Somebody deserves a trip to prison for this

Much the same as a supermarket chain who chopped down a load of protected trees which were in their way. They simply wrote a cheque for the fine after the act.
 
That's the problem with fines, developers often find it cost effective
 
That's a real shame for the local community,but even bigger shame that the developer flattened a soon to be a listed building that survived ww2 bombings from Hitler . I seriously think the person responsible for giving the green light for it to be demolished should be made an example of . So sad
 
It takes quite a bit to flabbergast me.
This succeeded.
 
require them to reinstate it at their expense - that'll teach them
 
Gawd, once again the most stoooooopid species on this planet cease to amaze me!
 
From the way the story is written it sounds like they just started flattening it without telling anybody ignoring health and safety requirements not only for the staff involved but also anybody living next door or walking by

The sheer audacity of it beggars belief,it's like it was organised by the Krays
 
Developers ripped through the Carlton Tavern the day before it was due to become a listed building.
Click to expand...
Developers wanted to destroy the existing building and replace it with a ground floor pub and four upper floors made up of ten residential units
Click to expand...
I guess they have half a chance now of getting something like they wanted in the first place,
they would have had no chance had it been "listed"

But I agree heavy handed tactics like this need to be severely penalised!
 
Hope that the maximum allowable penalty is both enough and enforced.
 
Sadly it'll result only in a fine.
Prison is too much to hope for.

I'd like them to also be made to make restitution to the owners at full market value plus 20%.

What would cause them pain though, is if the site was now handed to a different developer at a reduced rate.
 
Companies that do this should have a mandatory fine of twice the last years profits plus a full rebuild of the building.

All that will happen is a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
 
I am surprised, Sunday mornings are the usual time for developers to carry out such heretic acts.
 
We've got a similar thing going on near where I live. Pub that shut a couple of years ago and has stood empty. KFC applied to buy the site and redevelop it. Council refused permission as it would cause traffic chaos (the site is on a corner of a three lane bypass and a busy side road, all controlled by three way traffic lights. Getting in and out of the site would be a nightmare). Aldi buy the site instead. Council won't let them develop the site. Aldi demolish the pub without permission. It's now been at stalemate for a year and instead of a nice looking (if closed) pub, we now have an overgrown demolition site covered in rubble, surrounded by graffiti covered hoarding. Nice. :(
 
Outrageous. It is apparently possible for some types of breaches of planning laws to be tried in the High Court, where the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine or imprisonment. I don't know whether the circumstances here would allow that, but if so I'd hope that the flagrant nature of the demolition would encourage the council to push for it.
 
StewartR said:
Outrageous. It is apparently possible for some types of breaches of planning laws to be tried in the High Court, where the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine or imprisonment. I don't know whether the circumstances here would allow that, but if so I'd hope that the flagrant nature of the demolition would encourage the council to push for it.
Click to expand...

I doubt that knocking down a grotty old pub would carry the same potential penalty as demolishing a Grade I listed stately home but maybe it should. However, I agree with Pete's comment that the developers will probably get away with it since the demolition is now a "fait accompli". They may get a fine but I very much doubt that it'll make any difference and will be absorbed into the costing of the development (and may well be tax deductible anyway!)
 
Maida Vale is an expensive and highly desirable inner suburb of London, any fine will be more than covered by the income from building appartments in the area. I have to assume the developers actually owned the pub/land and had their plans for making serious amounts of money scuppered by the council refusing the planning permission [or at the very least, a leashold on the site]. Otherwise what they have done surely becomes a criminal case, not a civil matter.

Like others, I suspect they will pretty much get away with it, other than a fine they will be happy to pay, but I too would like to see a far more severe penalty for such deplorable actions.
 
Yv said:
Maida Vale is an expensive and highly desirable inner suburb of London, any fine will be more than covered by the income from building appartments in the area. I have to assume the developers actually owned the pub/land and had their plans for making serious amounts of money scuppered by the council refusing the planning permission [or at the very least, a leashold on the site]. Otherwise what they have done surely becomes a criminal case, not a civil matter.
.
Click to expand...

Technically if the owner of the property alleged that the building was knocked down without permission there is the potential offence of criminal damage.

However, I would suggest that the odds on this happening is extremely unlikely, It's more probable that this will be a civil case.
 
Am I missing something here? I thought it was the people (company) that actually OWN the building, that arranged for it to be destoyed, going against the planning permission refusal.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Am I missing something here? I thought it was the people (company) that actually OWN the building, that arranged for it to be destoyed, going against the planning permission refusal.
Click to expand...

Well perhaps, if you own your own car and decide to smash it up there are no offences. Equally you could destroy your own house - no offences !

However, if someone knocks it down without your permission then yes that a criminal offence.

The only thing that has been breeched here is civil offences and nothing criminal.
 
I'm confused too. The owner knocked it down and their manager is the one making the fuss.
I'm not sticking up for the developers, but they own the property, but had their development plans rejected ... does that stop them from levelling it though?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Well perhaps, if you own your own car and decide to smash it up there are no offences. Equally you could destroy your own house - no offences !
Click to expand...

