Woolwich residents have opposed plans to have their homes knocked down after the council claimed the completed blocks were ‘substantially different’ to those which were approved.

The tenants of the buildings have claimed they would be ‘devastated’ if asked to leave their homes, fearing thousands of pounds of moving costs as a result.

Greenwich Council announced last September that it had taken enforcement action against the Comer Homes Group due to its construction of Mast Quay Phase II, a pair of blocks in Woolwich.

The developer was ordered to demolish the two blocks within a year of the notice, with the authority citing that at least 26 main planning deviations were present on the structures when compared to the original approved planning permission.

Gerardas Adalevskis, 28, moved into his flat in the new blocks in May last year with his partner and said he felt the units in the development were of a good quality.

CGI shows how the buildings were planned to lookCGI shows how the buildings were planned to look (Image: Greenwich Council)

The tenant said he was not aware of any major design deviations of the blocks from their prescribed planning permission when he moved in and he would be ‘devastated’ to have to leave his home.

He told the LDRS: “I would be spending thousands of pounds to move out, to find another place, to find a place that allows pets, hiring a moving company.

"It’s just thousands of pounds that we do not have to spend. It’s unbelievable if they do go ahead with this…

"There’s literally a housing crisis in the whole of England and they want to demolish these buildings.”

The authority claimed that the buildings, stretching up to 23 storeys-tall and containing 204 flats, included ‘bulky’ design changes and smaller balconies than were planned.

The buildings as seen in Mast QuayThe buildings as seen in Mast Quay (Image: Greenwich Council)

Mr Adalevskis said he does not mind the alleged design changes of the completed building as they do not affect living in the blocks themselves.

He added that he thinks other deviations such as missing disability access to balconies in the complex can be easily rectified through negotiations between the council and Comer.

Mr Adalevskis said: “Comer is doing a really great job in managing this building. The flats and communal areas are nice, everything’s clean. If the lifts break down, they get it fixed the same day. What is there to complain about?”

The tenant is a member of the Save Our Sails Action Group, a residents’ association founded to encourage Comer and Greenwich Council to allow tenants to remain in their current homes.

A planning inquiry on the blocks began at the end of July after Comer appealed the decision of the council, with the inquiry being set to conclude on August 30.

Ed Smith, 75, is another member of Save Our Sails and moved into his flat in July last year. He claimed that he knew the development had been built differently to the approved planning permission, but he did not expect the buildings to be demolished entirely.

He told the LDRS: “I shrugged my shoulders because I couldn’t believe that this would actually happen… People that don’t know anything about this have said to me that it must be crazy that the answer to a building like this, which has its faults and not complied with this, that, and the other, is to actually pull it down.”

Mr Smith said Comer had done an ‘exemplary’ job at maintaining the buildings, whereas he claimed the response of the authority to his queries on the matter had been ‘appalling’.

The resident said ward councillors had not replied to his emails about the issue and an email seen by the LDRS showed a representative for council leader Anthony Okereke stating that he would be unable to comment on the matter given the ongoing inquiry.

He said: “I will have to rethink my life and everything else. I just can’t believe it could happen… I’m not prepared for it.”

(Image: LDRS)

Gloria Reina Sillaro, 37, moved into Mast Quay Phase II at the end of November last year, two months after the council’s planning enforcement notice was issued. The tenant said she was attracted to the flat despite the ongoing dispute given its affordability compared to the rest of Woolwich and she felt demolition would be a last resort to end the disagreement.

She told the LDRS: “My contract is three years and it’s been only nine months since I moved, so I was hoping to stay and eventually maybe even consider buying something myself. This was for me a stepping stone really, so that plan might change if I am being kicked out.”

Ms Sillaro said she has never felt unsafe in her flat and thinks it would be a shame to knock down the buildings after all the work that was put into them. She said she feels missing features of the complex can be added in future such as a children’s play space or additional retail unit, and she is worried about the financial burden of being asked to move out of her flat.

She said: “I have obviously spent a lot of money on the furniture because the flat was unfurnished. I have spent £2,000 or more building a home. It would be a shame if I had to move. It would be very costly to do all of that myself.”

She added: “I don’t know if I could stay in Woolwich anymore… The demand is so high that I think we might find ourselves living now in Zone 6 or 7. I don’t know, but we cannot afford these areas anymore.”

A Greenwich Council spokesperson told the LDRS that the authority was unable to comment further on the topic given Comer’s decision to appeal the enforcement notice. They noted that the public inquiry for the appeal with the Planning Inspectorate was currently ongoing.

A Comer Homes spokesperson told the LDRS: “It is heartening to hear from the residents of Mast Quay that they are happy in their homes. We sympathise with each and every one of our tenants during what must be an unsettling time.”

The developer said it was disappointed and surprised to see its dispute with the council come to an inquiry. The spokesperson claimed the company has sought to engage constructively with the council to agree on a sensible solution since the enforcement notice was issued, and remained willing to do so.

They added: “Notwithstanding, we would like to assure residents that in the meantime we are committed to robustly correcting the inaccuracies and addressing the council’s concerns at the inquiry. We value the concerns of our residents and hope to come to a resolution that addresses them.”