Update on 549 lordship lane (Concrete House)

[macroban]

An on-going fine of ?200 per day (?73k per year) might encourage a re-build. But imprisoment? Under which legislation?

If you know the legislation please quote it.

[antijen]

I think southwark council should also be liable for given permission for the newer buildings to be built, how did there legal team allow this. but away from the concrete, anyone know who lives in these new houses?

[Gen17]

The primary legislation is The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Secondary legislation with The Listed Buildings Act. And various case law examples.

It is a criminal offence to carry out almost any works to a listed building without having obtained consent.

Google the case - he was demanded to re-build exactly as was, or face going to prison. Rather generous of them to give him a choice, I think!

Still, he hasn't done it so he must think they're bluffing. We'll have to see what happens.

[macroban]

Gen17,

I think you are confused.

The penalty I quoted was from the legislation you subsequently named. This criminal offence has a fine penalty only.

Imprisonment can be a result of contempt of court. A different fish.

MacRoban

[p_in_ed]

This is one of several articles referring to the case:

Goldfinger demolisher faces jail

I think it's a fair assumption that he was planning the same fate for the Concrete House; that having allowed it to crumble he would at some point have moved in with the bulldozers.

I wonder if he owns any other listed buildings for which he plans the same fate, or whether in fact he's already demolished other listed buildings and not been caught.

It's shocking that he's demolished a building by Erno Goldfinger, an architect with at least one building owned by the National Trust

[Gen17]

Well Macroban...(isn't that a brand of household disinfectant???)

I think you are rude.

[bob]

Thank's for the link p in ed

But I note that he was given till November 08 to complie do we know if he has done so.

Gen 17 I think the prison strech is fo contemt of court but it dosn't matter for what as long as it is.

Bob S

[karter]

Hi Gen17 , MacRoban is a wise elder on the forum. I don't think she means to be rude to you.

[Huguenot]

Yarp, I've not known Macroban be intentionally rude :-)

Would failure to respond to either a court instruction or a fine be consequently ruled as contempt, resulting in imprisonment?

[Louisa]

I hear that the 17th century structure at Woods Roads in Peckham was set for the bulldozers until very recently. Was this another of his stunts? Although I have driven past the building many times since and a full restoration project seems to be afoot, not sure if this was one taken on by English Heritage. Apparantly the oldest building in SE15.

Louisa.

[bob]

Huguenot I think in the long run prison would be an option but befor that more time to comply and fines.

Bob S

[Gen17]

Can I re-wind this a bit....?

SimonM's comment was about the ex-owner sending round a demolition team one day out of spite. To which I commented that if he does, he'll end up in prison.

I'm not a lawyer and have never claimed to be one, but if someone goes and deliberately knocks something down that doesn't belong to them any more - I'm pretty sure they'd end up in prison. Trespass, criminal damage, demolition of a listed building without consent all spring to mind and there are probably more. I don't think I'm confused, I think I have been misunderstood.

[Huguenot]

I don't think so.

I think in order to get really criminal you'd have to reject a court order. The initial transgression would be a fine, but also a requirement to comply. If you didn't comply the penalty is contempt, which has unlimited penalties.

[bob]

So would you say that it would mean he would be banged up with out the poss of other penalties.

Bob S

[Gen17]

Anyone remember the man who demolished his landlord's house with a digger? He got 6 years...in prison. ::o

[bob]

Gen 17

Have you herd any more from the council or any one.

Bob S

[p_in_ed]

Paul Noblet tells me that the minutes of the council meeting won?t be up on the Southwark Council website till later this week, but the report that was agreed on the night can be found here:

Council Report on 549 Lordship Lane

[Gen17]

Thanks for that, p_in_ed

It's good to see that they are tackling the land seperation issue with the CPO. The split looks much fairer now.

Bob, I haven't heard anything more from the journalist or the council - but that's ok. I can see they have been busy! But on another note - I just got back my building heritage coursework (which was all about this house) and got 92%!!! So thank you all for helping me along the way. :))

[bob]

Gen 17

CONGRATULATIONS you deserve it for all your work on this project thanks.

Bob S

[Sue]

Gen17 Wrote:

> I

> just got back my building heritage coursework

> (which was all about this house) and got 92%!!!

xxxxx

Hey, well done!

:)-D

[p_in_ed]

Well done on your coursework results Gen17!

Stay on the case though - sounds like it's got a long way to run

[Huguenot]

Terrific stuff Gen17, it's a testament to your proactivity!

[PeterW]

Seeing as there's an interest in the subject, thought I should point this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/19/victorian-concrete-house

[bob]

Well done PeterW let's hope some prosecutions follow to recover some money to help this project.

Bob S

[misspiggy79]

thought u would all be interested in hearing that there is another application fir planning permission to knock down the concrete house and build flats in it's place!