Page 1 of 3

Fire on Beech road

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:23 pm
by scottie
There is a derelict building on fire on beech road (7pm Thurs 14th)
Don't think anyone's was hurt.....a lot of smoke though...

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:20 am
by pauld
Which one was it?

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:34 am
by Stanley
The one next to the chapel-becoming-curryhouse.

The one they've been trying to sell for a while.

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:44 am
by fiz67
mmm smells like the seymore all over again hey

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:16 am
by pauld
NO way, I love that building. Can it be saved?

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:32 pm
by barlowmoorroadbhoy
pauld wrote:NO way, I love that building. Can it be saved?


only if you offer to pay for it!

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:11 pm
by pauld
I think it was up for sale fo half a mil. It was a great buliding but needed a lo of work before the fire - probably only just viable then. I haven't been down there but I cant imagine the situation is any better. I expect BMR boy burnt it down to make it easier to develop the plot of land.

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:18 pm
by barlowmoorroadbhoy
pauld wrote:I think it was up for sale fo half a mil. It was a great buliding but needed a lo of work before the fire - probably only just viable then. I haven't been down there but I cant imagine the situation is any better. I expect BMR boy burnt it down to make it easier to develop the plot of land.


well although it wasnt without its merit it was hardly the most attractive of buildings.

Lots of buildings seem to be "burning down" since the credit crunch hit and land owners realised that the land or building that they were holding out for arent worth a 1/4 of what it once was.

Of course I would like to see the site redeveloped - who wouldnt - its all a question of what. I would like to see an appropiate development to go in there that will enhance the area and be of benefit to the local residents.

Wasnt there always an issue within parking/access around that site that stopped the site being previously developed.

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:31 pm
by Bob Cunningham
I worked in the old Boxworks on Beech Road, the parking was bad them days with the big vans that called there.

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:38 pm
by Russ
The government also changed the rules on building rates a while back so that there is no relief for vacant buildings hence creating a tax liability on unoccupied buildings.

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:45 pm
by barlowmoorroadbhoy
Russ wrote:The government also changed the rules on building rates a while back so that there is no relief for vacant buildings hence creating a tax liability on unoccupied buildings.


correct - empty rates relief was stupidly abolished and not landowners cannot afford to maintain older vacant building and are choosing to demolish them.

Because of this it only demolition contractors that are busy when it comes to the construction industry - and their rates have gone way up. Sp many cash strapped property owners have gone down the "cheaper route" and burning buildings down if they cant get permission to demolish or afford to demolish or maintain. Not say that that is the case here! 8)

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:47 pm
by Fungus Mungus
I am sure there was a fire in that same building a couple of years ago - don't know if it was the fire(s) but the roof's pretty much gone on the place now so it's doomed if someone doesn't seal it!

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 11:09 pm
by annie
barlowmoorroadbhoy wrote:
Russ wrote:The government also changed the rules on building rates a while back so that there is no relief for vacant buildings hence creating a tax liability on unoccupied buildings.


correct - empty rates relief was stupidly abolished and not landowners cannot afford to maintain older vacant building and are choosing to demolish them.

Because of this it only demolition contractors that are busy when it comes to the construction industry - and their rates have gone way up. Sp many cash strapped property owners have gone down the "cheaper route" and burning buildings down if they cant get permission to demolish or afford to demolish or maintain. Not say that that is the case here! 8)



Many older vacant buildings are vacant because the owners want to get rid of them but are prevented by planning permission... Witness the bunglalow on St Werburghs Road... vacant for years (despite countless letters stuck to the door offering the purchase), landlord wanted to knock it down and build completely out-of-place flats on the site. He was refused permission due to opposition from neighbours (quite rightly, on a road with semi and detached properties), so what does he do?

Abandons it and lets the druggies move in, who quickly knacker the building... bit by bit it gets damaged (by persons unknown), until he gets served with an order to make it safe by the council. So he demolishes it.

Now... with a vacant site... let's see how it'll be before those flats go up!

Scumbag.

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 11:56 pm
by barlowmoorroadbhoy
annie wrote:
barlowmoorroadbhoy wrote:
Russ wrote:The government also changed the rules on building rates a while back so that there is no relief for vacant buildings hence creating a tax liability on unoccupied buildings.


correct - empty rates relief was stupidly abolished and not landowners cannot afford to maintain older vacant building and are choosing to demolish them.

Because of this it only demolition contractors that are busy when it comes to the construction industry - and their rates have gone way up. Sp many cash strapped property owners have gone down the "cheaper route" and burning buildings down if they cant get permission to demolish or afford to demolish or maintain. Not say that that is the case here! 8)



Many older vacant buildings are vacant because the owners want to get rid of them but are prevented by planning permission... Witness the bunglalow on St Werburghs Road... vacant for years (despite countless letters stuck to the door offering the purchase), landlord wanted to knock it down and build completely out-of-place flats on the site. He was refused permission due to opposition from neighbours (quite rightly, on a road with semi and detached properties), so what does he do?

Abandons it and lets the druggies move in, who quickly knacker the building... bit by bit it gets damaged (by persons unknown), until he gets served with an order to make it safe by the council. So he demolishes it.

Now... with a vacant site... let's see how it'll be before those flats go up!

Scumbag.


would you not shut it for a change ya whinging ould bag!

If you are so worried about it why dont you and the neighbours arrange a whip round, buy the plot for Market Value and clear the site and create a park!

you are good at telling people to do with their own land but go quiet when it comes to buying the guys out and a the first swear_words_not_allowed to cash in when you get the chance yours ya hypocrite!

Re: Fire on Beech road

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:52 pm
by Russ
annie wrote:
barlowmoorroadbhoy wrote:
Russ wrote:The government also changed the rules on building rates a while back so that there is no relief for vacant buildings hence creating a tax liability on unoccupied buildings.


correct - empty rates relief was stupidly abolished and not landowners cannot afford to maintain older vacant building and are choosing to demolish them.

Because of this it only demolition contractors that are busy when it comes to the construction industry - and their rates have gone way up. Sp many cash strapped property owners have gone down the "cheaper route" and burning buildings down if they cant get permission to demolish or afford to demolish or maintain. Not say that that is the case here! 8)



Many older vacant buildings are vacant because the owners want to get rid of them but are prevented by planning permission... Witness the bunglalow on St Werburghs Road... vacant for years (despite countless letters stuck to the door offering the purchase), landlord wanted to knock it down and build completely out-of-place flats on the site. He was refused permission due to opposition from neighbours (quite rightly, on a road with semi and detached properties), so what does he do?

Abandons it and lets the druggies move in, who quickly knacker the building... bit by bit it gets damaged (by persons unknown), until he gets served with an order to make it safe by the council. So he demolishes it.

Now... with a vacant site... let's see how it'll be before those flats go up!

Scumbag.



It's the owners prerogative to let a building become derelict if they so wish, likewise it is the prerogative of the local authority (taking into account local and unitary development plans) to either grant or not grant planning permissions for a development.

Generally you do not need planning permission to demolish a building (unless it is listed or located within a conservation area)

So if you buy a property to develop it and then fail to get the necessary planning permission there is nothing wrong with leaving the property vacant, if it becomes unsafe you may well get an enforcement notice from the local authority requiring you to make it safe, making it safe can be done by demolishing it. Once demolished the owner will need planning to build anything on the site so it may be a risky strategy and in no way guarantees that they will get the planning permission they originally wanted.