CaseDetails
Summary
Case ID
23057
Case Status
Official Reference
SAH24/23057 & 24/172
Proposal Description
The property has been vacant for approximately five months. During this period, vagrants broke into the property, stealing and damaging many fixtures.
The seller, intending to show the property to a potential buyer, discovered the extent of the vandalism. Due to financial constraints, the seller could not afford to hire security personnel.
Over a period of two weeks of paperwork and negotiations between the buyer and seller, the property's condition deteriorated further. Many windows were broken or forcibly removed, and additional fixtures were dismantled in a hurried manner.
Recognising the increased risk of further vandalism, a decision was made to remove all valuable and expensive fixtures and fittings for safekeeping.
Security Measures:
In an effort to secure the property structure, barbed wire and chicken fencing were placed over the openings. However, despite these measures, vagrants continued to break in, notably through the roof this time.
It was then even reported that individuals were seen stripping the house during the day, under the mistaken assumption that the owner had hired people for this purpose.
Decision to Secure Further Losses:
Given the escalating situation, a firm decision was made to salvage all elements that could be saved. This was not an act of demolition but a necessary measure to prevent further loss and damage. In doing so, an attempt was made to place things in an orderly manner and remove them from site, but a further dispute came about regarding transport costs.
The initiation of the demolition order in early June 2024 was prompted by the realisation that, despite the lack of architectural significance, the age of the original plans necessitated compliance with Amafa’s prerequisites.
And that such a permit would seal the deal and permit for funds to be transferred from the deal, to be allocated to the security and other initiatives needed.
Justification for Actions Taken
The actions taken were driven by the need to:
Prevent Further Damage: The property was under constant threat from vagrants, resulting in significant losses and structural damage. Removing valuable fixtures and securing the property were necessary to mitigate further damage.
Preserve Valuable Elements: By removing and safeguarding fixtures, we ensured that valuable elements of the property were not lost to vandalism and theft.
Compliance with Legal Requirements: Upon realising the necessity of an Amafa application due to the age of the original plans, steps were taken to comply with all requirements promptly and lawfully.
The seller, intending to show the property to a potential buyer, discovered the extent of the vandalism. Due to financial constraints, the seller could not afford to hire security personnel.
Over a period of two weeks of paperwork and negotiations between the buyer and seller, the property's condition deteriorated further. Many windows were broken or forcibly removed, and additional fixtures were dismantled in a hurried manner.
Recognising the increased risk of further vandalism, a decision was made to remove all valuable and expensive fixtures and fittings for safekeeping.
Security Measures:
In an effort to secure the property structure, barbed wire and chicken fencing were placed over the openings. However, despite these measures, vagrants continued to break in, notably through the roof this time.
It was then even reported that individuals were seen stripping the house during the day, under the mistaken assumption that the owner had hired people for this purpose.
Decision to Secure Further Losses:
Given the escalating situation, a firm decision was made to salvage all elements that could be saved. This was not an act of demolition but a necessary measure to prevent further loss and damage. In doing so, an attempt was made to place things in an orderly manner and remove them from site, but a further dispute came about regarding transport costs.
The initiation of the demolition order in early June 2024 was prompted by the realisation that, despite the lack of architectural significance, the age of the original plans necessitated compliance with Amafa’s prerequisites.
And that such a permit would seal the deal and permit for funds to be transferred from the deal, to be allocated to the security and other initiatives needed.
Justification for Actions Taken
The actions taken were driven by the need to:
Prevent Further Damage: The property was under constant threat from vagrants, resulting in significant losses and structural damage. Removing valuable fixtures and securing the property were necessary to mitigate further damage.
Preserve Valuable Elements: By removing and safeguarding fixtures, we ensured that valuable elements of the property were not lost to vandalism and theft.
Compliance with Legal Requirements: Upon realising the necessity of an Amafa application due to the age of the original plans, steps were taken to comply with all requirements promptly and lawfully.
Post date
12/07/2024 - 08:45
Last modified
29/07/2024 - 16:12
Official Use
Official
Case Officers
RoDs/Permits
Decisions, Comments + Permits
Decision Date | Type | |
---|---|---|
Final Decision | Access Document |