7 ms·

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

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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    Yes, it is exactly how the planning system works, which you admit in your post. Calm down, stop raging, and have a normal discussion. You admit up front that the building didn't have a Grade II listing, which is exactly what I said. Why don't you calmly and dispassionately explain to me why you say you disagree with me?
- EliRivers 6y ago
  How far can you go in the face of facts before your sense of self-righteousness is overwhelmed by you being factually wrong? Edit: Oh, fantastic! This guy has thrown a hissy fit and stormed out of HN! A self-proclaimed lawyer who didn't understand the law in this case, a self-proclaimed US Marine officer no less, was wrong on an internet forum and stormed off in a hissy fit! Taking a break from HN, as this place is full of awful people who support arbitrary interference and control by local government of private property. It's hard to imagine having anything in common with people who support this kind of theft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26532304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26532304
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - toyg 6y ago
    Sadly he's actually still here...
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    I was not wrong, and I believe I understand the law well enough in this case to have an opinion at least as well as you. I did ask a question for a point of clarification, but the spittle brigade downvoted it into oblivion. In any case, making things personal is against HN guidelines. If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything. If you have some evidence that I'm "factually wrong" about something, please, by all means, share it. I would be happy to learn.
    - EliRivers 6y ago
      I would be happy to learn. The evidence suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, amongst other violations, the 1984 Building Act was violated. The law was broken.

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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 6y ago
  Yes, it is exactly how the planning system works, which you admit in your post. Calm down, stop raging, and have a normal discussion. You admit up front that the building didn't have a Grade II listing, which is exactly what I said. Why don't you calmly and dispassionately explain to me why you say you disagree with me?
EliRivers 6y ago
How far can you go in the face of facts before your sense of self-righteousness is overwhelmed by you being factually wrong? Edit: Oh, fantastic! This guy has thrown a hissy fit and stormed out of HN! A self-proclaimed lawyer who didn't understand the law in this case, a self-proclaimed US Marine officer no less, was wrong on an internet forum and stormed off in a hissy fit! Taking a break from HN, as this place is full of awful people who support arbitrary interference and control by local government of private property. It's hard to imagine having anything in common with people who support this kind of theft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26532304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26532304
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toyg 6y ago
  Sadly he's actually still here...
- torstenvl 6y ago
  I was not wrong, and I believe I understand the law well enough in this case to have an opinion at least as well as you. I did ask a question for a point of clarification, but the spittle brigade downvoted it into oblivion. In any case, making things personal is against HN guidelines. If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything. If you have some evidence that I'm "factually wrong" about something, please, by all means, share it. I would be happy to learn.
  - EliRivers 6y ago
    I would be happy to learn. The evidence suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, amongst other violations, the 1984 Building Act was violated. The law was broken.