Concrete House Lordship Lane - Public Inquiry

[heritagematters]

...all very well to put the record straight but you forgot a couple of points...

1 under Laxmans ownership all the internal floor joists were cut away with a saw to try to get the building to collapse

2 under Laxman's ownership the north west corner was deliberately pulled outwards to try to get the building to collapse

no doubt these acts of vandalism to an historic building were by "unknown parties" and Laxman did everything he could to secure the site??

....well he did. even dropping a huge pile of concrete blocks just inside the gates off Lordship Lane to prevent access. Wonder why he did that? or was that to stop the people who cut away all the floor joists getting?

...oh, and you forgot to mention the two extra flats Laxman built in the White Gothic House without planning consent and that fact he built it lower to try to squeeze them in. Oh maybe those were only minor matters so they are not really important?

Come on, were not as stupid as you think.

[Siduhe]

dwhite11, if you were present at the enquiry, do you have any comment on the feedback from Southwark Council officers (via one of our local councillors) re the identity of the owner and the outcome of the CPO process?

My understanding of this post was the owner pretended, up to and including part way through the enquiry, to be someone else who was acting as the agent of the owner. And the owner then withdrew his opposition to the CPO. Which is quite an odd thing to do, if everything is as clear and straightforward as you suggest.

Can you confirm if the owner (presumably Mr Laxman) withdrew from opposing the CPO or was a decision in respect of the CPO made against him in the face of his active opposition?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,410066,413683#msg-413683

[fazer71]

If what dwhite11 says about the original sale to Mr Chandra is correct and given Southwark?s previous behaviour ?there is a very very high probability it is correct.

dwhite11 Wrote:

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

> 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.

heritage carers what matters is what happened up to and including the underhanded Southwark sale.

From that moment onwards it is no surprise the new owner/s behaved as they did anyone caught in such an unreasonable situation would have done the same.

Who in their right minds would enter into such a loss making deal?

I wonder who in Southwark Council at that time made the ?smart? decision to sell?

A bunch of elected politicians sitting on some committee no doubt with a 4 year view!

It?s a pity the council doesn?t have a duty of care in all their dealings.

As a public organisation they should behave in a reasonable manner but yet again we see them behaving like a greedy arrogant multinational without a care for those who they serve and with underhanded dealings with those they do business with.

Southwark agenda appears be

?Southwark Council workers and elected politicians making your lives more stressful and more expensive, whilst lining their pockets and doing the wrong thing?

Will those who made that disgraceful decision suffer any consequences?

Highly unlikely.

Will the likes of heritage mentalists keep bleating on and on and on?

Highly likely?.

[Lynne]

This is one of the most unsavoury stories of incompetance/misdirection/ (use whatever words come to you own mind) I've ever heard

Lynne

[dwhite11]

Prior to replying to the points raised, I would like to emphasize the absolute importance of discussing factual and documented instances in this saga, and being very careful so as not cause defamation of an individual or infringe their libel rights as a consequence of subjective speculation, which I might add has been strife in the earlier pages of this thread.

@ heritagematters: firstly I?d like to note you seem to know about this case and yet have a very biased opinion (acting free agent maybe?) anyway I will respond categorically;

1. Do NOT refer to the damage of the Concrete house under ?Laxman?s? ownership. It is objectively true and corroborated in the enquiry, that the ownership was always Chandra?s since the Council?s sale and then the council?s ownership following the CPO in 2010. This perpetual ignorance as regards ownership is merely your own subjective supposition.

2. The Concrete House had been sporadically vandalised by squatters and alike for many years. I do not think it concerns graffitist and other vandals who the owners are at any given moment. In fact all the antique stain glass windows were stolen from the concrete house under Chandra?s ownership, something any owner would be extremely unhappy about. Also, to be honest, if the owner did cover the entrance with blocks of concrete etc to stop further damage, it wouldn?t be so unreasonable to assume such; furthermore I think your sarcasm hardly shows an intellectual or objective attitude. Thus regards your last point; you perhaps may not be as intelligent as you think either, if not as stupid as you assume I think?

