Boarded-up Properties

All brains and no common sense as my MIL used to say.

It does make you wonder why they're not doing that doesn't it.

Before the government thinks of building more homes then an assessment should be done of all the boarded up properties around the country to see if they could be renovated and used to accommodate families or single young people. Some of the older houses are better built than new builds, but are just left to rot.

PRINTMISS - there's a thought, why can't they use a compulsory purchase order if private properties are left abandoned for more than X number of years?

I'd forgotten about maisonettes - one of my best friends grew up in a maisonette and it was very nice and not that small really. I wonder if they are built now?

No, rosesarered, the properties don't look like they need renovating, they look to be in very good shape, nicely decorated and still with fitted carpets that look quite clean. Some of the flats still have personal items from the previous tenants which is odd.

The young women have only moved in temporarily to highlight the fact that perfectly usable accommodation has been boarded-up and left (even though this particular group of women were put, initially, into privately rented accommadation as the council said it had nowhere for them).

The woman who wrote the article tried to question the council but there was no real response from them. I just find it bizarre that if there are properties such as this, why aren't they being used so that the council could, if nothing else, be collecting rents.

The Intergenerational team wanted us all to sell our nice 3/4 bedroomed family homes so that young families could buy them. perhaps that is why so many 4 bedroomed houses are being built. Around us it is mainly small flats and starter homes.

We have a plot of land next door to our estate - it had two lovely houses on it, both sold for a grand sum to property speculators - and it has been left laid bare for nearly seven years. Building plans were submitted and agreed, that company then sold on the land, nothing was done, and so it goes on. I think that speculators should be made to build something on land they have bought for housing. I know the Councils don't have an endless supply of money, but they do seem to be able to take away so much of our green spaces, that you would have thought it was in their own interest to make sure that any building plans agreed upon where the land was already available, were swiftly carried out. And why do we keep on building 4 bedroom houses? Nice I know, but if someone is starting out, surely a two bedroom maisonette would be sufficient? We were very happy in this sort of rented accommodation when we moved to Crawley, and it served well until our son was born. There is also a large house nearby, it looks lovely, but it is completely shuttered outside, and I would imagine impenetrable. No idea why it has been left like that.

I think many of these empty properties are considered sub-standard and councils are terrified or being sued if they put people in them. I'm not aware of these flats but if the council are not prepared to bring them up to standard then why not sell, for a nominal amount, to a housing association or developer (with the proviso that they be used for social housing) who would then renovate and put them back into circulation.

Haven't looked at the link Holly, but if they are high rise flats [or even not] sometimes the cost of renovation is higher than rebuilding. Is this something they plan to do? If people move themselves into sub-standard places, are they safe? Will there be problems getting squatters out in order to re-build?Will there be a risk of a fire if people live there [ no electrics so they may cook on open fires.] Quite a few questions about people simply moving in there. However I do think that as long as houses/flats are safe, even if they are tatty, they should be used.