Update on 549 lordship lane (Concrete House)

[bob]

Kyrian

I think there is some info about Mr choudry on the start off this thread

Bob S

[kyrian]

"whereabouts unknown" is about the only thing I can find :(

K.

[bob]

Kyrian

I seem to remember some thing about Croyden.

Bob S

[lozzyloz]

The Architects' Website

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Great news

[thebeard]

UTTER nonsense

Yet another fine example of Council PLANNING Stupidity!

This building should have been demolished years ago!

And rebuild using new modern materials.

WHY on earth anyone in their right minds would want to save a concrete cancer rot box I have no idea it would serve no purpose.

What is the POINT ??????

THIS could have been sorted many years ago rather than be allowed to turn into a planning farce.

DISGUSTING waste of tax payer funds and a DISGUSTING waste of a brown field site which could have been put to much better use.

Again I say another fine example of Council PLANNING Stupidity!

Better late than never.

What about the owners rights and what he will get paid in all of this STUPIDITY?

[bob]

Thanks Lozzyloz

Bob S

[lenk]

thebeard Wrote:

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

> UTTER nonsense

>

> Yet another fine example of Council PLANNING

> Stupidity!

>

> This building should have been demolished years

> ago!

>

> And rebuild using new modern materials.

>

>

> WHY on earth anyone in their right minds would

> want to save a concrete cancer rot box I have no

> idea it would serve no purpose.

>

>

> What is the POINT ??????

>

> THIS could have been sorted many years ago rather

> than be allowed to turn into a planning farce.

>

>

>

> DISGUSTING waste of tax payer funds and a

> DISGUSTING waste of a brown field site which could

> have been put to much better use.

>

> Again I say another fine example of Council

> PLANNING Stupidity!

>

> Better late than never.

>

> What about the owners rights and what he will get

> paid in all of this STUPIDITY?

Have you heard of the Chinese Cultural Revolution?

Yeah, let's get rid of old stuff! It's like, old...

[kyrian]

Indeed.

Someone's obviously never heard of the (although misquoted axiom) 'be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send' on the internet.

It is right that a historic building should be preserved, the waste and annoyance comes because nobody will stand up and do something about it, instead of just letting the building become the 'rot box' you describe.

Its slow deterioration is down to neglect, and perhaps the odd push from the owner here and there. It is the 'odd push' that I am sure infuriates many of us, and the results of the aforementioned that infuriates others.

Anyway, I'm glad to see at least the _appearance_ that the council has finally done something.

I'm annoyed that it probably means I can't have it, but at least something _seems_ to be happening for the better.

Let us hope that it does not come to nothing, like previous "appearances".

[thebeard]

lenk Wrote:

> Have you heard of the Chinese Cultural

> Revolution?

>

> Yeah, let's get rid of old stuff! It's like,

> old...

Yes I have and I agree with you.

BUT this Concrete house could have been made structurally sound and been repaired ages ago rather than have been left to rot for years.

Besides it is hardly the same as scriptures manuscripts paintings jewels.

What will now happen is that an army of restoration specialists will spend ten to twenty times the cost necessary to make it habitable / usable again.

My point is that if this is such an important building it should have been done many years ago.

I very much doubt that keeping the remaining rotten concrete walls and rotten timber will be to the benefit of anyone except the conservation specialists and the ultra expensive restoration specialists.

To you me and the rest of the population who will ultimately foot the bill for this nonsense we would not have known the difference if it had been rebuilt and rendered over with an identical finish and new timbers underneath.

These specialists will spend an age and a fortune (time and money which would be better spent on real housing need!) to make the house right in all the places which will NEVER EVER be seen by anyone.

It?s NONSENSE!!!!!

Good luck to the specialist and their best mates the contractors ?Jobs for the boys? all on our hard earned money for something which will make not a jot of difference to any of our lives but we will end up paying for in one way or another.

We have already had to suffer the DISGUSTING sight of the dilapidated piece of Dudu for the last god knows how many years.

TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!!

