Blackburn care home plan for Royal Infirmary site

Blackburn Citizen: Work on the former infirmary site Work on the former infirmary site

THE last remaining buildings of the former Blackburn Royal Infirmary could make way for a care home for the elderly.

Leeds-based Ideal Care Homes wants to demolish the building and replace it with a three-storey, 64-bed care home with car parking and landscaping.

A planning application has been submitted to Blackburn with Darwen Council which will be scrutinised by council officials before going before the highways and planning committee next year.

The War Memorial Wing of the infirmary, built soon after the First World War, was the only part of the hospital left standing when the rest of the building was razed to the ground to make way for housing.

A planning document submitted by Ideal Care Homes shows this would now be demolished.

The document said: “An analysis of the wider local area has indicated there is a significant shortfall in both the quantity and quality of care bed spaces to serve the need for care. Consequently this site represents an ideal opportunity to build a purpose-built facility in line with modern standards to meet this need.

“The redevelopment of this site for a care home will have a positive impact upon the area by developing the site for a use that would be beneficial and fulfill a need, while providing a development sympathetic in terms of its scale and design.

“The development would bring economic benefits by creating employment and economic activity, both during construction and in the long-term operation of the home.”

Ewood councillor Maureen Bateson said she had mixed feelings about the proposed development should it go ahead.

She said: “The council has worked hard to get a development there and we have had discussions with the local community. This is the sort of facility we need in the area and I am pleased that there has been an application put in. However, I am very sad that we face losing an iconic building such as the War Memorial Wing.

“But when you think about what it was built for, to look after local people, at least it would keep this purpose. What we will ensure is that there is some sort of memorial garden to commemorate what the building was previously.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:50pm Mon 30 Dec 13

vicn1956 says...

Typical politician's response.
Typical politician's response. vicn1956

12:54pm Mon 30 Dec 13

A Darener says...

After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council.
After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council. A Darener

1:17pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Lankygirl says...

A Darener wrote:
After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council.
I agree. This building was never the council's to sell. It belonged to the people of Blackburn, who paid for it to be built, and the money received for it should be returned to the people in the form of some public building, not a very high-profit making care home.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council.[/p][/quote]I agree. This building was never the council's to sell. It belonged to the people of Blackburn, who paid for it to be built, and the money received for it should be returned to the people in the form of some public building, not a very high-profit making care home. Lankygirl

1:30pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Scooby says...

A Darener wrote:
After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council.
It's been ongoing for some time - I met with Subhan Ali at the council earlier this year to complain about it. The gist of the discussion was that it's all about money.

The council don't own the building and can't force anyone to do anything with it.

No company wants to invest the money in redeveloping it as there's no demand (like the old Techincal School in Darwen that's been ongoing for years), and the state it's been left to fall into would also cost a fortune to repair.

Even the town historical groups have given up on it. There's an article on here from earlier this year from the spokesman saying it should be knocked down..

It's a disgrace it's being knocked down, but it's all down to money!
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council.[/p][/quote]It's been ongoing for some time - I met with Subhan Ali at the council earlier this year to complain about it. The gist of the discussion was that it's all about money. The council don't own the building and can't force anyone to do anything with it. No company wants to invest the money in redeveloping it as there's no demand (like the old Techincal School in Darwen that's been ongoing for years), and the state it's been left to fall into would also cost a fortune to repair. Even the town historical groups have given up on it. There's an article on here from earlier this year from the spokesman saying it should be knocked down.. It's a disgrace it's being knocked down, but it's all down to money! Scooby

1:31pm Mon 30 Dec 13

blackburnwithdarwen says...

Ewood councillor Maureen Bateson said “I am very sad that we face losing an iconic building such as the War Memorial Wing.

The Blackburn War Memorial Wing was paid for by mill owners and workers in the area to remember those who lost their lives during The First World War. But it’s already lost because The Blackburn with Darwen Council never looked after it which is the reason why it is in such a state of no repair today. The coming year will see all of the Councillors asking us to remember those who died 100 years ago during the 1914 - 1918 war. How pathetic those sentiments will be!

