No.Happy enough to keep voting them into power. Repeatedly. Oh, that's you isn't it?
I'm pretty sure Stonehenge was abandoned for a lot longer than 40 years. It was nothing more than a curio to archaelogists and romantics up until the 1960s. If the area around the DLT is being redeveloped anyway then there's no reason it's surroundings can't be spruced up a bit.Tourists come from all over to visit Stone Henge, it’s a big tourist attraction.
Are you really comparing it to an abandoned industrial eyesore next to South Bank? The place had been abandoned for about 40 odd years. Nobody gave it a second thought until recently.
It’s not comparable
So you agree that landmarks can be torn down?it was a landmark
A defunct seasonal marker vs a defunct coal bunker. What's the difference? Is age the only thing that matters. If the DLT had stood another 50 years would you oppose it's destruction. Another 100? 1000?Fatuous comparison, an ancient monument. Vs a coal bunker.
Exactly. Tear down Stonehenge and Big Ben as they've both outlived their usefulness. Or are you happy to accept that the original use isn't always the factor determining whether something has value?...spend tens of millions to keep derilict disused buildings of no use.
It's already been explained that once the initial repairs had been done the ongoing maintenance costs would have been a lot less than those proferred in the demolition documents.What would the arguments be therefore in 20 years when it would have to be torn down? Preserving this tower, at great expense for another two decades, is beneficial how?
It on the 10th of September, it was delisted 16th of September by Nadine Dorries less than 4 hours into her new job.It wasn't random though, it was given emergency listed status on the 13th of September, 6 days before its scheduled demolition on the 19th of September, the man in charge of the body planning the demolition protested immediately, providing evidence for why it shouldn't have it, and it was rescinded on the 17th of September.
There was already an established mechanism for applying for listed status to be removed, and it was followed.
I can understand why people are unhappy that it was rescinded, but I'm not really understanding the conspiratorial nature of some of the comments.
Plans were already well under way for it to be demolished, and they stuck to that schedule when the status was removed.
It's gone, furnace next,move on,I'm pretty sure Stonehenge was abandoned for a lot longer than 40 years. It was nothing more than a curio to archaelogists and romantics up until the 1960s. If the area around the DLT is being redeveloped anyway then there's no reason it's surroundings can't be spruced up a bit.
Cultural significance doesn't just come with age or tourist numbers (and having a site that could attract visitors is surely better than just knocking stuff down).
So you agree that landmarks can be torn down?
A defunct seasonal marker vs a defunct coal bunker. What's the difference? Is age the only thing that matters. If the DLT had stood another 50 years would you oppose it's destruction. Another 100? 1000?
Exactly. Tear down Stonehenge and Big Ben as they've both outlived their usefulness. Or are you happy to accept that the original use isn't always the factor determining whether something has value?
And you do realise that buildings end up in a state of disrepair so that it can be used as an excuse to knock them down which is why we need listed status on significant buildings.
It's already been explained that once the initial repairs had been done the ongoing maintenance costs would have been a lot less than those proferred in the demolition documents.
Move on from highlighting Tory corruption?Is this the same "moving on" we were supposed to be doing because brexit is "done" or a different form of moving on?It's gone, furnace next,move on,
It on the 10th of September, it was delisted 16th of September by Nadine Dorries less than 4 hours into her new job.
Explained where? There's been one claim made by newy that the costs put forward in the independent review by Atkins are exaggerated, and he's done so with nothing to support this. With the greatest of respect to him, I'm more inclined to take Atkins' words. And further to the point, no one here has contradicted Atkins statement that, with the repair and maintenance costs, even exaggerated, would preserve the tower beyond 20 years. It would still need to be torn down by 2040.It's already been explained that once the initial repairs had been done the ongoing maintenance costs would have been a lot less than those proferred in the demolition documents.
If you're claiming that those involved the the demolition of the tower are corrupt you'd better think hard about libeling people. It could get you and the owners of this board in trouble.Move on from highlighting Tory corruption?Is this the same "moving on" we were supposed to be doing because brexit is "done" or a different form of moving on?
Do you not find it suspicious that the newly crowned culture war secretary immediately over turned the listed building status? And that this was a direct financial benefit for the mayor?If you're claiming that those involved the the demolition of the tower are corrupt you'd better think hard about libeling people. It could get you and the owners of this board in trouble.
On a secondary note, your political U turn is impressive, they say there is nothing more zealous than a convert.
You should drop the condescending replies it does you know favours,Do you not find it suspicious that the newly crowned culture war secretary immediately over turned the listed building status? And that this was a direct financial benefit for the mayor?
If not, you really need higher standards
Filling in a form isn't the process, you don't fill the form in and as soon as you finish it, it has listed status. That is simply the input to the process which a lot longer than that 20mins otherwise we would have millions of listed buildings.But it also only took 20 minutes to write an application that got it listed
Filling in a form isn't the process, you don't fill the form in and as soon as you finish it, it has listed status. That is simply the input to the process which a lot longer than that 20mins otherwise we would have millions of listed buildings.
not far off, it would seem it was a done deal in no time. Please don't pretend that an established process such as this application has equivalence to her ad hoc decision to revoke an application.She didn't simply answer the phone either.
Ahhhh, I hadn't actually realised the application had came from Newyddion.
I only came in to the end of this thread on the morning after it was demolished
So it's a bit earlier than the 10th of September judging from the comments, reading back.
But it also only took 20 minutes to write an application that got it listed, so I'm not surprised that a detailed report on the issues they weren't aware of was able to get it unlisted almost as quickly.
not far off, it would seem it was a done deal in no time. Please don't pretend that an established process such as this application has equivalence to her ad hoc decision to revoke an application.
You should probably drop trying to defend corruption. it does you no favours.You should drop the condescending replies it does you know favours,
The rest can be investigated by those with full access to all the facts, not message board speculation.
You’re doing it again, you’re beyond reasonable debate.You should probably drop trying to defend corruption. it does you no favours.