John Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 ....and now the house next door has been droppped too. Why? that was declared safe etc... suppose it would mean less costs to the property owner, as no need to waterproof etc the party walls etc. But I feel sorry for the property next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I don't think I asked the question actually, John Yesterday: Today: However, it could have been a typical knee-jerk reaction. May as well knock the whole block down . . . . then every house in Douglas over 80 years old . . . It appears that all owners of houses on the Corpy's delapidation lhave just been contacted. tip:- buy shares in JCK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I don't think I asked the question actually. Odd how they didn't leave any of the front wall of the first property. It's normal to leave that up supporting the next property, like they have when they took the second down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarbunny Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I'm pretty sure that 63 was also "abandoned" so it could have been a case of bring it down now rather than causing more disruption later when it collapses. Also avoiding any potential risk to passers by. Probably quite a sensible move in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahorse Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Lets hope now theres going to be a patch of land empty, that tescos dont build on it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I'm sure the property owner will be renting out car park spaces on it very shortly.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 However, it could have been a typical knee-jerk reaction. ....or both houses could be owned by the same person......who took the opportunity to have 'em both knocked down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilly G. Ossenfeffer Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 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? I understand that it's Douglas Borough Council responsible for the dilapidated properties in Douglas not the Government, as such. The property owners are responsible, not the Corpy, They just produce a list and take the legal action to get the property to an acceptable standard. Or not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarbunny Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Turns out the owner of the building is pretty happy with the way things have turnt out, he has been trying for years to get permission to knock them down but has had no luck. He is also happy to pay the bill as well seen as this is the out come he was after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Turns out the owner of the building is pretty happy with the way things have turnt out, he has been trying for years to get permission to knock them down but has had no luck. He is also happy to pay the bill as well seen as this is the out come he was after. Course he is. He's probably allowed them to fall into disrepair, putting the neighbors property at risk, because he disagreed with planning decision. This is the point I made earlier, planning needs to get teeth. If the buildings falling into disrepair, and planning has decided it should be refurbished not demolished, there should be powers to make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I agree with Slim, the legal system is too slow and this whole episode has been very convenient for the property owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarbunny Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I agree that the planners should have been able to do something a lot sooner, although I cant see the policy that would have stopped them from allowing the demolition in the first place. The building was not registered and it is not in a conservation area, there is no reason to have stopped him really. Yes there should be more of an incentive for him to have wanted to refurbish the building but seen as taxes make it more appealing to rebuild I can understand where he is coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.