3. With regards the 6 flats of White Gothic House; you are right in saying that the original planning permission was for 4 flats, however the enquiry was shown how Building Control passed ?6 flats? (quote) in their numerous inspection reports, again, at every stage of its development! Therefore, surely Laxman is not solely to blame (easier target though, right!?). Finally, and conclusively, the Inspectorate has granted Planning permission for the 6 flats in his decision at the enquiry, so your point is rather point-less.

@ Siduhe: my advice on subjective conjecture applies to you too, especially after reading some of your extremely uniformed, inflammatory and defamatory statements in early posts of this thread. Thus, hardly surprisingly, you again misunderstand.

In response to your point; the CPO was an entirely different subject to WGH as the CPO was only for 1. The Concrete House and 2. The adjoining landscape land. Mr Laxman was acting as agent for Mr Chandra in trying to oppose the purchase of the adjoining land (not the Concrete House) as instructed, due to further monies owed by Chandra to him. However Laxman ceased acting on Chandra?s behalf when it became apparent he would not be compensated for his previous debt or expenses incurred during CPO process. To be CLEAR, Laxman has never had any ownership of the concrete house and only bought the adjacent land (WGH land) from Chandra in 2000.

@ Faser71: I think you?re on the right lines regarding what one should come to expect from the incompetent and deceptive Southwark Council. My opinion? their ethos is as slippery as slime; with perhaps at best, very questionable characters running what can only be described as a chop-shop type outfit.

I also concur, I find it completely incomprehensible how the council and their agents/officer?s have no duty of care or good faith, and ?enjoy? such high protection in terms of liability. Theses people have too much more power than they deserve or are qualified for, with no responsibility or fair process by which to call them up to answer for their ample and gross misconducts.

[heritagematters]

well im not trying to justify the Council, like any large public body Im sure they are not perfect. But remember, they are public servants acting in our interests, and have done the right thing to secure affordable homes (5 flats for key workers) and save a rather nice building from loss. There are several cases of Council's owning Listed Buildings and selling them off, only to have to CPO them back after they mysteriously seem to fall apart; http://lovingdalston.co.uk/2011/03/new-hope-for-dalston-lane-terrace/

...oh, one more thing dwhite, this is the same Mr Laxman who was threatened with Jail in Wandsworth?

http://ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/legacy/news/pressreleasedetail.asp?id=6124

I think everyone should read this link before taking any you say too seriously

[dwhite11]

heritagematters : You paint a rosy and na?ve picture about public servants and bodies, yes no large public bodies are perfect; fair enough, but some more than others are FAR from it i.e. Southwark Council. Surely you are not as ignorant as you make out, but, it?s not too far fetched a possibility.

So your definition of affordable homes would be spending hundreds of thousands on a wasted public enquiry, two previous incorrect CPO?s (due to incompetence and incorrect applications), with a pi?ce de r?sistance of one and a half million pounds of public money to restore an arguably ?nice building?? If it was soo nice and important, and they had had this vision before, what took so long to take action?! There was no self-consideration when it was allowed to fall into disrepair under the council?s own ownership (over 15 years), and then it took 13 years to Compulsory Purchase from Chandra after the underhanded sale where he was unaware of its imminent listing!

Lastly, I don?t think your link has anything to do with the subject matter of this thread and I would not want to unfairly comment until I have conducted my own investigations as I have for this Concrete House saga.

[Siduhe]

dwhite11,

I'm certainly happy to be educated - no axe to grind here, although I have also followed the legal process with some interest and am directly aware of some related matters. I may well be not fully informed, hence my question to you but struggling with any suggestion of defamatory, particularly in respect of Mr Laxman (which seems to be your particular concern), as he hasn't been involved in anything I've posted about (so far as I am aware) not least because he wasn't the owner of any of the property at the relevant time.

