5 ms·

What a waste of human effort. If the landowners were adequately compensated for having arbitrary use restrictions added to their property after they bought it,

What a waste of human effort. If the landowners were adequately compensated for having arbitrary use restrictions added to their property after they bought it, they would have had no incentive to bulldoze it in the first place. Cities change. Culture changes. It's okay to tear down bars and replace them with apartments. This reeks of Nimby-ism and entitlement on the part of the locals.

boublepop 5y ago
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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
        [deleted]
        torstenvl 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - torstenvl 5y 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 5y ago
        Planning permission for redevelopment has been a requirement since 1948.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 5y 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.
Grakel 5y ago
Completely agree. You either own the land or you don't. People don't live in the pub or bar the way they used to, will they have to sit empty for 20 years until everyone's scratching their heads what to do with them?
- altacc 5y ago
  You own the land but UK laws say that the local people, via the council, get a say in what happens on the land. That's just how it is and everyone who owns property in the UK knows this. Whilst empty buildings are an issue, it is not a factor in this case. The pub was not empty, it was open & active. It was serving drinks on the Monday and demolished on the Wednesday, without even telling the staff who worked there.
thatcat 5y ago
It's london not milwaukee... Of course every dumbass real estate developer wants to buy up the shitty bars and flip them, but then when all the culture is gone that effects everyone that already owns land there... So you have to ask for permit first, is that so unreasonable?
- niij 5y ago
  So the government is supposed to dictate what "culture" is allowed. Why can't the owners decide that for themselves? If they don't want to run a bar what business does the government have forcing them to do so?
  - toyg 5y ago
    They weren’t forced to run a bar, they were forced to keep a historic structure up. It could have been turned into other commercial activities without any question.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      > they were forced to keep a historic structure up This is untrue. The building was never designated a historic structure. This action by the local government had nothing to do with Heritage England. It was solely a bizarre flex that shocks the conscience (and would be unconstitutional at least two different ways in the U.S.).
      - toyg 5y ago
        Did you even read the article you're so vehemently fighting on ideological grounds...? > After being denied planning permission to convert it into 10 flats, and two days before English Heritage was due to recommend the pub be granted Grade-II listed status [...] > "We had a suspicion before the demolition that they would do something, so we asked English Heritage to think about listing it. They took a plaster cast of every tile, they took pictures and documented everything." The building was in the process of being designated as historic, a process whose outcomes are typically unofficially known weeks or months in advances. A date was set for the announcement. Demolishing it two days in advance of that was a complete dick move, if you excuse the technical term. > would be unconstitutional at least two different ways in the U.S. Good thing we are not in the US then!
tristanb 5y ago
I very strongly disagree. I’m extremely happy they had to undo their crime.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Do you have any source at all for the idea that they committed a crime?
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Killing culture is considered a crime in many jurisdictions.
  - altacc 5y ago
    In the UK planning permission is required for building works and they did not have the permission needed to start development. Depends on your exact definition of "crime" but it went against the law of the land and was an act subject to jurisdiction of the local council. more info: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/israeli-firm-in-trouble-for-pub-demolition-1.5357260 https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/israeli-firm-in-trouble-for-p...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      It doesn't depend on my definition of crime. Common law jurisdictions distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors (crimes) and civil infractions (often called "fixed penalties" in the UK). I don't see anything in the article, and I don't see anything anything in the Town and Country Planning Act, that clearly says this is a crime instead of merely a regulatory offense. It's a perfectly reasonable request, given the extremely strong claim made, for some amount of evidence for the claim. As has become bizarrely common in this thread, the torches and pitchforks came out regardless.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
It is a waste of effort: the effort of building the pub that was standing there before being demolished. What the order to rebuild did was place the cost of it on the correct party.
altacc 5y ago
Sounds like you're in the US (apologies if assumption is incorrect). If so, and for other, it’s worth considering that each country has its own way of doing things and that context is important. Whilst I am sometimes in despair about the decisions of planning committees across the UK, there is more often than not a benefit to them. The councils across the UK seeks to protect historic buildings. In this case the only building in the street to survive WW2 bombing raids. In a city and country where WW2 & the blitz is still part of the national psyche, this give it extra value. Culture changes very slowly and is built upon the past. The UK has made a collective decision to include in it's culture maintaining what it sees as important legacies of the past. The context of the destruction and punishment for deliberately disobeying the local planning laws is that developers across the UK are regularly asking forgiveness, not permission. They will destroy and old building, pay a fine, and then profit handsomely from the new building they put in it's place. Orders to restore illegally demolished buildings are done precisely because they require a lot of human & financial effort, which is the point. Significantly harsh financial punishments seem to be needed to make a development company alter its behaviour, because the smaller financial punishments obviously aren't working. In this case, the landowner knew the history of the building when they bought it and knew they didn't have permission to develop the land but they willfully ignored this and tried to get away with knocking it down. They got caught and were made to pay a financial penalty for their actions. The "human effort" you're worried about paid people's wages, so definitely not wasted for both the workers and the local residents.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  First off, thank you for being one of the few people in this thread to have a rational discussion. I ultimately disagree with you, but at least you didn't go all Reddit like so many others here. I think there are a couple points I'd like to make, to see if any of them change your mind at all. - First, you bring up what the landowner knew when they bought the building. However, three years after they bought it, the law was changed to make it harder to convert pubs to other uses. FTA: Watson was involved in campaigning for legislation in 2017 that went some way to stopping pubs from being converted into shops under permitted development rules – full planning permission is now required. - Second, it's shocking to the conscience that a local government unit like the Westminster council can order someone to perform labor. In the United States and most developed other countries, involuntary labor was outlawed over a century ago, with exceptions for sentences upon conviction of a crime. Is that really not the case in the UK? Can your local council just order you to build whatever they want?
EliRivers 5y ago
Late to the party as I am, I feel that other respondents perhaps are burying the lede... for having arbitrary use restrictions added to their property after they bought it That didn't happen.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Yes, it obviously did. > Watson was involved in campaigning for legislation in 2017 that went some way to stopping pubs from being converted into shops under permitted development rules – full planning permission is now required. This conversation will never be productive so long as you keep lying.
  - EliRivers 5y ago
    Thought you flounced off in a hissy fit, declaring that you wanted nothing to do with the people here because they didn't subscribe to your extreme libertarian politics on property rights? 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 That didn't last long, did it? Quoting single lines out of context doesn't make you right. Other commenters here have explained to you repeatedly various aspects of the relevant UK planning permission. Your sealioning is as obvious and childish as your hissy fit. The developer did something that was illegal without permission. They knew it was illegal when they did it. They got caught and ordered to put it back. It was illegal to do that without permission on the day they bought the property. They bought the property knowing full well that it would be illegal to do that without planning permission. They did it anyway. You spouting crap about other things that happened after they bought the property changes nothing. You quoting something about an irrelevant change to the law that doesn't apply in this case is just you spouting crap. I now invite you to have another hissy fit.

