Boarded up Sunderland or is it Booming?



Parking is a massive one, it’s a joke they scrapped free after 3. If you want to go to any of the new places to eat you’ve got to find a multi-storey near then walk (puts people off with elderly folk) - grey street in Newcastle you could literally pull up outside and park.
The rent and rates for shops seems to be the big thing. Even in the metrocenter there’s empty buildings. You would think they’d rather have a busy full area, paying less rent, than tens of shops empty.

People like Mike Ashley don’t help the independents either, buying them all up and the ones they don’t buy struggle because he owns the brands too and they can’t sell them.
 
Riot Shot Pint said:
Parking is a massive one, it’s a joke they scrapped free after 3. If you want to go to any of the new places to eat you’ve got to find a multi-storey near then walk (puts people off with elderly folk) - grey street in Newcastle you could literally pull up outside and park.
The rent and rates for shops seems to be the big thing. Even in the metrocenter there’s empty buildings. You would think they’d rather have a busy full area, paying less rent, than tens of shops empty.

People like Mike Ashley don’t help the independents either, buying them all up and the ones they don’t buy struggle because he owns the brands too and they can’t sell them.
Click to expand...
Rates are the biggest problem. You could rent a unit out for £10 a month to avoid it being empty, but the council will still be charging the tenant the same rates as if the decline in retail over the last decade or so hasn't happened.

The metro centre seems to have turned a corner in recent months. Two years ago it looked close to dead.
 
Redandwhitedust said:
If you want a sign of decline of retail. Take a wander round the Metrocentre.

Last time I was home, was the first time I've been in probably 5 or 6 years.

The end with the cinema and food is prosperous, but we parked near Marks and Spencer and other than M&S there's basically an entire floor abandoned, plus bits and pieces empty elsewhere, and the majority or independent units in the Village area closed.

At one point the Metro had a waiting list of retailers....
Click to expand...

They kicked out all the independent places and got rid of the unique selling points like the garden areas, Metroland, Mediterranean village etc. It's just an identikit version of any other shopping centre now. It's a shame.
 
NYMackem said:
Rates are the biggest problem. You could rent a unit out for £10 a month to avoid it being empty, but the council will still be charging the tenant the same rates as if the decline in retail over the last decade or so hasn't happened.

The metro centre seems to have turned a corner in recent months. Two years ago it looked close to dead.
Click to expand...
The council don't set the rates.
 
zinedine said:
It's amazing how unlucky empty pub buildings are. So many mysteriously burst into flames.
Click to expand...

After that Crooked Pub in the Midlands burned down, there was a politician on the radio advocating a bill that stated if an abandoned building burned down, automatically the owners would be fined for not keeping it safe and secure, charged for the cleanup, but also that the site would then get a long covenant prohibiting the site from any change of use.

Would stop a lot of dodgy practices I'm sure
 
RestlessNatives said:
The council don't set the rates.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they set the rates, I said they charged them. It is the council who sends the business rates invoices and collects the dough.

Whether the underlying rates are set by the council or the Valuation Office is beside the point. Either way the cost of renting retail premises does not reflect market forces, because regardless of the rent charged tenants are still paying rates based on what the rent was historically.
 
Redandwhitedust said:
After that Crooked Pub in the Midlands burned down, there was a politician on the radio advocating a bill that stated if an abandoned building burned down, automatically the owners would be fined for not keeping it safe and secure, charged for the cleanup, but also that the site would then get a long covenant prohibiting the site from any change of use.

Would stop a lot of dodgy practices I'm sure
Click to expand...

It’s not always the owner of the property at fault as I think most fires are started through vandalism. There is the issue of buildings being left unoccupied or not repaired so owner or leaseholder share some Responsibility. Arson in buildings particularly unoccupied buildings is a massive issue for insurers at the moment and one of the reasons why insurance prices are increasing.

www.ifsecglobal.com

Idle threat: Fire risk in unoccupied buildings | IFSEC Insider

Simon Brand, Editor of Fire & Risk Management (F&RM), the journal of the Fire Protection Association, examines the arson threat facing unused and unoccupied buildings.
www.ifsecglobal.com
 
NYMackem said:
I didn't say they set the rates, I said they charged them. It is the council who sends the business rates invoices and collects the dough.

Whether the underlying rates are set by the council or the Valuation Office is beside the point. Either way the cost of renting retail premises does not reflect market forces, because regardless of the rent charged tenants are still paying rates based on what the rent was historically.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware there's still rate relief schemes in place for leisure, retail and hospitality. Up to 75% reduction
 
Osklen said:
It’s not always the owner of the property at fault as I think most fires are started through vandalism. There is the issue of buildings being left unoccupied or not repaired so owner or leaseholder share some Responsibility. Arson in buildings particularly unoccupied buildings is a massive issue for insurers at the moment and one of the reasons why insurance prices are increasing.

www.ifsecglobal.com

Idle threat: Fire risk in unoccupied buildings | IFSEC Insider

Simon Brand, Editor of Fire & Risk Management (F&RM), the journal of the Fire Protection Association, examines the arson threat facing unused and unoccupied buildings.
www.ifsecglobal.com
Click to expand...

CCTV has never been cheaper or better. If the owners have it on unoccupied buildings, perhaps that could be classed as being responsible and an exemption.

There needs to be pressure on building owners to secure and maintain empty buildings, and to get change of use permission lawfully rather than mysterious fires.
 
Redandwhitedust said:
CCTV has never been cheaper or better. If the owners have it on unoccupied buildings, perhaps that could be classed as being responsible and an exemption.

There needs to be pressure on building owners to secure and maintain empty buildings, and to get change of use permission lawfully rather than mysterious fires.
Click to expand...

I suppose landlords will be paying a higher insurance premium if they don’t have cctv, however they will be weighing up cost to install and monitor cctv as no doubt the majority of absentee landlords will have a large property portfolio.
 

Back
Top