Update on 549 lordship lane (Concrete House)

[Michael Palaeologus]

I think that the pineapple building idea is better for a research project.

Anybody who has yomped around the Roman remains of the Med will know that the Romans used concrete. It is a bit strange, but a fact. I have been informed of this by any number of orange, sun-glasses and scarf wearing middle aged female tour guides (because they all are) in Italy, France, Greece and Turkey.

The concrete house should be turned into an M&S Food. Clearly.

[Gen17]

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Gen17,

>

> To answer your second question - the separation in

> the registered title means that the Council would

> only be granted a CPO over the original concrete

> house, not the newer building behind it. I suspect

> the reason for the separation in title is a bit

> more prosaic - it would have been almost

> impossible for the residents of the new building

> to get a mortage if there were oustanding breaches

> of covenant in the freehold in respect of the old

> house (for example to keep it in good repair etc).

> Splitting the title would have given the owner an

> opportunity to free the new title from any

> covenants which only relate to the old house (save

> where these are for the benefit of the old house,

> like right of access to do emergency works etc).

The new seperated title deed refers to it as land not a house/flats (although there are four deeds for that plot that you can potentially buy for ?3 each, called flats 1-4 but when bought only list them as land). The last time the land resistry updated it was in 2000 though, before the flats were even constructed. But the craft buggers seperated the land then!

It appears they were all sold to a Reg Laxman who I can only assume is Barballa Chandra's (owner of 549) business partner as they share the same mailing address in Croydon. The flats do not appear to have changed ownership since (checking rightmove for sale transactions), so I wonder if they are being let out? But I am shocked they are aloud to do that when the flats were clearly put up in breach the planning permission (which would only allow the flats if 549 was repaired and also made into habitable accomodation) and in my mind that makes them illegal. Perhaps they cannot sell them because of the breach of planning hanging over their heads?

My real concern is this...if the council are successful with a CPO they want it reinstated to residential use. But the new site boundary runs about 1 meter around it so there would be no gardens and those lovely large windows will just look out onto a fence.

If I have time this weekend I will scan the title map and post it so you can all see how drastic the split of the site really is. These men need taking to court!

[Huguenot]

Gen17, that's terrific work.

I truly hope these b@stards get nailed.

I also hope that the council can show some teeth. This is precisely the kind of issue that social structures are there to protect against. We need success in this situation to give respectability to the council's decisions in more contentious areas.

[Carrie]

The land registry title would not specify the building that was on the land. The title is to the land itself. However, if a property is converted into flats and the flats are sold then each flat would get a separate leasehold title but the freehold title would remain (with the leases noted on it). If the flats are just being rented out and have never been sold since the conversion then there would be no separate leasehold titles and therefore no note on the freehold title so you would get no clue from the title that the building had been converted into flats.

[bob]

Gen 17 fantastic work and like Huguenot hope they get what they deserve can we get the council envolved some how.

Bob S

[Gen17]

I have had discussions with the council who cannot discuss the compulsory purchase order but referred me to English Heritage. As you all know, the building is grade II listed and is on the heritage at risk register.

An investigation into the feasibility of the CPO and subsequent handover to a heritage trust for the repairs was undertaken over the summer (2008) and the case aparently now rests with whether the goverment will fund the CPO. The only option allowable for the building is for it to be returned to residential use - be that as one household or convernsion into flats. Perhaps we should be writing to our local MP to stress the case for why the money should be made available???

But this land title bit still worries me. If the CPO would only get the house - it would have literally NO garden and all those lovely windows would look out onto a 6ft high fence surrounding the building, very close. Not very desirable to live in. I think we need to get to the bottom of that land seperation, whether the new building can be ordered to be demolished for breach of planning and whether the whole site could still be considered a whole for the CPO. Could that title/land seperation be deemed invalid due to the blatant breech of the planning approval. More work, me thinks...

[bob]

Gen17

Could the person that breeched the planning regs be brought to book and made to pay???

Bob S

[Gen17]

The law certainly implies that they have acted illegally and in my mind, that means the building (new flats) should be pulled down and that the registered owner of 549 Lordship Lane should be brough to trial. The council need to apply the law and get tough.

All this cr@p about not being able to contact the owner is rubbish. Half an hour spent on the internet will show anyone where he and his business partner (the owner of the new flats and also his supposed agent) both live in Croydon. Anyone that does that search will also see that the pair of them are obviously dubious landlords as some of their tenants had to take them to court to ensure a 'right to manage' for their flats in Esher. Quite how they managed to slip through the courts during that case in 2007 without being brought to rights over the house in Dulwich for which various legal notices existed is beyond me! Here is an extract copied from buildingconservation.com regarding enforcement:

"It is a criminal offence to carry out any works of alteration or extension to a listed building in any manner which would affect its special interest, internally or externally. So too is the demolition of all or part of a listed building or of a building in a conservation area. Carrying out such works without permission leaves the owner, developer and building contractor liable to prosecution, fines and even imprisonment. The local authority can also require the person responsible to restore the building to its state before work commenced or to carry out works to mitigate the effects of the damage under a 'listed building enforcement notice'.