I'm afraid I'm still a bit confused by your answer though. Agree that the CPO of the concrete house was a separate issue from WGH and note that Mr Laxman has never been the owner of the Concrete House. But my query was specifically about the feedback posted on this board from the CPO hearing:

"On the day council officers were able to prove that the person claiming to be the agent of the owner who allegedly lives in India was and is the owner...The agent/owner then withdrew their opposition, probably under counsels advice, to the Compulsory Purchase Order. The game was up."

So my question to you was whether you know if this happened or not - or does your investigation/attendance only relate to the process at WGH and not to the CPO of the Concrete House? My confusion I think is whether Mr Laxman was acting as Mr Chandra's agent at this point or not. I had understood he was, but I gather you believe not?

[James Barber]

We're talking about Southwark Council selling properties badly over a dozen years ago.

34 East Dulwich Grove could be added to the list.

Equally the new owners were rubbish and caused untold grief to the flat leaseholders - which is probably why the inspector let 6 flats remain.

[dwhite11]

Well, speak of the devil?.. I find it amazing how a local councillor can be so inconsiderate and blas? especially regarding actual incidents, and continue maintaining such a false fa?ade!

In answer to your questions Siduhe the comment you refer to above was made by Councillor James Barber, a man not too well versed with the topics he likes to discuss, nevertheless, these are the facts: Mr Laxman, on the third attempt by the council to CPO the concrete house simply filed an opposition with regards the piece of land which is a garden adjacent to both WGH and the Concrete house, and NOT to the CPO of the concrete house itself. At this point Mr Laxman was instructed by Chandra to appeal as a method for remuneration of debts owed to him by Chandra. However, it becoming clear that on the balance an equitable level of remittance was improbable, the opposition was withdrawn. There was absolutely nothing during the entire CPO process that suggested the claim Barber makes, and that is why an accusation of this kind certainly comes under defamatory, an illegal offence which someone who speaks so vehemently in public domains should be more aware and responsible of. In fact, even the public enquiry found in favour of Mr Laxman, and this suggestion was evidentially dismissed by the inspector.

Even more amazingly the discussions on the first page of this thread relate to the selling of WGH and apparent lease holders and their so called troubles and woes post purchase ?... Whereas the fact is; Neither WGH nor any of its flats have EVER even been marketed to sell since they were built and have been under the sole proprietorship of Mr Laxman since existence to present. It is thus fathomable how speculative rumour and hearsay when discussed amongst people in a lynching mode can seem like fact.

In response to Barber?s comment; YES we are discussing bad sales by Southwark council over 12 years ago, but some people are still having to bear the cost, and the infamous legacy, of such mistakes!! A concept a politician such as yourself perhaps may not be so familiar with, seeing as you can cause all the damage you want with no accountability and then wash your hands of everything 4 years later. PS do you really think you can wonder along on different threads and post fictitious ?speculations? with the prefix words ?probably? or ?to my knowledge?, as a disclaimer for the rubbish that follows, and never be called up on it?!

[heritagematters]

general discussion over blame for the state of the property is getting confused and drifting into complex legal areas. here is a fact:

"Demolition attempt: Horizontal slots have been cut in the walls from the bay windows running around the walls for considerable distances. Being cut from the inside, these slots are perhaps 300mm high at the internal wall face and 50mm on the external face. These will have to be made good with a similar type of concrete. Unfortunately, the demolition attempt succeeded in badly damaging the bay windows. In addition the steel/wrought iron beams spanning over the bay window openings have rusted and caused spalling and means this means that the bay windows will need to be completely reconstructed. Some sections of the original piers between the windows can be salvaged and incorporated into the reconstruction.The northwest corner of the kitchen, which has dropped as a result of the demolition attempt, may be salvageable by jacking back to line and level and bonding the cracks.

From a report by engineers on Lordship Lane.

