High-rise Anger : 204 Apartments To Be Demolished During Housing Crisis | Good Morning Britain
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2023
- A council has ordered 2 apartment blocks in South East London to be demolished for breaching planning conditions - despite tenants having already moved in.
The £36 million Mast Quay development in Woolwich is 'substantially different' to the approved plans, Greenwich Council said. The developer plans to appeal.
Broadcast on 28/09/23
Stream Good Morning Britain live, every weekday from 6am on the ITV Hub 📲 daytimelink.itv.com/WatchGMBYT
Subscribe now for more! bit.ly/1NbomQa
Like, follow and subscribe to Good Morning Britain!
The Good Morning Britain UA-cam channel delivers you the news that you’re waking up to in the morning. From exclusive interviews with some of the biggest names in politics and showbiz to heartwarming human interest stories and unmissable watch again moments.
Join Susanna Reid, Ben Shephard, Kate Garraway, Charlotte Hawkins and Sean Fletcher every weekday on ITV from 6am until 9 every weekday!
ITV Hub: daytimelink.itv.com/WatchGMBYT
Website: bit.ly/1GsZuha
UA-cam: bit.ly/1Ecy0g1
Facebook: on. 1HEDRMb
Twitter: bit.ly/1xdLqU3
www.itv.com
#GMB - Розваги
I hope this does go to court. Greedy developers need to see that if they build illegally there will be consequences. The council repeatedly told them to make changes, and the devloper ignored it because they thought they could get away with it!
As a leaseholder of an apartment building built very close by (By Barratts homes) I am really angered seeing this news story and also angry that the GMB are sticking up for the developer!
Millions of leaseholders around the country fell victim to developers evel schemes cutting corners for profit like this, and not built to building standards even though they got it signed off a such!
We have owned our flat for 20 yrs and have barely made a profit on it, which is ridiculous in a london market, for a flat on the Thames river!
Barratts signed our building off as being built to regs and none of us were any the wiser, and were living in these buildings and then Grenfell happened!
When our building was opened up all their dastardly deeds were exposed for all to see!
They thought no one would ever see their corner cutting and cost saving that put all our lives at risk ,but it was exposed!After 4 yrs of fighting they have finally been forced to cover the costs for rectifying our development, but the damage is done, no one wants to buy our flats even once the rectification is done and their value has plummetted.
These developers get away with everything, and the ones who pay, as the poor leaseholders!
Why should leaseholders be left holding these flats that have been all built wrong?
They have been conned out of their money and are now holding a defective asset.
Ofcourse the developer should have to raze the building to the ground and be force to build what people actually paid for!
I can't believe people are defending these crooks and not the poor leaseholders who have once again been fleeced!!
I am so sorry to hear about your ordeal, I too lost my house under very difficult circumstances. I hope things are now o.k for you. The rules and regulations do not always make sense. However I totally agree with you that these blocks should be demolished. For the presenters to protect the developers is shameful.
I wish you and your family all the best for the future.💕
Problem is if council doesnt enforce a rule no matter the cost, developers will use this tactic to sneak changes through the back door and then youll find there actions will create dangerous environments like Grenfall or far worst. Developers KNEW what they were doing here
I understand this point of view........but..........I don,t hear the words "danger to life"...........ok........improvements at points "need" to be made.......eg....accessabilitie for people with disabilities...................
There is another way to deal with this. As long as the apartments are safe, the developer should be fined heaverly and black listed so they can not build a development again. That will send a big message to other developer's
@@arklight1670 it starts like a one off will changes here and there, before you know it our boroughs will be filled with inadequate buildings that dont fit the character of the street or area, dangerous non compliant standards and all that will happen is they'll get dissolved and then reform into new companies fronted by different people and do the same, or future one off non compliant developments will be pushed through to score a big pay day then they'll disappear. It's right that the council make it loud and clear, be compliant or tear it down. You and I would be told the same
@arklight1670 very good point.
these buildings are safe, it's the aesthetics that this loony left council leader is moaning at. just because a children's swing wasn't put in and a few more threes planted!
Build a 30 storey block of flats without planning permission next door to Suzanna and see how she feels then.
im confused by her position, they had something approved and built something else cutting corners. it will be another grenfell
So what she's saying is: we are in the midst of a housing crises, so let people move in and let the buildings fall due to bad construction, and Bob's your uncle. No more housing crisis.
