[teetotal_michael]

Originally Posted by Shardlake

What are you getting excited about? The lease on my property is for 99 years, doesn't really mean anything

Its a television studio they are just keeping the land and building something else on it

It's got nothing to do with the lease, in fact there is no mention of a lease. What it actually is, is planning permission to retain the house until 2013, and continue to use it for a television show, live events and corporate events, exactly the same as it is now.

The terms of the plannning state that once it is no longer used like this, it must be removed and the land left 'in a tidy state'.

Why would they extend the planning consent if they didn't intend to use it?

[arista]

Originally Posted by teetotal_michael

It's got nothing to do with the lease, in fact there is no mention of a lease. What it actually is, is planning permission to retain the house until 2013, and continue to use it for a television show, live events and corporate events, exactly the same as it is now.

The terms of the plannning state that once it is no longer used like this, it must be removed and the land left 'in a tidy state'.

Why would they extend the planning consent if they didn't intend to use it?

Yes as it stands now a few more years of use.


Of Course no one may use it,
unless it is so cheap - that it is worth while.

[teetotal_michael]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes as it stands now a few more years of use.


Of Course no one may use it,
unless it is so cheap - that it is worth while.

I can't help wondering why they decided to extend the permission though, and why in June this year? They knew Channel 4 weren't renewing the contract...

Even if they thought/knew Channel 5 wanted to buy the format, they wouldn't have applied for the permission unless they knew for definate that the house would be used, it would end up costing them a fortune in upkeep and maintenance otherwise would it not?

[Shardlake]

Originally Posted by teetotal_michael

It's got nothing to do with the lease, in fact there is no mention of a lease. What it actually is, is planning permission to retain the house until 2013, and continue to use it for a television show, live events and corporate events, exactly the same as it is now.

The terms of the plannning state that once it is no longer used like this, it must be removed and the land left 'in a tidy state'.

Why would they extend the planning consent if they didn't intend to use it?

So it is to continue to use the land for a television show and live events..in the middle of Elstree film and TV studios. The building is not a house, its a tv studio, they can take it down and make it totally different within a few days.

[teetotal_michael]

Originally Posted by Shardlake

So it is to continue to use the land for a television show and live events..in the middle of Elstree film and TV studios. The building is not a house, its a tv studio, they can take it down and make it totally different within a few days.

No, because they would have to apply to do that. That isn't what they have applied for. The house is classed as a dwelling, which it actually states in the original planning permission for the house being built.

If they wanted to knock it down and rebuild it they would have to apply to do that. They would then have to apply to change the use of the land etc...

[Jamesy]

They could still completely rip out the interior and use it for another television show, it's just the building they're keeping, not the house itself. It's just a studio, so could have many more purposes. Endemol may have other plans for the use of the studio.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Jamesy

They could still completely rip out the interior and use it for another television show, it's just the building they're keeping, not the house itself. It's just a studio, so could have many more purposes. Endemol may have other plans for the use of the studio.

Earlier I was thinking of the Hollywood studios that give tours of famous sets but I just realized that can't really happen here.
Well.. C4 wouldn't be doing it if they sell the rights to someone else. Its not impossible but would be... not really right.
OK,
But what about C5 (or whoever buys the rights) doing tours?
Still awkward.
They would be giving a tour of 'C4s series' in that sense. They would be showing you what.. C4's Davina, C4's sets and props, how C4 did things when they had the rights?
Awkward.

But you know I was thinking it would be a great thing if there was some way to do this with the Olympics and mass tourism coming up.
Maybe I'm dreaming but I seriously think they would be very very surprised how many people would pay a healthy sum for a guided tour.

That might be a good question here - How much would you pay for a tour of the BB House?
Suppose the expected - a guided tour and you are walked through a pathway.
(realistically people could not run about, use, touch etc),
but,
You get a tour through, can take photos in the garden and at the end is the Diary room where you can an instant photo sitting in the Diary Room.

What is it worth to you?

I'm going to say (seriously, realistically) I would be happy to pay 30 quid.
Not too much more.
I would still pay 50 but probably resent it and complain of it.

But 30 I would be really happy and definitely do it.

[Shardlake]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Earlier I was thinking of the Hollywood studios that give tours of famous sets but I just realized that can't really happen here.
Well.. C4 wouldn't be doing it if they sell the rights to someone else. Its not impossible but would be... not really right.
OK,
But what about C5 (or whoever buys the rights) doing tours?
Still awkward.
They would be giving a tour of 'C4s series' in that sense. They would be showing you what.. C4's Davina, C4's sets and props, how C4 did things when they had the rights?
Awkward.

But you know I was thinking it would be a great thing if there was some way to do this with the Olympics and mass tourism coming up.
Maybe I'm dreaming but I seriously think they would be very very surprised how many people would pay a healthy sum for a guided tour.

That might be a good question here - How much would you pay for a tour of the BB House?
Suppose the expected - a guided tour and you are walked through a pathway.
(realistically people could not run about, use, touch etc),
but,
You get a tour through, can take photos in the garden and at the end is the Diary room where you can an instant photo sitting in the Diary Room.

What is it worth to you?

I'm going to say (seriously, realistically) I would be happy to pay 30 quid.
Not too much more.
I would still pay 50 but probably resent it and complain of it.

But 30 I would be really happy and definitely do it.

£30 for a 15 min walk around an empty television studio? They'd love you

I could have a day at the football for that with a takeaway and a few drinks thrown in, I know what i'd rather.

I'd pay a fiver, a tenner at a push

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shardlake

£30 for a 15 min walk around an empty television studio? They'd love you

I could have a day at the football for that with a takeaway and a few drinks thrown in, I know what i'd rather.

I'd pay a fiver, a tenner at a push

But you can always do that and for that and why would you even pay anything to sit somewhere watching football. I can go to the local pitch and watch it for nothing.

In the Hollywood tours you are looking at around $50 and don't make me convert currency but that isn't far away from our hypothetical 30 quid,
and,
I'm told those tours in Hollywood studios can be jam-packed with people happy to pay.

But I'd want more than 15 minutes and not some quick walk-around. 30 minutes would be just fine.
Not much less.
Enough time for pictures in the garden. Enough time to sit in the Diary room and take a photo.

5 or 10 they wouldn't bother. The wear and tear wouldn't be worth it. My guess anyways.