Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
That's the spirit.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
16 Ship Street - What's that house all about?
- Thread starter Cheeky Monkey
- Start date
That's the spirit.
Yup, sorry - I'll say who renovates my places and who lives in it thanks. (If I had any that is)
My view on social handouts is far from the popular view.
Gully
Monkey in a seagull suit.
You are probably right there, especially if it is a conservation area...where there are often additional restrictions on putting up things like satellite dishes that are deemed to detract from the appearance of the area.
Yep we live in one I agree for the most of it that it is a good thing. There is no accouting for some peoples taste
Slowhand
New member
No, I have no problem with covenants when a house is purchased, in fact that clarifies obligations and is an excellent way of ensuring that appropriate standards are maintained.
I just don't feel comfortable with the idea that if the designation, or simply the local perception of an area changes, longstanding residents may be required to contribute to someone else's ideals.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Which you would avoid by letting the building/property out as opposed to having it lying empty on a long term basis.
Empty buildings do no favours for anybody. Van Hoogstraten is/was very good at acquiring properties and then leaving them vacant.
cjd
Well-known member
Surely, owners of properties in conservation areas have enjoyed NO more money in their bank accounts. This will only happen if they sell them.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Slowhand
New member
I would suggest that is more to do with Maggie Thatcher and the 'right to buy' which has denuded the country of council houses.
If there is not enough social housing that is not the fault of home owners, whether it be the owner of an ex council house or the owners of multiple non council properties.
This is just an extension of the 'right to roam' concept, which could well be seen as an infringement of civil liberties.
An Englishman's home(s) is (are) his castle('s)!!!
folkestonesgull
Active member
and it can't happen.
if there is an abandoned or empty property then Councils can provide loans and grants to the owners to do them up and sell/lease.
There is also the power of compulsory purchase for REALLY bad, vacant buildings that the owners refuse to touch and are causing problems like rat infestations to neighbours, squatters etc
Gary Leeds
Well-known member
- May 5, 2008
- 1,526
And how about the royal palaces that stand empty for most of the year? Why havent the councils stuck people in those? Or all the empty shops (London Road for example)? why not convert all them over to housing?
I must admit I agree with if you buy a property its yours to do as you wish. Would it really be my fault the council dont have enough houses for the waiting list. Now of course if I had an empty property and they wanted to BUY it off me for an acceptable price then they can do what they want with it if I accept the price
I must admit I agree with if you buy a property its yours to do as you wish. Would it really be my fault the council dont have enough houses for the waiting list. Now of course if I had an empty property and they wanted to BUY it off me for an acceptable price then they can do what they want with it if I accept the price
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
According to Brightonforever Home Page its owned by Cato Furniture & Objects.
Cato Furniture & Objects, 16 Ship Street, 325334
Cato Furniture & Objects, 16 Ship Street, 325334
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
That should explain why it looks "distressed" 
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The Brunswick Square thing isn't just a restriction on exterior changes. It's an OBLIGATION on the owner of the building to incur the costs of repainting it at the same time as everyone else in the Square.
It's a very popular provision, because most people like the way that world class Regency properties look. Especially in places like Brighton & Hove and Bath.
It's the law. Originally the Brunswick Town Act of 1830 and now the Hove Borough Council Act 1976. What parliament approved is a requirement for the fronts of all properties in the original Brunswick Estate to be maintained unaltered and repainted every five years.
The specification for the 2010 repainting is in this 16 page document:-
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/conservation/Brunswick_Estate_Paint_Spec_2010.pdf
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Owned by or just occupied by Cato?
I'm not sure why we've mixed these two issues in this thread - the cost of repainting periodically is spelt out on purchase - you like it you buy, you don't then you walk away...people wouldn't look at those places if they didn't like the colour, me I don't like the colour but I appreciate the restriciton...
To have a local council "reposess" a place by redecorating and installing people in need of housing, before charging the owner, is completely different and I would be suprised if even Brighton Council could make that stick in Brunswick Square.....
raymondbriggs
New member
perhaps tedebear you should research the effects on certain properties some unscrupulous property owners can have.One who will destroy a building to drive out tennants and property owners to maximise profit.
try Portland Place, St Michaels place and that rather nice boat shaped building on the seafront.
the powers you slam,that are not used often enough,are to prevent the creation of innocent victims of slum landlords-especially those who will destroy viable housing to create a slum.
try Portland Place, St Michaels place and that rather nice boat shaped building on the seafront.
the powers you slam,that are not used often enough,are to prevent the creation of innocent victims of slum landlords-especially those who will destroy viable housing to create a slum.
Whilst a landlord would "create" a slum to then regenerate and then take profit, the best money a council could spend is to ignore the area and focus on regenerating another, leave him or her to their own stupid game...
Still at the premise of my argument is that your home is your castle, to do with as you wish. Should someone wish to enter my property however derelict it is, will be met with my lawyer.
You have no right to something for which you haven't worked (to the best of your ability). No matter which government or council hands it out.
raymondbriggs
New member
all very well if you are not a victim,either as a tenant,home owner or neighbour of a landlord determined to drive out occupiers
by some pretty foul means and maximise profit potential by socially engineering a house, square or appartment block.
Brighton and Hove has seen some of the worse cases since the 60's of deliberate landlord neglect and massive fortunes have been created on the back of suffering occupiers.
Please put a bit of effort into researching the examples I have given.
Well yes but thats a separate arugment, how to fight those is usually not within the financial remit (nor the scope) of the employees of the council.
This thread was about the long term derelict places, not how they get that way (a completely separate thread!). Long term dereliction in Brunswck Square of all places....