[bob]

The owner of the propty is to blame and he should foot the bill.

Bob S

[thebeard]

bob Wrote:

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

> The owner of the propty is to blame and he should

> foot the bill.

> Bob S

So the owner should be made to pay for a load of UNNECESSARY work, which would benefit no one?

So if tomorrow a committee of Conservation specialists and Southwark planners decided that YOUR HOUSE was of special interest.

You?d be happy to pay for refurbishment of the property to the condition it was in when it was first built out of your own pocket? Say ?200,000+?

IT is the PLANNERS and THE COUNCIL NOT the OWNER who are responsible.

The Councils polity and actions where this house are concerned have blighted the use of the house for many year they have been too slow to put into action a reasonable plan.

What you are suggesting is that IF YOU own a property in LAW it is not YOURS somehow it belongs to the PEOPLE???????????

Bob You?re talking Gonads? m8

Yet more NONSENSE

[Whynniard]

What happen to the stupid house this guy has built right behind it so close that i think it touches at points, will it be knocked down and demolished.....let's hope so? Hopefully it will be purchased at a price that reflects the current property slump !

[Huguenot]

Listed buildings are identified by our appointed nominees as buildings or other structures of special architectural, historical or cultural significance.

The concrete house undoubtedly falls into this category as is demonstrated by the support of so many individuals on this forum.

It would take a particular kind of idiot to think that their views shouldn't be taken into account, but it is understandable that 'cultural significance' would be a subjective issue.

Nevertheless, once we've 'listed' a building the owner and purchaser have legal and social responsibilities to maintain our heritage.

I can understand how frustrated owners would become if their property was listed whilst they were resident, but if you actually buy a house that is already listed, you do so in the fully knowledge of the responsibility you take on.

If you then deliberately let the property go to ruin in order to demolish it and build a block of pre-fab battery chicken coops then you're showing a disregard for your society that calls into question your right to be a part of it.

If others then support this obnoxious behaviour, then quite frankly they are contemptible.

[Jeremy]

Whynniard Wrote:

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

> What happen to the stupid house this guy has built

> right behind it so close that i think it touches

> at points, will it be knocked down and

> demolished.....let's hope so?

Why would you like to see it demolished? It may be a poor copy of the original, but presumablly it can still be put to good use.

[lenk]

thebeard Wrote:

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

> bob Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The owner of the propty is to blame and he

> should

> > foot the bill.

> > Bob S

>

>

> So the owner should be made to pay for a load of

> UNNECESSARY work, which would benefit no one?

>

> Again I say another fine example of Council

> PLANNING Stupidity!

>

Are you the owner?

From your posts I would suggest you seemingly don't know enough about planning to RANT ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET IN BLOCK CAPITAL OUTRAGE

also, who made you keeper of the public purse anyway?

PS It's worth trying annother paper that isn't The Express

[thebeard]

lenk Wrote:

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

> Are you the owner?

>

> From your posts I would suggest you seemingly

> don't know enough about planning to RANT ABOUT IT

> ON THE INTERNET IN BLOCK CAPITAL OUTRAGE

>

> also, who made you keeper of the public purse

> anyway?

>

> PS It's worth trying annother paper that isn't The

> Express

No I?m not the owner thankfully!!!!!!

I would be quite happy if the public purse were used effectively. Which IT IS NOT!

If this property is of such high social historical value then surely it SHOULD have been COMPULSORY purchased LONG LONG AGO!!!!!!

How is it that the owner has been allowed to let it fall into such a disgraceful state.?

I do NOT believe that the OWNER should be made to pay UNLESS he bought it in the full knowledge that it was a building of significant importance.

In this case it appears the planners have failed to implement a suitable process.

And THEY ?the planners? have FAILED in their duty to all of us to protect the property.

Is this because the owner bought it prior to it having any historical value?

If it was then the planners should have bought it and paid the owner the value plus any profit.

A set time period should be in place for such important buildings.

say within 6 months the Council should enforce a purchase at 10% above mkt value.