boublepop 5y ago

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - torstenvl 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 5y 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 5y ago
      Planning permission for redevelopment has been a requirement since 1948.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 5y 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.

Grakel 5y ago

Completely agree. You either own the land or you don't. People don't live in the pub or bar the way they used to, will they have to sit empty for 20 years until everyone's scratching their heads what to do with them?

altacc 5y ago
You own the land but UK laws say that the local people, via the council, get a say in what happens on the land. That's just how it is and everyone who owns property in the UK knows this. Whilst empty buildings are an issue, it is not a factor in this case. The pub was not empty, it was open & active. It was serving drinks on the Monday and demolished on the Wednesday, without even telling the staff who worked there.

thatcat 5y ago

It's london not milwaukee... Of course every dumbass real estate developer wants to buy up the shitty bars and flip them, but then when all the culture is gone that effects everyone that already owns land there... So you have to ask for permit first, is that so unreasonable?

niij 5y ago
So the government is supposed to dictate what "culture" is allowed. Why can't the owners decide that for themselves? If they don't want to run a bar what business does the government have forcing them to do so?
- toyg 5y ago
  They weren’t forced to run a bar, they were forced to keep a historic structure up. It could have been turned into other commercial activities without any question.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    > they were forced to keep a historic structure up This is untrue. The building was never designated a historic structure. This action by the local government had nothing to do with Heritage England. It was solely a bizarre flex that shocks the conscience (and would be unconstitutional at least two different ways in the U.S.).
    - toyg 5y ago
      Did you even read the article you're so vehemently fighting on ideological grounds...? > After being denied planning permission to convert it into 10 flats, and two days before English Heritage was due to recommend the pub be granted Grade-II listed status [...] > "We had a suspicion before the demolition that they would do something, so we asked English Heritage to think about listing it. They took a plaster cast of every tile, they took pictures and documented everything." The building was in the process of being designated as historic, a process whose outcomes are typically unofficially known weeks or months in advances. A date was set for the announcement. Demolishing it two days in advance of that was a complete dick move, if you excuse the technical term. > would be unconstitutional at least two different ways in the U.S. Good thing we are not in the US then!

