News RSS Feed


'I'll fight on to bulldoze house' says property developer

The house in Old High Street The house in Old High Street

A MAN who has so far failed to bulldoze a ‘listed’ Headington house has warned his fight is not yet over.

Martin Young had applied to Oxford City Council for permission to demolish 29 Old High Street, and build five three-storey terraced houses in its place.

But council officers last week refused him permission, claiming that even in its current state of disrepair the house contributes positively to the area.

Mr Young, 67, maintains demolition is the right thing to do despite the house sitting in the Old Headington Conservation Area and being listed as a historic building at risk.

Mr Young, a property developer who lives in Headington Hill, said: “I am not deterred from my overall intention because I don’t think the house has any viable future.

“This development is right for that site. It is very low density and it meets the need for housing in the city.

“I shall probably appeal. It is just a matter of assessing the best way to go from here.”

Mr Young has a history of disputes with the council.

And the authority previously imposed an improvement order on the Headington property when it fell into a severe state of disrepair, which means Mr Young has to carry out work to the property.

The council confirmed it would be focusing on making sure the improvement order is complied with before considering an empty home order, which would allow the authority to take it over.

The 19th century house, which Mr Young bought in 1978, has been empty for five years after he moved out to care for his mother.

When she died last year at the age of 98 he remained in the family home.

Earlier this year he told the Oxford Mail he had a “strong emotional block” towards going anywhere near the house.

He claimed the development would be “sympathetic” to the conservation area.

The property is listed by Save, a group which campaigns for threatened historic buildings, on its annual Buildings at Risk register.

Old High Street resident David Washbrook said: “The house as it currently stands is appalling, but that development is wholly inappropriate for the area.

“This is a small street of small houses and something that size would overshadow the rest of the street.”

Friends of Old Headington called the project “extreme over-development in a sensitive area”.

The group said that if the house had been kept in repair it would be “an asset” to the neighbourhood.

In their report, city council planners said: “The council considers that the building, even in its existing state, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the Old Headington Conservation Area.”

Comments(21)

Dilligaf2010 says...
6:28pm Thu 22 Dec 11

“This development is right for that site. It is very low density and it meets the need for housing in the city.
No, the development is right for your bank balance, nothing more, nothing less.
Renovate the house, sell it, and clear off.

Isisbridge says...
7:37pm Thu 22 Dec 11

Pity the Council doesn't take this stance more often. Too many of Oxford's old buildings are being demolished.

Dilligaf2010 says...
8:29pm Thu 22 Dec 11

Isisbridge wrote:
Pity the Council doesn't take this stance more often. Too many of Oxford's old buildings are being demolished.
Amen to that.

the wizard says...
9:58pm Thu 22 Dec 11

Hope the council slap a preservation order on the property.
This man loves a fight so if he goes ahead he should be slapped inside and let him be constructive and redevelop the inside of his cell.

Sgt Oxford says...
9:06am Fri 23 Dec 11

expect he will just cause an electrical fire or something similar

simplicissimus says...
9:27am Fri 23 Dec 11

OCC are such repugnant and oppressive little wannabe Hitlers and arch bullies. Our City Council is criminal, and acts vindictively when it's validly criticized.

Martin Young will most possibly be hounded yet again at further avoidable cost to taxpayers in the shape of yet higher Council Taxes for Oxford's poor value services, not least because Mr Young has proven that our council is criminal and seeks to crush the common man's lawful rights and freedoms:
http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/5855107
.City_council_fined_
for_criminal_damage_
after_illegally_crus
hing_man_s_car/

Everyone's sick and tired of Oxford's Leftist, oppressive, jackbooted misbehaviour.

Let's see Mr Young's plans first. He owns the property and is entitled to develop it viably and at profit, neither of which precludes good and tasteful improvement.

simplicissimus says...
9:52am Fri 23 Dec 11

(Be prepared for OM moderators to restrict further comment on this article, and to archive it pronto, as happens so often there's so much as a squeak of dissent regarding our ShCity Council.

Is advertizing revenue from the LA an issue, perhaps?)

humphry says...
1:00pm Fri 23 Dec 11

"Let's see Mr Young's plans first" - you can, on the City Council's website, along with the full reasons for refusal which make clear that this development would be totally out of keeping with the local area. The city council isn't oppressing Martin Young - they're protecting the rights of everyone else.

humphry says...
1:01pm Fri 23 Dec 11

"Let's see Mr Young's plans first" - you can, on the City Council's website, along with the full reasons for refusal which make clear that this development would be totally out of keeping with the local area. The city council isn't oppressing Martin Young - they're protecting the rights of everyone else.

simplicissimus says...
1:22pm Fri 23 Dec 11

Have you a link, humph? OCC cares only about Labour kudos and self-glory. Look at what they pass planning permission for, and how their own schemes do not match need (eg Grantham House, unused for almost 4 years) or local vernacular (eg high rise)...

