Latest news with #demolition
BBC News
43 minutes ago
- Business
- BBC News
Demolition begins on part of 1960s Bootle shopping centre
The demolition of parts of a Merseyside 1960s shopping centre has of The Strand in Bootle are being knocked down as part of a project to transform the demolition marks the next step in the Bootle Strand Transformation Project and is part of a broader vision for the town Paulette Lappin, Sefton Council's cabinet member for regeneration, skills and employment said it was "a significant moment not just for Bootle, but for the whole of Sefton". "The Strand has played an important role in the lives of generations, and now we're laying the foundations for a future that reflects our community's aspirations," she said."Today's progress is the result of years of collaboration, local insight, and determination to secure a brighter future."The Strand has been a central part of Bootle's identity and economy since it opened in 1968, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).It was purchased by Sefton Council seven years ago for £32.5m and the local authority laid out plans for a landmark regeneration project to secure its future. 'Drive regeneration' Plans were accelerated in March 2023 with the award of £20m as part of the government's Levelling Up fund alongside additional funding from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA).Councillor Mike Wharton, LCRCA cabinet member for business, investment and trade, said the space was once underused, but was "now becoming a real community asset by supporting local culture, creating opportunities, and helping to drive regeneration in Bootle".Phase one of the project will deliver public spaces, retail and leisure units, business accommodation, improved transport links, and community and cultural facilities, the council works are now under way, with demolition and initial site works scheduled to continue through to December 2025. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
LBCI
17 hours ago
- Politics
- LBCI
Prominent Tel Aviv tower faces possible demolition after Iranian missile strike, LBCI correspondent Amal Shehadeh says
LBCI correspondent in Haifa, Amal Shehadeh, reported that one of Tel Aviv's tallest and most prominent towers may face demolition and reconstruction after being hit by an Iranian missile.
The Sun
a day ago
- Business
- The Sun
Nostalgic 60s shopping centre set to be DEMOLISHED to make way for new retail complex and car park for over 150 motors
AN ICONIC 60s shopping centre is to be demolished to make way for a new retail centre and car park for more than 150 vehicles. It comes as Pendle Borough Council aims to revitalise the Lancashire town of Nelson after receiving £25 million of government funding. 1 One of the council's projects is the demolition and rebuilding of nostalgic shopping centre Pendle Rise in the town. But a row is brewing after reports several retailers are still trading in in the centre, which is due to for demolition later this year. Demolition work is due to be completed by March 2026, with building work on the new centre due to start shortly after. Richard Savory, a consultant from the RAISE Partnership, which is overseeing the project, sought to reassure the Nelson Town Deal board at its latest meeting. The town board includes property-linked businesses involved commercially with the projects, a small number of elected councillors, private businesses and voluntary sector representatives. This is required under town deal rules. Mr Savory said some key phases of the compulsory purchase order process to buy it had been completed. Issues were raised by Specsavers, regarding finding an alternative shop, and Lancashire County Council, he said, but these had been resolved. Birmingham give update on new £3billion stadium as they announce major development Specsavers was accused of "lacking vision" but is now due to move to a shop on Manchester Road, Lancs Live reported. Mr Savory said: "We still expect to be on-site at Pendle Rise in October, with five months to demolish. "Once the strip-out including asbestos is done, it will be about six weeks to bring the shell down. It's a tight deadline but achievable." 'We can turf them out if we need to' He added: "Before we can demolish, we have to vacate it. But that won't be problem because all the powers will rest with Pendle Council. All people will have to leave. "We anticipate that all businesses there will be gone by then. But if need be, we can turf them out on November 3. "We will write to the five remaining retailers who have not yet reached a relocation deal. But we are running out of time to do walk-away offers." At the meeting, David Rothwell, deputy principal of Nelson and Colne College, asked what the implications were if the deadline was not met. Mr Savory replied: "We're in regular talks with the government ministry. "I think it accepts some projects may finish between 2026 and 2027. "We send monitoring updates and there will be one in September. We'll have a much clearer view by then." Lib-Dem Councillor David Whipp, the new leader of Pendle Council, said: "Can I thank everybody involved with resolving these things. "It was quite bizarre that Lancashire County Council was objecting. And Specsavers seemed to lack vision and be very short-sighted with this. But the objections have been withdrawn. "Vacating Pendle Rise and getting it demolished is a key project. It cannot be delayed. " Conservative Coun Nadeem Ahmed added: "The public want to see action. I know there's a of work involved but I think people are asking when is this going to happen? They want to see work. " Independent Coun Asjad Mahmood, the deputy council leader, said: "The legal requirement to give notice to shops is three months. But we are giving them four months. "We've made good progress with the CPO and this scheme will have lasting benefits for the community." Demolition day Pendle Rise is just one nostalgic shopping centre in the UK that is past its sell-by date. The Grafton Centre in Cambridge is also set to be demolished after years of decline. As we reported recently, it housed just 11 retailers after years of neglect. Built in 1983, the shopping hub has undergone significant changes in the 40 years since it was built. An expansion took place in the 1990s, in addition to a recent refurbishment in 2017. Despite attempts to revive the struggling centre, Cambridge City Council approved plans to partially demolish the building in February 2024. Led by the Pioneer Group, the demolished site will be replaced by science laboratories, plus a hotel and a gym. It hopes to be a more productive use of the space, as the shopping centre had become run down with lots of empty units. Over the last few years retailers like Debenhams, River Island and New Look all closed down their Grafton-Centre sites, leaving it feeling increasingly empty.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Future of under-threat pub building to be decided