What a fine monument of remembrance it would have been next year. All Blackburn has to remind us is an MP Jack Straw who helped make wars. Many Thanks to Blackburn with Darwen for looking after it so well!
Ewood councillor Maureen Bateson said “I am very sad that we face losing an iconic building such as the War Memorial Wing. The Blackburn War Memorial Wing was paid for by mill owners and workers in the area to remember those who lost their lives during The First World War. But it’s already lost because The Blackburn with Darwen Council never looked after it which is the reason why it is in such a state of no repair today. The coming year will see all of the Councillors asking us to remember those who died 100 years ago during the 1914 - 1918 war. How pathetic those sentiments will be! What a fine monument of remembrance it would have been next year. All Blackburn has to remind us is an MP Jack Straw who helped make wars. Many Thanks to Blackburn with Darwen for looking after it so well! blackburnwithdarwen

1:42pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Scooby says...

Lankygirl wrote:
A Darener wrote:
After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council.
I agree. This building was never the council's to sell. It belonged to the people of Blackburn, who paid for it to be built, and the money received for it should be returned to the people in the form of some public building, not a very high-profit making care home.
As I understand it, the Hospital was owned by the NHS while it was open. They sold it on to the developers who currently own it.

If that's right, in fairness, it wasn't the council's fault it ended up as it is.
[quote][p][bold]Lankygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: After all the protests about the police house on King st. Where are the protestors about demolishing a public subscription building like this? It was all done deliberately, letting it fall to wrack and ruin so that there could be no chance of saving this iconic building. Shame on Blackburn Council.[/p][/quote]I agree. This building was never the council's to sell. It belonged to the people of Blackburn, who paid for it to be built, and the money received for it should be returned to the people in the form of some public building, not a very high-profit making care home.[/p][/quote]As I understand it, the Hospital was owned by the NHS while it was open. They sold it on to the developers who currently own it. If that's right, in fairness, it wasn't the council's fault it ended up as it is. Scooby

2:06pm Mon 30 Dec 13

woolywords says...

Since all the negative comments have already been made, may I make a positive one, to make you pause for thought?
That some of the bricks be recycled, to make a seated area, where those whom are resident, are able to sit out, on those rare Summer days. Perhaps with a simple plaque, commemorating the War Wing, in a rose garden?
You must bear in mind that, many of those whom will be resident, will have 'done their bit', in the many theatres of conflict since first Armistice was declared. Am sure that they will appreciate the fact that we owe them a debt that cannot be quantified but are thankful for their service.
Since all the negative comments have already been made, may I make a positive one, to make you pause for thought? That some of the bricks be recycled, to make a seated area, where those whom are resident, are able to sit out, on those rare Summer days. Perhaps with a simple plaque, commemorating the War Wing, in a rose garden? You must bear in mind that, many of those whom will be resident, will have 'done their bit', in the many theatres of conflict since first Armistice was declared. Am sure that they will appreciate the fact that we owe them a debt that cannot be quantified but are thankful for their service. woolywords

2:19pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Scooby says...

woolywords wrote:
Since all the negative comments have already been made, may I make a positive one, to make you pause for thought?
That some of the bricks be recycled, to make a seated area, where those whom are resident, are able to sit out, on those rare Summer days. Perhaps with a simple plaque, commemorating the War Wing, in a rose garden?
You must bear in mind that, many of those whom will be resident, will have 'done their bit', in the many theatres of conflict since first Armistice was declared. Am sure that they will appreciate the fact that we owe them a debt that cannot be quantified but are thankful for their service.
Shall we knock down India Mill and replace it with a simple plaque?

Or King George's Hall and have a simple plaque?

Or the Queen Victoria Statue and have a simple plaque...?

What about Darwen Tower, and simply have a plaque....?
[quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote: Since all the negative comments have already been made, may I make a positive one, to make you pause for thought? That some of the bricks be recycled, to make a seated area, where those whom are resident, are able to sit out, on those rare Summer days. Perhaps with a simple plaque, commemorating the War Wing, in a rose garden? You must bear in mind that, many of those whom will be resident, will have 'done their bit', in the many theatres of conflict since first Armistice was declared. Am sure that they will appreciate the fact that we owe them a debt that cannot be quantified but are thankful for their service.[/p][/quote]Shall we knock down India Mill and replace it with a simple plaque? Or King George's Hall and have a simple plaque? Or the Queen Victoria Statue and have a simple plaque...? What about Darwen Tower, and simply have a plaque....? Scooby

2:47pm Mon 30 Dec 13

vicn1956 says...

