you've said it repeatedly.. but based on what?As I've repeatedly said in this thread, the review was already being undertaken by Historic England before she was even in office.
Her office just signs off on it, just as much as her predecessor presumably signed off on it being listed in the first place.
you've said it repeatedly.. but based on what?
THIS 100%I'm not. It just upsets me. We know politicians are corrupt, they always have been. There is a new level of corruption happening here and it's being allowed by people like you supporting it.
Historic England visited the site again on the 14th and noted that further demolition had taken place since the listing. Nadine Dorries started her job on the 16thThe statement from the DCMS office that Historic England undertook the review on the 14th of September, Nadine Dorries was appointed on the 15th of September
"Following receipt of a listing review request on 13 September 2021, DCMS requested Historic England undertake a more comprehensive assessment of the site and building, with the benefit of a site visit. This assessment was undertaken on 14 September 2021 and we are grateful for Historic England's summary report."
Obviously many, if not all, of the staff at the DCMS office will have carried over from when Downden was replaced, and they'll probably have done the bulk of the work under both ministers.
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.
What are you going on about?Which is surely reinforcing my point, not yours?
What are you going on about?
I honestly can't get my head around folks rallying round Ben Houchen on this? Try to pick holes in what I'm saying which is based on FACTS cold hard facts which can be evidenced. I'm not making anything up here, I've got nothing to gain from this what so ever, I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. You are missing out, you are being taken for an absolute mug and eating up Ben's lies.
Heritage England don't get involved in petty political squabbles, the decision to list the building was based purely on the architectural and historic merit of the building. are you suggesting that I have lied or that I am corrupt in someway?Why is it the "lies and corruption" you accuse people of applauding and defending only exists in the decision to de-list the building, but not in the original decision to list it, despite the fact it was done in haste, designed to stop demolition and done with misleading claims about the architectural importance/interest, which HE then reviewed days after the tower received its status?
Okay yeah, I am, in exactly the same way you appear to be suggesting of others right now.Heritage England don't get involved in petty political squabbles, the decision to list the building was based purely on the architectural and historic merit of the building. are you suggesting that I have lied or that I am corrupt in someway?
There were no misleading claims about the architectural importance/interest. countless heritage and architectural experts can confirm also.
Even the f**king daily mail acknowledge it!!
Historic England's original advice was that Dorman Long Tower is a very good example of high-quality Modernist architecture which could be seen as an early example of Brutalist design.
However, the review applicant contends that Dorman Long Tower was being built at the same time as Brutalism was emerging as a powerful idea in English architecture through the work of subtle and considered architects such as Alison and Peter Smithson and the writings of Reyner Banham.
Historic England's site visit and further consideration has led Historic England to revise their interpretation of the architectural interest of the tower.
In Historic England's view, it does incorporate some architectural display and is essentially a Modernist design, but this is rather an emerging or proto-Brutalist design that shows an Art Deco influence and a Germanic, functionalist tradition.
Upon review, the Secretary of State is not persuaded by Historic England's original advice that Dorman Long Tower is “an early example of Brutalist design” in the considered sense, but on balance rather by the case that building's form and use of concrete is more likely out of engineering and functional requirements, albeit accepting that the building does have some degree of aesthetic interest, particularly as a local landmark and as a rare building type, although making the point that most buildings are in some way unique, which does not necessarily of itself make them of special interest.
With the benefit of Historic England's latest advice and the evidence contained within the review request, the Secretary of State is, on balance, persuaded by the arguments in favor of delisting Dorman Long Tower as it does not in her view possesses the level of architectural or historic interest required for a building to be included in the statutory list.
The idea going around in this thread that Ben Houchen phoned up Nadine Dorries and she immediately rescinded the listed status without any prior groundwork from anyone because of corruption. - she was less than four hours into her new job, Historic England visited the site again after the listing and noted that further demolition had taken place.The idea going around in this thread that Ben Houchen phoned up Nadine Dorries and she immediately rescinded the listed status without any prior groundwork from anyone because of corruption.
The listed status was almost immediately appealed following existing protocols, and annulled following those protocols along with a detailed report from Historic England that justified the decision to do so.
I'm not making anything up either.
I'm also not being taken for a mug or eating up lies.
I don't think it should ever have been listed in the first place and I also do not think it was in any way worthy of being saved from demolition.
Ben said it would cost over £9m of NHS money this wasn’t the case. Have you read the report?And basically have decided that, because you disagree then it must only be due to corruption, completely ignoring the manner in which listed status was given in the first place.
I have also still yet to see you provide evidence that Atkins' assessment of the repair and maintenance costs were wrong/exaggerated and what arguments you'd have in 15-20 years when the building would have needed come down anyway.