The law must change. Confiscate the building for the breach.
perfect solution! love it
The developer will go into liquidation before enforcement gets anywhere. The leaseholders will hold worthless leases. It will be unmortgageable. Living Hell.
There is a responsibility on the Council to monitor and enforce its own regulations. God know what the carbon footprint of demolition is ?
The council is fully within their rights. The developers are just too sneaky. Hold up the law and take it down at their cost. I won't shed a 😢 for them.
Well done to the council for not allowing the developer to get away with poor workmanship ! If every developer sent in plans to be approved then just built what they wanted , the country would be in a much worse state. Some of the properties built in last 30 years are a disgrace ! This plastic cladding is also a firebox !
Wow disappointing take by GMB. The builders knew exactly what they were doing in the name of profit the gamble hasn’t paid off and now they are hit with cost. They should bear the cost of the development and the social impact imo
Nice bit of balanced reporting there;-)
As this was built for rent, the developers knew they could cut corners because renters are a captive market. They'll probably get a slap on the wrist. Councils don't have the resources to ensure developers play fair.
well said..this country is so corrupt.
I'm surprised Susannah doesn't grasp the issue here. If you get planning permission it doesn't give you carte blanche to build what you want. If the changes are substantive then you'll need to re submit the application, minor changes can be done through amendments? I'll be interested to know what the architects think, it looks completely different from the original renderings. It looks dreadful, something that was thrown up in 1970s.
She’s playing the Piers Morgan role
She’s thick , very lovely but totally thick and knows nothing about anything much
@CarlitoGio no she isn't. dont be so daft
I’m not at all surprised by her 🤷🏼♂️
The council built a housing estate costing millions in which l lived for a time. They moved drug dealers and various other antisocials onto the estate rendering it uninhabitable. I lost my home on it after living years there because of constant deafening "music" and threats of violence. All decent quiet tenants fled over time and it became so notorious taxi drivers refused to take fares to or from it. If you can't afford a detached home you're forced to live in such a hellhole. Council estates....
And when you call the police they don't turn up because they don't want the paper work. I understand you I really do .
Can you name the estate?
Why peridical supervision is not enforced? What were the authorities doing when such a huge construction was going on in their area?
The council representative literally explained the problem, planning law allows developers to use subcontractors to validate that the development is being built in line with the consent. That’s why the council were only able to physically investigate on completion.
Planning Law is a must, developers need to comply with framework
How did the council not realize that the building was wrong built.
They did, have you not listened to what the Councilor said??? Anyway, they shouldn't need to. Planning permission was for it to be built a certain way, it wasn't, so the developers pay.
@@davidtaylor8548you dropped this: A* in listening and comprehension
Because apes can’t run a council
They did, and told the developer that they needed to stick to the original plan. Developer repeatedly ignored this and kept cost cutting.
It's the developers fault
I see what the greedy developers have done here, they used their own contractors to supervised the construction, rather the council's to avoid scrutiny, hoping to put the council in front of a fait accomplis. Bring the tower down.
There is nowhere in the world that you can just start building up a house without approval of your council. Why would this company being an exceptional
You can build a house in a desert, in Afghanistan, Cuba, Texas and many other places without permission.
So your statement is BS
Sorry you are wrong
The wonders of vulture capitalism, you can always buy a few politicians, everything can be bought for a price.
Why weren't the Council involved at every stage of this building construction including denying permission for the Contractor to carry on unless the situation was rectified? Were the Council really so oblivious to what was being built and only checked after people moved in ? Council responsibility in monitoring during the building stages failed miserably.
Good question ! Bringing the systems down!
Don’t have clerks of work anymore , we have final works conditions reports before certs are issued .
If the plans were adjusted without approval they need ripped down and this will send a message to builders to stick to the agreement and plans .
@@pauls3204 how many more buildings will now need to be demolished, if they are signed off at completion without any previous monitoring - surely this is a very costly way of 'teaching' contractors to comply with the initial construction agreements
@@magenta130 a lot of these outfits are corporate owned by foreign investors
They really don’t care a snotter and this type of result will show them that this ( at the moment) is not the third world country and planning applications are there to prevent it looking like one
So how did they get fully built anyway if they were wrong , surely they get regular checks whilst being built
This is what happens when you get private Building control to sign off on building's. Same happened to Grenfell flat's
How did they get this far? 😂
Exactly. Maybe they were told to stop but ignored it
The council, in this case, would say something like 'That's good, that's good, that's not good, fix it.' The company will 'Or course no trouble.' Next time 'Though we told you to fix that?' 'Oh yeah, sorry we'll get right on it.' There will be then back and forth between the council and the company and before you know it the building is finished
Back handers..... Plenty of them.