The future of a derelict former pub building in Preston city centre is expected to be decided later. The Tithebarn, which closed in 2016, was deemed beyond repair after a structural survey by the council. A heritage campaign group is seeking to take over the building on Lord Street, which is thought to be about 300 years old, to save it from demolition. But the council has applied for permission to demolish it while preserving the Grade II-listed mill building next door, formerly known as Aladdin's Cove warehouse. The proposal includes turning the site into an open public greenspace. The authority's task force, which monitors empty and derelict buildings in the city amid growing concerns around safety, said there had been "extensive deterioration" to the building. A report to the council ahead of a cabinet meeting said: "Whilst the building is secure, it is in a dangerous condition and the council, as the owner, must consider the future of the building taking into consideration the safety of the public." The authority is set to approve its demolition at a cost of £200,000. The Preserving Preston Heritage group had offered to take it over and turn it into a heritage centre. However, the council said their proposal relied on grant funding which has not been applied for and a green space in the area would have "a significant benefit" in enhancing the area. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer. Campaigners offer to run under-threat pub building Unsafe former city centre pub set to be demolished 'We must preserve city's historical buildings' Preston City Council
SBS Australia
2 days ago
- Politics
- SBS Australia
'A housing disaster': The case against demolishing Melbourne's public housing
Days before resigning in 2023, former Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews announced a plan to demolish all 44 of Victoria's public housing towers. As Australia grapples with an ongoing housing crisis, plans to demolish the homes of 10,000 Victorians and rebuild them by 2051, has many experts and residents scratching their head. In April, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed a class action from tenants opposing the decision. Determined to be heard, the residents are launching an appeal. Louisa Bassini is the managing lawyer for Housing and Tenancy at the Inner Melbourne Community Legal Centre. She tells SBS that Homes Victoria failed to properly consider the human rights of residents, in making the decision without consultation. "Other grounds pertain to the group members' rights to have an opportunity to be heard. To this day, Homes Victoria still haven't consulted with residents and allowed them to put forward submissions regarding alternatives to demolition. And so our argument is that the trial judge erred in finding that this wasn't required and that this wasn't necessarily impactful on the outcome of Homes Victoria's program." Victorian Housing Minister Harriet Shing told SBS the towers are long overdue for replacement. "Well, anybody who's ever been in the towers or who calls the towers home will know that they're really noisy. They're cold in winter, they're hot in summer. They don't have access to the same sorts of ventilation, natural light or amenity that apply to every other form of housing around the state in terms of current codes of compliance." In the North Melbourne Public housing towers, residents say they found out about the decision via a note slipped under their door, informing them that their homes would be the first to go. Gabrielle de Vietri is the Victorian Greens Housing Spokesperson. She's also the state member for Richmond, which has more public housing towers than any other electorate in Victoria. On the day of the announcement, a public meeting was held for residents. "All they had heard was that they had received a letter under their door on the day that Dan Andrews made this announcement saying, we're going to demolish your home. We don't know when sit tight. And the distress in that room was absolutely palpable because there had been no other information communicated. There'd been no consultation with residents whatsoever." De Vietri says many of these towers are predominantly occupied by migrants and refugees. With decades of community building inside the towers, she says residents fear being cut off from their support networks. "And one elderly Vietnamese woman stood up and spoke on behalf of a group of residents that were all around an interpreter saying, we will chain ourselves to this building rather than let the bulldozers come in. This is our home. We are not letting it go. And they have built their community around this location. They have access to their doctors, they have their friends, they have their services, and they have their community there." According to a recent report from the Victorian Housing Peaks Alliance, Victoria needs an extra 80,000 social housing homes in the next decade to get the state back on track. The term Social Housing encompasses two broad categories, public and community housing. Public housing is owned and managed by the state government, whereas community housing is managed, and often owned, by private not-for-profit organisations. Harriet Shing says tenants have the same set of rights regardless. "Everybody in social housing, whether they are provided housing under the public housing system or under community housing, who's coming off the wait, who gets that housing as a result of that wait list and priority access is entitled to the rights that exist under the Residential Tendencies Act. They are the same irrespective of what part of the social housing system you are in." But, while tenants may have the same rights once they're in community housing, the private organisations that own the dwellings can lease up to 25 per cent to private renters, reducing the number available to those on the wait list. Rent prices in community housing are also not subject to the same rent cap as public housing, with tenants possibly facing a 5 per cent rent increase if moved to community housing. Louisa Bassini says this is not good enough. "So this is returning to the estates, subject to availability of community housing properties, which means that these people would no longer be public housing residents. They would be living under the management of non-government organizations and with fewer rights that stem from the policies of those organisations. It's inadequate given that they're being evicted, their homes are being demolished, and still there's no assurances that they can return as public housing residents to the estates." While there is general agreement that the towers are no longer up to building code standards, independent architects say there's no reason why