than leasing it to a third party".
The building can be left standing if enough money is taken away from the builder. Basically, they should make zero profit on the building including any profit they could expect to make in the future by charging for additional stuff or doing repairs.
So, they tried and failed and all they lose is the profit? That's supposed to discourage them from trying again? The individuals who had a hand in this need personal punishment. Jail comes to mind. THAT will discourage them from trying again.
@@bobmazzi7435Yes, taking all of their profit is a cost they won't like. In business there is a thing called "opportunity cost". Basically in the years since building the structures, they would have at least gained bank interest if they left the money in the bank. If they built something, they expected to get a lot more than bank interest
It also assumes nobody will need a wheelchair during occupancy. Like, absolutely nobody ever gets injured or in car accidents that might immediately need a chair and not have a ramp in their building
very well made video, thanks man 👍
First I think the council has a right to demolish it, the council derives its money from rates that are based on property values. A building like this is lowering such. Secondly the unit owners deserve the build they paid for or their money back. Thirdly as a neighbour in the other building I'd definitely want it gone or at least fixed!
Sadly the developer is probably foreign, which means their financial resources are too, even if you sue they will probably move on to another country to do business and wait you out or drop this shell company and start under a new name.
Furthermore, how did the building get a certification of occupancy? The council has to sign off on it before people move in. Also buyer beware, this is why you don't purchase off the plan or new builds.
I could see how they can say that the commercial space wasn't removed, if they have one company owning the commercial space and another the residential space and they have a lease between the two companies with a tiny rent. So, the space is a commercial space that is currently being rented.... To themselves...
And like, I could easily see that having been done so that they can decide in the future to cut the gym out and rent the space for real without having to lower the rents. Because the amenities will affect how hight the original rents are. And not much has to be done to a space to make a gym.
So, they would keep the same revenue from the residential portion, lower their costs and have a new revenue for the commercial space.
are not gyms in a different PP category to other commercial uses ?
I imagine that sort of loophole is something lawyers would have thought of long ago, and included extra words to specify.
@@GamesFromSpace With Planning Permission it tends not to be lawyers but Planning Agents, as the form of words is somewhat quasi legal. I dont know if Evan was able to quote the exact schedule of planning permission for the space given ( the schedules changed during the build time in law so maybe it move from one sui-generis to another). A local authority can insist on one category type normally occuring where it is for the better development of the facilities and economic (etc) well being of an area.
As a former clerk of works, I am astonished these issues were not picked up earlier in the build by the council building inspectors.
New Capital Quay in Greenwich is also believed to be one of the areas in the uk with the largest concentration of Grenfell style cladding and so I really think Greenwich council are trying to turn around this image of unsafe housing in the area and the MP is the shadow minister for housing and planning (he’s really not good unfortunately)
It seems to me that, as you pointed out, this developer was fully aware that they were not in compliance with the permissions as granted, but continued construction anyway.
There are mechanisms to submit non-material amendments to planning for minor changes (e.g. changes to the colour or cladding to make it compliant), but this is a totally different building to the one for which planning permission was granted. This is like submitting planning for a 3 bed bungalow and building a 3 storey, 5 bed house.
And I strongly suspect that profit was the major factor driving these changes, e.g. windows are an expensive part of a build, by reducing the size and type of glazing they cut construction costs significantly. Likewise, the structural requirements to support the weight of a roof garden and large balconies would have required significantly more structural steel (another expensive building material).
Well done to the Council.
Our homebuilding model is not broken because of planning restrictions, but because it protects and maximises profit for the developers over quality of development. Don't get me started on the practice of land banking.
So the developer was just like screw all the folks that use mobility aids. WOW...
massively enjoying this Evan Vs. The Concept Of Housing arc
Glass usually does not increase combustability of the facade... sad excuse for replacing lovely large windows with pinprick portholes
A) They should be forced to just pay disabled people a settlement for their obvious pure hatred for them & blatant ignoring the law...B) Isn't it possible to fix these issues rather than demo?
15:37 I think what they're trying to claim is that the gym is technically a commercial use. Without reviewing the exact definition of "commercial space", this does seem at least plausible. It's not really compatible with the public policy goals of having commercial space, though.
Is it within the council's power to order demolition and rebuild, or just the demolition?
Councils don't have the power to force people to actually use the planning permission they've been given for a site. So they can only order the developers to demolish the block, and not to rebuild it.
It seems to me that the council should have had building inspectors actively watching over construction sites like this and made sure that the plans were stuck to. Stop work orders should have been issued when the builders started changing plans.