Topic ID 3352
wheres the house gone
Reply ID 48314
quote:Are you drunk?
Originally posted by btj
wheres the house gone
Reply ID 48315
the house next to the abbis showroom. the old charvills garage. that house is no longer there.im not drunk it was there last night
Reply ID 48316
quote:Oh - is the road closed? The house is being demolished to make way for the next bunch of new flats/houses on the old Abbiss garage site. I remember getting my petrol there in my Mini Mayfair when I passed my driving test - ah the old days [:D]
Originally posted by btj
the house next to the abbis showroom. the old charvills garage. that house is no longer there.im not drunk it was there last night
Reply ID 48317
i actually worked in that petrol station when i was 18 happy days
Reply ID 48319
Steven Oates only had permission to knock one of them down, not both. The planning application that he had approved was for the demolition of 89 and the renovation of 87. Also, one of the conditions of the planning approval was that work would only be allowed during the week and on Saturday mornings. "No plant or machinery shall be operated on the premises before 0730hrs on Monday to Saturday, nor after 1800hrs on weekdays and 1300hrs on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or bank holidays. Reason To safeguard the amenities of residents of nearby properties, in accordance with policy ENV24 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007." So waking local residents with demolition work at 8am on a Sunday morning is probably a contravention of this condition, not to mention knocking down a building without consent. Not that Steven Oates is bothered.
Reply ID 48321
Not likely to make him re build the one he should not have knocked down is he! making enough money to pay fines I suspect. Could this be front page of next weeks mercury?
Reply ID 48332
Did a double take yesterday when I realised the house had gone as well as the show room. Has permission been granted for new flats>
Reply ID 48333
quote:Town houses, although of course there's no planning permission yet for the building that will have to replace 87 Railway Street. [url="http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/07/2364/FP&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=80380%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=167644%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=80380%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E'%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E"]3/07/2364/FP[/url] Also, no plan has yet been submitted for the corner plot, where the garage forecourt was. This forms part of another condition of planning approval: "The development hereby permitted (3/07/2364/FP) shall not be occupied until a planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of the adjoining corner site to Railway St and St Johns St. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the site and the Hertford Conservation Area, the retention of employment uses and in accordance with Policies BH6, BH12 and EDE2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007"
Originally posted by Harry Palmer
Has permission been granted for new flats
Reply ID 48652
I was right........front page story!
Reply ID 48688
Personally, this all smells a bit odd to me. The cracks were developing in the walls at a rate of knots per hour. Hmmm, and on a Sunday too.
Reply ID 48691
just over 1mm per hour
Reply ID 48694
Hmm very fishy - I presume that the demolition of the site surrounding the building was carried out with due care not to destabilise the remaining property [;)]
Reply ID 48696
quote:Just noted your post Steve. Is this not another developer/company running riot over a lovely town and using the system to his/it's advantage? The Mercury has done it's bit by putting it on the front page of it's paper. This bloke should be fined multiple thousands of pounds for this outrageous act. That building has has been part of Hertford for years, probably built in Edwardian times. People were actually living there until Parkhall bought it. It's in a conservation area, to be preserved for the future, that's what conservation means. He was not allowed to remove that building. The name Steven Oates and Parkhall stink to high heaven.
Originally posted by Steve
Steven Oates only had permission to knock one of them down, not both. The planning application that he had approved was for the demolition of 89 and the renovation of 87. Also, one of the conditions of the planning approval was that work would only be allowed during the week and on Saturday mornings. "No plant or machinery shall be operated on the premises before 0730hrs on Monday to Saturday, nor after 1800hrs on weekdays and 1300hrs on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or bank holidays. Reason To safeguard the amenities of residents of nearby properties, in accordance with policy ENV24 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007." So waking local residents with demolition work at 8am on a Sunday morning is probably a contravention of this condition, not to mention knocking down a building without consent. Not that Steven Oates is bothered.
Reply ID 48697
yeah but surely if the building was unafe it was the right thing to do. better to be safe than sorry
Reply ID 48698
unsafe?
Reply ID 48699
It's funny the Mercury states that the road was only arranged to be closed once the building was found to be unsafe, however the road was already arranged to be closed at least two days prior to this! [?]
Reply ID 48700
quote:Couldn't agree with you more James. He is taking the pi$$ out of us all.
Originally posted by James007
The name Steven Oates and Parkhall stink to high heaven.