the buildings can't be retrofitted. Nigel Bertram co-authored a report making the case for retrofitting and is a practice professor of architecture at Monash University. He says the plan to demolish is deeply flawed. "They're all built in a very similar manner. So their modularity, if you makes them very suited to retrofitting actually, because they're systematic. So if we could work out a system for one building, it can be used on multiple buildings. They're almost like a kit of parts out of the precast factory. Were put together in the same kind of way. So with similar structures." While unique changes and modifications that have occurred throughout the buildings over the decades, he says that can be dealt with. "It's possible to bring buildings up to standard to different degrees, certainly to the point that they're fit for habitation and fit for ongoing use into the future... If you think about the city as a whole, we have a whole lot of buildings that are very, very cherished buildings from the 19th century. They don't meet current standards either, but we don't use that as a reason to knock them down. In fact, we think very carefully about how to make them livable for contemporary needs and retain them." Aside from the social impacts on residents, he says the independent analysis has found retrofitting is not only cheaper, but better for the environment. "We put all those social factors aside, we didn't cost them, we didn't discuss them, we just looked at the numbers of what would it cost, what's required scope of works, and its embodied carbon. And we found that environmentally and economically it's cheaper and better to retrofit rather than rebuild." A number of similar reports have been released by architects and academics, arguing the case of retrofitting. But Harriet Shing says these reports are misinformed about the condition and structure of the buildings. "What I would say is that the sort of buildings referred to by that person constructed in the 19th century were not 26 stories tall. So the sort of engineering challenges that exist there in the first place are very difficult to compare with one and two story buildings or smaller apartment blocks, walk-ups, for example, of three or four or five stories. The second thing that's really important to note this is that communities have expressed a very, very clear desire not to be impacted by construction." Gabrielle de Vietri says their team has knocked on the doors of every public housing resident in the Richmond electorate. "Across all the estates, what we're hearing from residents is that relocation offices are... they're promising things that they can't deliver and they're threatening them with some pretty scary situations. So they're promising residents the right of return, which in fact, Homes Victoria's own relocation policy doesn't actually guarantee the right of return. And residents aren't aware that even if they do return maybe 7, 8, 9 years down the track, they're not actually going to be returning to public housing." The government says residents do have right of return, but only if they're deemed eligible. So, if someone's situation changes their eligibility for certain housing options, they may no longer have priority access to the housing they have now. While the government insists that clear communications have been made with residents throughout the process, groups representing tenants told SBS something different. Louisa Bassini says there are more than 800 households currently represented in the class action against Homes Victoria. "They are residents of the three towers that are the first occupied towers that are set to be demolished. But we think that the outcome of this decision has ramifications for residents of all of the towers across Melbourne. So those 10,000 people, I think, all are watching closely and have an interest in this process being a fair one because their towers are also set to be demolished under the program." Katelyn Butterss is the CEO of the Victorian Public Tenants Association. With a number of relocations already underway, she tell SBS that there have been mixed outcomes. "We have heard from some renters that they are quite happy and we've heard from some others that they just don't meet their needs at all, that the layouts aren't culturally sensitive for them and that they're struggling to fit their furniture in the homes." The Productivity Commission's latest annual Report on Government Services reveals just 2.9 per cent of Victorian households are in social housing – well behind the national average of 3.9 per cent. Katelyn Butterss says that one of the key concerns of the VPTA is that when these social dwellings are rebuilt, many won't meet the needs of families currently in the towers. "There are lots of larger families at North Melbourne and Flemington that we did a detailed piece of community engagement work with to really understand what their ambitions were for new homes to be rebuilt on the sites. And they had lots of very sensible and reasonable suggestions of things that they would like to see. And that included bedrooms that were large enough to have two single beds side by side, but the areas for older children available, if not in the apartment itself, then a common area that they could go and do homework quietly and very importantly, kitchens that are not open plan but are separated further from the rest of the home. Many cases for cultural reasons, but also to prevent the spread of cooking smells and to create an extra living space for larger families." Harriet Shing says that the government is determined to proceed with their plans and vows that communication and consultation with communities will continue every step of the way. "We will keep working with residents and with the community to provide them with accurate information. We will keep working to make sure that people have access to housing that meets their needs and we will keep working to make sure also that as the city grows and we head to a city the size of London, by the 2050s, we are providing a range of housing options for private renters, for people in social housing, for people looking to buy their own home and for people wanting to stay closer to where they grew up." But Gabrielle de Vietri says the Greens won't stop pushing back until this plan is scrapped. "So we're reaching out in as many ways as we can to try and stop this disastrous plan from happening because nobody agrees with the government's plan. Nobody agrees with their decision to demolish these towers, and nobody thinks it's a good idea. In fact, across the political spectrum and across experts and service organizations, residents and community, everybody agrees that it is a disastrous idea because any plan that starts with demolishing 7,000 homes in a housing crisis is not a housing plan. It's a housing disaster."