Come the next election thousands will vote them back in.
That's democracy folks!
Come the next election thousands will vote them back in. That's democracy folks! vicn1956

3:22pm Mon 30 Dec 13

StevenLewis says...

How very sad - another beautiful building in Blackburn lost! And it'll be replaced by something totally unremarkable.. Lottery funding payed for the restoration of some much worse off mills in burnley, they really were derelict !! - the whole weavers triangle thing is brilliant -why can't we hang onto some of our lovely heritage in Blackburn in a similar manner?
How very sad - another beautiful building in Blackburn lost! And it'll be replaced by something totally unremarkable.. Lottery funding payed for the restoration of some much worse off mills in burnley, they really were derelict !! - the whole weavers triangle thing is brilliant -why can't we hang onto some of our lovely heritage in Blackburn in a similar manner? StevenLewis

3:55pm Mon 30 Dec 13

phil kernot says...

Your a disgrace Bateson and Kay and Walsh never stick up for the fallen heroes of the past ,in your area I was told of the previous owners it would be left to fall to bits , why was the glass panelled windows moved up to queens park because everyone knew ,once the dust had settled it was coming down let hope when you pass away Someone build a pig farm on your burial plots it will be nice to name it after you 3 in your memory , all I can say is if people , just rant and do nothing about it , your so called councilors will walk all over you as thay think there better than you ,,, stand up for whats right and go to these planning meetings I will certainly be going ,, get some balls and drag yourself away from coronation st and make your voice heard at the planning meeting ...
Your a disgrace Bateson and Kay and Walsh never stick up for the fallen heroes of the past ,in your area I was told of the previous owners it would be left to fall to bits , why was the glass panelled windows moved up to queens park because everyone knew ,once the dust had settled it was coming down let hope when you pass away Someone build a pig farm on your burial plots it will be nice to name it after you 3 in your memory , all I can say is if people , just rant and do nothing about it , your so called councilors will walk all over you as thay think there better than you ,,, stand up for whats right and go to these planning meetings I will certainly be going ,, get some balls and drag yourself away from coronation st and make your voice heard at the planning meeting ... phil kernot

4:40pm Mon 30 Dec 13

woolywords says...

While many may mourn the passing of this building, through neglect, vandalism and wilful damage, many of it's finest parts have been rescued, restored then rededicated.
The eight, stained glass panels, which formed the memorial itself, each dedicated to the fallen of Accrington, Blackburn, Church, Clitheroe, Great Harwood, Oswaldtwistle and Rishton, are now preserved in a corridor of the Blackburn Royal Hospital. So, in essence, the memorials will still remain, long after the building that housed them has gone.
Many of the towns memorials to the various events of it's history have, for one reason or another, been moved in the name of progress. Whilst it may be hard for some to accept the inevitability of what is to happen to the remaining fabric of the building, I sought only to raise a possible compromise.
Blackburn has a long-standing and very fine history -a subject that I enjoy researching, purely for my own pleasure- that is shown in it's many and varied forms of architecture, that even me, a person not born of this town, can simply admire and wonder at. Am not such a philistine that I don't appreciate that a lot of the local buildings hold huge sentimental value to the true residents and that whenever there is to be change, there is the involvement of a lot of emotive concern.
This formed the basis of my suggestion, that marked where the hospital stood and for it to be built of it's bricks. The self-same bricks that were paid for by local subscription, being preserved for the future generations, in some small tribute to their gift, in the form of a small, octagonal rose garden seemed, to my mind. something that would give both pleasure to some, yet remind others of it's former life.
After all, those stained glass panels were reduced in size, by half, but preserved in such a way, that people that never saw them in their original settings, can be just as captivated by them, as they are now.
While many may mourn the passing of this building, through neglect, vandalism and wilful damage, many of it's finest parts have been rescued, restored then rededicated. The eight, stained glass panels, which formed the memorial itself, each dedicated to the fallen of Accrington, Blackburn, Church, Clitheroe, Great Harwood, Oswaldtwistle and Rishton, are now preserved in a corridor of the Blackburn Royal Hospital. So, in essence, the memorials will still remain, long after the building that housed them has gone. Many of the towns memorials to the various events of it's history have, for one reason or another, been moved in the name of progress. Whilst it may be hard for some to accept the inevitability of what is to happen to the remaining fabric of the building, I sought only to raise a possible compromise. Blackburn has a long-standing and very fine history -a subject that I enjoy researching, purely for my own pleasure- that is shown in it's many and varied forms of architecture, that even me, a person not born of this town, can simply admire and wonder at. Am not such a philistine that I don't appreciate that a lot of the local buildings hold huge sentimental value to the true residents and that whenever there is to be change, there is the involvement of a lot of emotive concern. This formed the basis of my suggestion, that marked where the hospital stood and for it to be built of it's bricks. The self-same bricks that were paid for by local subscription, being preserved for the future generations, in some small tribute to their gift, in the form of a small, octagonal rose garden seemed, to my mind. something that would give both pleasure to some, yet remind others of it's former life. After all, those stained glass panels were reduced in size, by half, but preserved in such a way, that people that never saw them in their original settings, can be just as captivated by them, as they are now. woolywords

