Concrete House Lordship Lane - Public Inquiry

[Zak]

The fate of this property has been discussed on the forum in the past and it seems that there's newish

development. Southwark council has made a compulsory purchase order and the owners have

objected (there's a surprise!) and so a public inquiry is going to take place on the 3rd February 2010 at the

Council's offices on Tooley Street SE

1

I've not got the details to hand, but if anyone feels strongly enough about its fate, then it might be worth going

down to see what gives. Doubtless Southwark Council can provide details of the time and exact place.

[KalamityKel]

eh?

[computedshorty]

Strange I was talking to a man who had done lots of work in that house, today.

Here is the house.

[Applespider]

Fingers crossed that the inquiry goes Southwark's way - would love to see both something done to the house and the sods who've contributed to its decay through intentional neglect get what they deserve.

[Zak]

Work being carried out on on 549 Lordship Lane? That's interesting!

The only thing that hasn't been done for the last 10years or so, is any work! Hence the CPO.

I think your picture rather backs this up.

[*Anna*]

I remember actually that about 5-7 years ago some work was done - I heard, whilst living nearby, that the house had so many more problems that visible from the road that it wasnt worth pouring the money in. I think they even built a second smaller house on the far side of the house (From LL) which they were going to inhabit whilst rebuilding. Very sad if you ask me...could be such a beautiful house with a lot of history in and no doubt will be knocked down for modern flats to be built.

[sophiesofa]

This is what James Barber posted a few weeks ago

"Latest news on the Concrete House at 549 Lordship Lane.

Last Thursday I sat on the Dulwioch Community Council Planning Committee to hear two planning application for this site - one for the chanes one related to change and its listed status - effectively the same thing.

After a relatively swift meeting the changes were approved.

This means the CPO with southwark buying the property BUT with a company recommended by English Heritage that now has planning permission to immediately buy it from Southwakr Council. So council tax payers are exposed for the smallest amount of time to this big capital outlay while the property will be amazingly sympatheticially restored into 5 flats.

Goods news all round and an excellent application."

[bob]

Have posted JBARBER on this.

Bob S

[James Barber]

Hi bob,

Public inquiry feedback as I udnerstand it.

On the day council officers were able to prove that the person claiming to be the agent of the owner who alledgely lives in India was and is the owner. I believe this agent/owner subdefuge was to make any CPO much harder to execute. The counsel for the agent was left in a terrible position where they could have appeared to be aiding such mistruths. The agent/owner then withdrew their opposition, probably under counsels advice, to the Complusory Purchase Order. The game was up.

What a terrible waste of the owners money. So the CPO was granted. All Southwark's costs will be deducted from the purchase price given to the owner. Southwark has lined up a developer recommended by English Heritage so the purchase will be sold on stright away. That new developer has already lined up planning permission.

I must say the council officers have done a good job despite what some generous residents have termed a 'slippery owner'.

[woofmarkthedog]

Who approved that terrible "mock goth" house in the grounds

I don't know which looks worse

Yetch

W**F

[KidKruger]

Out of interest - what will the determine the purchase price and will the entire plot be puchased (including the 'mock' house and will the funds to restore the old house (to at LEAST the position it was in when the chap purchased it) be extracted from any moneys before it's handed over to the chap ?

As I understand it the chap bought the land saying he'll renovate the old house up on that basis was allowed to build the other house (which is actually flats ?) so will the new house be confiscated or sold to pay for the renovations ?

[James Barber]

Hi W**F and KidKruger,

The mock goth house was approved but built in an unapproved location - from memory 2m closer to the concrete house than the planning permission stated. Yes, the developer did say they would renovate the concrete house and has since that itme attempt to gain permission to demolish it on a number of occassions providing 'eveidence' it could'nt be renovated.

The flat owners of the 'mock house' have been put in invidious position unwittingly. I know it meant ot be #'buyer beware' but few would ever expect such circumstances.

How is the price determined. I presume a charterred surveyor based on the permissions in place and the state of the property and the legal requirements to renovate a listed building. All CPO's in these circumstance go to a public inquiry to ensure fair play.

The existing 'mock goth' house is being treated as a seperate property and not connected with this. Its owned by diferent parties now. They were promised various car parking in the concrete house grounds which clearly will never happen.

Hope that answers your questions.

[KidKruger]

Thanks James,

I take it then, the chap who purchased the old house and built the new house/flats and promised the parking etc will be PAID for the house ? Can't his freehold of the new house/flats be secured and any costs incurred in getting the house back to at LEAST the condition it was when he started this fraud ?

