Update on 549 lordship lane (Concrete House)

[Moos]

So... you conclude from the fact of the owner failing to comply with regulations that it was the regulations' fault?

Was this you at school?

Teacher - Beard Mi, come here. Did you or did you not punch Moustache Ma. in the nose during break?

Beard (snivelingly) Wasn't my fault, Miss, his nose got in the way of my fist!

[bob]

Lol

Bob S

[themaninblack]

thebeard Wrote:

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

> I use Capitalised words in a semi random WAY for

> the fun of it and to SOFTEN the blurb blurb of my

> ranting!!!!!

Why capitalise the "Capitalise"? For my money it's not a proper noun. For your ranting to gain an ounce of my respect you should at least use the language properly.

My opinion:

I pay tax like everybody else and this seems money well spent to me. It's much more useful than the speed humps they construct randomly across our borough.

[thebeard]

themaninblack Wrote:

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

> thebeard Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I use Capitalised words in a semi random WAY

> for

> > the fun of it and to SOFTEN the blurb blurb of

> my

> > ranting!!!!!

>

> Why capitalise the "Capitalise"? For my money it's

> not a proper noun. For your ranting to gain an

> ounce of my respect you should at least use the

> language properly.

>

> My opinion:

> I pay tax like everybody else and this seems money

> well spent to me. It's much more useful than the

> speed humps they construct randomly across our

> borough.

WHO caRES about Capitals SssSSS ?

My grammar and speiling are far worsterrr

Yes it's a great way for our money to be spent it justifies the existence of the conservation department and keeps the specialists employed. Charming bunch of people worth every penny for the added value to our lives.

It gives us a dilapidated house on a plot of land which could have otherwise been used lived in / on.

It isn?t as if we need more housing?

Personally I?d rather my TAXES were spent on stopping the TESCO METRO on East Dulwich Road from erecting a most DISGUSTING timber fence for BINS and waste etc topped off by concentration camp style rotating spiked anti climb bars.

Now if the conservation people and the planners could sort out that kind of visual Poo then I?d be happy to pay rather than live in an area which is visually Disgusting in parts dilapidated concreted Cancer house included.

[thebeard]

Moos Wrote:

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

> So... you conclude from the fact of the owner

> failing to comply with regulations that it was the

> regulations' fault?

>

> Was this you at school?

>

> Teacher - Beard Mi, come here. Did you or did you

> not punch Moustache Ma. in the nose during break?

> Beard (snivelingly) Wasn't my fault, Miss, his

> nose got in the way of my fist!

LOL

But you haven?t understood.

And you?ve twisted what I have written.

It would appear the planning permission was poorly drafted.

Most probably down to planning department incompetence.

The owner should not have been able to carry out the new development until he/she had restored the concrete house.

Whatever way you cut it the PLANNING SYSTEM has FAILED

Otherwise we?d all be benefiting from this FANTASTIC concrete HOUSE NOW!

Ahhh the JOY we?d be having looking at such a wonderful architectural JEWEL!!!!

THE added value to the WHOLE of Dulwich would be felt as a warm glow over the whole area it?d be sugar in the visual air, candy for our eyes.

When it is eventually RESTORED I hope it is every thing it is cracked up to be!

And I HOPE it is worth every penny.

It will need to be rather special to make up for the Disgusting sight we have had to endure for the last OMG many years.

Though I FEAR it will be a costly WHITE ELEPHANT.

[Siduhe]

thebeard Wrote:

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

>

> It would appear the planning permission was poorly

> drafted.

> Most probably down to planning department

> incompetence.

>

>

I remember looking at the docs at the time of the first planning permission - if I recall correctly, the owner argued quite persuasively that he couldn't afford to restore the concrete house until the new property had been constructed and sold. He set out a schedule of works that he would do in the meantime to secure the concrete building, but it later transpired that he hadn't actually done all of these (despite saying that he had). That could have been picked up more quickly for sure, but I understand why the Council did what they did with the original planning permission.

[bon3yard]

Take a deep breath Mr.Beard and substitute a few CAPITALS for one or two commas(,). Trust me, it will lend a little more coherence to your until now, rabid and rapidfire rant.

[themaninblack]

bon3yard Wrote:

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

> Take a deep breath Mr.Beard and substitute a few

> CAPITALS for one or two commas(,). Trust me, it

> will lend a little more coherence to your until

> now, rabid and rapidfire rant.

Hear, hear.

[mikese22]

> Personally I?d rather my TAXES were spent on

> stopping the TESCO METRO on East Dulwich Road from

> erecting a most DISGUSTING timber fence for BINS

> and waste etc topped off by concentration camp

> style rotating spiked anti climb bars.

Maybe if we hadn't used our taxes to invade Iraq or bail out the banks or pay for MPs expenses we could have afforded to do both!

Hindsight......

