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.
So a wealthy person’s million dollar property doesn’t need accessibility, but a poor person’s apartment does, and if it doesn’t the state will throw them out to protect them from the inaccessible apartment building.
The reasonable thing to do is fine the builder and move on.
For old and wealthy and fashionable gentrified buildings, we accept or work around their inaccessibility. For new buildings, it must be made accessible no matter the cost?
The building exists now. At this point refitting it to be accessible is no easier for it than for your house. Maybe a good deal harder.
I’m not arguing the builder shouldn’t be punished. Of course they should.
My point is the building shouldn’t be mangled or destroyed to bring it into complaince when plenty of older buildings are considered fit for purpose with the same flaws.
Sure, the law says your house is allowed to be inaccessible and this building is not. That might be the law but it doesn’t make it justice.
You are comparing apples to oranges. You simply cannot equate single family dwelling and shared living. It’s a disingenuous argument.
A single family dwelling, regardless of wealth, does not require disabled access. It’s a private residence and not a business. If a disabled individual wanted to purchase a residence, they would have the onus of making it accessible to their specific needs. As it is theirs. There is no implied public access. People are not allowed in my home unless invites.
An apartment building is a business, no matter how you want to try and frame it. If people are paying rent, there is a business transaction.
Business are required to meet accessibility requirements. Public spaces like gymnasiums (even if restricted to tenants) require accessibility.
At this point, I’m not sure why I’m arguing on this point. Any comparison to a single family dwelling is fallacious and continuing to argue the point would be pointless.
For “old and wealthy and fashionably gentrified” building you’ve entirely misinterpreted the situation. Wealth and gentrification don’t play in at all. Age certainly does. Many accessibility requirements were not on the books when they were built. There are many low income building that have poor access grandfathered in.
I don’t like that someone loses housing. I don’t like that there is a housing shortage. But to allow the building to stand while in violation of all the planning is a bad situation.
Forcing the company to pay for relocation, any difference in rent, and any increased transportation costs from the move to compensate the inconveniences residents seems like a good compromise.
So a wealthy person’s million dollar property doesn’t need accessibility, but a poor person’s apartment does, and if it doesn’t the state will throw them out to protect them from the inaccessible apartment building.
The reasonable thing to do is fine the builder and move on.
For old and wealthy and fashionable gentrified buildings, we accept or work around their inaccessibility. For new buildings, it must be made accessible no matter the cost?
The building exists now. At this point refitting it to be accessible is no easier for it than for your house. Maybe a good deal harder.
I’m not arguing the builder shouldn’t be punished. Of course they should.
My point is the building shouldn’t be mangled or destroyed to bring it into complaince when plenty of older buildings are considered fit for purpose with the same flaws.
Sure, the law says your house is allowed to be inaccessible and this building is not. That might be the law but it doesn’t make it justice.
You are comparing apples to oranges. You simply cannot equate single family dwelling and shared living. It’s a disingenuous argument.
A single family dwelling, regardless of wealth, does not require disabled access. It’s a private residence and not a business. If a disabled individual wanted to purchase a residence, they would have the onus of making it accessible to their specific needs. As it is theirs. There is no implied public access. People are not allowed in my home unless invites.
An apartment building is a business, no matter how you want to try and frame it. If people are paying rent, there is a business transaction.
Business are required to meet accessibility requirements. Public spaces like gymnasiums (even if restricted to tenants) require accessibility.
At this point, I’m not sure why I’m arguing on this point. Any comparison to a single family dwelling is fallacious and continuing to argue the point would be pointless.
For “old and wealthy and fashionably gentrified” building you’ve entirely misinterpreted the situation. Wealth and gentrification don’t play in at all. Age certainly does. Many accessibility requirements were not on the books when they were built. There are many low income building that have poor access grandfathered in.
I don’t like that someone loses housing. I don’t like that there is a housing shortage. But to allow the building to stand while in violation of all the planning is a bad situation.
Forcing the company to pay for relocation, any difference in rent, and any increased transportation costs from the move to compensate the inconveniences residents seems like a good compromise.
Then the land can be used for not shit housing.