tristanb 5y ago

I very strongly disagree. I’m extremely happy they had to undo their crime.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 5y ago
Do you have any source at all for the idea that they committed a crime?
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Killing culture is considered a crime in many jurisdictions.
- altacc 5y ago
  In the UK planning permission is required for building works and they did not have the permission needed to start development. Depends on your exact definition of "crime" but it went against the law of the land and was an act subject to jurisdiction of the local council. more info: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/israeli-firm-in-trouble-for-pub-demolition-1.5357260 https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/israeli-firm-in-trouble-for-p...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    It doesn't depend on my definition of crime. Common law jurisdictions distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors (crimes) and civil infractions (often called "fixed penalties" in the UK). I don't see anything in the article, and I don't see anything anything in the Town and Country Planning Act, that clearly says this is a crime instead of merely a regulatory offense. It's a perfectly reasonable request, given the extremely strong claim made, for some amount of evidence for the claim. As has become bizarrely common in this thread, the torches and pitchforks came out regardless.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

It is a waste of effort: the effort of building the pub that was standing there before being demolished. What the order to rebuild did was place the cost of it on the correct party.

altacc 5y ago

Sounds like you're in the US (apologies if assumption is incorrect). If so, and for other, it’s worth considering that each country has its own way of doing things and that context is important. Whilst I am sometimes in despair about the decisions of planning committees across the UK, there is more often than not a benefit to them. The councils across the UK seeks to protect historic buildings. In this case the only building in the street to survive WW2 bombing raids. In a city and country where WW2 & the blitz is still part of the national psyche, this give it extra value. Culture changes very slowly and is built upon the past. The UK has made a collective decision to include in it's culture maintaining what it sees as important legacies of the past. The context of the destruction and punishment for deliberately disobeying the local planning laws is that developers across the UK are regularly asking forgiveness, not permission. They will destroy and old building, pay a fine, and then profit handsomely from the new building they put in it's place. Orders to restore illegally demolished buildings are done precisely because they require a lot of human & financial effort, which is the point. Significantly harsh financial punishments seem to be needed to make a development company alter its behaviour, because the smaller financial punishments obviously aren't working. In this case, the landowner knew the history of the building when they bought it and knew they didn't have permission to develop the land but they willfully ignored this and tried to get away with knocking it down. They got caught and were made to pay a financial penalty for their actions. The "human effort" you're worried about paid people's wages, so definitely not wasted for both the workers and the local residents.

torstenvl 5y ago
First off, thank you for being one of the few people in this thread to have a rational discussion. I ultimately disagree with you, but at least you didn't go all Reddit like so many others here. I think there are a couple points I'd like to make, to see if any of them change your mind at all. - First, you bring up what the landowner knew when they bought the building. However, three years after they bought it, the law was changed to make it harder to convert pubs to other uses. FTA: Watson was involved in campaigning for legislation in 2017 that went some way to stopping pubs from being converted into shops under permitted development rules – full planning permission is now required. - Second, it's shocking to the conscience that a local government unit like the Westminster council can order someone to perform labor. In the United States and most developed other countries, involuntary labor was outlawed over a century ago, with exceptions for sentences upon conviction of a crime. Is that really not the case in the UK? Can your local council just order you to build whatever they want?

EliRivers 5y ago

Late to the party as I am, I feel that other respondents perhaps are burying the lede... for having arbitrary use restrictions added to their property after they bought it That didn't happen.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 5y ago
Yes, it obviously did. > Watson was involved in campaigning for legislation in 2017 that went some way to stopping pubs from being converted into shops under permitted development rules – full planning permission is now required. This conversation will never be productive so long as you keep lying.
- EliRivers 5y ago
  Thought you flounced off in a hissy fit, declaring that you wanted nothing to do with the people here because they didn't subscribe to your extreme libertarian politics on property rights? 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 That didn't last long, did it? Quoting single lines out of context doesn't make you right. Other commenters here have explained to you repeatedly various aspects of the relevant UK planning permission. Your sealioning is as obvious and childish as your hissy fit. The developer did something that was illegal without permission. They knew it was illegal when they did it. They got caught and ordered to put it back. It was illegal to do that without permission on the day they bought the property. They bought the property knowing full well that it would be illegal to do that without planning permission. They did it anyway. You spouting crap about other things that happened after they bought the property changes nothing. You quoting something about an irrelevant change to the law that doesn't apply in this case is just you spouting crap. I now invite you to have another hissy fit.