Commercial property to be knocked down,and the rubble left!!

bo_drinker

Even when businesses were trading the rates are usually the killer of many of them. A few years back owners only had to remove the roof to avoid rates I think.

epz_2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I don't see why they should gift the land to the council as it has real worth. The problem is that they have to pay a fair whack of rates even if they can't find a renter for it.

They should have to clear the site properly of rubble if they do demolish, though. Perhaps some sort of agreed standard like a fenced off green space.

they dont have to, the point i was making was nobody was making that if they didnt have a use for the land they should keep doping the price until it reached a level that someone was prepared to pay (its real worth).

if nobody wanted it then rather than keep getting hit with taxes they could just give it away but there should be some sort of prunitive tax, why should people running shops, employing people and paying tax subsidise somone hoarding a limited resorce for no real benifit to anyone apart from possible captial apreciation.

I am by my nature a free marketer and despise state intervention in most forms but there is a limit to how far it can go. Imagine some nutter bought all the petrol stations withing 100 miles of a rural location and jacked the price up to £20 a liter, i would expect something to be done. The same applies to people who hoard other reasorces like land that could purposefully be used and are taxed at a lesser rate than usesfull people.

tomstickland

Read the article.
It's in cases where they plan to redevelop the site and might rent it out whilst they sort the plans out.
Due to the rates hike they'll turn it to rubble earlier.

PasturesNew

I saw a building demolished, several people were interested in buying the plot and developing it for retail/business use (even M&S were named at one point), but it dragged on and nothing changed... then one day there was a short-term small fairground just plonked on the rubble. Kids on a merry go round thing, surrounded by security fencing, on a pile of rough, dangerous rubble, overlooking a beach.

It all looked most odd... and dangerous.

dopester

PasturesNew wrote: »

I saw a building demolished, several people were interested in buying the plot and developing it for retail/business use (even M&S were named at one point), but it dragged on and nothing changed... then one day there was a short-term small fairground just plonked on the rubble. Kids on a merry go round thing, surrounded by security fencing, on a pile of rough, dangerous rubble, overlooking a beach.

It all looked most odd... and dangerous.

The owners of these plots have some risk to deal with. The value of land is only as much as the premises built there and what they can be sold at, or the turnover a business located there can generate.

In many cases it can be costly, gating and fencing it up, paying for a security patrol to take nightly or weekly look-ins, and hoping some wideboys don't come along in the dead of night to tip that toxic waste they got paid £200 cash to get rid off. Land cleanup can be very expensive.

And I trust the buildings being knocked down are themselves not full of toxic material and stuff and left for kids to inhale or get on their shoes.

fc123

On the whole, this new law is going to have a lot of positive effects for small traders.
Large, empty office blocks being knocked down and the rubble left, not a good effect but a lot of the 'invisible people' may survive the downturn due to this new law.

We had a shared lease for many years and sold our half in 02...but OH still has a liability for the remainder of the lease (until 2010).

Got a call today from our old co-habitee; The business that we sold off is now on its knees. He offerred a surrender to LL (glass tower type) who refused unless he pays LL £29k.
He can't raise that sum but didn't want to be bankrupted either but I guess that the LL doesn't know this. He owns no property in his name.


The LL has now agreed to reduce the rent substantially (after hiking it up massively 3 yrs back) as he doesn't want a vacant property; which indicates that there isn't a demand for it at present.
The issue of business rates on a vacant unit came up in the negotiations.

LL now don't want vacant properties, so will reduce rents to ensure a tenant will take it on.
Before, they would keep the rents artificially high to prove the value of the asset therefore, neighbouring businesses couldn't get a decrease too....they would just go under.

Our LL still believes our current premises are 'Exceptional', resistant to any downturn, bla bla bla.......up to us to prove him wrong.....however, has agreed to monthly rent from this quarter...after 10 yrs.