[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Maybe, but in my opinion, whilst novel, this was a dangerous structure. The place could have collapsed on its customers at any time.

Actually, my opinion is that if you buy the land, you should be able to do with it as you wish, within sensible planning regulations. If the authorities want to list a building on the land and this is incompatible with what the owner wants, the authorities should be given the option of buying it at commercial rates. If they are not prepared to do that, the owner should be allowed, within reason, to do as they want, including demolition.

This country needs to free itself from unnecessary regulation, and where they want to impose unreasonable compliance, they should put their money where their mouths are.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------



It’s pretty clear that this was planned, but good luck to them! How could the authorities have allowed the place to operate with this degree of subsidence? I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the place was in imminent danger of collapse.

I suppose it was a tourist attraction, but are tourists dispensable just because they live somewhere else?

You're the only person I'm aware of saying the building was unsafe.