5 ms·

Cities and cultures change, which is why you can apply for development permits. Going ahead with a demolition you don’t have a permit for because you think that

Cities and cultures change, which is why you can apply for development permits. Going ahead with a demolition you don’t have a permit for because you think that will force them to grant you one is stupid and deserves punishment like this. The other option is a slippery slope where someone. Starts bulding recidential units in industrial zoning and renting it out without permits because it’ll force the industry to move etc. You’ll never be able to buy land in a city without any restrictions and that’s perfectly fine. If you want land without restrictions don’t buy in a city, go find an island somewhere.

torstenvl 6y ago
> You’ll never be able to buy land in a city without any restrictions and that’s perfectly fine. I'm having trouble in the article finding the place where, when they bought it, they were required to maintain it as a pub. Can you help me find that? Because if that wasn't part of the deal, then this is a bait-and-switch and an obscene abuse of power by the local government. EDIT: I'll take the downvotes as an admission that the claim is a lie. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
- waste_monk 6y ago
  No one was requiring them to operate a pub. They were required to maintain a historic structure. Demolishing the historic structure to build a block of flats is obviously incompatible with that. If they were going to keep the pub building but operate, say, a coffee shop and do a minimally invasive interior fit-out to support it this wouldn't be an issue. But it is only pragmatic that if you have a pub shaped building you cannot change, you might as well operate a pub out of it.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    > They were required to maintain a historic structure. That is flatly untrue. Please don't do that. > two days _BEFORE_ English Heritage was due to _RECOMMEND_ the pub be granted Grade-II listed status, the owners ordered its demolition (emphasis added) This building wasn't a historic structure under the law. This isn't about historic structures. This is about gangs of bullies getting pissed off that their bar is closed, and wresting control of private property because of it. It is repugnant to all sense of morality and decency, and every one of you cheering it should be ashamed of yourselves.
    - toyg 6y ago
      This is a disingenuous take. English Heritage verdicts are relatively easy to know in advance, so the developers knew full well what they were doing. Which is why they were slapped hard: you can skirt the law but you cannot take the piss. Note, btw, that even if they might have been allowed to demolish the structure, they were definitely not allowed to change what the land was used for. Do you think they would have left the land empty? No, they would have built the flats which had already been refused, then applied for retrospective permission and accepted a fine as the cost of doing business. Which should not be possible - it’s not acceptable, in a civil society, to have a business where “willingly breaking the law” is an item in the P&L.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - torstenvl 6y ago
        There's nothing disingenuous about my "take." What's disingenuous here is calling it a historical structure when, under the law, it was not. There are, of course, all kinds of reasons why you believe in your position, including a perception of bad faith on the part of the landowners. I get that. I would expect nothing less. That doesn't make it acceptable to lie in defense of your views.
    - angus-prune 6y ago
      That's not how the planning system works in the UK at all. You need planning permission to demolish any building (with a few explicit exceptions). This is something that is priced in to property valuations. It is entirely normal and expected. Developers will often approach planners for official guidance before purchasing land and land purchases are sometimes made contingent on being able to obtain planning. Grade II listing, which the building didn't yet have, adds further restrictions and considerations to the planning process, but the process still exists). The developer paid under the odds for the land, based on the risk that they wouldn't get planning. They didn't get planning and decided to go ahead anyway. This stole value from the previous own owners. It harmed the local environment and community. The UK isn't a anarcho-capitalist dystopia, it is a (broadly functioning) democracy. The collective decision making about the built environment embodied in the planning process is flawed, but deemed necessary and an overall good by the population of the country. Source: property developer who works with listed properties.
- altacc 6y ago
  The Telegraph has them as buying the property in 2014. [1] When you purchase a property in the UK you agree to abide by the planning regulations. So they were legally required to follow the planning process, which is that you need permission to redevelop a property, including knocking it down before redevelopment. They had already been denied permission for development of the property so there was a very clear and known legal requirement that they willfully disregarded and therefore were subject to penalty imposed by the planning committee. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11525262/Bulldozers-level-historic-pub-the-day-before-it-is-due-to-be-listed.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11525262/...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    So before the 2015 Order and before the 2017 statute making it more difficult to convert pubs. So no, these conditions were not part of the sale, and are a bait-and-switch.
    - altacc 6y ago
      Planning permission for redevelopment has been a requirement since 1948.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 6y ago
Deeply disheartening to see the spittle brigade out in force on HN, defending the post-hoc seizure of private property by a local government. The saddest irony is that the same people probably claim to be against civil asset forfeiture to law enforcement.

