Author Topic: Local Eyesores  (Read 292230 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

norman08

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1185 on: September 19, 2016, 08:16:45 PM »
Well wondered when they would start ,isn't it true they don't have to pay such a tax after so many years ,and can you see locals able to afford them prices doubt it . How many locals own the ones on the north shore ( Dorchester ) Bedford hotels     None .

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1186 on: September 19, 2016, 10:50:48 PM »
I have heard stories about the tax aspect Norman but don't really know much about it.    Perhaps the "drain" that Anwyl originally laid some years back is part of the firm's plan to delay the building of the apartments.
If  CCBC  give the go ahead to it then their plan as devious as it is has worked.
What I can't understand is that CCBC  insist on a certain percentage of houses being affordable but that should apply to apartments too.  When I mean affordable, I mean affordable to local young people.    OK  Anwyl are in business to make a profit but the CCBC should protect the interests of local people and ensure that the prices of the properties are within the reach of local working people

Bosun

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1187 on: September 20, 2016, 09:31:30 AM »
To suggest that prices should be deliberately reduced to make them affordable to local people is naïve, they will simply be solder faster to second home owners and 'buy to let' landlords. A better solution would be a Section 106 Residency Restriction, in that they could only be purchased by local people that met certain criteria. However, (why is there always a 'however'....) there are devious ways around such restrictions and the restrictions can make it difficult for potential local purchasers to obtain mortgages and the suggestion that restrictions might be applied can put off developers. Alternatively, there are market forces.... or an eyesore.....
Being negative only makes a difficult journey more difficult. You may have been given a cactus, but you don't have to sit on it.

DaveR

  • Administrator
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1188 on: September 20, 2016, 09:31:50 AM »
The additional Council Tax revenue for 50 apartments would be significant - around £100k a year extra for council funds.

It's interesting the unintentional ageism that creeps into comments about such developments. Apartments are always regarded as being for 'the elderly', whilst affordable housing is always for 'young people'. There are plenty of poor elderly people out there who would love to live in a nice apartment, I'm sure! On the other hand, young families need a house & garden, not an apartment surely? ???

Greyhound

  • Member
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1189 on: September 20, 2016, 11:06:24 AM »
I always think it's so presumptuous when people say 'no locals' live in places like the Dorchester Apartments and the like. How many people in Llandudno were even born in Wales (just over 50%). If you think about the people who were born here, how many had both parents who were? 'Local' is a pretty subjective term.

Also, why should all houses always be starter homes? Many have been built in Llandudno Junction and Colwyn Bay over recent years. And what is 'affordable'. You can't buy a new house for less that 100k these days, but you could probably buy a flat, but then young families might not want to live in a flat, the would want a home and I doubt many would choose to live in a home by the start of the Marine Drive. It's all relative.   

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1190 on: September 21, 2016, 03:53:15 PM »
Anwyl Construction paid I believe £2,4  M  for the site in 2006 after an application for 25 apartments was granted, then in 2008 they made a further application to demolish the main building and erect 29 flats.   Since the demolition was carried out nothing has been done on the site and it has remained an eyesore for over 8 years .
For £2.4 M plus interest to remain outstanding on anyone's budget must be an enormous strain on the company and I think that Anwyl's application for 50 flats is their way of recovering their outlay.
What I object to is companies like this who use ever loophole in the system to get what they want.     It is the CCBC who run the planning and not the building companies.
Now what is wrong in insisting on the company including affordable flats.   There must be a demand for one bedroomed flats or studio apartments.    Nowadays many people, old and young alike live on their own as do couples both young and old alike and some may wish to get on the property ladder or have no use for a second bedroom.  Why deny them that right when the planning legislation is in force to impose it on the builder.

