Disgusting disregard of our heritage.

[pip08456]

Pity it wasn't listed. There was certainly a reson for it being so.

A group of property developers have been ordered to rebuild a Grade II-listed pub that they demolished without permission.

The historic Punch Bowl Inn at Hurst Green, Lancashire, needs to be rebuilt brick by brick within a year, a judge has ruled.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-to-rebuild-it

They are still trying though.

However, in the latest twist, Donelan Trading has now put in a new planning application to Ribble Valley Borough Council in which they propose building holiday lets. They make various claims that it was be "impossible" to rebuild the Punch Bowl to its former design including that it would not meet building regulations and would create a "dangerous" entrance.

The application reveals they would build six holiday lets and one for manager's accommodation.

In a planning statement the applicants state: "The north east corner of the original building was built right up to the edge of the highway and on something of a bend, and the original front door of this part of the premises opened directly onto the road which was clearly dangerous and this doorway was not used. It would be impossible to actually rebuild the building exactly on its original site without closing or restricting Longridge Road as to scaffold the corner would encroach on the highway and to try to build this corner without scaffolding would not meet the health and safety requirements."

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashi...ished-26915290

[nodrogd]

Originally Posted by Chris

Wally World by any chance? If so, that was meant to be a Ladbroke Group hotel, but their focus changed once they got involved with Hilton. Nobody seemed to think that was a good spot for a luxury hotel for some reason.

Yep! & the rumour was that local police never wanted to deal with the rowdy behaviour every weekend. So, despite there being virtually no traffic on the roads at that time of night they would come from several miles away with sirens blaring & lights flashing. Because the site was on top of a hill anyone up there had a good 3 minutes warning of their approach & had ample opportunity to scarper into the local housing estates.

I lived in your neck of the woods for a few years when I was first married. Quickly learned not to go anywhere near the McDonalds drive-thru when coming out of that cinema….

Originally Posted by nodrogd

Why it was never made a listed structure I don't know!

Well that wouldnt have stopped it burning down.

Since it ended up a burned out shell, what else would they do besides demolish it ?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Pity it wasn't listed. There was certainly a reson for it being so.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Well that wouldnt have stopped it burning down.

Since it ended up a burned out shell, what else would they do besides demolish it ?

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?

[jfman]

Typical OB here. Anything that has any meaning in this country, anything of value in a community, is to be destroyed and commoditised for someone else to gain profits. Even if it’s the result of criminal activity.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Typical OB here. Anything that has any meaning in this country, anything of value in a community, is to be destroyed and commoditised for someone else to gain profits. Even if it’s the result of criminal activity.

I didn’t say that. I said that if it is of value and the owner doesn’t want it, the assigned authority should be obliged to buy it if they think it’s of genuine interest. I also pointed out that the structure was unsafe.

For once in your life, answer the points and stop the trolling.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I didn’t say that. I said that if it is of value and the owner doesn’t want it, the assigned authority should be obliged to buy it if they think it’s of genuine interest. I also pointed out that the structure was unsafe.

For once in your life, answer the points and stop the trolling.

So we get to bypass the lawful processes by which buildings can be demolished and replaced for profits, ignoring the communities they are in and historic status of the building?

Gotcha.

Here’s an idea if you don’t want to buy a wonky pub don’t buy one, and seek out other land elsewhere.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So we get to bypass the lawful processes by which buildings can be demolished and replaced for profits, ignoring the communities they are in and historic status of the building?

Gotcha.

Here’s an idea if you don’t want to buy a wonky pub don’t buy one, and seek out other land elsewhere.

No. I’m saying the law should be changed. I know that this is a concept that challenges you. 😆

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No. I’m saying the law should be changed. I know that this is a concept that challenges you. 😆

Your own words

but good luck to them!

A disgusting enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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?

An interesting question.

I’m no expert,

Ain’t that the truth.

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?

The mayor of Pisa has just been on the phone, he says they have need of your insight at the city council. If you hurry you can catch the late flight.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

An interesting question.



Ain’t that the truth.



The mayor of Pisa has just been on the phone, he says they have need of your insight at the city council. If you hurry you can catch the late flight.

The Tower of Piza looks a lot more stable than that old pub was - even more so now!

[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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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

It’s stood for decades, nay, hundreds, of years.

Sounds like red tape, ‘elf and safety gone mad, etc. to say it’s unsafe now. Especially with no qualifications

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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

Oh, right. That’s an interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Remind me to take no notice of anyone on here who advises me on buying a property!

Interesting that you can’t see the danger presented by this. People I know have been advised to evacuate their subsidised property and it looked a lot safer than that relic!