torstenvl 6y ago

> You’ll never be able to buy land in a city without any restrictions and that’s perfectly fine. I'm having trouble in the article finding the place where, when they bought it, they were required to maintain it as a pub. Can you help me find that? Because if that wasn't part of the deal, then this is a bait-and-switch and an obscene abuse of power by the local government. EDIT: I'll take the downvotes as an admission that the claim is a lie. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

waste_monk 6y ago
No one was requiring them to operate a pub. They were required to maintain a historic structure. Demolishing the historic structure to build a block of flats is obviously incompatible with that. If they were going to keep the pub building but operate, say, a coffee shop and do a minimally invasive interior fit-out to support it this wouldn't be an issue. But it is only pragmatic that if you have a pub shaped building you cannot change, you might as well operate a pub out of it.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  > They were required to maintain a historic structure. That is flatly untrue. Please don't do that. > two days _BEFORE_ English Heritage was due to _RECOMMEND_ the pub be granted Grade-II listed status, the owners ordered its demolition (emphasis added) This building wasn't a historic structure under the law. This isn't about historic structures. This is about gangs of bullies getting pissed off that their bar is closed, and wresting control of private property because of it. It is repugnant to all sense of morality and decency, and every one of you cheering it should be ashamed of yourselves.
  - toyg 6y ago
    This is a disingenuous take. English Heritage verdicts are relatively easy to know in advance, so the developers knew full well what they were doing. Which is why they were slapped hard: you can skirt the law but you cannot take the piss. Note, btw, that even if they might have been allowed to demolish the structure, they were definitely not allowed to change what the land was used for. Do you think they would have left the land empty? No, they would have built the flats which had already been refused, then applied for retrospective permission and accepted a fine as the cost of doing business. Which should not be possible - it’s not acceptable, in a civil society, to have a business where “willingly breaking the law” is an item in the P&L.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - torstenvl 6y ago
      There's nothing disingenuous about my "take." What's disingenuous here is calling it a historical structure when, under the law, it was not. There are, of course, all kinds of reasons why you believe in your position, including a perception of bad faith on the part of the landowners. I get that. I would expect nothing less. That doesn't make it acceptable to lie in defense of your views.
  - angus-prune 6y ago
    That's not how the planning system works in the UK at all. You need planning permission to demolish any building (with a few explicit exceptions). This is something that is priced in to property valuations. It is entirely normal and expected. Developers will often approach planners for official guidance before purchasing land and land purchases are sometimes made contingent on being able to obtain planning. Grade II listing, which the building didn't yet have, adds further restrictions and considerations to the planning process, but the process still exists). The developer paid under the odds for the land, based on the risk that they wouldn't get planning. They didn't get planning and decided to go ahead anyway. This stole value from the previous own owners. It harmed the local environment and community. The UK isn't a anarcho-capitalist dystopia, it is a (broadly functioning) democracy. The collective decision making about the built environment embodied in the planning process is flawed, but deemed necessary and an overall good by the population of the country. Source: property developer who works with listed properties.
altacc 6y ago
The Telegraph has them as buying the property in 2014. [1] When you purchase a property in the UK you agree to abide by the planning regulations. So they were legally required to follow the planning process, which is that you need permission to redevelop a property, including knocking it down before redevelopment. They had already been denied permission for development of the property so there was a very clear and known legal requirement that they willfully disregarded and therefore were subject to penalty imposed by the planning committee. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11525262/Bulldozers-level-historic-pub-the-day-before-it-is-due-to-be-listed.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11525262/...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 6y ago
  So before the 2015 Order and before the 2017 statute making it more difficult to convert pubs. So no, these conditions were not part of the sale, and are a bait-and-switch.
  - altacc 6y ago
    Planning permission for redevelopment has been a requirement since 1948.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 6y ago

Deeply disheartening to see the spittle brigade out in force on HN, defending the post-hoc seizure of private property by a local government. The saddest irony is that the same people probably claim to be against civil asset forfeiture to law enforcement.