Update on 549 lordship lane (Concrete House)

[bob]

A planing aplication to demolish a grade 2 listed house 549 L/L and replace it with FIVE FLATS any objections ( loads I hope)

Bob S

[jim_the_chin]

otherwise known as the concrete house.

http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/southwark/east-dulwich/549-lordship-lane-1930.htm

[bob]

Thanks for the picky Jim.

Bob S

[HonaloochieB]

If it's the place I think it is it's been slowly demolishing itself for years now. Bring on the flats I say.

Am I right in thinking this was the house that Peter Perrett was living in for a while?

[kford]

The ideal situation would be to renovate the property and convert it into apartments, but I suspect that wouldn't be commercially viable. Architects and developers would rather work with a blank canvas than negotiate around preservation orders. Pity.

[bob]

kford my thoughts as well should have been done years ago befor the rot set in I think I read it was the first concrete house but I could be wrong.

Bob S

[bon3yard]

Where the hell is that???

[Asset]

I think it's a shame and it shouldn;t have been allowed to rot.

Look at the Wikipedia entry.

Concrete house

The notable residents list is a bonus!

[zephyr]

http://www.multimap.com/s/ulHMtdAq

[HonaloochieB]

Asset Wrote:

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

> I think it's a shame and it shouldn;t have been

> allowed to rot.

>

> Look at the Wikipedia entry.

>

> Concrete house

>

> The notable residents list is a bonus!

Yes but they're not notable residents of the house Asset. That'd be Peter Perrett, unless I've imagineered it.

[Asset]

I'm aware of that HB, added bonus nugget of info re. East Dulwich (as if we didn't know already)

[andypandy]

It would be a shame to demolish this building. I've done some digging to uncover some facts

I believe that this building is of national architectural interest. I quote the English Heritage website

House built in 1873 by Charles Drake of the Patent Concrete Building Company. Mass concrete walls, rendered, with artificial stone dressings and slate roof with crestings. Serious structural problems. New build works on the site have breached planning permission and local authority has issued Compulsory Purchase Order and a Dangerous Structures Notice. Public Inquiry pending.

It is a building at risk. It is Grade II listed.

But also - and perhaps to put this issue to bed I note that I have checked the planning application register on Southwark's website. There are no recent application to demolish the building there was two just over a year ago but both were refused

Search for yourself HERE

Interestingly the structural report forming the later application is HERE just by looking at publicly accessible websites you can find out more about the building's history. While it might be true that the building would be very costly to upgrade to current building regulations standards being listed the conservation officer would not make you do this. So that's no excuse. What is needed is a specialist report on this building ( if it hasn't already happened). Of course it would also require someone to come forward with enough money to restore the building or a charitable/public body such as EH, Landmark Trust etc to step in].

In reading through some of the planning docs it seems the development that took place with the grounds some time ago (possibly c.2000) was granted with a condition that this building would be restored. This condition has not been enforced (or so it seems)

In looking at the title deeds to this property you can see that it is owned by Birballa Chandra and has been since 24.12.1996. However there are very recent charges on the property:

1. 2 (09.10.2008) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of an Interim Charging Order of

the Lambeth Conty Court - Ref:- 8LB030150.

2. 3 (09.10.2008) BENEFICIARY: London Borough of Southwark of Legal and

Democratic Services, South House, 30-32 Peckham Road, London SE5 8PX.

I'm no expert in this but it might possibly point to the acquisition the property by LB Southwark ( in some form) if someone could shed some light on this it might be helpful to understand the future of this building. Perhaps it has something to do with the enforcement of the earlier planning condition....

[Eileen]

can the East Dulwich ward councillors tell us what the Council's postion is on the building now?

Eileen

[ruffers]

Good idea I reckon. Not as good as fixing it properly but as clearly no one's going to actually do that I'd much rather have a new building at the end of the road.

Shame though.

[Jah Lush]

We've been here before on the subject of this property. Unfortunately this place has had it. Any plans for the preservation of this fabulous old building should have happened decades ago. There is already a facsimile of the original building behind it. Frankly, it's an eyesore and has been for far too long. The sooner the old dear is demolished the better.

HB: Peter Perratt has long been a resident of Forest Hill but I'd be surprised if even he considered squatting here in the past even when he was going through the worst ravages of his heroin addiction.

[HonaloochieB]

Probably right JL.

I've just looked at AndyPandy's informative post and I've changed mt mind, any building commisioned by Charlie Drake must be preserved for the nation.

[bob]

I have just had a reply from Lewis Robinson ward counciler and exseutive member of southwalk heritage he will personly oppose any development, I think when Mr B Chandra bought the plot he was allowed to build next to it, only if he took on the restrations ?????.

Bob S

[HonaloochieB]

bob Wrote:

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

> I have just had a reply from Lewis Robinson ward

> counciler and exseutive member of southwalk

> heritage he will personly oppose any development,

> I think when Mr B Chandra bought the plot he was

> allowed to build next to it, only if he took on

> the restrations ?????.

> Bob S

It's how Charlie Drake would have put it himself.

Though he'd've followed it up with an 'Allo my darlin's'

Course he would.

[Sue]

Restraining myself from mentioning Mick and Montmorency (sp?), and I bet I am one of the few forumites ever to have seen it (tiny black and white tellies? Bring 'em back!), I will just say how sad I would be if this building was demolished, I love it, and that pale imitation of it which has been built behind it is just a joke :-S

[ruffers]

Sad to see it go, but I'm sadder to see it in the state it's in. If it was a horse it'd be shot.

[Dez]

It might have been a good location when that house was built but on that corner you would get no privacy or peace in the garden, so my vote too would be to knock it.

[p_in_ed]

The greatest effort should be made to preserve a Grade II listed building, and any preservation attempt would certainly get my support.

My recollection, from reading the local press several years ago, was that the new buildings standing behind it and built in the same style, were built as part of a deal between the London Borough of Southwark and a developer where part of the deal was the renovation of the listed building. The developer was allowed to build new houses on the proviso that the renovation was undertaken at the same time. They were obviously allowed to get away with building the new houses and pocketing the profit, but reneging on the renovation. Would be interesting to get a Council view on what happened with the deal and what the Council is now doing to secure a renovator.

On a recent edition of Inside Out on BBC1, Lucinda Lambton, in reviewing a huge directory of endangered buildings in Britain, picked out the building on Lordship Lane.

[TJ]

I would like to know why there are no obligations on owners of properties to maintain their assets..?

Surely this is the root cause??

[Brendan]

From what I?ve read the problem with the concrete house is that it is, well concrete. It was an experimental building technique 100 years ago that never caught on because eventually the structures crumble. So unfortunately it is going to fall down no matter how much effort is made to shore it up. The only real option would be to completely rebuild it. Either with modern reinforced concrete which may be more durable or with bricks and steal with a layer of concrete on the outside to make it look like the original.

Or replace it with an ugly building of low quality flats aimed at buy to let investors which you probably won?t sell in this market.

There is the idea of building decent housing that people may actually consider investing in and turning into homes, thereby developing and contributing to the community. Although that would quite obviously just be a silly idea. Who would want that?

As an aside, I love Monday mornings. I can somehow without even trying turn a post about Victorian building techniques into a socio-political rant about the parlous state of our greed ridden society.

[philiphenslowe]

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

>

> HB: Peter Perratt has long been a resident of

> Forest Hill but I'd be surprised if even he

> considered squatting here in the past even when he

> was going through the worst ravages of his heroin

> addiction.

Peter Perrett's been living at Crown Point in Norwood for quite some time. His son (also called Peter Perrett) is a friend of mine so I'll ask him about the concrete house.