Reply ID 48701
why aubend? how does this affect you? i do not understand your thoughts. i really am puzzled. has he personally done something to harm you.
Reply ID 48703
quote:Troll alert...!
Originally posted by btj
why aubend? how does this affect you? i do not understand your thoughts. i really am puzzled. has he personally done something to harm you.
Reply ID 48704
The question is, will it be some time before revised plans go in for approval or, miracle of miracles, will there be a fully drawn up set just happening to be lying in a drawer which someone might find in the next week or so? [;)] All seems a bit too convenient IMO.
Reply ID 48706
quote:Are you the same btj that said this on the Folly Island thread?: hertford is a booming town. folly island is a lovely place to live. why not build on the land. i cannot see why all the islanders are up in arms. what about all the units built on the old council sitein mill road. great development. people need places to live. so what do you think about sainsburys next door.i have been reading through this forum and i think to myself? mmm some sad bored people out there get a life. and this? im sorry if i got your backs up. but what is done is done.surely in the long run it willbe worthwhile.a nice development surely will block out the noise of sainsburys when it comes. i had a look at waters edge today will look very nice when complete. i was talking to a man outside and he said to me you cant park your bike there you`ll see ok fair enough or this: aubend i dont despise folly islanders you are strong commited people. i respect you for that. you want what is best for your community good luck You sir, are either representing Parkhall or Steven Oates who probably wanted to buy the Macs site. Surely Admin only knows unless you, btj, tell us your reasons for wanting these things to happen to our market town.
Originally posted by btj
why aubend? how does this affect you? i do not understand your thoughts. i really am puzzled. has he personally done something to harm you.
Reply ID 48707
troll alert? is it me or are you lot just soooooooo jelous of steven oates. come on lets talk about this. who is he. so he wants to build would you rather look at a ****ty disused car showroom or modern buildings.
Reply ID 48710
The disused car showroom was meant to be demolished!!!! (Do your research btj) I'd rather still like to see the perfectly normal house that was there a week ago, just like it had been for a hundred years or so, thanks. I also find it odd that you started this thread with the 'shock-horror' tactic, and now you believe in the whole thing. As I said, and others agree, this smells very fishy to me. I don't think you are a 'troll' here btj, I reckon you are within it and it will be an interesting time for you.
Reply ID 48712
James you are a wily old fox! but I do agree with you, stinks to high heaven!!
Reply ID 48713
I lived in 87 Railway Street for a few years at the end of the nineties. It is all very sad. I simply don't believe that the building was dangerous for a minute (unless, of course, it became dangerous due to incompetence of those on site). This was a substantial property with no obvious defects in the time I was there. It has also only recently been vacated. Why if it was structually unsound did the planning conditions only refer to the rennovation of 87 and the demolition of the showroom? The fact that East Herts are taking legal advice is telling. I hope they pursue the developers with vigour and that they don't escape with a slap-on-the-wrist fine. Why not require them to reinstate the building (before they take the bricks away!)? I shall be watching developments with interest.
Reply ID 48721
quote:Who exactly do you mean by "you lot"? And what makes you think (sic) that anyone is jealous of Steven Oates? What is it about Steven Oates that we're jealous of?
Originally posted by btj
troll alert? is it me or are you lot just soooooooo jelous of steven oates. come on lets talk about this. who is he. so he wants to build would you rather look at a ****ty disused car showroom or modern buildings.
Reply ID 48724
If I read it right it was the people employed byt the developers who decalred it unsafe, not a third party and it sounds like no one else had a chance to look before it was demolished so how can it be proved either way, will be interesting to see how it goes and how long the plans for the new building take!
Reply ID 48734
It's a shame the house was demolished can't imagine it was dangerous and this was only noticed when the showroom was taken down. Just hope the new development does not add to the traffic round there. On Sundays with people parking at the church that road is very hard to get round especially for the busses.
Reply ID 48736
"Just hope the new development does not add to the traffic round there." How can it not? Houses there, flats round on the pub car park and who knows what where the car sales area was. (more flats maybe?) add the flats to be built round the corner and the bigger Tesco.
Reply ID 48738
quote:Planning applications have already been approved for 5 town houses on the car showroom and workshops site and 14 flats on the old pub car park. Only the corner plot where the garage forecourt was has yet to have a planning application approved. Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that where the forecourt was there is now a large hole where the petrol tanks were removed from. The hole was not filled in after the tanks were removed because the developer initially intended it to be an underground car park for a future development. The hole is shored up along Railway Stret and St.John's Street to prevent any collapse. However, the side facing the house had not been shored up.
