Tony Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 the building looks dangerous - I think it's disgraceful that it's been allowed to fall into such a state. Is it still owned by the Salvation Army ? You can blame the Council for that. Various planning applications have been turned down which has resulted in it being left empty until the owners can find some viable use that Council will deign to grant permission for. The SA don't own it any longer, it's a private company who bought it from them some years ago with the intention of redeveloping it. I suspect that Occupy Sheffield might have made an error of judgement here if they think that they will have a land owner as long-suffering as the Cathedral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Tossers! Your choice of words says more about you and your own intolerance than anything else. You can blame the Council for that. Various planning applications have been turned down which has resulted in it being left empty until the owners can find some viable use that Council will deign to grant permission for. That makes it the responsibility of the SA. If they can not submit an application that is acceptable they are still responsible for keeping it in a decent condition. SCC can issue a compulsory purchase order on it if they fail to maintain it (which they should do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeApe Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 They are breaking the law ....simple...they should be made to face the consequences The consequences of using a fine building whcih has been empty for ages? they should be congratulated.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 It's preferable to the Cathedral IF they have moved on. If they're Occupying both then I think it's just an excuse to squat under the pretext of protesting as they don't need two camps. If they have moved on from the Cathedral I think that's a positive but somehow I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeApe Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 You can blame the Council for that. Various planning applications have been turned down which has resulted in it being left empty until the owners can find some viable use that Council will deign to grant permission for. The SA don't own it any longer, it's a private company who bought it from them some years ago with the intention of redeveloping it. I suspect that Occupy Sheffield might have made an error of judgement here if they think that they will have a land owner as long-suffering as the Cathedral. What uses have been proposed? I walk past this building every day and think its a crying shame that it's left to deteriorate by the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 They should squat the rest of the boarded up shops in the area that were emptied for the ill fated Sevenstone development and open businesses that show us how their alternative to capitalism will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeApe Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 It's preferable to the Cathedral IF they have moved on. If they're Occupying both then I think it's just an excuse to squat under the pretext of protesting as they don't need two camps. If they have moved on from the Cathedral I think that's a positive but somehow I doubt it. They still need public visibility though. So I expect they'll qwant to keep somthing at the cathedral. Not much point in protesting if you're indoors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 If they are moving from the cathedral then I think it's a good idea. If they are merely adding another site then it's a bad idea. And besides citadel does sound pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc55 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 That makes it the responsibility of the SA. If they can not submit an application that is acceptable they are still responsible for keeping it in a decent condition. SCC can issue a compulsory purchase order on it if they fail to maintain it (which they should do). no, Tony said it's no longer owned by SA, but a private developer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc55 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 What uses have been proposed? I walk past this building every day and think its a crying shame that it's left to deteriorate by the owners. woah lightbulb moment - we should all photograph it and post it on the website about disused buildings - agh, can't remember what it was - something to do with Kevin McCloud and that cheeky handsome chappie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now