Agenda item

The Director of Regeneration will be in attendance to provide an update on Eyesore/Empty/Derelict Commercial Properties in Middlesbrough.

Recommendation: for Panel to determine whether any further information is required.

The Director of Regeneration provided an update on Eyesore/Empty/Derelict Commercial Properties in Middlesbrough.

£2 million had been allocated to this issue: £1 million to eyesore sites and £1 million for eyesore properties.  The money would be focussed on those properties that were causing problems within communities.  Unfortunately there were too many eyesore sites and properties throughout the town and the Council did not have the resources to deal with all of them and therefore the available funding had to be targeted.  The Council had set out a flow chart setting out what needed to be done to try and get buildings or sites back into productive use, with the last step being applying some of that funding.  Virtually all of the eyesore sites and properties in the town were in private ownership.  The Council would regularly remind owners of their responsibilities and try to enforce them as the first step.  Purchasing the site or investing in the site was further down the list of potential action the Council could take.  The Council always tried to achieve any kind of purchase through negotiation but ultimately could potentially pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order. 

In relation to properties, the Council was working through Middlesbrough Development Company (MDC).  MDC were hoping to work with a number of partners, and this currently included the Ethical Lettings company.  Some of the available funding would be spent purchasing properties, and some on refurbishing those properties.  The properties would then be let.  The focus was on the TS1 and TS3 postcode areas specifically.   Each purchase would be based on a business case.

In relation to sites, again the Council might work with MDC or on its own.  The aim was to identify those sites where enforcement was not working but a viable future for the site had been identified.  The site could be purchased and sold straight on to a third party such as a registered provider or social landlord and could be anywhere within the town.

Any sites that were suggested would be looked at.  However there was no categorisation or list of sites that would be dealt with.  In reality the funding available could be used on maybe one or two sites.  The circumstances around ownership of sites and negotiations around the sale of them often changed which could move a site closer too or further away from being purchased at a reasonable price.

Enforcement was difficult as there were a lot of legal aspects and certain criteria had to be met in order to serve various notices on owners.   This included evidence on the site of certain things, particularly in terms of security and danger to the public.  Often serving a notice could be tokenistic if there was not sufficient evidence behind it and the connection to the owner to force it through.  The Council would often take action and do some of the work and then bill the owner, although the expenditure could not always be recovered.  

Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) was not an easy option but it was available in the longer term if the Council was unable to work with the owner to find a solution.  The Council would always pursue enforcement and if necessary would pursue a CPO and had in fact done so on occasions. 

There were a number of large, currently unoccupied buildings in the town including Centre North East, Gurney House, Church House, and The Crown.  The Council was engaged in active discussions with the owners and always looking for something to be done but the solutions were always going to be very expensive.

Ultimately a finance package would have to be put in and sometimes the Council would get involved and sometimes it would not. 

The development at Tollesby shops was highlighted as an example of a site bought, cleared and developed by MDC.  A development of twenty four apartments and five retail sites was due to be completed by summer 2022.  This development would make a huge difference to the community and this positive impact on the community justified the expenditure and investment.  It was noted that whilst some schemes would return a profit others might return a loss. 

Whilst the Council had set out some criteria for what exactly constituted an eyesore property there were no hard and fast rules.  Essentially it was those properties that the Council received a lot of complaints about and were a visual scar on the community.

In relation to insurance and whether owners were liable if anyone trespassing was injured, it depended on what steps had been taken to secure the site.   The Council was able to do enforcement were it was possible to access a site and there were potential dangers on site.  At the very least the Council was usually able to make owners fence the area off securely.  Members also voiced concern around the potential danger to members of the public of injury from falling masonry or such, from unmaintained buildings in areas where they could not be fenced off.

An issue was raised around listed buildings and it was highlighted that there was a lot of legislation in relation to such buildings and again it was usually a matter of lack of resources to deal with them.  The Officer acknowledged the frustration that even though a building might look in a terrible state but was secure, there was little the Council could do in terms of compelling an owner to improve it.   The Council was willing to contact anybody that owned a site or a property to ask them to take action.   If a building was not costing the owner money, they were usually prepared to keep them until the market changed and they were able to sell it on. 

A Member commented that with property prices currently rising it was probably not in the interests of some owners to do anything as they might just be hoping to realise a profit in the future.  It was suggested that the Local Authority should try putting pressure on Central Government to address this issue.

It was highlighted that work was ongoing within the Council as to how the various departments that had responsibility for enforcement could work together to provide a more effective service. 

AGREED that the information provided was received and noted.