Originally posted by Spear
How can it not? Houses there, flats round on the pub car park and who knows what where the car sales area was. (more flats maybe?) add the flats to be built round the corner and the bigger Tesco.
Reply ID 48739
quote:I wonder why they didn't do that, seems a bit dangerous, could mean other buildings around the area being left unstable.[;)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:Planning applications have already been approved for 5 town houses on the car showroom and workshops site and 14 flats on the old pub car park. Only the corner plot where the garage forecourt was has yet to have a planning application approved. Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that where the forecourt was there is now a large hole where the petrol tanks were removed from. The hole was not filled in after the tanks were removed because the developer initially intended it to be an underground car park for a future development. The hole is shored up along Railway Stret and St.John's Street to prevent any collapse. However, the side facing the house had not been shored up.
Originally posted by Spear
How can it not? Houses there, flats round on the pub car park and who knows what where the car sales area was. (more flats maybe?) add the flats to be built round the corner and the bigger Tesco.
Reply ID 48740
quote:Well in my opinion, either the developers are completely incompetent, or they were under instruction not to do so .... take your pick?
Originally posted by Stevequote:Planning applications have already been approved for 5 town houses on the car showroom and workshops site and 14 flats on the old pub car park. Only the corner plot where the garage forecourt was has yet to have a planning application approved. Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that where the forecourt was there is now a large hole where the petrol tanks were removed from. The hole was not filled in after the tanks were removed because the developer initially intended it to be an underground car park for a future development. The hole is shored up along Railway Stret and St.John's Street to prevent any collapse. However, the side facing the house had not been shored up.
Originally posted by Spear
How can it not? Houses there, flats round on the pub car park and who knows what where the car sales area was. (more flats maybe?) add the flats to be built round the corner and the bigger Tesco.
Reply ID 48751
oh yes james. i represent parkhall or steven oates. who are they? i have a right to sound my opinion. obviously not to your liking.
Reply ID 48756
Your opinion? To be honest, to me you don't make a great deal of substantial or understandable contribution in your posts on any thread, so I couldn't comment on whether I like or dislike anything you say. I simply asked whether you worked for the company which it looks like you have admitted above. [:D]
Reply ID 48758
do not think so james. i have my own company just ask eli he is my partner he will be here soon
Reply ID 48759
I can see this development not going ahead now. How a new development can go ahead if different from the original granted plans is beyond me. This area will probably stay looking like a condemned site for a long time. Very sad.
Reply ID 48760
quote:Breaking my own rules & feeding the Troll I am fascinated. Is this some interplanetary invasion by beings whose language has yet to discover the capital letter? Is eli's other name Gort?
Originally posted by btj
do not think so james. i have my own company just ask eli he is my partner he will be here soon
Reply ID 48763
quote:Oh goody [:(]
Originally posted by btj just ask eli he is my partner he will be here soon
Reply ID 48801
feed me i need more. come on piglet. what is a capital letter never seen one before troll troll i am the troll
Reply ID 48869
quote:This whole episode stinks, these developers are vandals of the first degree!This is a designated conservation area and there should only be one option and that is to replace what was formely part of the towns heritage. The Council/planners have to send a clear message that it will not be bullied and man handled by greedy a developer. They are obviously just chancing their hand with a pre calculated minimal fine and token slap on the wrist, which will be easily absorbed in the profit made from the development. I am not against developing the town, but done with respect to the conservation areas. It was a building that the developers had a contract and commitment to maintain. Surely that was the whole reason for allowing consent to develop? I have no proof they are liars and cheats but the house would still be there if they had shown due care and respect. what next... The Sportsman pub cos' it's got unsafe windows... Look out St Andrews Street... quite a few down there have got peeling paint! [xx(]
Originally posted by James007
I can see this development not going ahead now. How a new development can go ahead if different from the original granted plans is beyond me. This area will probably stay looking like a condemned site for a long time. Very sad.
Reply ID 48878
quote:Err….. Good point in general but I have it on v good authority that the Sportsman has got a damn sight more than just unsafe windows. It appears the whole fabric of the place is v dubious .... Avoid passing in high winds! (The pub I mean..)