I trust you will not find my use of the word 'fraud' wholly innaccurate.

Doesn't there have to be a punishment ?

Simply taking ownership of a ruined house that he surely does not want anyway is no real penalty.

Is this guy being prosecuted or is what he did legal !?

[Siduhe]

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> The existing 'mock goth' house is being treated as

> a seperate property and not connected with this.

> Its owned by diferent parties now. They were

> promised various car parking in the concrete house

> grounds which clearly will never happen.

>

From the little I know, the people who own flats in the new "mock goth" ended up going through a very protracted battle to force the owner to sell the freehold to them so they could manage the building themselves, after receiving massive service charge demands which related to the need to maintain the concrete house. The owner and his business partner also tried what sounds to be a similar tactic, saying that the owner could not be contacted to serve papers and the business partner did not have the authority to deal with the property, to hold up the process.

Some of the flat owners said in submissions to the LVT that they had been supplied with inaccurate documentation, including formal documents and letters purportedly from the council (I'm wording that more cautiously than they did) about what facilities would be put on site when they purchased their flats. They were also told the concrete house would be restored, rather than knocked down and more flats built. As Mr Barber says, buyer beware, but if you ask the right questions and get the right answers (supported by documents) and then spend the next four years trying to recover the situation, it's a tough break.

[James Barber]

Hi KidKruger,

The owner has been 'found out'. He's lost control despite vehemently fighting to retain it. He will have spent a fortune and I believe Southwark's expenses will be deducted from the price.

Hi Siduhe,

I do really feel for the 'mock goth' flat owners. I can only guess at how painful and expensive it has been for them. Hopefully things coming to a close for them. They'll have the builders on site for soon and the hassle that goes with that but at least they'll soon not have a ruin next door. If they still have any issues about freehold ownership I could put them in touch with the officers who proved the agent was really the owner.

[bob]

James thanks for all the up date and info as I'v said before good to see a local councillor geting his hands dirty at street level.

Bob

[KidKruger]

"If they still have any issues about freehold ownership I could put them in touch with the officers who proved the agent was really the owner."

Jeez these leaseholders may have gone through the mill properly on this one, poor people, what a nightmare for them.

The 'owner and his business partner' sound like real d!cks. Imagine them being your freeholder ! :-S

[Siduhe]

Thanks James, the freehold issue was sorted in early 2008 under RTM legislation, but as you say, at no small cost. The company I worked for at the time gave pro-bono advice to some of the mock-goth owners, which is how I know a little bit about it.

[WOJB1987]

Does anyone know when this house was last lived in (1970's/1980's) or have any pictures of it when it was in better condition. Would be interesting to know more

Thanks

[ruffers]

The house always puts me in mind of the 'Blink' Doctor Who!

[LocalYokel]

Those looking for pictures of the house in happier times (and some background) should read this article by Heritage of London (who will be responsible for refurbishing it once the CPO is formally approved)

On another point, one Mr Reg Laxman is currently applying for a Lawful Development Certificate for the White Gothic House to avoid it being demolished. Mr Laxman is the sole director of Arbus Ltd which was prosecuted by Wandsworth council for the unlawful demolition of Brtandelhow caretaker's house (another listed, concrete building). Any objections need to be submitted by this Friday.

[LocalYokel]

Sorry to exaggerate - White Gothic House may not be in immediate risk of being demolished, but that could be the eventual outcome if Lawful Development Certificate is denied.

[The Nappy Lady]

LocalYokel,

How do you feel about the White Gothic House being demolished? Just curious, as whilst I think it would serve Reg Laxman right, it would be awful for the existing owners that have had such a dreadful time sorting out leasehold etc.

Legally, is is likely that the Lawful Development Certificate will be denied?

I hate the fact that the flats have been built so close to the Concrete House, it is of course wrong, wrong, wrong but at the same time my heart goes out to those living there.

Just wasn't sure which angle (if any?) your post was coming from?

Molly

[SimonM]

The solicitors/conveyancers who acted for whomever bought/leased the flats in that house would or should have advised them of the uncertain legal status of the house. So I guess they took a gamble and it looks like they may lose, or may at least have some sort of legal redress against whomever built or sold them the flats?

[PeterW]

More background on the house:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/19/victorian-concrete-house

Unlike Heritage London, I never found any evidence it was designed by Charles Barry Jr, but maybe they know better. I think it's an interesting enough story without that. Poor Charles Drake was convinced concrete would catch on but he was about 75 years too early. It would be great to see it restored. Mr Laxman's actions have been appalling throughout.