Residents still moving into ‘mutant’ Mast Quay in July, public inquiry hears

Tenants were still moving into the controversial Mast Quay Phase 2 development in July, ten months after Greenwich Council had ordered its demolition, a public inquiry has heard.

Joseph Garfield said he had moved into his rented flat on the Woolwich riverside on August 8 – the week after the inquiry began – and had not been told by the developer or estate agent about the enforcement notice issued by the council. The 21-year-old is sharing the flat with his sister, who moved in the previous month when the contract began.

The two blocks of 204 rented flats at Mast Quay, which were finished last year, visibly differ from the glass-clad designs which were given planning approval in 2012. As well as being given metal, grey and orange finishes, they also differ internally. 

The council has accused Comer Homes of 26 planning breaches, including not building promised roof gardens and a children’s play area and of building wheelchair-accessible flats containing steps to their balconies. A promised landscaped garden was said to have been replaced with a car park. 

Greenwich’s cabinet member for regeneration at the time, Aidan Smith, branded the blocks “a mutant development that is a blight on the landscape”. 

But Comer has appealed against the decision, accusing the council of wasting taxpayers’ money. It previously applied for retrospective planning permission for alterations to one of the blocks, but was refused.

The controversy has split residents in Mast Quay, where an earlier block was built in 2007 and is unaffected by the demolition demand. One resident of phase 1 spoke in support of the council, telling the planning inspector, John Braithwaite, “you can’t polish a turd”.

Braithwaite now has to decide whether to uphold Greenwich’s demand to knock down the blocks or overturn it, giving the blocks permission to remain. He heard evidence at a public inquiry held at the Woolwich Centre throughout last month.

On Friday, the last day of the inquiry that was open to the public, Garfield pleaded for the flats to stay. “I’m the youngest person here,” he said. “Finding housing for people in my generation is quite difficult and competition is fierce. Moving to Woolwich has afforded me independence on my journey to becoming a full member of society.”

Garfield said that while he appreciated the council’s concerns and said they should be addressed, he did not believe that knocking down the blocks would be a “a proportionate or appropriate response”.

“There are hundreds of people living there now, forcing them out of their homes is not an effective or even remotely sensible course of action,” he said. “I don’t believe that developers will want to continue to invest and build here if the council tears this down.”

Garfield told The Greenwich Wire he did not know about the enforcement notice when he signed the contract. “Unfortunately I did not, I’ve been trying to follow it up with the estate agent and Comer Homes to get some sort of explanation. I don’t want to say I was misled because I could have looked it up at any time … most likely I would have signed the lease anyway, because I did like the property and it’s in a great area.”

He said he had originally hoped to live close to his family in Finchley, north London, but had been priced out. “I just wanted a place to live,” he said. “I didn’t want to live with my parents for another five or six years. Me and my older sister have taken the opportunity to move out and start building lives for ourselves, and I’d hate for that to be disrupted.”

Jane Powell said she lived in a Phase 2 flat with her daughter and son-in-law. She also criticised the demolition order, but was also angry at Comer.

“The idea of taking the place down is absurd. Environmentally, in terms of the housing crisis, it makes no sense,” she said.. 

“At no point were we aware there was any issue around the building. I think that gives you an indication of the attitude of the builders, which is very disturbing.I think it would be good to see some censure for a group of builders who behave in this way.”

Steph Watts, a resident of phase 1 who had attended every day of the inquiry with some of her neighbours, alleged there were faults with phase 2 including fire safety issues and overheating, and accused Comer of cutting back to save money.

She said the fact that Garfield was not told about the threat to the building was a “disgrace”.

“That just shows the developer’s attitude,” she said. “That it doesn’t look that good but it’s not doing any harm, it’s adequate for Woolwich – why should we put up with adequate?

“In Woolwich, we might not be rich, but why should we put up with substandard housing? We aren’t rich, but what we are rich in, in Woolwich and Greenwich, is diversity, culture, history and heritage. 

“And the Royal Borough of Greenwich wants to keep that, they don’t want it overrun with tower blocks that are out of place that look awful. The residents deserve to be in a better place.

“It doesn’t make sense, we shouldn’t have to put up with this. Look at some of the buildings they’ve put up in Greenwich – they’re beautiful. Woolwich deserves better.  Quoting my nan – you can’t polish a turd.”

“I’ve never heard that word before in ten years of public inquiries,” the inspector said.

Another phase 1 resident, Petra Kosova, said that the neighbouring block should be demolished, and that it needed to be “supervised at every step because this developer has shown it cannot be trusted”.

“I think the council should set a precedent for any future developer not to do anything like this in future,” she said. “I believe in justice,” she said, pointing out of the seventh-floor window at the Woolwich skyline and the tower. “You see the view there – and then you see that.”

Other residents supported Comer. One from phase 2 said it was a “practical, no-nonsense building” and warned of a “political backlash” if demolition was allowed. 

Another from phase 1 tried to present a petition from local businesses, which was refused on the grounds that it was too late to be considered. He said he had previously lived next to a block in Santiago, Chile, that had to be demolished, and said the same happening in Woolwich would be a “disastrous outcome” for all residents.

“I haven’t heard people expressing concern about dust emanating from the wreckage,” he said. “Please don’t make me live through an episode of Groundhog Day, I don’t want to go through this again. What will replace it is disgusting wreckage until someone decides to take a bet and build in this spot again.”

Comer Homes declined to comment. It had previously called on the council to enter talks about a retrospective planning application. Greenwich has insisted that the developer should have spoken to it earlier about making changes. 

A decision will be made on the scheme in the coming months.

Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.