[de_ja]

There is some brownfield land nearby the house, upon which there is a
derelict 17th century Public House and for which a planning
application had been refused in 2006 to erect self contained flats.

In the space of a few months this year, a boarding has been removed
from the front of the public house, there had been a fire and the
building (and land) has been sold. I noted just last week a
demolition
engineer entering the building.


Today I recieved a Demoltion Notice, Building Act 1980, it specified
that the firm "name" has three months to demolish the property and
must adhere to the requirements of the Building Act 1980.


Please; I would be grateful to learn, to what information would I be
entitled. Googling the firm "name" has yielded no success, other than
a potential foreign firm.


Would I be in my rights to ask the agency serving the Notice for the
contact details of the firm for whom the demolition is to be
conducted, would I be in my rights to ascertain what plans the firm
have for the site or would I have to wait for notification by the
Local Authority.


I have already contacted the Local Authority who have confirmed that
there is no current planning application.


Thanks very much,


z


p.s. Is this normal practise, to spend money demolishing, before
ensuring a successful planning application. This seems abit backwards
to me!


p.p.s Is there some recourse available to be with regard to potential
discomfort that might be caused by the demolition, I intend to ask
the
agency who served the Notice, who I could submit complaints to, if
necessary.


I mean't ask also, is there no consultaion process regarding
demolitions as there is with Planning Applications.

Thanks.

[George]

"de_ja" wrote in message
...
There is some brownfield land nearby the house, upon which there is a
derelict 17th century Public House and for which a planning
application had been refused in 2006 to erect self contained flats.


Land Registry? but you will have to pay for the information.

[Adrian]

de_ja gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Please; I would be grateful to learn, to what information would I be
entitled. Googling the firm "name" has yielded no success, other than a
potential foreign firm.

Nothing on Companies House?

p.s. Is this normal practise, to spend money demolishing, before
ensuring a successful planning application. This seems abit backwards to
me!

It'd stop the planning authority saying "No, you can't knock it down and
build 437 ticky-tacky flats there. Rebuild the existing building."

[Man at B&Q]

On Jun 5, 12:17 pm, de_ja wrote:
Please; I would be grateful to learn, to what information would I be
entitled. Googling the firm "name" has yielded no success, other than
a potential foreign firm.

Would I be in my rights to ask the agency serving the Notice for the

Ask what you like, it's not a question of rights. Whether they have
any obligation to tell you is another matter.

contact details of the firm for whom the demolition is to be
conducted, would I be in my rights to ascertain what plans the firm
have for the site

Not unless there's a planning application in the public domain.

or would I have to wait for notification by the
Local Authority.

A lot of LAs put planning applications on line these days.


I have already contacted the Local Authority who have confirmed that
there is no current planning application.

There you are then.

p.s. Is this normal practise, to spend money demolishing, before
ensuring a successful planning application. This seems abit backwards
to me!

Sounds like the demo notice was served due to the building being in an
unsafe state or an eyesore.

p.p.s Is there some recourse available to be with regard to potential
discomfort that might be caused by the demolition, I intend to ask
the
agency who served the Notice, who I could submit complaints to, if
necessary.

Local environmental health officer should be able to advise.

MBQ

[Robin]

de_ja wrote:
There is some brownfield land nearby the house, upon which there is a
derelict 17th century Public House and for which a planning
application had been refused in 2006 to erect self contained flats.

In the space of a few months this year, a boarding has been removed
from the front of the public house, there had been a fire and the
building (and land) has been sold. I noted just last week a
demolition
engineer entering the building.


Today I recieved a Demoltion Notice, Building Act 1980, it specified
that the firm "name" has three months to demolish the property and
must adhere to the requirements of the Building Act 1980.



Who was the notice from? You do have "Freedom of Information" (FOI)
rights. If you can find the relevant government agency, they should have
a published policy on FOI and you could follow that to get what you're
after.

The Local Authority will have an FOI policy as well.

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Man at B&Q wrote:

p.s. Is this normal practise, to spend money demolishing, before
ensuring a successful planning application. This seems abit backwards
to me!

