Concrete House Lordship Lane - Public Inquiry

[fazer71]

Ah should never have been given the grading as it's a complete heap.

(A monument to incompetence).

I would love to see the council figures on cost etc once the deal is completed with a developer. (but we tax payers will never know the cost to us)

I?d take a bet on it being a good few years before it adds anything to the housing stock of the borough.

We?ve had to put up with the visual blight and empty plot for 13 years, how many more?

Could well be a CRACKING (hoho) deal for someone.

I think if I was a developer I wouldn't touch it with a mile long barge pole unless I got it cheap, and if I understand it the freeholder will get the market price.

The real problem is that action was not taken years ago.

Fingers crossed hey??

[James Barber]

Hi fazer71,

Southwark has over 5000 empty properties. They have to be severe for te council to follow compulsory purchase route and they attempt to persuade property owners a lot before taking legal action.

I they didn't people would suggest the council was legal happy.

Other European countries take a different approach of land taxes. You don't get land banks as as result and people get on and use land.

[fazer71]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Other European countries take a different approach

> of land taxes. You don't get land banks as as

> result and people get on and use land.

I 100% agree with you.

We have bad system OMG 5,000 empty properties! A disgusting waste of resources and this concrete house is a prime example of all that is bad in our system.

That together with council planning committees who insist on refusing planning redevelopment and restricting the development of the existing housing stock it?s no wonder that we have a lack of affordable housing.

Contrary to popular belief we have the land, only not the intelligence to use what we have.

Just look at the low rise nonsense which covers twice the amount of land needed to the benefit of nobody! The no go zone open spaces. Look nice but never used!

All visual and not practicality well not for people / families ?.

[Huguenot]

fazer71, I'm glad to say that you're in a very small minority if you believe that we should demolish our cultural heritage and build on green land.

You've also been pretty poorly informed if you think failing to do this is what caused the housing crisis.

[Lynne]

It's been over 30 years, to my knowledge

Lynne

[Louisa]

God is this still going on? :-S

I can't understand for the life of me why it takes so damn long to do do anything in this country.

I was all for saving the property and seeing it put back to its former glory, but tbh that patch of land is such an eyesore I'd be happy to see ANYTHING happen with it! (little waitrose anyone? Kidding of course .. Such fun :)))

Louisa.

[Lynne]

I understood that permission was given for the new(ish) adjoining part on the understanding that the rent was used to renovate the old part. Is this just an urban myth? And I would like to join with all the people who feel it's a disgrace that for over 30 years it's been allowed to fester and rot. it's lucky no-one has been hurt by its collapse

Lynne

[fazer71]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> fazer71, I'm glad to say that you're in a very

> small minority if you believe that we should

> demolish our cultural heritage and build on green

> land.

>

> You've also been pretty poorly informed if you

> think failing to do this is what caused the

> housing crisis.

If you believe this Cracking Crumbling Concrete Cancer excuse for a JOB for the boys is worthy of being part of our ?cultural heritage?.

.

.

Then we?re all Fooked !!!

If NOT (like me) then we?d all be in a far better place both at home and at work and with our hard earned tax money.

FFS this has been a property crime ever since the day it was poorly built ?.

IT is / will be a Monument to British housing INCOMPETENCE ..

LOL

[Sue]

Lynne Wrote:

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

> I understood that permission was given for the

> new(ish) adjoining part on the understanding that

> the rent was used to renovate the old part. Is

> this just an urban myth?

xxxxxx

The sad saga has been discussed at great length on this forum!

If you do a search on "concrete house" the other threads will probably come up?

[heritagematters]

Dear all

Southwark Council have taken considerable risk in securing this building enabling its conservation and re-use and deserve congratulations, not least for saving it for the nation and arranging it to be taken on by a Housing Association to provide much needed affordable homes.

The building is iconic of Victorian endeavour and technical innovation filling an important place in the history of the development of concrete technology in the World, but also exploring the relationship of architectural style with the 'new' material which would, in the next century, find its own style in the simplicity of the Modern Movement in Architecture. It matters to keep it for future generations to enjoy its picturesque presence alongside St Peters Church, probably by the same architect Charles Barry Junior whose father designed the Palace of Westminster alongside Pugin. Without our heritage we would have no frame of reference or sense of identity as a people, just visit other countries to see how rich our heritage is.

Its a cracker in every sense!!:)

[fazer71]

heritagematters that's Very funny ....

New material which the Romans used and invented!

It's a mistake by Drake a Monument to British housing incompetence.

A waste of tax payer money even if we spend ?1 on it.

[heritagematters]

..and a technology which was lost when the Romans' left Britain, hence 'new'.

you have your opinion but I dont think most people here share your views.

