Builders working on a historic row of shops in Coventry have been ordered to halt their work by the city council. The intervention came after it was discovered that the development in Earlsdon was taking place without the necessary permissions. There has been a mixed reaction from CoventryLive readers, with some thinking the buildings badly needed improvement.
The buildings at 34-36 Earlsdon Street are currently shrouded in scaffolding and hoardings, with gaps revealing an empty space where the first floors once stood, suggesting they have been demolished. It remains uncertain how much of the ground floor has been impacted.
These properties, which were previously occupied by a NatWest branch, are located within the Earlsdon conservation area, designated just two years ago. This status means any demolition work requires special conservation planning permission, and other changes that might typically be permitted could also require approval.
READ MORE: Builders told to stop work on historic Coventry street as residents say demolition 'disgraceful'
Last year, plans for a second storey over an extension at the back of the building were approved on appeal. However, no mention of demolition work at the front of the building was made in the reports for the scheme, and the appeal decision emphasised the extension would not be visible from the street.
Local residents have expressed their outrage, labelling the situation as "disgraceful" and "beyond appalling". Some have even called for the properties to be reconstructed "brick by brick." Councillor Ant Tucker (Lab) described it as a "shocking and sudden development" in an online post.
On Wednesday (January 1), the council issued a temporary stop notice, effective until late February. The order states that the council believes there has been unauthorised development and/or demolition within the conservation area.
Commenter Bobinder says: “There is no excuse to bypass planning laws, They are there for a reason and must be adhered to, Always. If you disagree with a planning decision then take the relevant appeals route. Had the developer followed planning regulations I see no reason why this particular building could not be replaced with a sympathetic rebuild in keeping with the locality. It is not especially pleasing to the eye and evidently has stood empty for a number of years. As we have seen numerous times up and down the country, You cannot beat planning laws and even if you build a castle, They'll have you demolish it!”
Skippy54 agrees: "They obviously have taken advantage and gone ahead with unauthorised work, but I think they are going overboard with the whole heritage and history part. Nobody has been injured or killed! However I hope they have to restore it back to original specifications or are heavily fined.”
DavidM replies: “It will be hard to make it as ugly as it was before!”
Dansworls adds: “It looked terrible before. People wonder why we are behind in the world. It's being so protective of terrible old buildings. Exactly why our coastal towns are all so run down. Got pubs with more significant architecture than that and they get torn down daily. Not a lot worth saving on this one if you look at it. Any conversion would require the frontage completely removed and replaced. The windows have no historic value. The roof looks in need of replacement. It used to be a bank so the interior would need completely gutting if it wasn't already. No point keeping a shoddy old building which most likely has other problems due to its age. Just needs the new building to be in keeping with the area.”
Eltel444 suggests: “Fine them £2000 per day until it has been restored.”
Tallis agrees: “Make them restore it and then impose a massive fine. Otherwise they will never learn and consider it an acceptable business model.”
TomMac thinks: “As usual the council will talk a good fight but will in the end roll over and throw the towel in. Such is Coventry City Council!”
CovKid agrees: “The council is no use at all, it was only a few weeks ago that the Oak inn was converted without permission but after lots of huffing and puffing by the council nothing happened.”
Georgiesaint says: “Whoever is responsible for demolishing part of our heritage needs to fully restore it to how it was. What kind of person demolishes a listed building? They can't pretend they didn't know because they already applied for planning permission at the back of the building. Some people have no respect for history.”
Bobinder replies: “Calm down, I'm sure your heritage will survive a planning dispute. This has nothing to do with erasing history, simply greedy developers not following planning regulations. The pictures from years ago show a tired building which requires drastic measures. I'm sure a solution will be found, so rest assured history and culture will survive this planning dispute!”
How do you feel about the destruction of this listed building? Do you think it should be returned to how it was or will the changes improve it? Have your say in our comments section.
