Lancashire Telegraph£37m bill to buy out abandoned Sudell properties (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

£37m bill to buy out abandoned Sudell properties

Lancashire Telegraph: Kate Hollern Kate Hollern

IT would cost up to £40million to compulsorily purchase all the empty homes in the Sudell area of Darwen, according to borough council leader Kate Hollern.

The revelation came after Sudell councillor Roy Davies called on Blackburn with Darwen Council to carry out more compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) in the ward.

But Coun Hollern said there were 246 empty homes in the ward which, at an average cost of £150,000 to purchase and repair, would require about £37million.

She said: “Even if we had the funding available we would not be able to carry out CPOs without showing just cause such as prolonged social issues affecting the neighbourhood, abandonment, blight and an unwillingness by the owner to do any work to the property even following enforcement by the council.”

Coun Hollern said of the 3,441 homes in the ward, 354 were showing as empty.

However these included 74 at the former Elizabeth House and Ellenshaw Estate that Twin Valley Homes is looking to demolish, four leased by housing firm AAAW Ltd and undergoing refurbishment, five newly-built homes at Woodlands Park, four at the James Street Project for single homeless people, four older people’s homes waiting to be re-let and 17 being dealt with by executors of wills.

Coun Hollern said: “This shows a net empty figure of 246 which is around seven per cent and is only slightly higher than the borough average.

“Some of these empty properties could currently be being prepared for re-let by private landlords.

“Rather than CPOs, we should be looking at bigger penalties for absentee landlords.

“We introduced a scheme last year where we started charging council tax after a house had been empty for six months. We need to be looking at other penalties we can apply to people who abandon properties.”

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:54pm Mon 7 Jul 14

It's a spade! says...

I don't know the area but if these properties are so bad they most certainly can't be worth hardly anything at all. So where does m'lardy get her figure of £150,000 from?
I don't know the area but if these properties are so bad they most certainly can't be worth hardly anything at all. So where does m'lardy get her figure of £150,000 from? It's a spade!
  • Score: 31

5:10pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Bat E Karen says...

They should sort out all the empty properties in residential areas and stop selling off all our green belt land!
They should sort out all the empty properties in residential areas and stop selling off all our green belt land! Bat E Karen
  • Score: 24

5:34pm Mon 7 Jul 14

TheCaveman says...

Why on earth would the council want to compulsorily purchase these properties while they can continue extorting council tax from the landlords, in some cases 150%, for doing absolutely nothing for it?

It's no surprise no-one wants to take on such houses, they are a liability under present council policies.
Why on earth would the council want to compulsorily purchase these properties while they can continue extorting council tax from the landlords, in some cases 150%, for doing absolutely nothing for it? It's no surprise no-one wants to take on such houses, they are a liability under present council policies. TheCaveman
  • Score: 12

6:20pm Mon 7 Jul 14

CorkyMac says...

£150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from.
God help Us.
£150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from. God help Us. CorkyMac
  • Score: 25

6:39pm Mon 7 Jul 14

child44 says...

Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick.
Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick. child44
  • Score: 15

7:35pm Mon 7 Jul 14

bril67 says...

I live in the area how she reaches that figure beats me . especially when a large chunk of the housing is Elizabeth court , nothing wrong with Elizabeth court but values won't be high .
I live in the area how she reaches that figure beats me . especially when a large chunk of the housing is Elizabeth court , nothing wrong with Elizabeth court but values won't be high . bril67
  • Score: 14

9:10pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Excluded again says...

CorkyMac wrote:
£150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from.
God help Us.
Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts.

Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge.

Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth.
[quote][p][bold]CorkyMac[/bold] wrote: £150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from. God help Us.[/p][/quote]Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts. Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge. Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth. Excluded again
  • Score: -2

10:45pm Mon 7 Jul 14

fireonthemountain says...

Wow !

£150,000 per house . Yes please .

I live in Sudell , in a nice street , three bedroom terraced .
Yours for eighty , Katie . (poetry ) .

Look on the bright side - when m'lardy becomes the next Liebour MP
for Blackburn , she will have nothing to do with Darwen .

