Marple Glass and Glazing

Author Topic: Seventeen Windows  (Read 209598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sooty2

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #376 on: August 11, 2010, 06:00:25 PM »
The property has changed ownership since 2005.But whoever owns it has still had the benefit of £167k of public money. The improvements only began when the the massive cash injection was given. That property would never reach full market value without access.There was no risk to the developer knowing what he knew. Had it not had access approved it would of been sold on again through auction.They should be forced to tidy it up. The gateway to Marple looks a mess. >:(

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #375 on: August 11, 2010, 07:55:18 AM »
I'm aware that the works took place in 2009, and I did not suggest otherwise.  What I did not realise is that it has not yet been sold.   

So the developer still owns 17 Windows.  So, far from 'profitting from council coffers', as Miss M suggests, he has yet to make any profit at all!   ::)

sooty2

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #374 on: August 10, 2010, 06:32:42 PM »
You really need to check your facts Dave. The property was not done up until 2009.With I may add, a great big helping hand from the council.No one in their right mind would by that property with no access.Unless of course the price was right. The property is not sold, it is tenanted.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #373 on: August 10, 2010, 01:06:42 PM »
a private individual had proffeted from council coffers !! 

Well, a developer bought the property in 2005 for 138K, did it up, and sold it four years later. That's what developers do.   Not sure what he sold it for - does anyone know?  The asking price was 420K, subsequently reduced to 385K.  So let's guess 370K, i.e. about 230K more than he paid for it.  Now, he will have spent a lot of money of his own doing up what appeared to be a very dilapidated property.  Obviously we can have no idea how much he spent, but 150K would not surprise me.  So yes, he probably made a profit, but he also put at risk 138K of his own money, plus what he spent on the refurbishment works.  Is that unreasonable?

If the Council had not wanted to widen the pavement and install the pedestrian crossing, the developer would still have done up the house, landscaped the garden, and sold it on.  If you want to show that he profitted from the Council's contribution, you would need to demonstrate that 17 Windows would have fetched less than 370K, had the council's contribution not been made - i.e. if the pavement widening and construction of the pedestrian crossing did not take place.  I think that's pretty hard to prove. 

sooty2

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #372 on: July 29, 2010, 04:19:00 PM »
No surprise to me Miss Marple! Going back to post 202 via Shan Alexander, The Seventeen windows briefing note states, The cost of the work undertaken within the curtilage of the property in stabilising, regrading and replanting is 27K. When in fact the actual cost of the retaining wall and associated earthworks was 140k plus 27K for landscaping, total 167K. >:((This is not value for money.They could of bought the whole property for 138k, Widened the pavement, provided  vehicular acess and sold it on. It would of been worth a lot more than 138k with acess, even in it's run down condition. It is about time someone got their house keeping in order at the Town Hall. It's been one long expensive joke at our expense. It stank over 12 months ago and stinks even more now. It's an ugly,weed covered eyesore! Thanks to Miss Marple we now no the truth, but it would be interesting know why this was ever given the Green light, no pun intended ;D

Miss Marple

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #371 on: July 28, 2010, 08:46:39 PM »
I have just received a letter from Andrew Stunell MP.  Its a reply from SMBC complaints department in relation to questions raised by Andrew Stunell of  costs in relation to the associated cost of the scheme.  The letter reads as follows  -

The overall cost of the scheme that includes both the works required to widen the footpath along the frontage of Seventeen Windows and the provision of the junction improvement that includes the new pedestrian crossing facility was  £271K.  The cost of the retaining wall and associated earthworks was £140K and the cost of the landscape works within the curtilage of the property was £27K

  Well Well !!!!  Suprise Suprise !!!!!  looks like there should be a few apologies from some people on this forum to Sooty2 who maintained throughout this long running saga  that a private individual had proffeted from council coffers !!  Well now the proof is in letter form !  and hopefully Mr Stunell will continue to question the blatant waste of public monies surrounding Seventeen Windows :-X

marveld

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #370 on: July 01, 2010, 12:39:52 AM »
... one of the laurel bushes is already dead. I wonder how many of the others will die off if they're not being cared for properly during this dry spell ....

Taurus

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #369 on: June 30, 2010, 08:54:05 AM »
Was he the real Oliver or an imposter?  :o

Barbara

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #368 on: June 29, 2010, 07:55:34 PM »
WHY?!!! >:(

Lisa Oldham

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #367 on: June 29, 2010, 04:07:46 PM »
Is any one really surprised hes disappeared?  I thought it was quite good that he actually came back and made a post AFTER the election.. unless I got my days mixed up  ;D

I am also impressed that he managed to actually work out that this forum is a powerful place to contribute opinions and canvas support... first one thats worked it out isnt he ?  Lets give him SOME credit ;)

moonforest

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #366 on: June 27, 2010, 09:25:24 PM »
I personally am not trying to make a point. OJ very keenly made his first post on 21st April in the run up to the election and continued to do so regularly. Seems odd that he has just dissapeared after. I dont suppose we serve any purpose to him now its over. If I was him I would post to explain my absense or at least try to pacify the forum members with an update of his progress or not as the case maybe. Using people will not make him popular. if that is not the case, stand up for yourself Oliver. Ive changed my mind ;) yes I am trying to make a point now!

Hear, hear!! Oliver is fast becoming conspicuous by his absence.

sooty2

  • Guest
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #365 on: June 26, 2010, 09:36:20 PM »
I personally am not trying to make a point. OJ very keenly made his first post on 21st April in the run up to the election and continued to do so regularly. Seems odd that he has just dissapeared after. I dont suppose we serve any purpose to him now its over. If I was him I would post to explain my absense or at least try to pacify the forum members with an update of his progress or not as the case maybe. Using people will not make him popular. if that is not the case, stand up for yourself Oliver. Ive changed my mind ;) yes I am trying to make a point now!

Tricky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #364 on: June 26, 2010, 01:42:07 PM »
fair enough!

meh

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
    • The Marple Website
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #363 on: June 26, 2010, 01:34:49 PM »
I've already done that some time ago, so Oliver should be aware that there are a couple of topics where people are awaiting his contributions. Obviously it is up to him whether he responds to them and for the rest of us to draw our own conclusions if he doesn't.   
Mark Whittaker
The Marple Website

Tricky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Seventeen Windows
« Reply #362 on: June 26, 2010, 01:07:33 PM »
IF you wanted to contact Oliver you could PM him via this forum or even via his email adress which he posted earlier on the thread..



or would that spoil the point you are trying to make?


 ::)

meh