Long term empty properies in the Dover District

• Guest 651

  • Registered: 12 Mar 2008
  • Posts: 5,673
  14 August 2009     15:2427213
  #1      
  Strange what you come across on the internet. A few months old, but quite interesting reading:
  
  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/10497/response/25892/attach/2/long%20term%20empties%20companies.xls
  Been nice knowing you :)
• Sue Nicholas

  • Location: river
  • Registered: 12 Mar 2008
  • Posts: 6,025
  14 August 2009     15:5027214
  #2      
  Dont read too much into this .Bede and Dunstan is due for demolition awaiting plans for new build .William Muge due for demolition or converted ?Manley House due for demolition awaiting planning permission .St Nicholas Ash Plans are waited for this site /Elderly residents rehoused to more modern premises.
  
  Cowgate Hill owned by Municipal Chariities.discussions are underway for possible conversion
  
  I only picked up on the Sheltered ones ..
• Guest 653

  • Registered: 13 Mar 2008
  • Posts: 10,540
  14 August 2009     17:5927226
  #3      
  Some of them have been empty for a considerable amount of time.
  
  If converted or upgraded, they could bring the Landords quite a lot of money and reduce the homeless list too.
  
  What was the initiative ? "No Use Empty".
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Brian Dixon

  • Location: Dover
  • Registered: 23 Sep 2008
  • Posts: 23,940
  14 August 2009     18:2427230
  #4      
  a bit like the empty shops then.
• Guest 651

  • Registered: 12 Mar 2008
  • Posts: 5,673
  14 August 2009     18:2527231
  #5      
  Cowgate Hill annoys me, been empty for years and would make perfect accomodation but they are just battling for demolition so they just sit empty.
  Been nice knowing you :)
• Guest 653

  • Registered: 13 Mar 2008
  • Posts: 10,540
  14 August 2009     19:0427233
  #6      
  Those are owned by the Municipal Charities Paul and they have been trying for years to reach agreement on how to renovate them - they are in a conservation area, so all sorts of problems needed to be sorted out - which I believe they now have.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 651

  • Registered: 12 Mar 2008
  • Posts: 5,673
  14 August 2009     19:4527236
  #7      
  Trying for years to reach agreement on how to renovate them -they wanted to demolish them ?? Their application in 2005 was to demolish them and probably mainly due to the Roman remains below they weren't allowed !!
  
  

  
  Been nice knowing you :)
• Guest 653

  • Registered: 13 Mar 2008
  • Posts: 10,540
  15 August 2009     07:0427252
  #8      
  That is true Paul (as per photo) , they weren't allowed to knock them down; now they have come up with a plan to renovate them that is acceptable.
  
  
  
  
  Roger