At this point , I must thank It's a spade! for the m'lardy word .
Brilliant - I am going to pinch it mate !!

I still never understand why we have a council that tells us what to do , when we have different MP s .

I just pray Jake Berry continues as our MP . The thought of Straw's kid makes me feel ill . Problem is , of course , that if Liebour promised in their manifesto , to torture and murder anyone who voted for them , they would still get thousands of votes .

I await a poster - no names of course - telling us why Katie-baby is so wonderful .
Wow ! £150,000 per house . Yes please . I live in Sudell , in a nice street , three bedroom terraced . Yours for eighty , Katie . (poetry ) . Look on the bright side - when m'lardy becomes the next Liebour MP for Blackburn , she will have nothing to do with Darwen . At this point , I must thank It's a spade! for the m'lardy word . Brilliant - I am going to pinch it mate !! I still never understand why we have a council that tells us what to do , when we have different MP s . I just pray Jake Berry continues as our MP . The thought of Straw's kid makes me feel ill . Problem is , of course , that if Liebour promised in their manifesto , to torture and murder anyone who voted for them , they would still get thousands of votes . I await a poster - no names of course - telling us why Katie-baby is so wonderful . fireonthemountain
  • Score: 15

11:32pm Mon 7 Jul 14

CorkyMac says...

Excluded again wrote:
CorkyMac wrote:
£150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from.
God help Us.
Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts.

Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge.

Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth.
Prices are starting at £30,000 for a 2 bed Terrace In Darwen rising up to £45 ,000 that are liveable. So let's say we go on these prices and the council offer £10,000 more, you'd be a fool not to accept such an offer for an empty dwelling. So If we say It costs 50,000 for arguments sake , It would certainly not cost £100,000 to renovate and If It did, then more fool the Council for being ripped off ( but no surprise with this Labour shower) by contractors.
Also last week people In Stoke paid a £1 for a house, after taking a £35,000 loan out with the Council to renovate It, and what a difference to the area It looked, but also helped 1st time buyers get on the property ladder and put some pride back In the area. Now that seems like Planet Earth, I suggest you get back In your Spaceship and fix your GPS.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CorkyMac[/bold] wrote: £150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from. God help Us.[/p][/quote]Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts. Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge. Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth.[/p][/quote]Prices are starting at £30,000 for a 2 bed Terrace In Darwen rising up to £45 ,000 that are liveable. So let's say we go on these prices and the council offer £10,000 more, you'd be a fool not to accept such an offer for an empty dwelling. So If we say It costs 50,000 for arguments sake , It would certainly not cost £100,000 to renovate and If It did, then more fool the Council for being ripped off ( but no surprise with this Labour shower) by contractors. Also last week people In Stoke paid a £1 for a house, after taking a £35,000 loan out with the Council to renovate It, and what a difference to the area It looked, but also helped 1st time buyers get on the property ladder and put some pride back In the area. Now that seems like Planet Earth, I suggest you get back In your Spaceship and fix your GPS. CorkyMac
  • Score: 11

6:55am Tue 8 Jul 14

Excluded again says...

CorkyMac wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
CorkyMac wrote:
£150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from.
God help Us.
Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts.

Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge.

Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth.
Prices are starting at £30,000 for a 2 bed Terrace In Darwen rising up to £45 ,000 that are liveable. So let's say we go on these prices and the council offer £10,000 more, you'd be a fool not to accept such an offer for an empty dwelling. So If we say It costs 50,000 for arguments sake , It would certainly not cost £100,000 to renovate and If It did, then more fool the Council for being ripped off ( but no surprise with this Labour shower) by contractors.
Also last week people In Stoke paid a £1 for a house, after taking a £35,000 loan out with the Council to renovate It, and what a difference to the area It looked, but also helped 1st time buyers get on the property ladder and put some pride back In the area. Now that seems like Planet Earth, I suggest you get back In your Spaceship and fix your GPS.
Quick search of Proctor's estate agents website does show a house in Sudell for £30k. But the top price is £80k. You need to CPO entire blocks in a terrace not individual houses. Spending a large sum of money structurally repairing one house in a block is a waste of money.
[quote][p][bold]CorkyMac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CorkyMac[/bold] wrote: £150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from. God help Us.[/p][/quote]Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts. Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge. Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth.[/p][/quote]Prices are starting at £30,000 for a 2 bed Terrace In Darwen rising up to £45 ,000 that are liveable. So let's say we go on these prices and the council offer £10,000 more, you'd be a fool not to accept such an offer for an empty dwelling. So If we say It costs 50,000 for arguments sake , It would certainly not cost £100,000 to renovate and If It did, then more fool the Council for being ripped off ( but no surprise with this Labour shower) by contractors. Also last week people In Stoke paid a £1 for a house, after taking a £35,000 loan out with the Council to renovate It, and what a difference to the area It looked, but also helped 1st time buyers get on the property ladder and put some pride back In the area. Now that seems like Planet Earth, I suggest you get back In your Spaceship and fix your GPS.[/p][/quote]Quick search of Proctor's estate agents website does show a house in Sudell for £30k. But the top price is £80k. You need to CPO entire blocks in a terrace not individual houses. Spending a large sum of money structurally repairing one house in a block is a waste of money. Excluded again
  • Score: 5

10:09am Tue 8 Jul 14

abetterblackburn says...

Why is the colour red always associated with danger?

As an example: The Wensley Fold area in Blackburn has continued to have problems with street prostitution within it’s red light area. That being during the whole time that Kate Hollern has held her safe seat position as councillor in that area. The strong possibility that she will soon become MP for Blackburn can only be filled with danger. Will she be able to cope with that responsibility and can Blackburn really become even worse than it is today?

Kate Hollern - Red for danger!
Why is the colour red always associated with danger? As an example: The Wensley Fold area in Blackburn has continued to have problems with street prostitution within it’s red light area. That being during the whole time that Kate Hollern has held her safe seat position as councillor in that area. The strong possibility that she will soon become MP for Blackburn can only be filled with danger. Will she be able to cope with that responsibility and can Blackburn really become even worse than it is today? Kate Hollern - Red for danger! abetterblackburn
  • Score: 10

12:03pm Tue 8 Jul 14

louderfasterlonger says...

child44 wrote:
Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick.
If you read again, she states that she does not include the empty homeless properties or Elizabeth House. My nine-year old understands basic comprehension.
[quote][p][bold]child44[/bold] wrote: Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick.[/p][/quote]If you read again, she states that she does not include the empty homeless properties or Elizabeth House. My nine-year old understands basic comprehension. louderfasterlonger
  • Score: -1

12:50pm Tue 8 Jul 14

NotMark says...

Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average.

A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million.

Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start.
Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average. A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million. Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start. NotMark
  • Score: 8

1:29pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Excluded again says...

NotMark wrote:
Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average.

A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million.

Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start.
Whilst I suspect you have over-estimated the competence and capacity of the Council's in-house solicitors and under-estimated in how bad state of repair some properties in Sudell are, I think you make a fair point. Let's just assume the cost is somewhere between £22m and £37m.

Given there is no government money available for this, is there anyone who is happy to pay the additional Council Tax to spend somewhere between £22m and £37 million buying and doing up houses in Sudell?
[quote][p][bold]NotMark[/bold] wrote: Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average. A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million. Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start.[/p][/quote]Whilst I suspect you have over-estimated the competence and capacity of the Council's in-house solicitors and under-estimated in how bad state of repair some properties in Sudell are, I think you make a fair point. Let's just assume the cost is somewhere between £22m and £37m. Given there is no government money available for this, is there anyone who is happy to pay the additional Council Tax to spend somewhere between £22m and £37 million buying and doing up houses in Sudell? Excluded again
  • Score: -4

4:18pm Tue 8 Jul 14

CorkyMac says...

Excluded again wrote:
CorkyMac wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
CorkyMac wrote:
£150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from.
God help Us.
Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts.

Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge.

Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth.
Prices are starting at £30,000 for a 2 bed Terrace In Darwen rising up to £45 ,000 that are liveable. So let's say we go on these prices and the council offer £10,000 more, you'd be a fool not to accept such an offer for an empty dwelling. So If we say It costs 50,000 for arguments sake , It would certainly not cost £100,000 to renovate and If It did, then more fool the Council for being ripped off ( but no surprise with this Labour shower) by contractors.
Also last week people In Stoke paid a £1 for a house, after taking a £35,000 loan out with the Council to renovate It, and what a difference to the area It looked, but also helped 1st time buyers get on the property ladder and put some pride back In the area. Now that seems like Planet Earth, I suggest you get back In your Spaceship and fix your GPS.
Quick search of Proctor's estate agents website does show a house in Sudell for £30k. But the top price is £80k. You need to CPO entire blocks in a terrace not individual houses. Spending a large sum of money structurally repairing one house in a block is a waste of money.
Regardless of CPO, It's the figure of £150,000 I have trouble with.
You state £80,000 on Proctors for a house In Sudell, well I would Imagine that Is not the sort of house people are complaining about. The ones that are empty and an eyesore would be of a market value of let's say £30,000 and to be really generous £45,000, check Zoopla.co.uk.
So regardless of CPO, If I owned a property of £30,000 and someone offered me £40,000, I'd snap their hand off, especially In an area with such negative feedback regarding property.
So Hollern's figure of £150,000 doesn't wash with me. It's the political Bull$hit she comes out with and the fact she under estimates people's Intelligence.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CorkyMac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CorkyMac[/bold] wrote: £150,000? Where the hell did she get that figure from and a breakdown as how she got to that amount may help us understand which Planet she's from. God help Us.[/p][/quote]Under English law, you can't just take a property off someone. They have to agree to sell or you have to go through an expensive legal process to force them to. It is normally cheaper to pay over the odds for the property plus compensation than to go through the courts. Then the Council will need to give a good reason for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Buying up the houses and giving them a lick pf paint won't wash. Experience elsewhere is that unless the Council commits to bringing the houses up to the decent homes standard, the CPO would be open to successful legal challenge. Rightly or wrongly (personally I'm not a great fan of the state being able to force you to sell your property with ease, but you may take a different view) the protections the system puts in for homeowners make CPOs an expensive process. Welcome to Planet Earth.[/p][/quote]Prices are starting at £30,000 for a 2 bed Terrace In Darwen rising up to £45 ,000 that are liveable. So let's say we go on these prices and the council offer £10,000 more, you'd be a fool not to accept such an offer for an empty dwelling. So If we say It costs 50,000 for arguments sake , It would certainly not cost £100,000 to renovate and If It did, then more fool the Council for being ripped off ( but no surprise with this Labour shower) by contractors. Also last week people In Stoke paid a £1 for a house, after taking a £35,000 loan out with the Council to renovate It, and what a difference to the area It looked, but also helped 1st time buyers get on the property ladder and put some pride back In the area. Now that seems like Planet Earth, I suggest you get back In your Spaceship and fix your GPS.[/p][/quote]Quick search of Proctor's estate agents website does show a house in Sudell for £30k. But the top price is £80k. You need to CPO entire blocks in a terrace not individual houses. Spending a large sum of money structurally repairing one house in a block is a waste of money.[/p][/quote]Regardless of CPO, It's the figure of £150,000 I have trouble with. You state £80,000 on Proctors for a house In Sudell, well I would Imagine that Is not the sort of house people are complaining about. The ones that are empty and an eyesore would be of a market value of let's say £30,000 and to be really generous £45,000, check Zoopla.co.uk. So regardless of CPO, If I owned a property of £30,000 and someone offered me £40,000, I'd snap their hand off, especially In an area with such negative feedback regarding property. So Hollern's figure of £150,000 doesn't wash with me. It's the political Bull$hit she comes out with and the fact she under estimates people's Intelligence. CorkyMac
  • Score: 9

5:15pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Progressive Penguin says...

child44 wrote:
Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick.
it does help if you read it properly - she's EXCLUDED those properties from the "246" number
[quote][p][bold]child44[/bold] wrote: Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick.[/p][/quote]it does help if you read it properly - she's EXCLUDED those properties from the "246" number Progressive Penguin
  • Score: -5

5:17pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Progressive Penguin says...

