Concrete House

[geh]

Southwark Planning Register If you're interested the Southwark Planning Register shows an application received on 21st March for the demolition of 549 Lordship Lane ? ?The Concrete House? to be replaced with??.5 self contained flats. The building is Grade II listed.

geh

[mockney piers]

That's so wrong. Time for a new petition methinks....

[Ant]

Someone's got to do something with it, but an anonymous block of flats doesn't seem the right way to go. Couldn't someone do it up? I think that might involve compulsory purchase orders or somesuch, but still... seems such a shame to just let it disappear.

[geh]

This link to EH would seem to indicate that Southwark commenced compulsory purchase proceedings, but it isn?t dated. EH

[batdog]

The concrete house is a grade 2 listed building and probably unique in England and even though listed building can be "demolished", it will not be an easy task especially if an official petition is started .... (tu)

[AcedOut]

There was a grade II listed place opposite Peckham Rye that I notice has now been demolished! I know this well, as I was considering buying it with a view to refurb. The work required would have been huge though, so I guess they felt demolition was the more profitable route.

To be fair though, the concrete house has been in that state for years now, so something must be done! It's a shame that no one has come along to do something with it, but it'd be a huge job...

[redrouge]

Apprantly some American owns it and Southwark Council have been trying to get a compulsary perchase on it for years, but I live on LL and I would be utterly devastated if it was demolished. When I was growing up I always wished I could live there - I still do. Goodness, if I had the money I'd do it up, live there, and live happily ever after.

I think my soul would be torn out if this house got demolished.

[Louisa]

It seems that every single aspect which makes the Dulwich area quite unique in inner London, is being eroded by probably the most corrupt and inept London borough of all of them - Southwark Council. I am sick of this, we recently lost the 350 year old farm laborers cottage opposite Peckham Rye Park next to the old Waverly School, and now we are about to lose one of the most iconic buildings in all of ED - the concrete house... I am genuinely upset about this, how long will it be before we have five story buildings full of flats with no chracter everywhere?

[Ant]

Anyone know what concrete steps (boom boom) we can take to oppose this happening?

[Peckham native]

Not sure how up to date this is English Heritage

I do believe that the owner tried to 'secretly' demolish the building by removing much of the internal structure a couple of years ago leaving the building even more unsafe than it already was. The council sealed the site off.

[Keef]

It would be an awful shame to loose it, I love that building. However, it can't sit there forever looking like it does, so what's to be done? By the way, whilst I'm no fan of Southwark Council, I honestly wouldn't say they're any better or worse than any other London Council. I work for one not too far away, and believe me, they are God awful! ;-)

[SimonM]

I cannot, I am afraid, share what seems to me to be an hysterical overreaction to the long overdue demolition of this dangerous structure/eyesore/rubbish dump. I hold no brief for Southwark Council but if the (previous?) owner was determined to let this building slowly rot away until redevelopment was the only option there was never going to be an awful lot they could do about it. Compulsorily purchasing and spending massive sums of money restoring the place would have been a gross waste of Council funding and would have led to justified criticism from every quarter - from the Daily Mail leftwards to residents of poorer areas of Southwark scandalised at such a frivolous waste of limited funding.

It was the first concrete house? So what? I have seen the photos of it in its prime and yes I am sorry there has been such sustained neglect over the years. But what is done is done.

If no eccentric millionaire in the private sector was prepared to take it over and rescue it then I do not see the Coucnil coud do much else. There was essentially little difference between this property and the ruin that stood for years at the junction of Overhill Road and Underhill Road, and that has now been replaced by a block of admittedly unlovely flats. Unlovely they may be, but at least people can inhabit them.

[mockney piers]

Oh but it's so romantic. Even unrestored it's go to be better than yet more dull flats.

I know I'm a champion of brownfield development, desperately trying to stem the stevenage tide, but I just love that building, restored or not. It can't ALL be about affordable housing, man cannot live on bread alone.

[Louisa]

If we lose the concrete house, then what else will the Dulwich area lose? Perhaps Southwark could compulsory purchase some of the fields from the college and build a brand spanking new shopping centre with over 3,000 parking spaces? How about we knock down the picture gallery and put a 17 storey block of flats overlooking the village? It has to stop somewhere.

[*Bob*]

Perhaps M&S could renovate the concrete house? Then everyone would be happy.. SORTED.

[Ant]

Perhaps we could get Parkhill interested? :p

[Huguenot]

I love the house too.

I noticed that internal supports seem to have been removed, and it seems to have been a cynical exploitation (as an absentee landlord) of a Grade II listed building to deliberately make it fall apart to make maximum leverage from the land.

In the face of such abusive behaviour, I believe it should be comulsorily purchased by Southwark council at the original purchase price, and if it can't be restored then the council should resell at market rates for soemone else to make a profit on redevelopment.

Whatever happens we should not allow the absentee Git to make so much cash from such outrageously offensive manipulation.

[Jah Lush]

Excuse me we are talking about the same house here aren't we? Do you mean that dump opposite the church? Where an almost identical house was recently built right behind it. It's been like that for as long as I can remember and I'm certainly no spring chicken. It should have been done up decades ago and the fact it's been like that for so long is nothing short of a disgrace. It is such an eyesore. Sure, I'd love it if it was done up to it's former glory but I think it's rather too late in the day for that.

[fractionater]

You lot had better get your placards and marker pens out then!

[Huguenot]

Yep 'tis the same house Jah - it's part of our architectural heritage.

It's a point of principle. One shouldn't be able to buy a grade II listed building, deliberately trash it, and then say 'oh no! silly me! well I'll just have to put up 750 noddy homes on it and walk with a cool ?5m profit.'

[Keef]

I have to say I'd love the college to be forced to sell some of it's land, just to quick a couple of fingers up to them ;-)

[Jah Lush]

I agree with you in principle Huguenot and of course we wouldn't want more of the same dreary little boxes to replace it. Also how can we be so sure that it is privately owned? If memory serves me well it was used as a children's home back in the early 60s.

[mockney piers]

A few people have been digging around this one for a while and it seems it is privately owned by an absentee landlord who's proved impossible to track down in order to serve the compulsory purchase order that the doesn't seem overly interested in pursuing unless it can sell the land for development, or something on those lines.

Private Eye have been exposing ruthless developers for years. Some of the bigger ones have been quite blatant about knocking down down grade II listed buildings and paying the fine in order to develop land as it's all factored into their profit margins.

[Amelie]

If everyone here wants to blame someone for the state of the Concrete House you should direct your complaints to Lambeth Palace; this all started because the CofE decided to make some quick cash and sold St Peter's Church and what was then the vestry. Sadly the vestry was sold separately. The Church should be embarrassed into buying it back and repairing the damage.

My understanding is that the original purchaser went bust and Southwark continued pursuing him through the courts even though they knew he was bust. Quite what this was supposed to achieve is anyone's guess. The site is also not properly sealed off as the graffiti demonstrates.

[SimonM]

>>My understanding is that the original purchaser went bust and Southwark continued pursuing him through the courts even though they knew he was bust. Quite what this was supposed to achieve is anyone's guess. The site is also not properly sealed off as the graffiti demonstrates.<<

Why were Southward bringing an action against the purchaser in the first place?

Whatever the reason, his being bust would be no grounds for not pursuing any case against him as (my guess would be that) Southwark would have to demonstrate it had exhausted all legal avenues and then, by winning any subsequent action against the purchaser in the courts, they could stick a charge on the land to recover any judgement monies owed when it was eventually sold.

Someone has clearly bought it, given the application to demolish and buidl flats.