5:20pm Mon 30 Dec 13

shirtbox2003 says...

I said this would happen,the building has been left to rot and now no use.a good idea would be to knock down the clown hall and the cathedral.
I said this would happen,the building has been left to rot and now no use.a good idea would be to knock down the clown hall and the cathedral. shirtbox2003

7:01pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Malthus says...

Good idea to choose to develop a care home. That way anyone who disagrees appears to look petty and vindictive as we are denying old people a place to spend their final days.

Nobody could be criticised for thinking this was part of some long game that has been played out from the day that all of the services moved up to the current hospital. If I remember correctly, conditions were imposed as part of the sale and that this portion of the old infirmary site was meant to be developed and retained. If this is the case then what does that say about developers and also also about the impotency of the local government. How often do we hear about individuals who go a little off plan when they are modifying their properties and then have the full weight of the planning department and the law directed at them. However, with other grander projects we hear nothing about major firms who can choose to ignore agreements, covenants, laws and regulations and who eventually get on to develop significant sites of local historic interest on their own terms.

With regard the site in questionI used to have respect for Maureen Bateson, I also think or would like to think that this does not sit easily with her, based on the ambiguous quote in the article. Anyway as other people have stated the battle to save this building was lost on the day the stained glass windows were removed and relocated to the site of the new hospital.

Sadly, it seems, that this town's leaders are happy to turn their backs on a site of significant architectural and local heritage, a site that was funded by those who were physical and psychological victims, those who were thankful that they and their loved ones survived and also those people who wanted to demonstrate their gratitude for the sacrifices others made on the battlefield on their behalf. Once again it seems the commoner is being written out of history. If this building reinforced the notion of "lord and master" as does Turton Tower then it would not only receive an higher profile, it would also probably receive funding similar to the £140,000 pa that was quoted in 2010 that Turton Tower would receive. Like Turton Tower such a site would be a magnet for school groups and other educational groups and eventually become a landmark within the borough. Depressingly though it seems that the heritage of the majority is being thrown away and so the generosity and sacrifice of those who built that wing will be consigned to history and eventually forgotten just like the soldiers who laid down their lives in the Great War.
Good idea to choose to develop a care home. That way anyone who disagrees appears to look petty and vindictive as we are denying old people a place to spend their final days. Nobody could be criticised for thinking this was part of some long game that has been played out from the day that all of the services moved up to the current hospital. If I remember correctly, conditions were imposed as part of the sale and that this portion of the old infirmary site was meant to be developed and retained. If this is the case then what does that say about developers and also also about the impotency of the local government. How often do we hear about individuals who go a little off plan when they are modifying their properties and then have the full weight of the planning department and the law directed at them. However, with other grander projects we hear nothing about major firms who can choose to ignore agreements, covenants, laws and regulations and who eventually get on to develop significant sites of local historic interest on their own terms. With regard the site in questionI used to have respect for Maureen Bateson, I also think or would like to think that this does not sit easily with her, based on the ambiguous quote in the article. Anyway as other people have stated the battle to save this building was lost on the day the stained glass windows were removed and relocated to the site of the new hospital. Sadly, it seems, that this town's leaders are happy to turn their backs on a site of significant architectural and local heritage, a site that was funded by those who were physical and psychological victims, those who were thankful that they and their loved ones survived and also those people who wanted to demonstrate their gratitude for the sacrifices others made on the battlefield on their behalf. Once again it seems the commoner is being written out of history. If this building reinforced the notion of "lord and master" as does Turton Tower then it would not only receive an higher profile, it would also probably receive funding similar to the £140,000 pa that was quoted in 2010 that Turton Tower would receive. Like Turton Tower such a site would be a magnet for school groups and other educational groups and eventually become a landmark within the borough. Depressingly though it seems that the heritage of the majority is being thrown away and so the generosity and sacrifice of those who built that wing will be consigned to history and eventually forgotten just like the soldiers who laid down their lives in the Great War. Malthus

