dwhite11

You?re too right Faser, it is about time for some REAL naming and shaming rather than plain scapegoating but unfortunately it may just be wishful thinking, I will dig deeper and try to find out some names though. With regards the number of flats, I suppose the council was trying to throw everything, and the kitchen sink, at the enquiry in an attempt to have WGH demolished. Shows how much they actually care about housing and how much they care for personal vendettas! Especially when it was them who were deceptive when they sold it and them who gave planning permission for the mass and structure of WGH with full knowledge of its impact and position with regards the concrete house. PS: I don?t think you?re at all far off with the lining pockets theory, Southwark council has it written all over them.

My only agenda is adding some truth to this thread which is full of biased fictions and rumours Jeremy, in fact it is exactly that which seems like an ?agenda?! Why do you ask? What?s yours?

Well, speak of the devil?.. I find it amazing how a local councillor can be so inconsiderate and blas? especially regarding actual incidents, and continue maintaining such a false fa?ade! In answer to your questions Siduhe the comment you refer to above was made by Councillor James Barber, a man not too well versed with the topics he likes to discuss, nevertheless, these are the facts: Mr Laxman, on the third attempt by the council to CPO the concrete house simply filed an opposition with regards the piece of land which is a garden adjacent to both WGH and the Concrete house, and NOT to the CPO of the concrete house itself. At this point Mr Laxman was instructed by Chandra to appeal as a method for remuneration of debts owed to him by Chandra. However, it becoming clear that on the balance an equitable level of remittance was improbable, the opposition was withdrawn. There was absolutely nothing during the entire CPO process that suggested the claim Barber makes, and that is why an accusation of this kind certainly comes under defamatory, an illegal offence which someone who speaks so vehemently in public domains should be more aware and responsible of. In fact, even the public enquiry found in favour of Mr Laxman, and this suggestion was evidentially dismissed by the inspector. Even more amazingly the discussions on the first page of this thread relate to the selling of WGH and apparent lease holders and their so called troubles and woes post purchase ?... Whereas the fact is; Neither WGH nor any of its flats have EVER even been marketed to sell since they were built and have been under the sole proprietorship of Mr Laxman since existence to present. It is thus fathomable how speculative rumour and hearsay when discussed amongst people in a lynching mode can seem like fact. In response to Barber?s comment; YES we are discussing bad sales by Southwark council over 12 years ago, but some people are still having to bear the cost, and the infamous legacy, of such mistakes!! A concept a politician such as yourself perhaps may not be so familiar with, seeing as you can cause all the damage you want with no accountability and then wash your hands of everything 4 years later. PS do you really think you can wonder along on different threads and post fictitious ?speculations? with the prefix words ?probably? or ?to my knowledge?, as a disclaimer for the rubbish that follows, and never be called up on it?!

heritagematters : You paint a rosy and na?ve picture about public servants and bodies, yes no large public bodies are perfect; fair enough, but some more than others are FAR from it i.e. Southwark Council. Surely you are not as ignorant as you make out, but, it?s not too far fetched a possibility. So your definition of affordable homes would be spending hundreds of thousands on a wasted public enquiry, two previous incorrect CPO?s (due to incompetence and incorrect applications), with a pi?ce de r?sistance of one and a half million pounds of public money to restore an arguably ?nice building?? If it was soo nice and important, and they had had this vision before, what took so long to take action?! There was no self-consideration when it was allowed to fall into disrepair under the council?s own ownership (over 15 years), and then it took 13 years to Compulsory Purchase from Chandra after the underhanded sale where he was unaware of its imminent listing! Lastly, I don?t think your link has anything to do with the subject matter of this thread and I would not want to unfairly comment until I have conducted my own investigations as I have for this Concrete House saga.

