Planning enforcement notice: Mast Quay Phase II - The Royal Borough of Greenwich has taken the decision, as the local planning authority, to progress with enforcement action against the Comer Homes Group’s Mast Quay Phase II development.
Nobody says you can’t punish them. Seize the building and use it for affordable housing, for example. Just don’t tear down homes during a housing shortage.
You know what home probably isn’t up to code and isn’t accessibility-compliant? The one you live in, probably. My house has front stairs.
Considering my home is a single family dwelling, it is accessibility compliant since I don’t have compliance to meet and the house certainly didn’t have one when it was built 70 years ago. That’s a straw man argument and not what we are discussing.
We are talking about a new construction that wasn’t compliant at the time it was built, who leased out the apartments knowing it wasn’t compliant.
I did list the government taking ownership as an option. Along with mandating them to bring it into compliance. Considering they also built larger than they were allowed to, its not like they could shrink the building though.
If the building was designed with flagrent disregard for the planning committee and disability accessibility requirements, what else did they decide wasn’t important to follow? Fire code? Building standards? In my opinion, these things put the whole building in question.
A housing shortcut shouldn’t mean we accept people living in substandard or potentially dangerous housing.
Nobody says you can’t punish them. Seize the building and use it for affordable housing, for example. Just don’t tear down homes during a housing shortage.
You know what home probably isn’t up to code and isn’t accessibility-compliant? The one you live in, probably. My house has front stairs.
Considering my home is a single family dwelling, it is accessibility compliant since I don’t have compliance to meet and the house certainly didn’t have one when it was built 70 years ago. That’s a straw man argument and not what we are discussing.
We are talking about a new construction that wasn’t compliant at the time it was built, who leased out the apartments knowing it wasn’t compliant.
I did list the government taking ownership as an option. Along with mandating them to bring it into compliance. Considering they also built larger than they were allowed to, its not like they could shrink the building though.
If the building was designed with flagrent disregard for the planning committee and disability accessibility requirements, what else did they decide wasn’t important to follow? Fire code? Building standards? In my opinion, these things put the whole building in question.
A housing shortcut shouldn’t mean we accept people living in substandard or potentially dangerous housing.