Slim Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If you cannot afford the upkeep of your housing stock, maybe you shouldn't have one. Stop playing awkward you know exactly what should be done, it's just no-one wants to upset the greedy rich. I don't see many owner occupiers in these dying buildings, ooooh sometimes you makes me cross with your stupid comments. Your making generalisations, try to think it through. There are properties that are left to rot on purpose, but there's also people who simply can't afford the upkeep. You'd turn those out on the street because of that? Like I said, there's some odd rules with a lot of the town properties that mean they're not eligible for grants that other old properties would benefit from. How'd you know who lives in these properties? I think do think empty properties should be dealt with as a priority though, compulsory purchase would be ideal, but the government is skint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarbunny Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If you cannot afford the upkeep of your housing stock, maybe you shouldn't have one. Stop playing awkward you know exactly what should be done, it's just no-one wants to upset the greedy rich. I don't see many owner occupiers in these dying buildings, ooooh sometimes you makes me cross with your stupid comments. Your making generalisations, try to think it through. There are properties that are left to rot on purpose, but there's also people who simply can't afford the upkeep. You'd turn those out on the street because of that? Like I said, there's some odd rules with a lot of the town properties that mean they're not eligible for grants that other old properties would benefit from. How'd you know who lives in these properties? I think do think empty properties should be dealt with as a priority though, compulsory purchase would be ideal, but the government is skint. Sod compulsory purchase if a house has been empty for a set amount of years, 5-10 maybe, and the owner cant be found then it should be taken into cooperation housing stock. There are so many properties sitting empty that could be used for social housing, or even as affordable housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Damn.... I think that building is the old shop, you know the one with the 'Mars ice cream' sign on the outside? I always wanted that sign... To go with the 2 sided ice cream lady sign maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Sod compulsory purchase if a house has been empty for a set amount of years, 5-10 maybe, and the owner cant be found then it should be taken into cooperation housing stock. There are so many properties sitting empty that could be used for social housing, or even as affordable housing. Oh finding the owner isn't the problem, so I doubt you'll find many takers for that. What would you do about houses that are turned down but just left as wasted and ugly overgrowing plots like the end of Tynwald Street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 THIS is exactly why old properties should not be allowed to be let to ruin. Well I suppose it will save the developer demolishing costs. How long before the house at the junction between Ballaquayle Road and Woodbourne Road collapses? Windows left open to assist the natural rotting, its a sin. yes, and this is also what is deliberately allowed to happen when property owners and planning can't agree, it just takes time for the actual owner to get permission to build what they wanted to build in the first place. If I can see that and you can see that, how come the government cannot? or do they just turn a blind eye for a tenner (or trip to Disney or wherever.....)? cos the government can't be seen to be blackmailed into agreeing with an owners plans. so the 'wait' the owner has to endure is the 'cost' of going up against planning. you notice that 99% of the time dungdorka get plans through eventually after this appeal and that appeal etc etc. this allows the government to look like it put up a fight, the draughtsmen, planning and lawyers to get a bigger piece of the pie and then when the 'greaseing' has taken place with official costs and unofficial ones, build what you want.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 cos the government can't be seen to be blackmailed into agreeing with an owners plans. so the 'wait' the owner has to endure is the 'cost' of going up against planning. you notice that 99% of the time dungdorka get plans through eventually after this appeal and that appeal etc etc. this allows the government to look like it put up a fight, the draughtsmen, planning and lawyers to get a bigger piece of the pie and then when the 'greaseing' has taken place with official costs and unofficial ones, build what you want.. Exactly, and the companies who own these plots can afford the waiting game and don't care about what it looks like. Planning really needs to sharpen it's claws and force the issue, and funding needs to be provided to make it happen, particularly in the town centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Sod compulsory purchase if a house has been empty for a set amount of years, 5-10 maybe, and the owner cant be found then it should be taken into cooperation housing stock. There are so many properties sitting empty that could be used for social housing, or even as affordable housing. This might feasibly sound almost reasonable at face value to some people. But managed property including social housing works best when it is all to the same plan / plans. IE a bunch of properties the same - all done to the same standards, same fittings etc, renovated at the same time etc. 1s and 2s here and there are a nightmare for housing managers. Problem housing stock ends up being expensive for the taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 This might feasibly sound almost reasonable at face value to some people. But managed property including social housing works best when it is all to the same plan / plans. IE a bunch of properties the same - all done to the same standards, same fittings etc, renovated at the same time etc. 1s and 2s here and there are a nightmare for housing managers. Problem housing stock ends up being expensive for the taxpayers. Yep, the devil is in the detail, however I think owners should be encouraged to do something with empty properties and plots that are in areas designated for housing. Compulsory sale perhaps, if not compulsory purchase. The buildings down now, so the bat problem must have been resolved, there's just a gap now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Planning really needs to sharpen it's claws and force the issue, and funding needs to be provided to make it happen, particularly in the town centre. It would be nice if they were perhaps less concerned with preserving knackered old properties (many of which were poor to begin with) and more concerned with the quality, function and style of the new architecture which they do agree. Too often we seem to end up with cheezie pastiche - eg the daft fake chimneys on many of the new build houses - eg the glass fibre 'features' on office blocks and public buildings. Or windows which are much too small for the external proportions. They should employ people who actually live and breath architecture. The sort of people who get excited about excellent buildings and who rigorously take the piss out of crap design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It would be nice if they were perhaps less concerned with preserving knackered old properties (many of which were poor to begin with) and more concerned with the quality, function and style of the new architecture which they do agree. I get what your saying, but if they were better at making sure the knackered old properties were used as housing, you wouldn't need as many crappy new houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I get what your saying, but if they were better at making sure the knackered old properties were used as housing, you wouldn't need as many crappy new houses. New houses don't have to be crappy. Done properly new housing can be excellent + much more energy efficient etc. Maybe IOM should get Denmark or the Netherlands in to run planning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRIVER Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Back of circular road, looks like fun: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Building-co...glas.5374587.jp Sure it was not a registered address for an offshore bank ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 New houses don't have to be crappy. Done properly new housing can be excellent + much more energy efficient etc. Maybe IOM should get Denmark or the Netherlands in to run planning Sure. I'd basically just like to see old spots zoned for housing used before new ones. Why build on a field when there's plenty of housing plots in inner douglas sat growing weeds or used for rough off road parking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Sure. I'd basically just like to see old spots zoned for housing used before new ones. Why build on a field when there's plenty of housing plots in inner douglas sat growing weeds or used for rough off road parking? They did exactly that on a plot about 50 yards down the road didn't they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 They did exactly that on a plot about 50 yards down the road didn't they Yep, there's two plots vacant on st georges street, the old pub and the car park. There's lots of stuff on circular road empty, empty plots on tynwald street, railway terrace, corner allan street and bucks road, etc. Why clear a field when there's land like this already? Daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.