Update on 549 lordship lane (Concrete House)

[redrouge]

Oh that sounds hopeful!

And after all these years, please can we get restoring it, before it really is too late?

If I win the lottery this week, I'll chip in ???s.

But, seriously, is there a way we could try and get funding to restore it?

There must be a Houses in Need trust or something!

[Huguenot]

The thing that really niggles with this property is the deliberate cynicism of the owner. They made the purchase in full awareness of their responsibilities, but would have been conscious that a greater retun could be made by letting it rot and then building an Altima Court.

It's not clever, it's w@nker.

[Keef]

I think the roof may have a slight leak.

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v111/169/111/642906952/n642906952_255082_7230.jpg

[Brendan]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> The thing that really niggles with this property

> is the deliberate cynicism of the owner. They made

> the purchase in full awareness of their

> responsibilities, but would have been conscious

> that a greater retun could be made by letting it

> rot and then building an Altima Court.

>

> It's not clever, it's w@nker.

I suppose then the thing for locals to do would be

a) Make sure it never gets knocked down. Which would be a bit spiteful but serve the owner right.

or

b) Get the land rezoned so that they can?t build flats on it.

[Dez]

Most of the posts seem more concerned with ensuring that the owners or developers are prevented from making a profit than with any real desire to preserve this old ruin for any redeeming features it may have. Concrete isn't an aesthetically pleasing material, which was first realised by the Romans when they built the Colosseum and went to great lengths to disguise the concrete structural elements.

[Jeremy]

I don't think people have a problem with anyone making money as such. But people have a problem with someone intentionally letting the building crumble in order to make a profit.

I don't think The Colosseum is made of concrete.

[Dez]

Jeremy, the Romans used concrete in the Colosseum and the ancient Greeks used a primitive form of concrete in the pyramids.

[Brendan]

I know the Romans discovered quicklime (the first quick setting cement) but I?m pretty sure the Egyptians built the pyramids.

[Jeremy]

I know the Romans used concrete, but I thought the Colosseum was made from bricks and stone blocks. I guess they may have used concrete too though...

[Dez]

I?m pretty sure the Egyptians built the pyramids.

Brendan I sure you're correct on that one >:D<

[Brendan]

Anyway you would have thought that after thousands of years of using the stuff people would have figured out that it?s a stupid idea to build an entire house out of it.

[Moos]

I don't know Brenda, the pyramids have lasted for ages - and people still ask 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'.

[Keef]

and people still ask 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'.

I actually doubt they did any of it "for us" ;-)

[Dez]

Concrete is an essential part of modern construction but it's mostly hidden behind more pleasing brick facing material.

[Huguenot]

Travertine limestone apparently Dev. And the pyramids were made by aliens.

Regardless, are we suggesting that because it was made of concrete it should be pulled down? Had your original assumption on the Colosseum been right, are we suggesting that should also be pulled down?

In fact, goddamn it, should we pull down St. Paul's cathedral on the grounds that we could have built it quicker and more efficiently with glass and plastic?

[Brendan]

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

[Dez]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Travertine limestone apparently Dev. And the

> pyramids were made by aliens.

>

> Regardless, are we suggesting that because it was

> made of concrete it should be pulled down? Had

> your original assumption on the Colosseum been

> right, are we suggesting that should also be

> pulled down?

>

> In fact, goddamn it, should we pull down St.

> Paul's cathedral on the grounds that we could have

> built it quicker and more efficiently with glass

> and plastic?

No doubt Wren would have used more glass,plastic and other modern materials if they had been available to him.

[Brendan]

And not as many pineapples.

[Jeremy]

For sure... pineapples are an over-rated building material.

[Moos]

Well, they're very good for building fruit-based centrepieces for the dining table at Christmas. Granny Moos would be lost without one.

[Applespider]

Well, they built a pineapple in Scotland although not of concrete...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/The_Pineapple.jpg/250px-The_Pineapple.jpg

So far as the concrete house goes, I concur with the view that it's a damned shame and I hope the current owner doesn't see any profit from his cynical actions.

[Gen17]

I am a building surveying student and am doing a project on this house (my choice). This forum is a great source of info - thanks!

I am looking at whether the current listing system has failed the house and what a conservation plan for the house should consist of should the CPO ever come off.

2 questions I'd like to put out there....

-Does anyone know if the newer structure that has been constructed is occupied? I have seen lights on and potted plants in the windows but I thought it didn't have proper planning permission?

-Having bought a copy of the title deeds and plans from the land registry, I can see that the current owner has seperated the land and registered it under a different title number leaving the original house with nothing but the ground it stands on. Does that mean that if a CPO ever came off the council would just get the house, or would they also get the rest of it inclucing the newer structure?

I think that the current owner perhaps saw a CPO coming and that's why he seperated the plot.

[Jah Lush]

The facsimile building behind is definitely occupied. I go past it every day.

[Siduhe]

Gen17,

To answer your second question - the separation in the registered title means that the Council would only be granted a CPO over the original concrete house, not the newer building behind it. I suspect the reason for the separation in title is a bit more prosaic - it would have been almost impossible for the residents of the new building to get a mortage if there were oustanding breaches of covenant in the freehold in respect of the old house (for example to keep it in good repair etc). Splitting the title would have given the owner an opportunity to free the new title from any covenants which only relate to the old house (save where these are for the benefit of the old house, like right of access to do emergency works etc).

[bob]

Thank's for the info Gen 17 there are some very slippery people out there.

Bob S