Prior to replying to the points raised, I would like to emphasize the absolute importance of discussing factual and documented instances in this saga, and being very careful so as not cause defamation of an individual or infringe their libel rights as a consequence of subjective speculation, which I might add has been strife in the earlier pages of this thread. @ heritagematters: firstly I?d like to note you seem to know about this case and yet have a very biased opinion (acting free agent maybe?) anyway I will respond categorically; 1. Do NOT refer to the damage of the Concrete house under ?Laxman?s? ownership. It is objectively true and corroborated in the enquiry, that the ownership was always Chandra?s since the Council?s sale and then the council?s ownership following the CPO in 2010. This perpetual ignorance as regards ownership is merely your own subjective supposition. 2. The Concrete House had been sporadically vandalised by squatters and alike for many years. I do not think it concerns graffitist and other vandals who the owners are at any given moment. In fact all the antique stain glass windows were stolen from the concrete house under Chandra?s ownership, something any owner would be extremely unhappy about. Also, to be honest, if the owner did cover the entrance with blocks of concrete etc to stop further damage, it wouldn?t be so unreasonable to assume such; furthermore I think your sarcasm hardly shows an intellectual or objective attitude. Thus regards your last point; you perhaps may not be as intelligent as you think either, if not as stupid as you assume I think? 3. With regards the 6 flats of White Gothic House; you are right in saying that the original planning permission was for 4 flats, however the enquiry was shown how Building Control passed ?6 flats? (quote) in their numerous inspection reports, again, at every stage of its development! Therefore, surely Laxman is not solely to blame (easier target though, right!?). Finally, and conclusively, the Inspectorate has granted Planning permission for the 6 flats in his decision at the enquiry, so your point is rather point-less. @ Siduhe: my advice on subjective conjecture applies to you too, especially after reading some of your extremely uniformed, inflammatory and defamatory statements in early posts of this thread. Thus, hardly surprisingly, you again misunderstand. In response to your point; the CPO was an entirely different subject to WGH as the CPO was only for 1. The Concrete House and 2. The adjoining landscape land. Mr Laxman was acting as agent for Mr Chandra in trying to oppose the purchase of the adjoining land (not the Concrete House) as instructed, due to further monies owed by Chandra to him. However Laxman ceased acting on Chandra?s behalf when it became apparent he would not be compensated for his previous debt or expenses incurred during CPO process. To be CLEAR, Laxman has never had any ownership of the concrete house and only bought the adjacent land (WGH land) from Chandra in 2000. @ Faser71: I think you?re on the right lines regarding what one should come to expect from the incompetent and deceptive Southwark Council. My opinion? their ethos is as slippery as slime; with perhaps at best, very questionable characters running what can only be described as a chop-shop type outfit. I also concur, I find it completely incomprehensible how the council and their agents/officer?s have no duty of care or good faith, and ?enjoy? such high protection in terms of liability. Theses people have too much more power than they deserve or are qualified for, with no responsibility or fair process by which to call them up to answer for their ample and gross misconducts.

After detailed and in depth investigation for a case study I have conducted into the White Gothic House and Concrete House saga; the following are my findings, all with factual evidence available on request. The Council sold the concrete house after owning the building for over 15 years and allowing it fall into disrepair and deteriorate significantly under their own ownership. Subsequently, they presumably realised they did not want to have to deal with it, and realising a developer would not purchase it with knowledge of its imminent grade 2 listing; decided to omit that information and pursue a quick sale. This was not only deceptive but an outright swindle, as the value of the property was significantly decreased after the sale due to the listing that was subsequently applied and granted. An investor named B Chandra had unwittingly purchased it and over the years made numerous applications to demolish it, as its condition even then had made it a non-economically viable development. In fact, prior to the sale of the concrete house the council?s own surveyors reported the property as ?unviable to restore?!! Planning permission was given for the construction of White Gothic House adjacent to the Concrete House in 1994, however there was no S106 agreement in place to tie the WGH planning permission to the obligation of restoring the Concrete House. For those with little planning experience or knowledge, A section 106 agreement would be the first logical and obvious step for the council to have taken if such an arrangement was in place; and its non existence is more than a testament to the council?s incompetent and inept conduct throughout this saga. It also casts serious doubt over whether there ever was such an obligation upon the developer to restore the concrete house, in return for permission to construct WGH. Unorthodox to say the least!! The pubic enquiry held in 2010 for the proposed demolition of WGH was lost by the council and planning permission was granted by the Planning Inspectorate (Secretary of State) in favour of Reg Laxman. It was found and upheld at the enquiry, that Mr Chandra had sold the WGH land to Mr Laxman as remittance for debts owed to him which had been unpaid, and though he had intended to join Mr Laxman in partnership, (thus the same Business address), he left England permanently due to bad health and to escape other debts, including further monies owed to Mr Laxman. Furthermore, the enquiry also was presented with evidence of Building Control?s consent and approval for WGH at every stage of its construction; and with regards to its proximity to the concrete house, the discrepancy is relatively minute and was due to slightly incorrect plans, missed by all party?s including the developer, the council and BC. It was in fact in the presiding inspector?s own words, and I quote as per the decision notice; ?the council?s evidence, especially the officer?s, was contradictory and inconclusive? Unfortunately after having read all the unapprised commentary on this thread, I thought it would be in the interests of good sense and fairness that I share the actual facts surrounding the case. I had personally attended the enquiry and was amazed to see my opinion of the council and Mr Laxman reversed. Mr Laxman had a very strong argument and the council deservingly lost their case, at again an extreamly high and unnecessary cost to us taxpayers!! Surprised anyone? That?s Southwark council for you anyway. Furthermore it has actually been 21 months since the council?s compulsory purchase of the concrete house and have only in the last month or two started works! Anyone sense any of the old- pot calling the kettle black syndrome again?. Or chronic council-itis lol PS: I do know this is my first post on EDF, and I?m sure I will have some ?veteran blogger? interrogate me on my ?interest? in this story or ?where I?ve come from?, however I would like to reiterate that investigative facts speak loader and truer than speculative hearsay, and all facts can be corroborated with information available in the public domain or I can send relevant documents to those who want it.