Any comments on who was to blame for this dwhite? Not vandalism I think. An "inside job" in every sense. Perhaps thats why the pile of blocks were piled inside the gates? Have you "researched" the Wandsworth case yet and found out if it was the same Mr Laxman who was threated will jail in Wandsworth yet?

[Jeremy]

What's your agenda, dwhite?

[dwhite11]

My only agenda is adding some truth to this thread which is full of biased fictions and rumours Jeremy, in fact it is exactly that which seems like an ?agenda?! Why do you ask? What?s yours?

[Jeremy]

Surely after declaring that you've conducted an in-depth investigation for a case study, it's not a strange question to ask what motivated you to conduct such a study. It seems only natural to assume you have had a professional or personal connection to the house.

I don't have an agenda (other than to see a derelict building restored). I'm not the one who's spent a chunk of my life researching the subject!

[fazer71]

We now know what the future is.

Surely the past needs investigation and naming and shaming

Would be interested to know exactly how much this has cost Southwark tax payers and wether we will find out the names of the Southwark councilors and employees who made the original decision of the underhanded sale of the concrete house. A lot of public accountability needed here!

As for the flats I don't see a problem 4,5,6 or 26 we need flats and it looks like they fit in there fine so why would we care? What is the problem with the Southwark planning department it's ok for a housing association to build a 100 of the ugliest flats we've ever had the misfortune to see but if a developer wants to build 6 flats on a site of the same size everyone goes mental!

[Otta]

Why do you people care so much, move on, live your lives.

[Undisputedtruth]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Why do you people care so much, move on, live your

> lives.

It's because people care about their community and pride in their local buildings. If people didn't take an active interest then Dulwich will just end up looking like Croydon or Sydenham Hill.

[Sue]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why do you people care so much, move on, live

> your

> > lives.

>

> It's because people care about their community and

> pride in their local buildings. If people didn't

> take an active interest then Dulwich will just end

> up looking like Croydon or Sydenham Hill.

xxxxxx

Agreed.

[Otta]

You missinderstand UDT, I love the house, and I will be happy to see it restored, but I don't understand these people devoting so much energy to uncovering some big conspiricy.

Oh, and for the most part the buildings in Sydenham, Penge and Forest Hill are far superior to anything in East Dulwich.

[Undisputedtruth]

There's no misunderstanding on my part. You thought you could build a strategic alliance with Jeremy by agreeing to what ever he had said despite his pigeon style to planning in East Dulwich.

I'll let EDF decide if they agree on whether your areas are superior to East Dulwich. I know there are lots of council estates around Sydenham Hill.

The concrete house is the last surviving example of its type and I applaud those who dedicate their time in saving it and undercovering posible conspiracies.

[Jeremy]

Strategic alliance? Pigeon style to planning? UDT, you really are a special case!

I just wanted to know the reason dwhite conducted his "detailed and in depth investigation for a case study". The use of this language would imply some sort of professional/legal, or perhaps academic involvement. He declined to answer.

[Otta]

I never said areas were "better than East Dulwich", that would be a matter of individual opinion and preference. I said for the most part the buildings were, that is a fact because when they were built, the money was up the hill. It's no coincidence that the concrete house is pretty much as close to Forest Hill as you can get and still be in SE22.

I'm not trying to dis Dulwich, I am from there, and it will always be home to some extent. You just can't help yourself trying to pick fights with me, because you are a moron.

[Undisputedtruth]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I'm not trying to dis Dulwich, I am from there,

> and it will always be home to some extent. You

> just can't help yourself trying to pick fights

> with me, because you are a moron.

No, I gave a rational answer to why people cared so much for the concrete house. Unfortunately you can't do rational thinking because you don't know any better and hence your readiness to pitch it as a Otta v UDT fight. Sorry I refused to take part in your small mindedness so I'll continue to argue using facts.

[Otta]

Good for you, well done.

[fazer71]

I explained to an American business colleague about the Concrete House its basic flaws as he was in construction in US.

He said "Buddy sounds like they're trying to repair a cracked china plate that no one wants to eat from?.