[thebeard]

What EVERrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrR

Though I don?t know what Iraq and mps expenses have to do with this DO you work for Southwark because you appear to have the same twisted view of reality.??

NOTHING will convince me that the professionals involved did a competent job, regardless of what the owner did or didn?t do they have been unable to stop the property from rotting away.

Will anyone get the sack for this incompetence NO.

All of those who believe that the house should be saved should be very angry at the way the council have handled this.

If the owner didn?t have the money (and I?m not sure he should have been paying all the costs of the restoration anyway???) then the council should have stepped in far far sooner.

They alone had the power to make this happen and quite simply they did not.

Whether it?s because of the reasons I mention ie job creation or incompetence who knows.

If the council are not powerful or competent enough then the relevant government department should be responsible and not the local council.

The council look like a bunch of chumps who have been given the run around by the owner.

[kyrian]

Much as I hate to rise to thebeard's trolling...

The land registry for 549 lordship lane shows the owner's details as being at 549 lordship lane.

Postal mail to 549 lordship lane is being returned undelivered.

I know both of these things to be facts.

I would suppose council tax records (if any) and others tell much the same story, or at least would have done until construction on the cream travesty started, and the landowner was forced to come forward (or have it knocked down for being constructed in breach of regulations), which relatively speaking isn't that long ago.

Under those circumstances, although painfully slow, I believe the council have acted correctly.

You may witter about the 'old boys club' being at fault as much as you like, but I would say it did not even come into play (if indeed it has at the present time) until work on the cream travesty started recently.

Even then I imagine that they would have to get a high court judge to give them some form of extra-ordinary dispensation to serve documents to the landowner by nailing them to a board at the front of the property, rather than in person. Surely a lengthy process by any measure.

Unless, of course, you would rather the council started issuing compulsory purchase orders on properties and undergoing work on them without taking full and proper steps to inform the owner that they had done or were going to do so?

[thebeard]

And you all though I rambled on and spoke a load of nonsense

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

LOL

[Moos]

Yes.

Next question?

[Amelie]

The organisation really to blame here is the Diocese of Southwark; it sold St Peter's Church and its vestry (the Concrete House) separately in order to make a quick profit. That should never have been allowed to happen and everyone at the time said so. The church has also in my opinion not been entirely as well looked after as it should have been, what was meant to be temporary scaffolding on one of the buildings has now become permanent and the grounds have never been properly maintained.

[Keef]

Wii regards the house behind it, I think all the flats are actually full, so demolishing that would seem a touch harsh. I've always liked the concrete house, but it's not beautiful anymore, and I can't say as I'd miss seeing the mess that remains there.

[thebeard]

Amelie Wrote:

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

> The organisation really to blame here is the

> Diocese of Southwark; it sold St Peter's Church

> and its vestry (the Concrete House) separately in

> order to make a quick profit. That should never

> have been allowed to happen and everyone at the

> time said so. The church has also in my opinion

> not been entirely as well looked after as it

> should have been, what was meant to be temporary

> scaffolding on one of the buildings has now become

> permanent and the grounds have never been properly

> maintained.

NO NO NO NO

How can you blame the seller ???????? Ridiculous nonsense!

Southwark Council are entirely to blame.

They alone had the powers!

But as with so much Southwark Council touches it was incompetently handled!

They Blight our lives with their incompetence.

IF we only knew the half, of their incompetence and wasteful ways.

[kyrian]

Amelie Wrote:

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

> The organisation really to blame here is the

> Diocese of Southwark; it sold St Peter's Church

> and its vestry (the Concrete House) separately in

> order to make a quick profit.

>

Damn. I always suspected that there was some connection, but it was a bit hard to visualise with a bloody great road in the way. ;*)

Google is being unhelpful on account of there being lots and lots of similarly named churches and vestries, so do you have a reference for that by any chance? Digital is preferable, but 'dead tree' would be fine.

K.

[Keef]

Your facts about St Peter's are not entirely correct. Also, how are they to blame? If you sell your house, should you then be held accountable if the new owners let it go to sh!t?

[Amelie]

The C of E could have placed covenants in the deed of sale to protect the vestry, given that the C of E knew that the vestry was listed. It did nothing despite being the owner of huge numbers of listed buildings.

[Huguenot]

Possibly, it would depend on which had the greater legal weight - a covenant or a listing.

Don't attack me now beard, but I'm wondering what on earth has happened to you to make property such an inflammatory issue for you?

[thebeard]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Possibly, it would depend on which had the greater

> legal weight - a covenant or a listing.

>

> Don't attack me now beard, but I'm wondering what

> on earth has happened to you to make property such

> an inflammatory issue for you?

covenant or a listing etc etc talk of such things means nothing ???.

