PVC King wrote:
With 425,000 people unemployed it is extremely wasteful that the state can't use people crying out for work to guard or carry out urgent repairs to secure sites of this importance and enter a superior first charge on the underlying folio to prevent a vaccuum developing and repay the costs whenever the market bounces back in the medium term.
[GA] ( a ) in the opinion of a local authority it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent land situate in their functional area from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site, or
[GA] ( b ) a local authority have been directed to do so by the Minister under section 12,
[GA] they shall serve a notice in writing on any person who appears to them to be the owner or occupier of the said land.
[GA] (2) A notice under this section shallâ€”
[GA] ( a ) specify the measures which the local authority or the Minister, as the case may be, consider to be necessary in order to prevent the land from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,
[GA] ( b ) direct the person on whom the notice is being served to take such measures as may be specified in the notice, and
[GA] ( c ) specify a period (being not less than one month) within which such measures are to be taken; provided, however, the notice shall not have effect untilâ€”
[GA] (i) the expiration of fourteen days from the date of service of the notice, or
[GA] (ii) if any representations are made under subsection (3), the date on which the local authority notify the person making such representations that they have considered the said representations.
[GA] (3) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section may, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice, make such representations in writing as he thinks fit to the local authority concerningthe terms of the notice and the said authority, having considered such representations, may amend or revoke the notice.
[GA] (4) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section shall, within the period specified in the notice, comply with the requirements of the notice, or, as the case may be, the notice as amended.
[GA] (5) Where a person on whom a notice under this section has been served does not, within the period specified in the notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, comply with the requirements of the notice, the local authority who served the notice may take such steps (including entry on land by authorised persons in accordance with section 30) as they consider reasonable and necessary to give effect to the terms of the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, and may recover any expense thereby incurred from the person on whom the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, was served and who is the owner or occupier as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
[GA] (6) The carrying out of any works, within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1983, which are specified in a notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section shall be exempted development for the purposes of those Acts.
[GA] (7) Any person served with a notice or with the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section who is the owner of the land in respect of which a notice has been served, and his servants or agents, may enter the land and undertake the measures required to be done under the notice.
Power of court to authorise measures. 32.â€”(1) If any person served with a notice under this Act is unable, without the consent of some other person, to carry out specified measures which he is required to carry out in order to comply with the provisions of such notice, and such other person withholds his consent to the carrying out of the measures, the person concerned may apply to the District Court in which the notice was served for an order under this section.
[GA] (2) If, on the hearing of an application under subsection (1), the District Court determines that the consent of the other person has been unreasonably withheld, the District Court may, in its discretion deem the consent to have been given and direct the person making the application to carry out the measures.
[GA] (3) It shall be an offence for a person to fail to carry out the measures directed by the District Court under subsection (2).
[GA] (4) If any person served with a notice under this Act is required to carry out, pursuant to this Act, specified measures, and so carries out the measures and such person considers that the cost of such measures should be borne, in whole or in part, by some other person who has an interest in the derelict site, he may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order directing that the whole, or such part as may be specified in the order, of the cost of the measures be borne by the other person interested therein; and the court shall make such order on the hearing of the application as it considers just having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
[GA] ( a ) in the opinion of a local authority it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent land situate in their functional area from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site
PVC King wrote:This is no attempt to have a go at someone down on their luck; I made it perfectly clear above that I was in no way insinuating that the owners wanted this to happen; but it happened because they didn't have the money to properly protect an important piece of built heritage.
In terms of your take on this you are waffling on and not reading what has actually been posted.
A vacant house within 2 miles of Whitechurch Estate with no security or insurance could reasonably be construed as being at risk of becoming a derelict site.
The point I was making was that with liquidity as it is there are many protected structures at risk.
I have no doubt the banks will be checking that all such properties are insured; to protect the public interest.
Local Authorities should visit all vacant protected structures that have internal elements specifically protected or vacant structures that form part of a protected terrace or conservation area.
Cider drinkers will get cold and important heritage will be lost where owners do not possess the means to protect their property in times of adverse liquidity conditions. There are no amnesties for burnt building interiors the craftsmen who created them have long since passed on.
onq wrote:I am by temprement and experience, not a conservationist - I suppose I would be an interventionist.
As long as the interiors were well-recorded, they can be replaced to a good standard.
onq wrote: What, as in provide 24-hour security?
Not affordable,, way over the top and not somethign the Council requires.
Go on, impress me by pointing somethign out that I've missed..
onq wrote: GEEZ!!! Beat yourself up with a stick, whydon'tyou!
What a terrible slander on teh residents of Whitechurch Estate.
Lookit PVC King, that is a supid thing to say, given the ease of access into Marlay Park from the M50 and the lack fo arson attempts centring on Whitechurch Estate.
You have absolutely no foundation for that remark - none whatsoever.
We don't even know what ccaused the fire yet...
onq wrote: Well I take your point - I'm not going to put you through a wringer on this, but let's face it, no-one can afford security on empty buildings these days.
Marlay Park is well frequented by strollers and even "batwatch groups in the evenings up to around 10:30 pm. in the summer months - its not in the sticks.
There you go again - the banks don't protect the public interest, only their own interests.
I mean, really - after all that's ahppened since 2008 you'd think you'd have copped on to this by now.
An Taisce or the Council might take a vbiew on this, but if the house is privately owned, thay cannot force someone to take out insurance. ..
onq wrote: You may have a point there, and this oddly enough relates back to the public interest being served by the Derelict SItes Act.
So in an oblique way, it may indeed be relevant, but it will take a new complelementary law dealing with the built heritage or an expansion of matters covered to make it so.
Don't put these guys tradesmen on a pedestal or treat all older buildings as works of art.
Its a fundamental view I have of buildings that they should earn their living and be updated as required with current technology.
I am by temprement and experience, not a conservationist - I suppose I would be an interventionist.
As long as the interirs were well-recorded, they can be replaced to a good standard.