fireonthemountain wrote:
Wow ! £150,000 per house . Yes please . I live in Sudell , in a nice street , three bedroom terraced . Yours for eighty , Katie . (poetry ) . Look on the bright side - when m'lardy becomes the next Liebour MP for Blackburn , she will have nothing to do with Darwen . At this point , I must thank It's a spade! for the m'lardy word . Brilliant - I am going to pinch it mate !! I still never understand why we have a council that tells us what to do , when we have different MP s . I just pray Jake Berry continues as our MP . The thought of Straw's kid makes me feel ill . Problem is , of course , that if Liebour promised in their manifesto , to torture and murder anyone who voted for them , they would still get thousands of votes . I await a poster - no names of course - telling us why Katie-baby is so wonderful .
Well if all you can resort to is personal insults based on appearance to slag her off then no wonder Jake Berry is the man for you
[quote][p][bold]fireonthemountain[/bold] wrote: Wow ! £150,000 per house . Yes please . I live in Sudell , in a nice street , three bedroom terraced . Yours for eighty , Katie . (poetry ) . Look on the bright side - when m'lardy becomes the next Liebour MP for Blackburn , she will have nothing to do with Darwen . At this point , I must thank It's a spade! for the m'lardy word . Brilliant - I am going to pinch it mate !! I still never understand why we have a council that tells us what to do , when we have different MP s . I just pray Jake Berry continues as our MP . The thought of Straw's kid makes me feel ill . Problem is , of course , that if Liebour promised in their manifesto , to torture and murder anyone who voted for them , they would still get thousands of votes . I await a poster - no names of course - telling us why Katie-baby is so wonderful .[/p][/quote]Well if all you can resort to is personal insults based on appearance to slag her off then no wonder Jake Berry is the man for you Progressive Penguin
  • Score: -12

5:19pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Progressive Penguin says...

£45,000 for a decent livable two bed terrace?!? What planet are you on?!?
£45,000 for a decent livable two bed terrace?!? What planet are you on?!? Progressive Penguin
  • Score: -7

6:17pm Tue 8 Jul 14

CorkyMac says...

Progressive Penguin wrote:
£45,000 for a decent livable two bed terrace?!? What planet are you on?!?
Nothing wrong with the £45,000 home, It's the area In general. Just how much would you expect to pay for an empty prroperty In Sudell Progressive Penguin? Stop getting defensive with people and give some facts!
[quote][p][bold]Progressive Penguin[/bold] wrote: £45,000 for a decent livable two bed terrace?!? What planet are you on?!?[/p][/quote]Nothing wrong with the £45,000 home, It's the area In general. Just how much would you expect to pay for an empty prroperty In Sudell Progressive Penguin? Stop getting defensive with people and give some facts! CorkyMac
  • Score: 5

11:57pm Tue 8 Jul 14

CapitaBackHander says...

Excluded again wrote:
NotMark wrote:
Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average.

A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million.

Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start.
Whilst I suspect you have over-estimated the competence and capacity of the Council's in-house solicitors and under-estimated in how bad state of repair some properties in Sudell are, I think you make a fair point. Let's just assume the cost is somewhere between £22m and £37m.

Given there is no government money available for this, is there anyone who is happy to pay the additional Council Tax to spend somewhere between £22m and £37 million buying and doing up houses in Sudell?
I still want my increase in council tax back for the pointless town council!

CPO was intended for this purpose surely. It was for one or two properties where a crucial road was to come through.

The council make a nice sum on empty properties re charges placed on them for work or removal of rubbish e.t.c. and council tax. Properties lie empty because dss ( what ever it is not) rents are nothing like they were ten/ twenty years ago when the landlords bought them. On top of that the sale of council houses has made certain areas go downhill.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NotMark[/bold] wrote: Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average. A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million. Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start.[/p][/quote]Whilst I suspect you have over-estimated the competence and capacity of the Council's in-house solicitors and under-estimated in how bad state of repair some properties in Sudell are, I think you make a fair point. Let's just assume the cost is somewhere between £22m and £37m. Given there is no government money available for this, is there anyone who is happy to pay the additional Council Tax to spend somewhere between £22m and £37 million buying and doing up houses in Sudell?[/p][/quote]I still want my increase in council tax back for the pointless town council! CPO was intended for this purpose surely. It was for one or two properties where a crucial road was to come through. The council make a nice sum on empty properties re charges placed on them for work or removal of rubbish e.t.c. and council tax. Properties lie empty because dss ( what ever it is not) rents are nothing like they were ten/ twenty years ago when the landlords bought them. On top of that the sale of council houses has made certain areas go downhill. CapitaBackHander
  • Score: 2

5:22pm Thu 10 Jul 14

CapitaBackHander says...