9:06pm Mon 30 Dec 13

bernss says...

I was informed that the land that the hospital stood on belonged to the good people of Blackburn .
I was informed that the land that the hospital stood on belonged to the good people of Blackburn . bernss

12:58pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Mr John says...

So sorry to learn that there are plans to demolish what remains of the Infirmary. However, neither people or buildings are immortal and everything comes to an end one day. Replacing the old building with a care home would be great providing it is operated on a not-for profit basis for the community. Sadly, I expect some greedy care home company backed by big city financiers which charges over-inflated care and room rates will ensure this is not the case.
So sorry to learn that there are plans to demolish what remains of the Infirmary. However, neither people or buildings are immortal and everything comes to an end one day. Replacing the old building with a care home would be great providing it is operated on a not-for profit basis for the community. Sadly, I expect some greedy care home company backed by big city financiers which charges over-inflated care and room rates will ensure this is not the case. Mr John

2:03pm Tue 31 Dec 13

saker says...

When the hospital was sold the developer was aware that part of the infirmary buildings were to be retained, the offer that was made and accepted took that into consideration. So the question then needs to be asked why is the developer now approaching a care home operator to demolish the building and build a care home on the site. I believe this is another example where the council are lacking in commercial understand. I would like to know is there an overage and S106 agreement on site.
When the hospital was sold the developer was aware that part of the infirmary buildings were to be retained, the offer that was made and accepted took that into consideration. So the question then needs to be asked why is the developer now approaching a care home operator to demolish the building and build a care home on the site. I believe this is another example where the council are lacking in commercial understand. I would like to know is there an overage and S106 agreement on site. saker

5:09pm Tue 31 Dec 13

vicn1956 says...

And there's nowhere else in the WHOLE of Blackburn to build a care home???
And there's nowhere else in the WHOLE of Blackburn to build a care home??? vicn1956

6:03pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Scooby says...

saker wrote:
When the hospital was sold the developer was aware that part of the infirmary buildings were to be retained, the offer that was made and accepted took that into consideration. So the question then needs to be asked why is the developer now approaching a care home operator to demolish the building and build a care home on the site. I believe this is another example where the council are lacking in commercial understand. I would like to know is there an overage and S106 agreement on site.
When I discussed this with the Council (as my comment above), I was told that although they were the submitted plans, the developer never went ahead with it. Building work can be challenged if it doesn't meet agreed plans, but the Council can't force them to start work in the first place. The Council can't force them to do anything except basic safety, which is already in place with the fencing.

The state the building is in and the style of the building anyway, meant it wasn't commercially viable to do anything with it. It would just cost so much to do anything with it that no company is prepared to risk it.

I was told their only options were to resist any work, but the building would fall into a worse state over time, and also have a knock on effect on the local area, or support a developer to do at least something with it, which is what's ended up happening.

