Developer ordered to demolish new Apartment block

[Puddenchucker]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66934...

This seems a bit OTT to me.

I understand the council may be 'drawing a line in the sand' to deter other developers from deviating from the approved plans, but surely in a time of housing shortages, not to mention the environmental impact of demolishing and then presumably rebuilding, a habitable new building a comrpomise could be reached? Maybe one that involves forcing the developers to amend/modify the existing building to more closely match the approved plans?

[ARHarh]

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others. And surely he knew what was approved and chose to build something else, what do they expect.

[Funk]

ARHarh said:

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others. And surely he knew what was approved and chose to build something else, what do they expect.

Indeed, you'd end up with Trump Towers everywhere.

[Quhet]

Stuff like not providing accessible outdoor space is pretty unforgivable IMO. Heaven knows that the developers were thinking. Their project manager and internal planning team are going to be getting a pretty stern talking to I reckon

[NerveAgent]

ARHarh said:

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others. And surely he knew what was approved and chose to build something else, what do they expect.

This approach is required with the type that want to get away with it.

[aeropilot]

ARHarh said:

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others.

Correct.

However, I'd be surprised if these do get demolished, and some sort of <cough> compromise deal will happen.

This also highlights the problems with supervision during the build process. The deviations would have appeared on subsequent drawing issues by the architect, knowingly against the original PC..........so one has to question what has gone on and under who's instruction at some point during the design and build process.

[Mammasaid]

Funk said:

ARHarh said:

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others. And surely he knew what was approved and chose to build something else, what do they expect.

Indeed, you'd end up with Trump Towers everywhere.

ICWYD

[J4CKO]

Am sure there are other penalties that could be imposes where they have to make reparations without pulling a load of housing stock down when it is needed. Seems justified to a point but seems a bit "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

[Ivan stewart]

NerveAgent said:

ARHarh said:

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others. And surely he knew what was approved and chose to build something else, what do they expect.

This approach is required with the type that want to get away with it.

Not really if they have enough money and are in the mood the council will give in!!most councils have limited funds !!

[thegreenhell]

Surely just a very big fine and a rectification order would be more appropriate, and enough of a deterrent to others.

[Zetec-S]

I'd be surprised if they get demolished. It'll probably get dragged through an appeals process until the builder has done the bare minimum required to get sign off. Got to feel sorry for the people living there...

[BikeBikeBIke]

J4CKO said:

Am sure there are other penalties that could be imposes where they have to make reparations without pulling a load of housing stock down when it is needed. Seems justified to a point but seems a bit "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

Better to demolish. Whatever gets built there instead will be better. A couple of years delay in exchange for decades of better housing.

(If you think building regs are sensible.)

[rscott]

J4CKO said:

Am sure there are other penalties that could be imposes where they have to make reparations without pulling a load of housing stock down when it is needed. Seems justified to a point but seems a bit "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

Force the company to transfer ownership of the development to the council to use for social housing?

[FourWheelDrift]

"The lower-rise blocks built in phase one of the development are not affected by the council's order."

If they are the ones attached to the main tower then I would say they are just as different as the main tower.

[Funk]

Mammasaid said:

Funk said:

ARHarh said:

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others. And surely he knew what was approved and chose to build something else, what do they expect.

Indeed, you'd end up with Trump Towers everywhere.

ICWYD

[98elise]

J4CKO said:

Am sure there are other penalties that could be imposes where they have to make reparations without pulling a load of housing stock down when it is needed. Seems justified to a point but seems a bit "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

They are free to build the housing stock they have permission to build. The extra cost isn't the councils problem, that's on the developer.

If they can rectify the problems without pulling it down then that's fine.

[Oliver Hardy]

rscott said:

J4CKO said:

Am sure there are other penalties that could be imposes where they have to make reparations without pulling a load of housing stock down when it is needed. Seems justified to a point but seems a bit "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

Force the company to transfer ownership of the development to the council to use for social housing?

I agree with this. It won't be the first time things got demolished because built 6ft out of place or slightly to big etc. Confiscate the structure as punishment and put ot to good use or sell it rather than create waste and environmental damage.

[matchmaker]

Funk said:

ARHarh said:

If you let one developer "get away with it" it will set a president for all others. And surely he knew what was approved and chose to build something else, what do they expect.

Indeed, you'd end up with Trump Towers everywhere.

[W124Bob]

Perhaps a change in the law. The building is compulsory purchased for a nominal amount, then sold or used by the council? Stockport Tesco was built about 10ft wider than the plan, Tesco simply said to the town council "see you in court you'll run out off cash before we do". I believe they eventually put in a stud wall to reduce the internal floor space. Locals may know more.

Edited by W124Bob on Wednesday 27th September 16:09

[greygoose]

Puddenchucker said:

Maybe one that involves forcing the developers to amend/modify the existing building to more closely match the approved plans?

Given one of the features they forgot to build was an underground car park, I am not sure they would be able to modify what they have built to provide one. The developers deserve all the costs they have to pay in demolishing as they knew what they were doing.