SNJ says...
2:32pm Fri 23 Dec 11

Refused revised planning application for the development is here:
http://public.oxford
.gov.uk/online-appli
cations/applicationD
etails.do?activeTab=
summary&keyVal=LR7RE
3MF0KJ00

and refused Conservation Area consent to demolish the original house here:
http://public.oxford
.gov.uk/online-appli
cations/applicationD
etails.do?activeTab=
summary&keyVal=LR7RI
QMF0KJ00

Niko Bellic says...
3:16pm Fri 23 Dec 11

The house isn't making him any money at the moment, in fact, as the council have issued an order he will be required to improve it before being able to knock it down. So, to save him money, I am proposing that I buy the house from him, for whatever the value of a horribly run down house is with seemingly no possibility for planning permission...

I'll pay £50 and a bag of crisps...

And then I will happily invest in the house and bring it up to standard and perhaps have a wonderful family home in an excellent location.

The nasty old boy is trying to make as much money for himself as possible, that is the only reason he is taking this as far as he has. He is well aware of the rules surrounding LISTED buildings, so if he wants to get rid, hire a load of builders to do it up and sell it on. He will still make a handsome profit from it, just not the profit his greedy little hands were itching to get hold of

GaryOxford says...
4:13pm Fri 23 Dec 11

Martin Young does seem to be something of a hypocrite. He seems to think it's fine for him to carryout developments but is against Oxford Brookes developing their campus.

http://www.thisisoxf
ordshire.co.uk/archi
ve/2010/10/16/Oxford
+news+%28om_oxfordne
ws%29/8456244.Brooke
s_campus_battle_may_
move_to_High_Court/

Darkforbid says...
4:40pm Fri 23 Dec 11

How about pay me £5000, for the magical overnight house collapsing trick...

just an idea...

simplicissimus says...
8:19pm Fri 23 Dec 11

Hey, Darky, might I effect an amicable and businesslike entree for you with the saintly and valiant Mr Young? My intro fee would be exceedingly modest...

Darkforbid says...
1:12pm Sat 24 Dec 11

I Know an Eco makeover, and Mr Young would make a fortune out of that plot...

Danny A says...
2:03pm Sat 24 Dec 11

Just more fuel for my case to switch taxes away from work and enterprise and on to land. With a proper land tax Mr Young would be paying and recompensing all other tax payers for denying them the chance to do something with the property. That would be a big kick up the rear to get him to either develop it in accordance to planning regulations or sell it to someone else who can make better use of it. As it stands Mr Young can hold out for a massive capital gain at the expense of everyone else including many who are unable to afford a property.

simplicissimus says...
2:13pm Sat 24 Dec 11

Danny A:
What do you mean by "at the expense of everyone else"?

And how would he be "recompensing all other tax payers" when he does not seem to have cost them?

How has he cost others, while he determines just how he can best deal with his property?

Do you have misgivings about "property" BTW?

GaryOxford says...
8:43pm Mon 26 Dec 11

Hi Simplicissimus, I believe Danny A is in favour of land tax. Basically it can be argued that the value of non-agricultural land is based on it's proximity to other services paid for by the tax payer. So the reason why Mr. Young's property is so valuable is because it is in Oxford near good schools, hospitals roads etc. all paid for by the UK tax payer. If it was a dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere it wouldn't be worth much.
If a land value tax was implemented it would encourage people to make the best use of property near public facilities, and would provide a barrier to people who buy houses, leave them empty and let them to decay.

simplicissimus says...
12:09am Tue 27 Dec 11

Sounds like a madcap Labour crackpot excuse to waste stolen privately earned wealth on the overbloated public sector, and is not wanted or needed. The UK has the most gorged and unsustainable public sector in the Western world. The Coalition have far more to prune and indeed lop, starting with inflated quango and town hall managers' salaries, perks and exorbitant pensions.

When that house was built, most of what you allude to was not, so didn't add value. Besides, the notion of added value is easily abused, as IMO many who advocate this bizarre concept of a tax on perceived (but highly arguable) taxpayer derived (when it's not) "benefit" or AV.

Sid Hunt says...
9:53am Thu 29 Dec 11

"Hi Simplicissimus, I believe Danny A is in favour of land tax."

Can Danny A not answer the question himself?

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree