In a post-Brexit Britain, it’s no longer just about owning a property.
You can build a gallery of your own and then sell it to the highest bidder, and that will leave you with plenty of cash.
That’s exactly what the landlord of the new 10-storey art gallery at the Glasgow Tenement was planning to do.
The property was to have a three-storeys building with two entrances on each side.
The building would also have a garden on the ground floor, a small courtyard, a reception area and an entry to the basement.
All that would have been sold off by the buyer.
And so it went, but only because a judge ruled that the owner of the property had not obtained an injunction to stop the demolition.
That was an incredibly rare move.
Judge David Grieve, a member of the High Court, ruled that an injunction had been needed to stop demolition of the building because it had caused substantial damage to the building’s historic character and was contrary to the public interest.
The judge said the damage was so great that it was not “in the public’s interest” to allow the building to be demolished.
He found the owner had not “done anything to justify the removal of its own building”.
The judge found that the building was not the sort of building that would cause damage to its heritage or the public.
He also found that it had been constructed before the building laws were changed in 2011, which made the building an “uneconomic use”.
Judge Grieve said the owner could not have argued that the demolition of its building was in the public or economic interest, because the building had been “built in a manner which, in his opinion, would cause significant damage to or damage to” the heritage of the site.
“The evidence of the owner indicates that the acquisition of the land was for the sole purpose of building a private gallery for the purpose of displaying his own work.”
The judge also ruled that “the removal of the structure would cause a substantial loss to the heritage and amenity of the adjoining property” and that the “unlawful and unreasonable conduct of the landlord was manifestly against the public interests”.
He said the building would have a significant impact on the area around the Tenement, “and therefore would be in the interest of the community”.
The court was also told that there were no grounds for the owners to have been able to make a successful application to have the building demolished.
The landlord has until September to appeal the ruling, and the judge said that “if the landlord does not appeal and does not comply with the order, the order will be enforced”.