Why should the owner suffer a financial loss because the property has historical value surely if it?s so important the least that could be done is to pay a fair market rate plus say 10% for the trouble.

I always believed an English mans home was HIS castle not the property of others.

But it appears as TIME goes on what YOU own and what I own is becoming the PROPERTY of OTHERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Busy busy BODIES being busy with the property of Others!!!

[*Bob*]

thebeard Wrote:

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

> But it appears as TIME goes on what YOU own and

> what I own is becoming the PROPERTY of OTHERS

> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand why 'time' is capitalised.

Say the sentence aloud whilst shouting all the capitalised words. Doesn't work for me.

[Ted Max]

Maybe it's the long-standing nature of the current affairs magazine that is at issue.

[kyrian]

Please, let's not have this degenerate into another argument. It's already 7 pages of debate, it doesn't need to be elongated further by pointless repetition of arguments, ESPECIALLY NOT IN CAPITALS.

With all due respect to disabled athletes trying to make the best of their lot, as I once heard 'arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win you still look silly'.

Further, it does not really help that much to elongate it with "me too" postings.

"me too" postings could have been converted into a petition to do something a long time ago, when it would have made a difference, but that never seemed to happen (at least not that I heard about), and the time for it has now passed. (Apropos, http://www.petitiononline.com/)

"thebeard" clearly has his opinion. I disagree, and clearly many others do too. Personally I am in broad agreement with "Huguenot", but clearly we do not need to antagonise "thebeard" any more than he has already wound himself up about this.

I think the gist of the argument for demolishing the illegally constructed neighbour to the concrete house hinges on either:

- that is was constructed without regard for the law.

- that its construction so close to the original coincided with large parts of the original 'accidentally falling off', which is rather suspicious.

- that building it seriously harmed the aesthetic standing of the original and it's 'house on the hill' look which chimes with the look of the similar house from the Psycho movies.

I think we can all agree on the first point, even if we can't agree on the latter two.

K.

[*Bob*]

I like your style, kyrian.

A plea for common sense, consensus and non-aggression... illustrated by way of a poor-taste disabled gag, guaranteed to upset a whole load of hitherto not-bothereds.

[thebeard]

I use Capitalised words in a semi random WAY for the fun of it and to SOFTEN the blurb blurb of my ranting!!!!!

Makes me feel better apologies if it confuses maybe it make what I?ve written require a second read ???

Many readers misconstrue what I?ve written.

Maybe CAPITALS don?t help maybe they are beyond help.

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Listed buildings are identified by our appointed

> nominees as buildings or other structures of

> special architectural, historical or cultural significance.

Was the building Listed before or after the current owner took ownership???

>

> The concrete house undoubtedly falls into this

> category as is demonstrated by the support of so many individuals on this forum.

Just because is has a lot of support does not mean it is worth saving, if every thing which had a lot of support was treated that way a huge number of projects and developments would never happen.

>

> It would take a particular kind of idiot to think

> that their views shouldn't be taken into account,

> but it is understandable that 'cultural

> significance' would be a subjective issue.

>

The circumstances and the TIME take to action the required action should be an important factor. Together with the ?cultural significance?.

It is unreasonable to Blight a property and through SLOW action cause financial problems to any involved party the public purse included.

> Nevertheless, once we've 'listed' a building the

> owner and purchaser have legal and social

> responsibilities to maintain our heritage.

>

Absolutely right TOO. Just get on with the business as rapidly and fairly as possible.

> I can understand how frustrated owners would

> become if their property was listed whilst they

> were resident, but if you actually buy a house

> that is already listed, you do so in the fully

> knowledge of the responsibility you take on.

>

Absolutely!! Agreed

> If you then deliberately let the property go to

> ruin in order to demolish it and build a block of

> pre-fab battery chicken coops then you're showing

> a disregard for your society that calls into

> question your right to be a part of it.

>

What about the OWNERS RIGHTS when the property is blighted and the value is slashed and it takes years for the authorities to make a decision a decision on compulsory purchase has no dead line.