Sounds like the demo notice was served due to the building being in an
unsafe state or an eyesore.

That would be my take on it as well. I'd guess the planning for the flats
was refused because it would require the demolition of the 17thC pub,
which probably wasn't listed but could have been considered worth
preserving. After a couple of years neglect and a fire it's now not worth
saving and has become dangerous so needs to be demolished. Thus making way
for a planning application for a block of flats,which will probably be
granted. This is a known MO for speculative developers.

Try digging about on Companies House for the directors of the company that
currently own it and those of the previous owners. It might be
interesting...

You probably won't be able to do anything about it though or block the
planning application on what is a clear brown field site.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[sm_jamieson]

On 5 Jun, 14:28, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Man at B&Q wrote:
p.s. Is this normal practise, to spend money demolishing, before
ensuring a successful planning application. This seems abit backwards
to me!

Sounds like the demo notice was served due to the building being in an
unsafe state or an eyesore.

That would be my take on it as well. I'd guess the planning for the flats
was refused because it would require the demolition of the 17thC pub,
which probably wasn't listed but could have been considered worth
preserving. After a couple of years neglect and a fire it's now not worth
saving and has become dangerous so needs to be demolished. Thus making way
for a planning application for a block of flats,which will probably be
granted. This is a known MO for speculative developers.


Yes, and this maybe what you hinted at, but a derelict local pub near
us was "accidentally" burnt down. The cops said it looked like a pro
job, but of course nobody could prove it.

Simon.

[Mark]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:28:47 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:


You probably won't be able to do anything about it though or block the
planning application on what is a clear brown field site.

You may find looking at your council's local plan if you intend to
object to a planning application in the future. There may be policies
that discourage building flats in that location, for example.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:54:34 +0100, Mark wrote:

You may find looking at your council's local plan if you intend to
object to a planning application in the future. There may be policies
that discourage building flats in that location, for example.

A possibilty or you may find that the council has used all its house
building planning permission quota.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article ,
sm_jamieson writes:

Yes, and this maybe what you hinted at, but a derelict local pub near
us was "accidentally" burnt down. The cops said it looked like a pro
job, but of course nobody could prove it.

Not uncommon. Private Eye used to have a column which highlighted
one such incident in each issue (and may still do -- I haven't
read it for a long time).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Hugo Nebula]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:17:44 -0700 (PDT), a particular chimpanzee,
de_ja randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

snipped all, as it was a bit rambling

A person intending to demolish a building must give a Section 80
notice TO the Local Authority (usually Building Control). A copy of
the notice must also be served on any adjoining building. The
"agency" who issued the S80 notice is the company named on it.

Building Control then have up to six weeks to issue a Section 81
notice, giving the conditions relating to the demolition that the
applicant must comply with, such as making sure that the site is
hoarded, any adjoining buildings are made watertight, etc. You should
receive a copy of this notice if you are an adjoining owner (ie, your
building or land is physically attached to the demolition site) when
it's issued to the applicant. Copies are also sent to the Health &
Safety Exec so they can control the demolition, and to statutory
undertakers.

The Local Authority cannot refuse to issue a Section 81 notice, and
there isn't a consultation procedure as they are purely technical
matters.

Planning Permission, on the other hand, IS open for debate. AFAIK,
they have to apply for Permission to demolish. However this doesn't
stop people knocking it down without permission. If they ever get
fined, it's probably worth their while to get the principal
application moving.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

[Hugo Nebula]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:56:36 +0100, a particular chimpanzee, Paul
Matthews randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

It may be the reason for demolition is that the building is unsafe, and they
don't want to have to pay compensation when someone realises that.

If the bulding was so unsafe as to be in imminent danger of collapse
requiring demolition, then that over-rides the Demolition Notice
procedure.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article ,
Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost writes:

Building Control then have up to six weeks to issue a Section 81
notice, giving the conditions relating to the demolition that the
applicant must comply with, such as making sure that the site is
hoarded, any adjoining buildings are made watertight, etc. You should
receive a copy of this notice if you are an adjoining owner (ie, your
building or land is physically attached to the demolition site) when
it's issued to the applicant. Copies are also sent to the Health &
Safety Exec so they can control the demolition, and to statutory
undertakers.