...presumably you would say our Cathedrals are a monumerntal waste of time to upkeep, most of which took a generation to build and using technology which was, in your enlightened view, a monument to british church building incompetance because the way cathedrals were developed was only learned by trial and error after many collapses.

[fazer71]

You can't compare a Cathedral to the Concrete house.

If it was such a great monument then I would be happy for it to become a museum to concrete construction at least that would educate on how it shouldn?t be done.

But it?s going to become a compromised bit of over priced social housing.

Only the repaired exterior visible, it might as well be a plaque on the outside stating.

?On this site stood Drakes mistake.?

If it was your money you wouldn?t waste it on this.

But it?s tax payer money so that?s ok.

Exactly how much is this going to cost us tax payers?

[heritagematters]

...i take it your not a fan of concrete then?

[fazer71]

I love concrete it's a fantastic building material, only the Co2 impact on the environment in the cement manufacturing process is a problem.

What I?m not a fan of is the cost of this concrete house to tax local payer what real benefits are there to us / the community it?s been 30 years wasted empty and now it?s going to be compromised social housing and for the plot size it?s a very poor use of the land.

Pull it down and build a good concrete house fit for purpose.

[heritagematters]

I can respect your views but personally, I disagree. for me there is a massive added value to social housing when its bringing back to use a part of our history and heritage

the story the building tells is the real story of how concrete developed. thats like the value of a sketch by a respected artist - imperfect but perfect for all that.

in my opinion, a cracking good building. let it be restored!:))

[Siduhe]

There's a really good point of principle to treat the building this way as well (although it's not necessarily pragmatic, which I think is fazer71's point).

A potted summary of this building's history is as follows (based on my understanding from public sources):

The original concrete building falls into some disrepair, gets listed, is sold and the developer is granted planning permission for the site on strict condition that he restore and maintain the existing building alongside building his new building. Developer doesn't do that. He builds his new building (which also doesn't comply with planning permission) does nothing to the existing concrete building (which wasn't as bad as it is now) in fact just allows it to decay so that he can come back in a few years (which he duly does) to say that the requirement to maintain the building is too onerous so can he just knock it down and build something new.

The developer also has a publicly available history (discussed on the old thread on this subject) of doing the same thing on similar sites, as well as knocking down existing structures and building without planning permission and in breach of court orders.

When challenged on this by Southwark, the individual developer is said to have pretended in public court proceedings to be "a representative" of the owner/developer using a different name (this is all discussed on one of the old threads on the forum - will see if I can find it after the great thread cull of 2011, so worth having a read) rather than admit in person to being the owner. Someone also posted that he had to unwind all the sales he made of the flats in his new building (White Gothic house) after planning permission was withdrawn, and after he again pretended to be someone different from who he is in court proceedings.

Faced with someone who legally owns a property but appears to be willing to flout the laws and agreements he originally signed up to, I can see why Southwark want to hold the line on this - to set a clear precedent to other developers who might think about doing the same thing in the hope that "pragmatic" reasoning allows them to ignore their obligations. If Southwark knocked the building down, that would allow any other developer to use the same line against Southwark in similar circumstances.

[fazer71]

All very expensive to the tax payer.

If it has real historical significance and value then fine.

But the laws covering enforcement etc are not up to the job.

If the owner was able to play fast and loose the system it allowed him for far too many years.

Will this experience change anything?

It?s still a catalogue of incompetence and unnecessary expense on Southwark part.

And in the end for not a lot?

[Sue]

Well I like it, and I'm happy for some of my tax to go towards restoring it.

:)

[fazer71]

I was wondering what is happening with the Concrete ?financial black hole?, ?Drake Mistake / Monument to British Concrete housing incompetence? House?

[ruffers]

A load of scaffolding was delivered there yesterday.

[James Barber]

My understanding is that the appeal the owners made they lost. Southwakr made the compulsory purchase and then sold it immediately to a sympathetic developer.

Yes, some officer time was spent on this. But all that time was deducted from the price paid to the owner.

If my mmemory is correct the coalition govt are planning on making empty properties easier to compulsory purchase. And with over 5,000 such empty homes Southwark could really start to solve its housing shortages.

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> If my memory is correct the coalition govt are

> planning on making empty properties easier to

> compulsory purchase. And with over 5,000 such

> empty homes Southwark could really start to solve

> its housing shortages.

xxxxxxxx

(tu)

[jimmah]

Yep I'm with Sue I like the house, and it's really made my day that Southwark have managed to give it a future.

Good luck to the new developer who I hope will make a success of it.

[dwhite11]

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.