This whole episode stinks, Surely that was the whole reason for allowing consent to develop? I have no proof they are liars and cheats but the house would still be there if they had shown due care and respect. what next... The Sportsman pub cos' it's got unsafe windows... ! [xx(]
Reply ID 49242
quote:Definitely something happening - I saw the builders in there yesterday too
Originally posted by James007
There was some building work going on today. Is this thing going ahead?
Reply ID 49243
There was some building work going on today. Is this thing going ahead?
Reply ID 49251
How did Leo post the reply above before the quoted remark had even been made?
Reply ID 49252
quote:It's not the same quote if you read very carefully, the original comment must have been deleted?? [|)]
Originally posted by Steve
How did Leo post the reply above before the quoted remark had even been made?
Reply ID 49253
quote:The gift of prophesy [^]
Originally posted by Steve
How did Leo post the reply above before the quoted remark had even been made?
Reply ID 49257
quote:Not quite. Being the pedant that I am, I tried to correct the error in my original post and sadly 'dustbinned' my response instead. In record time I reposted my amended version only to find that Leo, like myself, has nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon. [:D]
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:The gift of prophesy [^]
Originally posted by Steve
How did Leo post the reply above before the quoted remark had even been made?
Reply ID 49258
quote:The demolition people are still on site. The debris is slowly being removed and the concrete floor of the garage workshop is being broken up.
Originally posted by James007
There was some building work going on today. Is this thing going ahead?
Reply ID 49259
quote:Today Steve? It's a Sunday and I thought that one planning condition stated no works to be carried out on a Sunday? [?]
Originally posted by Stevequote:The demolition people are still on site. The debris is slowly being removed and the concrete floor of the garage workshop is being broken up.
Originally posted by James007
There was some building work going on today. Is this thing going ahead?
Reply ID 49262
quote:A scurrilous allegation - I just happened to log on briefly during a short break from sorting my collection of toe nail clippings [:(!]
Originally posted by James007quote:Not quite. Being the pedant that I am, I tried to correct the error in my original post and sadly 'dustbinned' my response instead. In record time I reposted my amended version only to find that Leo, like myself, has nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon. [:D]
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:The gift of prophesy [^]
Originally posted by Steve
How did Leo post the reply above before the quoted remark had even been made?
Reply ID 49263
there is no one there. just took my dog for a walk. it was all locked up
Reply ID 49265
Three hours later btj?
Reply ID 49267
quote:I was referring to the date of your post
Originally posted by James007quote:Today Steve? It's a Sunday and I thought that one planning condition stated no works to be carried out on a Sunday? [?]
Originally posted by Stevequote:The demolition people are still on site. The debris is slowly being removed and the concrete floor of the garage workshop is being broken up.
Originally posted by James007
There was some building work going on today. Is this thing going ahead?
Reply ID 49268
quote:[:o)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:I was referring to the date of your post
Originally posted by James007quote:Today Steve? It's a Sunday and I thought that one planning condition stated no works to be carried out on a Sunday? [?]
Originally posted by Stevequote:The demolition people are still on site. The debris is slowly being removed and the concrete floor of the garage workshop is being broken up.
Originally posted by James007
There was some building work going on today. Is this thing going ahead?
Reply ID 49909
Not unexpectedly, Steven Oates has taken advantage of the now levelled site to submit a new planning application http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/08/0362/FP
Reply ID 49910
quote:Flats, flats and more flats!
Originally posted by Steve
Not unexpectedly, Steven Oates has taken advantage of the now levelled site to submit a new planning application http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/08/0362/FP
Reply ID 49929
quote:8x two-bedroomed flats, one three-bedroomed house and a commercial unit, be be precise
Originally posted by Dudequote:Flats, flats and more flats!
Originally posted by Steve
Not unexpectedly, Steven Oates has taken advantage of the now levelled site to submit a new planning application http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/08/0362/FP
Reply ID 49933
quote:They all seem to like the idea of applying for a "mixed" development. Its the buzz work, but its always a vast majority of Flats! The house allows for one tree, the shop say they are creating employment opportunities. Oldest trick in the book! [:)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:8x two-bedroomed flats, one three-bedroomed house and a commercial unit, be be precise
Originally posted by Dudequote:Flats, flats and more flats!