> If others then support this obnoxious behaviour,

> then quite frankly they are contemptible.

If we knew the full circumstances then we?d be in a better position to make a judgment.

BUT

From my experience the self serving conservation and planning professionals are happier for these thing to drag on and ON and ON because they will be employed dealing with the issue..

This I believe is why we are where we are now with this VERY important building.

Is has nothing to do with keeping busy professionals busy busy busy earning a fine salary dealing with problems which should have been sorted many many years ago.

NO NOTHING to do with JOBS for the BOYS ????????????????????????

Every one has to justify their position but lets be REASONABLE !!!!!!!!

This Building should either have been SORTED out YEARS ago . ??? OR been DEMOLISHED

It is a Disgrace all round !

The PLANNERS and THE OWNER/s

The syetem is not COMMON sense and it is NOT SERVING the PEOPLE.

The system is geared to keeping the Profesionals busy in WORK ?

[Huguenot]

So you're aware beardy, the purchaser was aware of the listed status at the time of purchase, and the second building meets all planning requirements.

In fact the planning permission on the new property was conditional on the restoration of the concrete house.

So the purchaser was highly cynical in his approach to the house, and quite deliberately let the concrete house go to rack and ruin in order to force through the building of apartments on the land.

Are your views on the house specific to this building, or do you not believe in the entire listing process and/or maintenance of our cultural history?

Despite your concerns about government, we don't live in a fascist state, and the delays over the compulsory purchase are entirely in line with our democratic systems, and the desire to give full opportunity to the owner to make good on the legal agreement.

The owner was deliberately evasive on the subject of the repairs, claiming that things were underway, and obfuscating the issue to the point of making himself unavailable - 'gone away' - to prevent legal papers being served on him.

[bob]

What Huguenot said.

Bob S

[thebeard]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> So you're aware beardy, the purchaser was aware of

> the listed status at the time of purchase, and the

> second building meets all planning requirements.

>

No I was not aware thank you for enlightening me.

> In fact the planning permission on the new

> property was conditional on the restoration of the

> concrete house.

WHY didn?t the planning permission have a condition that the restoration of the concrete house be carried out before the building of the new property?

Poorly drafted?

> So the purchaser was highly cynical in his

> approach to the house, and quite deliberately let

> the concrete house go to rack and ruin in order to

> force through the building of apartments on the

> land.

As above Poorly drafted planning and not enough legal pressure on the owner to make good his agreement.

> Are your views on the house specific to this

> building, or do you not believe in the entire

> listing process and/or maintenance of our cultural

> history?

I believe there is very good reason to properly manage our architectural heritage I find that in situations like this the system is impotent and should have more powers to move swiftly in order to stop exactly this kind of abuse.

Though it would appear that the poorly drafted planning has left the door wide open.

> Despite your concerns about government, we don't

> live in a fascist state, and the delays over the

> compulsory purchase are entirely in line with our

> democratic systems, and the desire to give full

> opportunity to the owner to make good on the legal

> agreement.

Government is supposed to serve the people BUT many many departments only serve the people at a small fraction with the major function being to serve those who work in the government departments.

Compulsory purchase should be a swift process; reasonable prices and a premium should be paid to give fair compensation to the owner.

From what I have see and heard it is abused by the council, areas are run down and relative values are forced down in order for the council to unfairly purchase the land and property a discount, it?s a disgraceful practice.

The property becomes blighted with the owner unable to sell and they are left battling the council for a fair price, never mind a premium for the inconvenience and hassle.

> The owner was deliberately evasive on the subject

> of the repairs, claiming that things were

> underway, and obfuscating the issue to the point

> of making himself unavailable - 'gone away' - to

> prevent legal papers being served on him.

Again if the planning for the new development had been property drafted the situation would not have occurred.

Is there no other legal way of dealing with such a situation?

If not then there SHOULD be!

I stand by my views that the planners are as much to blame as the owner it is a total DISGRACE a fine example of Professional planning incompetence.