The builders probably used rice paper for the walls instead of the agreed cardboard,as is the way with modern builds.
Totally agree,well done woolwich council,greedy developers taking the piss..
How the " F " did the council sign the building off ????
@@daddymulk correct - they can't be bothered to get off their fat lazy a@#ses and actually do what it is their job description entails. Nice 'shirk' if you can get it, I guess !
😂😂😂benefits fraud pension fund pockets 😂😂🎉
They DIDNT genius. They passed the original planning, and it was up to the developers to ensure it was COMPLIANT. The developers tried to sneak changes through the backdoor and hold the council, people and borough HOSTAGE because the housing crisis. Bloody audacity
They never do inspections properly and throughly. Only what they want to see and deal with. Disgusting. Same with Harrow Council who are disappointingly unhelpful and unprofessional.
@@HK-vy3fh cant speak to Harrow but I know Greenwich council are diligent, professional and go by the letter of the law which is what we all want
These buildings were not built overnight that council regulators only discovered it in the next morning that those were built violating the approved plan. All those responsible within the council who are supposed to supervise the construction should be put in jail (not only sacked). These are built using public fund. They should be taught what is public fund.
Great points!
You are so wrong!
it WAS NOT THE COUNCILS JOB to oversee this development, as the developers contracted that job out to a 3rd part company instead of using the councils buildings regs dept, so nothing to do with the council and everything to do with a typical crooked developer using a 3rd party to manipulate and get away with stuff!
Just as barratts did on our property, that were signed off as being compliant when they infact were not, and has resulted in all of the leaseholders including us ending up financially screwed as a result while they raked in the propfits when they sold the buildings and made a killing!
20 yrs later, and we can not sell them for much more than we paid 20 yrs ago!
The council told them repeatedly to stop making changes to the original plan, but the developer ignored them. That's why it's come to this. Also, this is a private tower block- it's not council owned. So the developer should have to pay for it to be demolished.
Whenever public fund is disbursed no matter whether it goes through 3rd party, the state exchequer (custodian of public fund) is ultimately responsible.
i'm kind of with the council on this one. rules are there for a reason and developers will always try get away with what they can if it'll make them more money. want an extension on your house? you have to go through planning, and you cant deviate from whats agreed. Why should developers be allowed to follow different rules, especially given that they're motivated by profit?. All that said, making modifications would be better than demolishing the whole thing, but the developers should at least get a hefty fine
Well thats the question,
how many planning regs were on site , who was making sure they were sticking to the plan. (Highrise in London ... you would think there would be alot of eyes on.)
Stop blaming users of the system and blame the system makers.
NIMBYism.
@@grimmstryke9627 The developers choose not to use the ocuncil to do the building regs but got it signed off through a third party company (who they were probably greasing the palm of!)
Facts second your comment
@@grimmstryke9627 its not on the council to hold their hand while they're building. any agreements on what gets built and how its built are done way before construction starts. If the developer is cutting corners then that is on them and their building control team (which we heard was privately contracted). Its pretty outrageous to suggest the developers are simply 'users' of the system when they are also one of the largest contributors to the housing crisis
It would be a different story if I applied to build a bungalow next door to Suzanne's house, got approval, then went on to build a multi- storey carpark on the grounds that I had already rented out some of the parking spaces!
She’d be screaming from the high heavens!!
“Absolutely remarkable”? They broke the planning rules!! Make them pay a fine of half rebuilding costs and also to make good the building.
That guy dealt with the media bias properly.
A developer can not build against agreement then call his friends in the media to wash over his contractual failing citing it is a waste. The media should be asking the developer what happened
Why didnt the council keep a check on the building then?
How is it the councils fault?
The dodgy developer instead used a third party company to sign of on regs instead of the council regs dept, as that insures they get away with stuff!