So they can be on hand to come and scrape up squashed demolition workers?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Bruce[_4_]]

(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
0
In article ,
sm_jamieson writes:

Yes, and this maybe what you hinted at, but a derelict local pub near
us was "accidentally" burnt down. The cops said it looked like a pro
job, but of course nobody could prove it.

Not uncommon. Private Eye used to have a column which highlighted
one such incident in each issue (and may still do -- I haven't
read it for a long time).


I have lost count of how many incidents of this type I have been aware
of over the years.

During the previous property boom (1980s) I worked on scores of
refurbishment and new build projects in London, many of which were
designed to provide a brand new building behind an existing facade. It
was amazing how many of the facades conveniently "fell down", despite
having been carefully supported by substantial falsework.

It was also amazing how quickly an alternative design could be
produced with a new frontage, resulting in very little delay to the
project.

Such "collapses" were never investigated unless someone was injured or
killed.

[Mark]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:24:18 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:54:34 +0100, Mark wrote:

You may find looking at your council's local plan if you intend to
object to a planning application in the future. There may be policies
that discourage building flats in that location, for example.

A possibilty or you may find that the council has used all its house
building planning permission quota.

I've never heard of "quotas" with respect to planning permission,
unless you mean that they can only process a certain number of
applications per month.

IME planning committees/officers err on the side of granting
applications made by large companies because they know the company can
afford to appeal and/or resubmit applications and it costs the council
less to cave in straight away.

OTOH applications made by individuals are a totally different case and
they can have fun adding stupid restrictions and turn down a few for
the hell of it.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:25:14 +0100, Mark wrote:

I've never heard of "quotas" with respect to planning permission,
unless you mean that they can only process a certain number of
applications per month.

I may have the wrong end of the stick but ISTR that there is something in
the "local plan", possibly orginating from central government, that
restricts the number of new houses that can be built in a given period of
time in a given area.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dan Smithers]

Bruce wrote:


It was also amazing how quickly an alternative design could be
produced with a new frontage, resulting in very little delay to the
project.

Such "collapses" were never investigated unless someone was injured or
killed.


There was such a collapse in the centre of Bath about 20 years ago. The
contractors were told to put it back. Or at least something that looked
the same. I thought that they had hoped to put up something totally
different, but I suspect that the cost of demolition and rebuilding with
new materials might have been less than painstaking preservation.

[Mark]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:26:59 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:25:14 +0100, Mark wrote:

I've never heard of "quotas" with respect to planning permission,
unless you mean that they can only process a certain number of
applications per month.

I may have the wrong end of the stick but ISTR that there is something in
the "local plan", possibly orginating from central government, that
restricts the number of new houses that can be built in a given period of
time in a given area.

Interesting. However this would not stop anyone applying for
permission in the next quota period. The odds seem to be stacked very
much towards the developer, they can appeal but objectors can't.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

[Hugo Nebula]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:26:59 +0100 (BST), a particular chimpanzee,
"Dave Liquorice" randomly hit the
keyboard and produced:

I may have the wrong end of the stick but ISTR that there is something in
the "local plan", possibly orginating from central government, that
restricts the number of new houses that can be built in a given period of
time in a given area.

I thought it was the other way round, in that LAs were under pressure
from Central Gov't to 'provide' a minimum number of new dwellings.
Certainly that was the case a few years ago when the Government would
'predict' how many new houses were needed in certain parts of the
country, then this was divvied up amongst local councils.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:13:37 +0100, Hugo Nebula wrote:

I may have the wrong end of the stick but ISTR that there is something
in the "local plan", possibly orginating from central government, that
restricts the number of new houses that can be built in a given period
of time in a given area.

I thought it was the other way round, in that LAs were under pressure
from Central Gov't to 'provide' a minimum number of new dwellings.

Could be, my take is that central government told the LAs to build(*) a
given number over a over a given number of years. Once they had provided
all those they weren't allowed to build any more.

(*) "Build" as in give planning permission for.

--
Cheers
Dave.