Bosun  To suggest that prices should be deliberately reduced to make them affordable to local people is naïve.  It  would be if I had suggested that because  market forces dictate the price of properties, but what I had in mind is what I've said about the one bedroomed apartments.  I do like  your suggestion though, that a better solution would be a Section 106 Residency Restriction, in that they could only be purchased by local people that met certain criteria but as you say there are problems there too.
DaveR       The additional Council Tax revenue for 50 apartments would be significant - around £100k a year extra for council funds.   If that is all that matters then what about increasing the apartments to 100 or 150.    But it is not all about money
As for  young families need a house & garden, not an apartment surely? ???  I've not mentioned families only young people so I can't comment on that
Greyhound     I was interested in your comment "I always think it's so presumptuous when people say 'no locals' live in places like the Dorchester Apartments"     I'm afraid that you have a lot more knowledge than myself on the matter so just as a matter of interest can you tell me how many "locals" and also non "locals" live there so it'll settle any argument that may arise in the future.
Just to enlighten you on starter homes, it's part of the Planning Policy for CCBC  and not all homes built have to be starter homes just a percentage,   

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1191 on: October 10, 2016, 04:34:22 PM »
I walked past the Castle Hotel in Llandudno today and it's a mess and getting worse by the day so it's very reassuring to hear Edward Hillier confirm that work on it will start before Christmas.
When he said that work would start,  I do hope it's a bit more than laying a pipe into the site like Anwyl Construction did at the Penmorfa site.
It's very promising anyway and the new project may even be completed before we get the Victorian lamps for the Promenade that Mr Hillier has promised



Tom Davidson

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Daily Post hack
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1192 on: October 11, 2016, 09:02:19 AM »
That place really is an absolute disgrace. Something needs to be done.
After all what is time, a mere tyranny.

Nemesis

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1193 on: October 11, 2016, 11:45:47 AM »
OMG I usually only drive past on my way to the supermarket and hadn't seen how bad it has got. It doesn't look a bit safe.

Don't hold your breath on any promises Hugo. ! :o
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to know.

Blongb

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • I love living in Llandudno
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1194 on: October 11, 2016, 12:55:11 PM »
Big trouble with the building is it was never built to any acceptable standard in the first place. Like most of the Victorian builds in the town, it was thrown up in a rush and then covered in a coat of render to hide the shoddy work below. To compound matters in more modern times the Council had them all Grade II listed which put a tremendous burden on all subsequent owners. Mostyn's found out the hard way when they rebuilt the Embassy Building (Bartons) in St. Georges Place. The rumour was they lost around £3M on that rebuild. Very often the only affordable way is to pull every thing down and replace it with a modern build, to a similar, sympathetic, style, i.e. the Victoria Centre. We will just have to wait and see which way the Castle goes.
-- Now I can only sit and stare--

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1195 on: October 11, 2016, 01:10:04 PM »
Blongb,   you could be on to something there and despite Mt Hillier's promise of some work to be carried out before Christmas, it wouldn't surprise me if they did find something that would change the planning application.
We'll just have to wait a couple of months and see if the promises are kept.

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1196 on: October 24, 2016, 02:27:56 PM »
Edward Hiller, managing director of landowner Mostyn Estates, said: “Work on the ground will start this side of Christmas. 
I walked past this eyesore today and no work seems to have been started on the site and Christmas is coming along fast.   
It would be slightly strange if after so many years they allege that there is a problem with the foundations and the whole building must be demolished


SteveH

  • Newshound
  • *****
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1197 on: October 24, 2016, 04:10:03 PM »
Hugo, at this stage, I would not blame them, even as a layman I  can see the buiding is bellying, and as Blonbg  said above.....replace it with a modern build but in character  with the town.

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1198 on: October 24, 2016, 06:18:03 PM »
Neither would I Steve, it's far easier and cheaper to build from scratch than to make alterations to an existing building and it could still be built in character with the town.
 The only problem is that it's a listed building, that's all of it not just the front of it.
You can see how bad it is from the photos though and part of the delay may be due to what Blongb has highlighted.

SteveH

  • Newshound
  • *****
Re: Local Eyesores
« Reply #1199 on: October 24, 2016, 07:01:22 PM »
I forgot about the listed building aspect..........?    And was surprised by the comments about Victorian shoddy builders, I always thought they were craftsmen, must have been Victorian cowboys......  ;)