CapitaBackHander wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
NotMark wrote:
Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average.

A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million.

Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start.
Whilst I suspect you have over-estimated the competence and capacity of the Council's in-house solicitors and under-estimated in how bad state of repair some properties in Sudell are, I think you make a fair point. Let's just assume the cost is somewhere between £22m and £37m.

Given there is no government money available for this, is there anyone who is happy to pay the additional Council Tax to spend somewhere between £22m and £37 million buying and doing up houses in Sudell?
I still want my increase in council tax back for the pointless town council!

CPO was intended for this purpose surely. It was for one or two properties where a crucial road was to come through.

The council make a nice sum on empty properties re charges placed on them for work or removal of rubbish e.t.c. and council tax. Properties lie empty because dss ( what ever it is not) rents are nothing like they were ten/ twenty years ago when the landlords bought them. On top of that the sale of council houses has made certain areas go downhill.
was - oops wasn't
[quote][p][bold]CapitaBackHander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NotMark[/bold] wrote: Most of the empty homes to which this article is referring are terraced or similar type houses which have an average value of £80,135 in the Sudell area. This is being generous as it accepts the suspiciously high number of homes quoted and ignores the fact that most of the empty homes are of a considerably lower value than the average. A house can be renovated to a good standard for around £10,000 which takes the average total to just over 90k. The council would not incur additional legal fees as the legal representation is already on the payroll regardless of activity. As the claim is that there are 246 empty properties this would bring the total amount of money required to just over 22 million. Whilst Kate Hollern has twisted the figures to support her own argument I do think the argument is a valid one and charging the owner council tax after a house had been empty for six months is a good start.[/p][/quote]Whilst I suspect you have over-estimated the competence and capacity of the Council's in-house solicitors and under-estimated in how bad state of repair some properties in Sudell are, I think you make a fair point. Let's just assume the cost is somewhere between £22m and £37m. Given there is no government money available for this, is there anyone who is happy to pay the additional Council Tax to spend somewhere between £22m and £37 million buying and doing up houses in Sudell?[/p][/quote]I still want my increase in council tax back for the pointless town council! CPO was intended for this purpose surely. It was for one or two properties where a crucial road was to come through. The council make a nice sum on empty properties re charges placed on them for work or removal of rubbish e.t.c. and council tax. Properties lie empty because dss ( what ever it is not) rents are nothing like they were ten/ twenty years ago when the landlords bought them. On top of that the sale of council houses has made certain areas go downhill.[/p][/quote]was - oops wasn't CapitaBackHander
  • Score: 1

9:08pm Sat 12 Jul 14

SlimJimz says...

No doubt a conservative bid out, since they hit power they just buy up everything on the cheap, to ruin the poor people that actually need housing.
No doubt a conservative bid out, since they hit power they just buy up everything on the cheap, to ruin the poor people that actually need housing. SlimJimz
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Sun 13 Jul 14

the need for austerity is a myth says...

child44 wrote:
Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick.
Apparently you are that thick child44. Try actually reading the article - if you do then you'll see that she has not, in fact, included 4 empty properties in a homeless project.

Stop treating everyone with contempt, child44, we're not all that thick.
[quote][p][bold]child44[/bold] wrote: Why the hell is she including 4 empty properties in a homeless project? This article tells you all you need to know about this prospective MP. Stop treating everyone with contempt, Kate, we're not all that thick.[/p][/quote]Apparently you are that thick child44. Try actually reading the article - if you do then you'll see that she has not, in fact, included 4 empty properties in a homeless project. Stop treating everyone with contempt, child44, we're not all that thick. the need for austerity is a myth
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree