Pub rebuilt brick by brick after developer demolished it without permission

[Wrexis]

Read about this story a few years ago, didn't know the most recent outcome. +1 for the little guys.
The developer expected a small fine, but the community spent 6 years going after them.

Rising from the rubble: London pub rebuilt brick by brick after illegal bulldozing

Carlton Tavern reopens six years after planning ruling that campaigners hope will prevent developers demolishing other sites

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ether_Snake]

Jail

 

[Hollywood Duo]

 

[Rassilon]

It's so common for old / heritage buildings around here to 'mysteriously' burn down before being replaced by flats

Glad this story ended well

 

[Dan Thunder]

It's actually pretty common for developers to pull this kind of thing. They knock down what's there, build something new and retrospectively apply for planning permission. More often than not the worst they'll get is a fine that's actually cheaper for them than doing things properly.

Good that they didn't get away with this shit.

 

[OrangeNova]

It's so common for old / heritage buildings around here to 'mysteriously' burn down before being replaced by flats

Glad this story ended well

Click to shrink...

All around the world it would seem.

In London, Ontario in Canada, it's REAL common to see heritage buildings either left to rot after a developer buys it, or they catch fire before the purchase

 

[NekoFever]

I hope this does set a precedent because there are numerous examples of developers just going ahead and knocking down a building before anyone can raise objections, knowing that at worst they'll get a small fine that'll be dwarfed by the profits from selling it as flats.

There was a famous house near where I live that used to raise money for charity by letting people visit their gardens overlooking the ocean. The developer knew it'd be a shitstorm if they made a formal application to demolish it so they just drove a bulldozer through it at 7am one day. It's luxury apartments now.

 

[steejee]

Good. Should always be an exact rebuild plus hefty fine and potential license loss.

 

[Ouroboros]

Click to shrink...

Perfect.

 

[Megabreath]

Love it

 

[PinkSpider]

Their are certain developers who are known to be scum. There is one around here; purchased a listed building. Couldn't do much with it (Lovely building, down a side street but without conversion could not be used for much). Burnt down one night.

 

[El_TigroX]

THis is great. We've had a few issues in my city in America, and our planning board does this bullshit where they shrug and say "Well, we can't reverse things now... what's done is done" and then the land stays empty for 20 years, or they let them do what they want with it.

It's infuriating - this is so great to see.

 

[PS9]

Needs the plants.

 

[Random Painted Highway]

This is great. None of this "plans for the bypass on display in the cellar" nonsense.

 

[Saint of Killers]

It's actually pretty common for developers to pull this kind of thing. They knock down what's there, build something new and retrospectively apply for planning permission. More often than not the worst they'll get is a fine that's actually cheaper for them than doing things properly.

Good that they didn't get away with this shit.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, the article mentions that tactic. It's such calculated scumbaggary and I hope this ruling sets a precedent for similar behaviour in the future.

 

[Tavernade]

Sounds to me like the associated fines need to be skyrocketed or be something like 25% of company holdings/profit.