[torstenvl]

I read every word. Did you? You keep claiming it was already a historic structure, and then linking to information saying it wasn't yet.

[toyg]

But it was clearly in the process of becoming so. Hence, they were not free to demolish it. Which is why they were forced to rebuild it. QED.

[torstenvl]

There is nothing in the article, nor in anything you've provided, that supports the idea that the English Heritage restrictions go into effect once a site has been nominated. Please withdraw that claim, or link to the relevant source.

Even assuming that's correct, however, it still would not make it acceptable to insinuate that something was already listed as a historic structure when it, in fact, had not been so listed.

[toyg]

Ah yes, so the Council made an order, the legitimacy of which was confirmed by a specific review, just because... they hate private property? They are drunk on power? :eyeroll:

Councils in England ultimately have this kind of power to maintain the character of an area, and they use it. There is nothing scandalous or new about it.

[torstenvl]

Sarcasm and changing the subject may convince casual readers, but it's actually not particularly effective argument, and I won't be distracted by it.

What is your citation for the claim that "they were not free to demolish it" once it was "in the process of becoming" listed?

[toyg]

The fact that they were ordered to put it back, and that the decision was upheld after review. I'm sure you can find more details yourself on the council website, or if you ask them. That is, if you're actually interested in the topic and not just arguing about it on ideological grounds from somewhere far away from the UK.

[torstenvl]

So in other words, you don't have one. This would have been so much easier if you'd just been honest up front.