Where a building which is listed or in a conservation area is allowed to fall so far into disrepair that it is at risk, local authorities are able to serve an 'urgent works notice'. This enables the local authority to carry out any works which are 'urgently necessary' and then recover the cost from the owner. However, urgent works notices can only be served where buildings are unoccupied or on those parts of a building which are unoccupied.

Further powers are available under a 'repairs notice' where a listed building is not being properly preserved. If no action is taken as a result, the local authority may then seek the authorisation of the Secretary of State for a compulsory purchase order. In those rare instances where the threat of acquisition is insufficient to prompt action, the local authority can acquire the building for immediate sale to a building preservation trust."

I believe that the council have proposed the compulsory purchase order and have a conservation charity/trust waiting to take on responsibility for the works, but it is now down to government funding - the secretary of state.

I wonder how the criminal charges against the current owner need to proceed? Do the public need to lobby not just to get the CPO through, but also to get the council to start the legal proceedings against the owner too? Is there a concerned lawyer in the Dulwich area reading this that can advise?

[bob]

Gen 17 Do I under stand correctly that the new build is ilegal if so why and which council dept should be dealing with this

Bob S

[redrouge]

Gen17,

I think I love you.

[Gen17]

Thanks Redrouge!

In answer to your question Bob...

This is what I have uncovered today using the Southwark Council advanced planning search tool...The owners applied five times between 1997 and 1998 to demolish the original building and construct new flats, each time it was refused. In 1999 the following application was granted (application no. 99/AP/1958):

Conversion of existing building into 5 self contained flats and erection of a two storey building of 4 self contained flats and associated car parking.

Neither is exclusive of the other, so there is a breech of the planning permission and I'm not an expert, but I think the new build is illegal and should not be occupied...perhaps the council have a right to insist it is pulled down too.

In addition to that planning permission, a listed building consent should have been obtained - and I dare say that would have listed the conditions placed upon the planning permission. I can't find that on the internet though....might need to go into the council offices to prove it.

I got a book out of the uni library today (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monumnets by Charles Mynors). It focuses on the the legal position surrounding them. I haven't had time to read it in full yet, but it might suggest a way forward and I will, of course, update you all as soon as I can.

[bob]

Gen17 The council should make you head of planing enforsment cos who ever it is, ani't cutting it.

Bob S

[Jah Lush]

Good work Gen17. I hope the owners get what's coming to them.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Splendid work Gen17. There's a post going at the top of the Met Police - have you thought of applying?

[bob]

Gen17

Any more new's

Bob S

[Gen17]

Good evening everyone. Hope you are having more exciting Saturday nights than me!

I am currenly burried in my building heritage coursework which, you'll be pleased to hear, revolves around formulating a conservation plan for 549 Lordship Lane.

Although some good is coming out of my deadline....I still haven't had time to find the rope with which the current owner is hanging himself.

But rest assured, I will find it!!! I have the book that will give me the answers.

When I do, I suspect we will need to write to the council to insist that they investigate the matter.

My coursework deadline is Friday 12th December, and after that I will be able to devote myself to the legal side of the matter.

I will be back with more as soon as I can.

Gen

[Nero]

A sleuthing town-planning guru - could be the basis for EDF's own, quirky take on Poirot/Miss Marple. See you on Broadway......

[bob]

Gen17 any help you need if I can help I will keep up the good fight agains't these Rackman typ developers.

Bob S

[billb]

RE PP SNR

He lived at 19 Manor Mount in Forest hill (the same house in the the youtube clip).

B

[ruffers]

At what point do we decide something isn't worth preserving and just crack on? At some point it's not an academic issue and is a real world, junk house at the end of the road, becoming a problem real thing.

Ideal world - one thing. Let's just get on with it.

[bob]

ruffers why should the present owner think he can get away with not complying with his original proposell.

Bob S

[Gen17]

I completely agree Bob. If the house is ever knocked down - and I sincerely hope it isn't - then it shouldn't be during his ownership and for him to profit from. It is clear what his intentions have been all along - to destabilise the building, force it's demolition and build new flats. As if the area needs any more bloody flats!!!

Anyway, if the owner gets his own way then it just encourages other corrupt developers to think they can get away with destroying pieces of architectural heritage to make way for bland, poorly constructed, shoe-box sized flats. I know what I'd rather look at and/or live in.

By the way - I'm back! Took a short break over Christmas, but the research starts again tomorrow.

I have a book that is 4.5" thick that I hope will tell us how to up the anti.

[bob]

Gen17

I really must congratulate you on your effort's in pursuing this outrage of abuse of planning reg's for personal gain by this individual, at no time has this person ever had the community or indidenus population of the area in consideration I also feel that the local council have let us all down by not vigorously enforcing regulations, keep up the good work.

Bob S

[Jah Lush]

Seconded what Bob said. And well done again for the good work Gen17.

[????]

100