Huguenot

I have been affected by a Southwark compulsory purchase order which caused my family many years of uncertainty my father has never recovered and the family business which had over twenty employees was never relocated and ceased trading, the amount paid out by Southwark following much negotiation was insufficient.

Over many years I?ve have personal experience of local planning on my own homes and seen the impact local planning has had on friend?s family and neighbours.

I went through an expensive and lengthy planning process for a loft conversion, after spending several thousand pounds it was refused I then discovered I was able to build under the government permitted development rules so the thousands I?d spent with planning professionals had been wasted. Why does the council planning department process such planning applications when they would come under the permitted development rules? I can only guess that it is to keep busy.

I?ve struggled with neighbour?s objections and had planning refused when a neighbour opposite was granted the same loft conversion ? their neighbours didn?t object!? If neighbours object then the planning application will go to the council planning committee this lengthens the process. The rules are fine for large commercial planning applications but it is being used to decide planning on small residential extensions. WHY? I can only guess it is to keep the committee members busy and make them appear to be listening to the local residents.

There are many other examples of such nonsense.

Recently the government implemented new permitted development allowances which should allow us all more freedom to extend our homes but the council has interpreted the new rules in such a way as to further restrict some of the allowances we have. WHY?

I have seen the impact of many of Southwark planning?s decisions.

One example the one-way system in Peckham caused the collapse of the local community many of the shops on and just off of Peckham high street went bust and Peckham became a rather nasty filthy unfriendly place a no mans land, it is still struggling to recover.

I?m a leaseholder of a period conversion flat, Southwark are the freeholder they manage the major works, I have been charged over ten thousand pounds for my half share of recent major works, works which in the real world would have cost two thousand pounds for my share. So I?ve been overcharged by eight thousand pounds, as has the taxpayer as a council tenant occupies the other flat and the council pay that half. The council contractor has carried out unnecessary works to the tune of sixteen thousand pounds! WHY. I can only guess that the contractor is giving the council employee who manages the contracts a brown paper envelope for agreeing to the twenty thousand pounds contract. A contract for twenty thousand pounds of other people?s money allows for a back hander to the council employee and the contractor a nice large margin of profit. I have attempted to fight this but there is no way I can win because interpretation of what was necessary work, there is little I can do to quantify what works were carried out by the contractor. I have little choice but to pay up or sell up. I?ll never win any argument with the council department of professional thieves / incompetents. I guess it could be as bad if it were an independent management company but unlikely.

I like living in the area but overall Southwark council do not improve our quality of life.

My personal experience has been one of a council, which takes a lot and gives very little back.

Southwark appears to be over staffed with lazy incompetent employees.

The quality of housing and the quality of planning and development in Southwark is poor.

Southwark council?s committee members abuse their powers over the planning system. They restrict and delay the rights we all have to extend and build and add to our homes ?Because a few neighbours have nimby usually idiotic objections? this is wrong. Where residential homes are concerned they make the planning process a painful lottery where it should be practical fast and straightforward.

I believe the quality of our housing is directly linked to the quality of our lives and Southwark?s process does nothing to improve the quality of existing housing or help it meet requirements of the local residents.

Southwark?s mismanagement and poor implementation of the planning system has direct costly outcome, financial a psychological to all our lives, it is the one area where they have a very large impact on the quality of our daily lives and from my experience they get it wrong far more often than they get it right.

The planning rules appear to be eased / manipulated to suit housing associations and supermarkets. Why?

The Concrete House is a disgrace I doubt any other council could have made such a meal of it!

I feel like I have spent years in planning for what should be very very simple extensions or loft conversions for no apparent reason other than to keep neighbours and the planners happy. One way or another I end up with what I applied for in the first place so why all the wasted time and dealing with non-planning non-professionals. Ah because I?m in the potty borough of Southwark where everyone gets a say on your business. WHY?????

Hope that helps explain my inflamed attitude towards Southwark and planning.

Cheers.

[Keef]

Doubt it'll make you feel better, but Southwark are no better or worse than most other councils.

[thebeard]

I?m sure other councils are as bad if not worst.

Lambeth was so corrupt I think they are still paying back their debts from the millions spent on works which were never done money which was basically stolen by employees and their contractor mates. I can?t remember if anyone was prosecuted and sent to prison though?

In planning thanks to the government we have permitted development laws and the appeal system I can?t even begin to imagine how much pain we?d be in if they didn?t exist.

Can you imagine what we?d be living in today if the Victorians had to put up with the local planning nonsense that we have to deal with today?

As I?ve said before, if you think the MP?s have their snouts in the trough, the local authority employees make MP?s look like second-rate amateurs. With over sized departments and budgets that are spent on the basis of self-service rather than community service.

Quite unbelievable!

Even more unbelievable when one considers that we have little or no power to change it.

[Huguenot]

Aha!

[Amelie]

@ TheBeard

You do know that you can (and probably should) make formal complaints to the Audit Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life?