Anyone with a legal background know any different?
[quote][p][bold]saker[/bold] wrote: When the hospital was sold the developer was aware that part of the infirmary buildings were to be retained, the offer that was made and accepted took that into consideration. So the question then needs to be asked why is the developer now approaching a care home operator to demolish the building and build a care home on the site. I believe this is another example where the council are lacking in commercial understand. I would like to know is there an overage and S106 agreement on site.[/p][/quote]When I discussed this with the Council (as my comment above), I was told that although they were the submitted plans, the developer never went ahead with it. Building work can be challenged if it doesn't meet agreed plans, but the Council can't force them to start work in the first place. The Council can't force them to do anything except basic safety, which is already in place with the fencing. The state the building is in and the style of the building anyway, meant it wasn't commercially viable to do anything with it. It would just cost so much to do anything with it that no company is prepared to risk it. I was told their only options were to resist any work, but the building would fall into a worse state over time, and also have a knock on effect on the local area, or support a developer to do at least something with it, which is what's ended up happening. Anyone with a legal background know any different? Scooby

6:37pm Tue 31 Dec 13

saker says...

Scooby wrote:
saker wrote:
When the hospital was sold the developer was aware that part of the infirmary buildings were to be retained, the offer that was made and accepted took that into consideration. So the question then needs to be asked why is the developer now approaching a care home operator to demolish the building and build a care home on the site. I believe this is another example where the council are lacking in commercial understand. I would like to know is there an overage and S106 agreement on site.
When I discussed this with the Council (as my comment above), I was told that although they were the submitted plans, the developer never went ahead with it. Building work can be challenged if it doesn't meet agreed plans, but the Council can't force them to start work in the first place. The Council can't force them to do anything except basic safety, which is already in place with the fencing.

The state the building is in and the style of the building anyway, meant it wasn't commercially viable to do anything with it. It would just cost so much to do anything with it that no company is prepared to risk it.

I was told their only options were to resist any work, but the building would fall into a worse state over time, and also have a knock on effect on the local area, or support a developer to do at least something with it, which is what's ended up happening.

Anyone with a legal background know any different?
when the site was initial was sold the NHS estates agency advisors or in house team would have prepared a scheme for the site to create a land value, they would have obtained outline planning position, to bring it to the market. The site would have then be put on the market for sale, individual developers would either use the layouts/scheme proposed by the seller or created their own if it increased development value which would increase land value.In the initial outline permission the s106 agreement would have been agreed in principle. If the NHS estate did there job right they would have signed an overage agreement with the buyer. So that the outline permission did not elapse the developer carried out basic leveling work on the site. The issue of what is economical and financial should not be factor now, the developer took the risk in submitting the highest offer which was accepted, on terms that were laid in front of the them when the contracts exchanged. The developer should have done the necessary market analysis at the time. Yes we accept that the property sector has been in freefall in terms of values, but thats the risk that you take in a free economy. The council should not have allowed the developer to receive full planning permission in piecemeal. They should have insisted on a masterplan and the developer to stick to it. Simple .
[quote][p][bold]Scooby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saker[/bold] wrote: When the hospital was sold the developer was aware that part of the infirmary buildings were to be retained, the offer that was made and accepted took that into consideration. So the question then needs to be asked why is the developer now approaching a care home operator to demolish the building and build a care home on the site. I believe this is another example where the council are lacking in commercial understand. I would like to know is there an overage and S106 agreement on site.[/p][/quote]When I discussed this with the Council (as my comment above), I was told that although they were the submitted plans, the developer never went ahead with it. Building work can be challenged if it doesn't meet agreed plans, but the Council can't force them to start work in the first place. The Council can't force them to do anything except basic safety, which is already in place with the fencing. The state the building is in and the style of the building anyway, meant it wasn't commercially viable to do anything with it. It would just cost so much to do anything with it that no company is prepared to risk it. I was told their only options were to resist any work, but the building would fall into a worse state over time, and also have a knock on effect on the local area, or support a developer to do at least something with it, which is what's ended up happening. Anyone with a legal background know any different?[/p][/quote]when the site was initial was sold the NHS estates agency advisors or in house team would have prepared a scheme for the site to create a land value, they would have obtained outline planning position, to bring it to the market. The site would have then be put on the market for sale, individual developers would either use the layouts/scheme proposed by the seller or created their own if it increased development value which would increase land value.In the initial outline permission the s106 agreement would have been agreed in principle. If the NHS estate did there job right they would have signed an overage agreement with the buyer. So that the outline permission did not elapse the developer carried out basic leveling work on the site. The issue of what is economical and financial should not be factor now, the developer took the risk in submitting the highest offer which was accepted, on terms that were laid in front of the them when the contracts exchanged. The developer should have done the necessary market analysis at the time. Yes we accept that the property sector has been in freefall in terms of values, but thats the risk that you take in a free economy. The council should not have allowed the developer to receive full planning permission in piecemeal. They should have insisted on a masterplan and the developer to stick to it. Simple . saker

10:26pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Scooby says...

