Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dave Beans

A Developer Who Illegally Knocked Down Pub, Is To Rebuild It "brick By Brick"

Recommended Posts

Great news. And it will make developers a bit more careful about assuming they will get planning permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a lesser scale, someone near here built a large extension which came within about 6 inches of his neighbour's supposedly detached wall - I.e. impossible to access for maintenance of brickwork or guttering, etc.

There was eventually a court case - he was ordered to take it down and rebuild as was, and pay all the neighbour"s costs. A lien would be put on the house if he did not pay up soon.

The bloke was not a Brit - he came from a part of the world where brown envelopes are the order of the day and I guess he had thought the same would apply here. The extension was duly taken down and the house rebuilt - he sold it soon afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's general architect documents on net for the Bath site back at least to 2006, and even in that document, 'The negotiated design process has also been painstaking and has seen at least four iterations of the scheme since dialogue began.' I can't bring myself to feel happy about demolition if the structure is sound - even if the 14 (memory) apartments were to be priced at bubble prices.

Recent local news: A retrospective planning application had to be submitted by developers but this was rejected by Bath and North East Somerset Council because it was seen as too bulky, too high, had a cluttered roof, and deemed to be out of character with the area. Work started at 43 Upper Oldfield Park in 2012, before residents noticed it was being built differently last summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's general architect documents on net for the Bath site back at least to 2006, and even in that document, 'The negotiated design process has also been painstaking and has seen at least four iterations of the scheme since dialogue began.' I can't bring myself to feel happy about demolition if the structure is sound - even if the 14 (memory) apartments were to be priced at bubble prices.

It would be wrong if they ruled that a building be demolished if it was too small. However if the penalties aren't high enough on those that ignore the agreed plans then we'll have anarchy with all the home builders running riot. Locally I've seen quite a few over developed buildings which have only resulted in fines which are just added to the price. Fines don't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Blod, you can 'price in' a fine, and where a delay in building is costly 'swallowing' the fine may be the most cost effective route...you cannot sell a pile of bricks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be wrong if they ruled that a building be demolished if it was too small. However if the penalties aren't high enough on those that ignore the agreed plans then we'll have anarchy with all the home builders running riot. Locally I've seen quite a few over developed buildings which have only resulted in fines which are just added to the price. Fines don't work.

On all those principles, I agree with you Blod. Where developers deliberately circumvent and ignore planning - I'm just not certain to what degree it's gone 'wrong' with these Bath apartments; whether any nimby emotions are involved.

Peter McCarthy said he could "see no harmful, discernible, visible difference from what was approved and what has now been erected. I think that block sits well with the surrounding houses and is an attractive asset to our road." Resident Barry Parker also said he felt the road was in keeping with the surrounding buildings. He said: "The new building fits into this streetscape. The differences between the building as approved and the building as built appear to be the result of building regulations dictating changes to the structural design and are not very apparent to the an unbiased eye." Karen Pollen added: "The difference between the 'as built' and the 'as approved' is almost imperceptible...hardly surprising as the difference in height is just eighteen inches. For the committee to even contemplate the wholesale demolition of the building is wholly unnecessary and disproportionate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in a way were are cheering on 'socialist' planning controls, and the pub would have become flats.

OK they would have been 'unaffordable' flats to anyone in the UK, not a hedge fund manager, but flats nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Bath resident, I find this article particularly interestng. I guess I can only state that if it were my 'life savings' at risk, and I had chosen a scheme like this to invest them in. I would have double, triple and quadruple checked (and more) everything with the local planning officer and authorities to avoid exactly this kind of issue.

With Bath being a world heritage city, to do anything less, with ones 'life savings'. Is foolhardy or at least niaive in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'developers' are just a shell company, set up for £15 and about to be struck off. It's not going to happen.

They will happily sit on the land for a few years then sell it off. But rebuild? Not in a million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'developers' are just a shell company, set up for £15 and about to be struck off. It's not going to happen.

They will happily sit on the land for a few years then sell it off. But rebuild? Not in a million years.

Agreed. Or selling it on to another company with clean-hands, to put in new planning application. Why not in this world of excuse givers.

Carlton Tavern was sold last year to CLTX before they put in a planning application to Westminster Council for the building to be demolished and replaced with a pub at ground level and 10 residential units over four floors. The plans were rejected on the basis that the bulk, height and detailed design of the new development “would be detrimental to the view from the adjacent Maida Vale Conservation Area and view from the nearby recreation ground where it was a gateway to the park. Gary White, from Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale, said: “Maybe they think by demolishing it they can get their planning permission through quicker.” Maida Vale councillor Jan Prendergast added: “They do not have permission to do this. I am absolutely furious.

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/heritage/shock_as_historic_pub_in_kilburn_is_demolished_with_no_warning_and_without_permission_1_4027231

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in a way were are cheering on 'socialist' planning controls, and the pub would have become flats.

OK they would have been 'unaffordable' flats to anyone in the UK, not a hedge fund manager, but flats nevertheless.

I think it's more about fairness that a belief (or not) in planning controls. It does, anecdotally, seem to be the case that, if you're a well funded developer, you can do pretty much what you want with impunity whereas if you're one of the little guys then putting one brick out of place will unleash the planning hounds of hell upon you. This feels like, for once, a developer getting treated the same way as the rest of us. Personally I think all planning controls should be abolished right now and people should be left to sue for rights to light if they think they have a case, but that's another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in a way were are cheering on 'socialist' planning controls, and the pub would have become flats.

OK they would have been 'unaffordable' flats to anyone in the UK, not a hedge fund manager, but flats nevertheless.

Long ago I came to terms with loving pubs even more than HPC!

I take your point about building more flats, but we need to be pragmatic -- there is no point bulldozing and concreting at any cost, otherwise we will end up with miles of suburbia where no-one wants to live! I know that seems a long way from where we are now, but you only have to look at various derelict regions of Middlesbrough to see what happens when an area has nothing left to offer (no offence to Middlesbrough - victims of post-industrial implosion).

Maintaining your best bits - heritage, amenities, attractions - *whilst* improving your population capacity and your economy must surely be the key strategy for long-term success of towns and cities. For one developer to cash-in with a "cheeky demolition" is tantamount to undermining this strategy for the rest of us.

(p.s. I know these views may be controversial on HPC, but don't you find it soul-destroying when you go to a cute Sussex village and both the traditional pubs have been turned to slave boxes?)

Edited by norseraider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think all planning controls should be abolished right now and people should be left to sue for rights to light if they think they have a case, but that's another story.

Could not disagree more. We would end up with monstrosities all over the place in no time. You want to look at some of the cities that have never bothered with planning, where it's a free for all. I read an article on this theme re Bangkok recently, by someone who has lived there for years and seen a chaotic, congested nightmare of concrete sprouting up, with never a thought for roads or utilities, and apparently nobody empowered to stop it. Or maybe someone is, but it's a case of brown envelopes by the score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long ago I came to terms with loving pubs even more than HPC!

I take your point about building more flats, but we need to be pragmatic -- there is no point bulldozing and concreting at any cost, otherwise we will end up with miles of suburbia where no-one wants to live! I know that seems a long way from where we are now, but you only have to look at various derelict regions of Middlesbrough to see what happens when an area has nothing left to offer (no offence to Middlesbrough - victims of post-industrial implosion).

Maintaining your best bits - heritage, amenities, attractions - *whilst* improving your population capacity and your economy must surely be the key strategy for long-term success of towns and cities. For one developer to cash-in with a "cheeky demolition" is tantamount to undermining this strategy for the rest of us.

(p.s. I know these views may be controversial on HPC, but don't you find it soul-destroying when you go to a cute Sussex village and both the traditional pubs have been turned to slave boxes?)

Its a question of why the pub trade is failing, and why its more viable to create flats on that space. Since I was a youth whole industrial estate have now become housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.