So if the Council used a private third party to sign off a dodgy construction the Council is ultimate responsible for what is an illegal sign off
What a very articulate explanation by the Councillor, as of why the Council are making the decision they are, he was polite, articulate, well prepared and stated the facts ( Government Minister should take heed ) he was patient, even when being interrupted by the male host, the lady held up 2 pictures I'd wager without no building knowledge states she can't detect much difference, ( Never judge a book by it's cover) Also some viewers fail to listen as the Councillor clearly states the Building Firm chose to employ it's own Building Regulator for its checks. In my experience if you pay the piper you call the tune, especially if you have further contracts in the pipeline waiting to be "Inspected"
Why are they defending the developer? The council are correct for doing this and showing future crook developers that they can’t create low quality housing and just get away with doing what they want against what they’ve been given permission to do in order to make higher profits at the expense of tenants & leaseholders
This did not happen overnight and the Council are complicit, as they have a responsibility to oversee these developments and they charge developers a "Community Infrastructure Levy" of over £125/ sqm before getting their hands on all the extra ££££ from the tenant's Council Rates.
Sounds more like the Council being pedantic and incompetent to me, the developer is there to make money and supply requirements and if the problem was so bad the Council have the authority to stop the works at any time, rather than trying to shut the door after the horses have bolted.
Did some council members not receive the expected envelopes?
Good. They are an eyesore. Who were the prison blocks built for? That's the real question. Planning permission is based on the decision of a few poorly trained councillors who are on the planning committees, Ridiculous!
So where was the Council's Clerk of Works during the construction??
It wasnt their job as the developer outsiurced signing off of regs to a third party company they could manipulate!
It would be better to fine the developer and let the building stand, unless of course there are safety issues.
The Council bloke is conflating building control (privatised) with development control (council). The demolition is under the Council planning controls. Council not doing its job.
I lived in that building for 1 year and can say the internal quality of the buildings is not great, there were constant breakdowns of lifts, heating systems. in fact the heating was so bad in the winter I had to buy extra heating units, given the emails sent out to residents I wasn't the only one. you had to flush the toilet 2-3 times to get it to work (I've never had this in any other place I lived), even if only a couple sheets of toilet paper. The quality of the apartments to me didn't meet what you would expect for the rental price. I certainly would never live there again.
Anyone who begins with “so……… “. really puts me off trusting what they say…… 😎🥰🌍
He is probably just another corrupt official and one who has not got what he expected. These were not built in a day so where the hell has the council been in not keeping on top of their legal requirements to ensure that the Planning Designs and Building regs were not kept up to spec throughout the build. No something stinks - yet again. If the accommodation, though differing, is legally safe and compliant then they should get retrospective planning and remain. The developers should then have a massive fine for having cheated and bypassed the true system, normally to further their gains. Then all and any Council officials or delegated companies who were responsible as Chartered Surveyors etc, Inspectors etc. should be sacked, closed down and possibly jailed for deceit and possible corruption. But the cost to dismantle, probably perfectly good accommodation, once built, should be prohibited as wrong. Basically, the Council Chap should resign for a start as he has been too busy at the Gin and Tonic Parties and has not controlled his departments. If is his failure - what else. Of course, it is taxpayers' money they play with not their own salaries. Looks like he has opened his own can of worms and really should resign as not being fit for purpose. Why do they employ such fools on grossly over-inflated salaries when the old tea lady could have done better!
Racist!
You need far more than medication and he needs the sack.@@obisan666
Buildings are supposed to be signed off a certain stages of the build to make sure it is built to agreed plan . So how has this not been noticed untill it has been finished?
Because the third party company responsible for signing off the building regs was obviously dodgy like the developers
Thats how these developers get away with ripping leaseholders off!
They dont allow the council regs dept to be involved and instead use a third party company they can manipulate!
Because they, the private developer used a third party.
The builders have went off plan to finish so they can line their pockets by moving Tennant in before the final inspection even though they were asked not to and if in a few years the flats are full of damp you will blame the council for not stopping them. Look how hard it is to get the builders to put right the use of shoddy materials after grenfell . Once the tenners are in its their problem
There is also a responsibility to the council to oversee the work stage by stage 🙉🙈🙊
Mr. Jobsworth says demolish . Where was Mr. Jobsworth during the building of these apartments . If I apply for planning permission to build an extension to my home I am required to submit plans and jump through hoops all the way through the building work.
This is local council tyranny or at the very least incompetence. Why was the planning officer so late to realise a breech in permission?
It should have been obvious from the completion of the first floor.
To seek a demolition order now is just jobsworths making a point and is completely indefensible. Sack the entire idiots in the council.
Surely the Council sent inspectors during the building of this property.