Originally posted by Steve
Not unexpectedly, Steven Oates has taken advantage of the now levelled site to submit a new planning application http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/08/0362/FP
Reply ID 49934
quote:Assuming weekends off, the above all designed and submitted to planning in the space of 20 days - amazing [img]http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/wink/054.gif[/img]
Originally posted by Steve 8x two-bedroomed flats, one three-bedroomed house and a commercial unit, be be precise
Reply ID 50579
Blimey!... Press release from East Herts District Council: COUNCIL SET FOR LEGAL ACTION OVER DEMOLITION East Herts Council is to prosecute developers who demolished a Victorian-era building without consent, harming the historic character of the Hertford Conservation Area. Members of the Development Control Committee on Wednesday (March 12) heard how instructions from council officers had been ignored in the weeks leading up to the demolition of 87 Railway Street, Hertford. The entire building was torn down on Sunday, January 27, with developers citing safety concerns about the integrity of the building raised by a structural engineer two weeks previously. However, a Building Control officer had inspected the site on January 14 and found that only the chimneystack on the site was unsafe. The officer reminded the owners on several occasions that they’d need to contact the council’s planning department before taking any action. This they did not do. A dangerous structure notice was later served by the council, requiring the chimneystack to be partially demolished to a safe and stable level. Malcolm Alexander, Executive member with responsibility for development control said: “The developer claimed the demolition was for safety reasons and yet they had taken no action for two weeks. They were told their obligations and they had every opportunity to fulfil them. “This was a wilful disregard for the proper legal process and as a result we’ve lost an important building, seriously harming the historic character of this conservation area.”
Reply ID 50581
Probably claim that as they were removing the chimney stack the whole building became unstable and the only option to safeguard the public and builders was to let it "collapse". Slip the dodgy company surveyor a brown envelope and who can prove them wrong...
Reply ID 50582
Useful link: [url="http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=6650"]Council set for legal action over demolition[/url]
Reply ID 50583
I'm pleased that the council have grown a pair of cohones and decided to take action. My only concern is that if the case is proved and a fine is dished out it will not be substantial enough to make a difference. An order to rebuild the house as per the original design and of period building materials would be better [:)]
Reply ID 52375
quote:Latest planning application (above) refused at last Wednesday's Development Control Committee meeting.
Originally posted by Stevequote:8x two-bedroomed flats, one three-bedroomed house and a commercial unit, be be precise
Originally posted by Dudequote:Flats, flats and more flats!
Originally posted by Steve
Not unexpectedly, Steven Oates has taken advantage of the now levelled site to submit a new planning application http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/08/0362/FP
Reply ID 53732
Look whose house is up for sale! http://212.50.188.107/cgi-win/vebra.cgi?details1?src=agent&PropertyCode=1047001/THESU/23460/1
Reply ID 53735
quote:I have no idea who that house belongs to but the inference is it has connections to Steven Oats? If so I thought the Estate Agents Act stipulated that the ad should state the property offered for sale is connected to an employee or director of the estate agency?
Originally posted by Steve
Look whose house is up for sale! http://212.50.188.107/cgi-win/vebra.cgi?details1?src=agent&PropertyCode=1047001/THESU/23460/1
Reply ID 53736
As I understand it, Steven Oates is no longer involved in the estate agency that bears his name
Reply ID 53748
If I had 1.8 million I don't think I'd spend it on that. Is'nt it a bit...naff? Looks like its been designed by a committee.
Reply ID 53750
quote:What a terrible waste of space - you could put at least 20 "luxury" apartments on that bit of land...[;)]
Originally posted by Steve
Look whose house is up for sale! http://212.50.188.107/cgi-win/vebra.cgi?details1?src=agent&PropertyCode=1047001/THESU/23460/1
Reply ID 53760
quote:Or maybe 14 afer your first two planning applications were turned down [;)]
Originally posted by dudley
What a terrible waste of space - you could put at least 20 "luxury" apartments on that bit of land...[;)]
Reply ID 54771
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertfordshiremercury%2Dnews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=344055
Reply ID 54773
This was a difficult decision for the DCC. Whilst they would have liked to have gone ahead, the legal advice was that the prosecution was unlikely to succeed and that costs could be awarded against them. For what it's worth, a building of similar architectural style is included in Parkhall's recent planning application for the site. [url="http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/08/1161/FP"]3/08/1161[/url]
Reply ID 54774
I just hope they consider traffic along that road on Sundays with the parking at the catholic church it is difficult for busses to pass along that stretch of railway st. It is a shame the developers broke the rules and are going to get away with it.
![http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/wink/054.gif[/img]](http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/wink/054.gif[/img]){kind=link}