A guy in our area many years ago had an acrimonious split from his partner & after she was awarded half of everything, he took a chainsaw to everything .......inc the property!:eek: (it was all over the National media at the time)
He stripped back some roof tiles down both sides of the roof & cut through all the timbers, then moved down to the upstairs floor & carried on down to the wooden flooring at ground level.

He was prosecuted some time later, but not sure what the offences were.

(I know it's not the same issue as the OP, but I just remembered the incident :LOL: )
 
The basic issue is the fact that it was about to become listed and if it had become listed the penalties are significantly more than just demolition without planning consent.
Typical of greedy developers fed by the rarified profit potential of the property bubble in London. The fine should fit the potential gain - hopefully bankrupting the company with the spial measures of not allowing the directors not to act as directors for 5 years
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Am I missing something here? I thought it was the people (company) that actually OWN the building, that arranged for it to be destoyed, going against the planning permission refusal.
Click to expand...

new2me said:
I'm confused too. The owner knocked it down and their manager is the one making the fuss.
I'm not sticking up for the developers, but they own the property, but had their development plans rejected ... does that stop them from levelling it though?
Click to expand...

Indeed, that was the point of my post, I think a few people seemed to think they didn't own the building, which as I said earlier, they must do or it wouldn't be a case of the council looking into whether it can take any action, it would be the police straight in there and arrests being made.

What they have done is more than likely totally legal in the literal sense, although I don't know enough about listed status to know whether an application for it puts any temporary caveats in place whilst the application is considered, but on the surface with the information just from the article, they can bulldoze it. Knowing listed status was being applied for and knowing it had some history, morally wrong in every sense, but not illegal as presented.

There may also be a small and relatively insignificant case by the manager herself and other staff who may have had personal possessions in there which have been wilfully destroyed. Again this is a guess, but as she is not screaming about her 'life possessions' having been destroyed so she probably wasn't a live-in manager.
 
Overexposed said:
The basic issue is the fact that it was about to become listed and if it had become listed the penalties are significantly more than just demolition without planning consent.
Typical of greedy developers fed by the rarified profit potential of the property bubble in London. The fine should fit the potential gain - hopefully bankrupting the company with the spial measures of not allowing the directors not to act as directors for 5 years
Click to expand...


From the story on the ITV site... "We intended to recommend the site for listing at grade II, however this is not confirmation it would have been listed, the Department for Culture Media and Sport is responsible for deciding which sites are designated and at what grade.

– Historic England statement "

(My bold and italics.)

So the building wasn't actually listed, just under consideration for listing. Doesn't make what the developers did right in any way, shape or form though.


ETA that IIRC you need planning permission to demolish a property and the developers didn't have that. The local council might now refuse planning for the proposed development (again) but if the developers appeal (possibly after the land has been sold on [maybe to the directors under a different umbrella...]), they'll probably get the permission now there's no longer any structure on the site, let alone a protected building.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
From the story on the ITV site... "We intended to recommend the site for listing at grade II, however this is not confirmation it would have been listed, the Department for Culture Media and Sport is responsible for deciding which sites are designated and at what grade.

– Historic England statement "

(My bold and italics.)

So the building wasn't actually listed, just under consideration for listing. Doesn't make what the developers did right in any way, shape or form though.


ETA that IIRC you need planning permission to demolish a property and the developers didn't have that. The local council might now refuse planning for the proposed development (again) but if the developers appeal (possibly after the land has been sold on [maybe to the directors under a different umbrella...]), they'll probably get the permission now there's no longer any structure on the site, let alone a protected building.
Click to expand...

But basically the developers were pre-empting the fact that the property was probably going to be listed
 
Yv said:
What they have done is more than likely totally legal in the literal sense...
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Planning permission is require din order to demolish any buikdiung with a volume of over 25 cubic metres. they didn't have permission. Therefore they acted illegally. The fact that listing was being considered is irrelevant.
 
Yv said:
Maida Vale is an expensive and highly desirable inner suburb of London, any fine will be more than covered by the income from building appartments in the area.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. However, if it goes to the High Court, the maximum fine which can be imposed is unlimited. I don't think property prices are that high, even in Maida Vale.
 
Overexposed said:
But basically the developers were pre-empting the fact that the property was probably going to be listed
Click to expand...

I would say it was more possible than probable and TBH, in the developers' shoes, I would probably do the same. Looking at the Duedill link above, the developers are a limited company so if they do get hit with a fine, they'll probably simply fold, leaving any creditors high and dry and the council with about 1/2 of sod all!
 
Nod said:
I would say it was more possible than probable and TBH, in the developers' shoes, I would probably do the same. Looking at the Duedill link above, the developers are a limited company so if they do get hit with a fine, they'll probably simply fold, leaving any creditors high and dry and the council with about 1/2 of sod all!
Click to expand...


But the company will still have the site as an asset - assuming that they own it
 
"Oh, we sold the site since we couldn't get planning permission on it..."
 
Assuming the enforcement notice is approved and the developers do not appeal against it successfully, this looks like a good result.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top