Good question, why werent they checking on this sooner?. Too many councils do not follow up or monitor works and they should do.
Knock them down. Don't adapt them. Makes a mockery of housing policy otherwise. I agree 100% with the authority
I thought building tower blocks was no longer fashionable.
Many old ones were demolished in the West Midlands and not replaced .
So why was it built in the first place. Did it not have planning permission? Didn't the council check during the build? This country is a mess. This councillor seem like he is just passing the book. Something else is going on here.
I bet they will do a U turn and The Boat People will get them for free.
With all the issues of poor quality build this has to be dealt with and builders have to comply
How the frick did he become the leader of a council
box ticker
To some extend, I do get where the council is coming from. Developers have got to follow proper guidelines and rules because if they start getting away with things like this, eventually you will end up with China style tofu-dreg buildings that dont last long. So that angle I get. However, the nation is in a massive housing crises. This property isn't a danger to humans as is therefor that developer should be getting a FINE on top of paying for all the extra costs needed to bring the building up to standard. To knock down buildings that could provide homes for over 100 families is beyond unacceptable and can't be justified. Fine them, but do not punish the families living in those homes. I feel this council hasn't fully thought this through and are being heavy handed.
So you're saying the poor leaseholders who actually bought these flats and have been fleeced should just b e left holding these defective properties with no recourse?
That's what you're saying!
@@krustycreme1093 Which part of the developer paying a fine and for all the modifications to get the building to par did you not understand?
So much waste from the developers deciding to do what they want instead of sticking to the plans like everyone else.
What next, we have buildings which block out light for other buildings? Or the electrical regs aren't up to standard? What if they wanted to build higher than the plans suggested, is that fine as well?
Good on the council. I live near this building, and I can see it from my home. Any changes will be disruptive, but perhaps in future, this lot would have learned their lesson.
I want to know why this development was not being kept an eye on by the council as it was being built !
It's funny cos I live nearby, and it looks completely different from the original plans 🤣🤣🤣
Don’t they sign off at every stage? Why was it discovered at the completion that it is not according to the planning permission? The guy says that even the footprint is off? Certainly this would have been the best time to stop any building progress?
Why didn’t they stop them before it was completely finished?
No inspections were made earlier during the construction?
None of the tower blocks in the UK are safe enough to live in , how you gonna make a safe tower bl9ck of 20+ floors, they are all a hazard !
The developer is to blame, not the council. They are obliged to construct a building according to the approved plan for very good reasons, not only aesthetic, but also safety and durability. This developer should not be in business.
Developer didn’t make his pay offs..
I had my loft and extension done some years ago and the council inspectors were up my ass at each stage to ensure it was done according to the approved plans. Where were they during this project?
They weren't involved as the developers instead got a third party company to oversee signing off of regs to keep the council in the dark, in the hopes they will get away with it, which is exactly what Barratts did at our development- we caught them out 20 yrs later when the building was opened up and exposed after grenfell!
Third party carried out the inspections
why didn't the council monitor the build?
What the hell is UNLAWFLUL you mean UNLAWFUL. How the hell is this man a councillor "we did this cos its unlawflul"
"Promote our healths"
The law is the law😢. Sad but true!.
I agree with the council. Or better still I agree with the law that the council is applying. Other developers will be thinking twice.
Where was the council when the building was built?
If only because of housing crisis, and then build anything too flexibly as the developer wanting and progressing, …. Something bad will.. I mean really bad and life threatening things will happen. Trust me I am from the country where too fast, too soon, too anything was good in 1990’s… and then the contructions collapsed suddenly killing hundres.
How did they ever let it get so far. I built in London...the planning dept where all over the build. Visits paper applications planning meetings etc....
Why wasn't a council member there when it was going up very fishy
I live in Greenwich and fully back their tough stance. GMB are out of touch with most things...
You are on the wrong side!!!! The Crminal is the developer!
Rather than rant why not listen to the explanation given. It's not a council build, any developer has to follow planning rules, they did not, why because they don't want the potential tenant groups included that that council identify. Local authorities look to local need when granting planning permission for developments such as this. The developer planned to try to dodge by appointing a private organization to sign off, a more expensive option. No doubt the quality of work will up to modern standards and the building fit for purpose but who's purpose. If it does not meet the local need who benefits just the developer. It is to the detriment of the locals as more people from outside the borough will move in putting further pressure on services, schools doctors etc and also more pressure on the environment. The only option would be for the developer to carry out remedial work or sell the site on to somebody who will but that's unlikely. Somebody has to care about meeting the needs of the local community, I can assure you the only thing the developer cares about is kerching. I would suggest that you point your ire at central government policies that have decimated social housing rather than a body carrying out the functions it was elected to do. Poor show presenter too much emotion foe outrage from people who will not be impacted.