Saker - aside from what should've been done, would there be any legal basis for enforcing anything?

I was told that unless it was a listed building (which apparently LCC architects looked at applying for but it was rejected) or unless it was classed as a conservation area, there would be little ground for declining any planning application... Any idea on this?

And then the big important question, if it were to be kept, what would actually happen to it? Who would develop it and what would they do with it?
Saker - aside from what should've been done, would there be any legal basis for enforcing anything? I was told that unless it was a listed building (which apparently LCC architects looked at applying for but it was rejected) or unless it was classed as a conservation area, there would be little ground for declining any planning application... Any idea on this? And then the big important question, if it were to be kept, what would actually happen to it? Who would develop it and what would they do with it? Scooby

4:44pm Wed 1 Jan 14

saker says...

First am not a lawyer, I would have thought the following scenario would have applied in this case. The developer on agreeing terms with the vendor, will have signed contracts to that effect. The terms would have included what was to be done with buildings in question. Given that the NHS is government body we the public should have access to that agreement. It is quite common for NHS estates to incorporate an overage agreement in the sales contracts for land. So its a matter that should be raised by the local MP to the NHS estates, why the developer is now quite ready through a second party to have the buildings demolished and the site built on. I am sure the developer in succeeding in winning the site from NHS estates would have agreed contractual to protect the buildings in the sale agreement clauses.
.I driven passed that site for number of years, recently it has been worked on. Question is then why the developer taken such a long time to start build process. I would not be surprised from my experience that the taxpayers are funding the development through funds from the Home communities, what is termed gap funding. So we have a situation where a developer screws the local community in acquiring a site on the promise they will abide with agreement to retained a important historical. They most probably received European regional funding to clear the site, care of the taxpayer.Complained to the gullible council that they were not making enough profit to reduce the s106 obligation. Then request that council assist them to obtain Home communities funding, because land values have dropped so low that they will not be not making their forecast profit.
Its a crazy world. What is to be done with the existing building, where is the original master plan of the developer/ NHS Estates. The building can be used for number uses,key worker accommodation for local hospital,over 55 living, social renting, shared ownership. But of course this is where s106 should have come to play. The developers have only motive that is profit, regardless of the public interest. Our elected leaders are weak and officials overworked. MP who should be facing war crimes.
First am not a lawyer, I would have thought the following scenario would have applied in this case. The developer on agreeing terms with the vendor, will have signed contracts to that effect. The terms would have included what was to be done with buildings in question. Given that the NHS is government body we the public should have access to that agreement. It is quite common for NHS estates to incorporate an overage agreement in the sales contracts for land. So its a matter that should be raised by the local MP to the NHS estates, why the developer is now quite ready through a second party to have the buildings demolished and the site built on. I am sure the developer in succeeding in winning the site from NHS estates would have agreed contractual to protect the buildings in the sale agreement clauses. .I driven passed that site for number of years, recently it has been worked on. Question is then why the developer taken such a long time to start build process. I would not be surprised from my experience that the taxpayers are funding the development through funds from the Home communities, what is termed gap funding. So we have a situation where a developer screws the local community in acquiring a site on the promise they will abide with agreement to retained a important historical. They most probably received European regional funding to clear the site, care of the taxpayer.Complained to the gullible council that they were not making enough profit to reduce the s106 obligation. Then request that council assist them to obtain Home communities funding, because land values have dropped so low that they will not be not making their forecast profit. Its a crazy world. What is to be done with the existing building, where is the original master plan of the developer/ NHS Estates. The building can be used for number uses,key worker accommodation for local hospital,over 55 living, social renting, shared ownership. But of course this is where s106 should have come to play. The developers have only motive that is profit, regardless of the public interest. Our elected leaders are weak and officials overworked. MP who should be facing war crimes. saker

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