Good point from the council period.
Pull it down. In 6 month they will want to move out due to damp .
GMB I TV should be ashamed of there reporting
Looked at Comer's website. Original glassy blocks pics still there.
GMB's outrage seems artificial.
Looks like Comer tried to pull a fast one, and are upset they got caught.
The presenter may need new glasses if she can't see the difference...
Someone did not get their brown envelope and this is the aftermath.
I think the point is if the developer were willing to break the law then we cannot trust the quality of construction. It is not too far fetched to assume that they may have broken the law in other aspects, such as fire proofing, insulation, plumbing, and support structures. Allowing unsuspecting people to move into the building would be wrong. The council has a duty of care and their decision may potentially save many lives.
Well done to the councilor here, as clearly Susannah decided from the start the council were evil and not the greedy developer who refused to follow the law. Development laws are there for a reason.
GMB! are you forgetting Grenfell, Greenwich go for it knock down it doesn't meet building regs therefore its illegal and at worst dangerous and could be a danger to its tenants
I see these ugly flats everyday awful, you lot need to take notes from Bristol. You shouldn’t even be building them that high as permanent homes for families
Greenwich Labour controlled council is a joke. Seriously, if Labour get in next year i think I'll leave the bloody country. In the middle of a housing crisis..it beggars belief! Hopefully the developers win their appeal
Didn't anyone notice as they were building it ?
So penalise the developers not the people who need housing. What a slap in the face to all the families that were born in this country have paid their way into the country have found them selves in a situation they cannot keep their heads above water and now need housing
Thats an ugly building lol. It does look different from the pictures. Thats also terrible that the building isn't built for accessible access. All new builds have to be built with that in standard. Council should have done more inspections
What exactly is the difference between the existing building and the one the council claim was originally planned?
tore this ugly thing down! immediately, developers must respect the rules, the housing crisis is not an excuse to allow all the greedy developers to build whatever however they want, thats the most childish and silly argument I have ever heard... London is being filled up with this ugly souless dubai looking architecture build for profit exploiting the london market... this has to stop now!
Fair enough the developer took the mick but cant they just fine the developer very harshly and then use that money to make the building up to code?
Surely that would make more sense, especially if the building is safe and demolition would cost so much its wasteful.
Unless the building is unsafe this is dumb.
I agree the developer should be fined heftily. But they should also spend additional money carrying out any required modifications. That double hit might be a warning to other developers, except those with bottomless resources.
So the developers cut corners did not deliver what they had sold to leaseholders and you're saying stuff the owners of these flats- they should get no rectification of their defective building, but be left holding a hot potato no one is going to want to touch now?
Ludicrous!
The way this has been reported on is lazy and an embarrassment. If you allow a developer to profit and not follow rules, you are going to create carnage. This is the media sticking up for criminals. Support the people, not greedy corporations.
Building control and the council are responsible
Jeez, that woman is so dim. She has no idea............
This can only help keeping rents up.
Doesnt matter, would you rather a regulated flat and housing market or cheap rent? Think before you reply
@@Striker885 you must be a landlord. Have you ever wondered why all people hate you, greedy people?
Regardless, someone is gonna be making tons of money, just not the ordinary renters/plebs. Vulture capitalism the best there is.
Are they defending criminal behaviour for the sake of something needed? Criminal behaviour is criminql and shouldnt be rewarded
Let a developer build some carbuncle outside their houses. Then let’s say that it’s built, so tough. I wonder how they would think then.
Comer, or however it’s spelt, need to build according to the approved plans. I wonder who owns, runs this development company.
I looked at the pictures of the plans vs the reality and the developers need to be made to pay for this they built a very cheap looking version of what the plans show thats notably different with smaller windows and key features missing. I dont think they should be knocked down but I think developers should be made to alter the buildings so they are closer to approved plans and fined significantly. Developers cant be allowed to do this and the housing crisis is as much a reason to punish the developers as it is anything else
'The footprint is larger.'... OK
'The design of the windows is different.' ,,,WTF???
as long as housing is scarce, rents remain high.
It's a scam....