Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The fate of this property has been discussed on the forum in the past and it seems that there's newish

development. Southwark council has made a compulsory purchase order and the owners have

objected (there's a surprise!) and so a public inquiry is going to take place on the 3rd February 2010 at the

Council's offices on Tooley Street SE

1

I've not got the details to hand, but if anyone feels strongly enough about its fate, then it might be worth going

down to see what gives. Doubtless Southwark Council can provide details of the time and exact place.

I remember actually that about 5-7 years ago some work was done - I heard, whilst living nearby, that the house had so many more problems that visible from the road that it wasnt worth pouring the money in. I think they even built a second smaller house on the far side of the house (From LL) which they were going to inhabit whilst rebuilding. Very sad if you ask me...could be such a beautiful house with a lot of history in and no doubt will be knocked down for modern flats to be built.

This is what James Barber posted a few weeks ago


"Latest news on the Concrete House at 549 Lordship Lane.

Last Thursday I sat on the Dulwioch Community Council Planning Committee to hear two planning application for this site - one for the chanes one related to change and its listed status - effectively the same thing.


After a relatively swift meeting the changes were approved.


This means the CPO with southwark buying the property BUT with a company recommended by English Heritage that now has planning permission to immediately buy it from Southwakr Council. So council tax payers are exposed for the smallest amount of time to this big capital outlay while the property will be amazingly sympatheticially restored into 5 flats.


Goods news all round and an excellent application."

Hi bob,

Public inquiry feedback as I udnerstand it.

On the day council officers were able to prove that the person claiming to be the agent of the owner who alledgely lives in India was and is the owner. I believe this agent/owner subdefuge was to make any CPO much harder to execute. The counsel for the agent was left in a terrible position where they could have appeared to be aiding such mistruths. The agent/owner then withdrew their opposition, probably under counsels advice, to the Complusory Purchase Order. The game was up.

What a terrible waste of the owners money. So the CPO was granted. All Southwark's costs will be deducted from the purchase price given to the owner. Southwark has lined up a developer recommended by English Heritage so the purchase will be sold on stright away. That new developer has already lined up planning permission.


I must say the council officers have done a good job despite what some generous residents have termed a 'slippery owner'.

Out of interest - what will the determine the purchase price and will the entire plot be puchased (including the 'mock' house and will the funds to restore the old house (to at LEAST the position it was in when the chap purchased it) be extracted from any moneys before it's handed over to the chap ?


As I understand it the chap bought the land saying he'll renovate the old house up on that basis was allowed to build the other house (which is actually flats ?) so will the new house be confiscated or sold to pay for the renovations ?

Hi W**F and KidKruger,

The mock goth house was approved but built in an unapproved location - from memory 2m closer to the concrete house than the planning permission stated. Yes, the developer did say they would renovate the concrete house and has since that itme attempt to gain permission to demolish it on a number of occassions providing 'eveidence' it could'nt be renovated.

The flat owners of the 'mock house' have been put in invidious position unwittingly. I know it meant ot be #'buyer beware' but few would ever expect such circumstances.


How is the price determined. I presume a charterred surveyor based on the permissions in place and the state of the property and the legal requirements to renovate a listed building. All CPO's in these circumstance go to a public inquiry to ensure fair play.


The existing 'mock goth' house is being treated as a seperate property and not connected with this. Its owned by diferent parties now. They were promised various car parking in the concrete house grounds which clearly will never happen.


Hope that answers your questions.

Thanks James,

I take it then, the chap who purchased the old house and built the new house/flats and promised the parking etc will be PAID for the house ? Can't his freehold of the new house/flats be secured and any costs incurred in getting the house back to at LEAST the condition it was when he started this fraud ?

I trust you will not find my use of the word 'fraud' wholly innaccurate.


Doesn't there have to be a punishment ?

Simply taking ownership of a ruined house that he surely does not want anyway is no real penalty.

Is this guy being prosecuted or is what he did legal !?

JBARBER Wrote:

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


> The existing 'mock goth' house is being treated as

> a seperate property and not connected with this.

> Its owned by diferent parties now. They were

> promised various car parking in the concrete house

> grounds which clearly will never happen.

>


From the little I know, the people who own flats in the new "mock goth" ended up going through a very protracted battle to force the owner to sell the freehold to them so they could manage the building themselves, after receiving massive service charge demands which related to the need to maintain the concrete house. The owner and his business partner also tried what sounds to be a similar tactic, saying that the owner could not be contacted to serve papers and the business partner did not have the authority to deal with the property, to hold up the process.


Some of the flat owners said in submissions to the LVT that they had been supplied with inaccurate documentation, including formal documents and letters purportedly from the council (I'm wording that more cautiously than they did) about what facilities would be put on site when they purchased their flats. They were also told the concrete house would be restored, rather than knocked down and more flats built. As Mr Barber says, buyer beware, but if you ask the right questions and get the right answers (supported by documents) and then spend the next four years trying to recover the situation, it's a tough break.

Hi KidKruger,

The owner has been 'found out'. He's lost control despite vehemently fighting to retain it. He will have spent a fortune and I believe Southwark's expenses will be deducted from the price.


Hi Siduhe,

I do really feel for the 'mock goth' flat owners. I can only guess at how painful and expensive it has been for them. Hopefully things coming to a close for them. They'll have the builders on site for soon and the hassle that goes with that but at least they'll soon not have a ruin next door. If they still have any issues about freehold ownership I could put them in touch with the officers who proved the agent was really the owner.

"If they still have any issues about freehold ownership I could put them in touch with the officers who proved the agent was really the owner."

Jeez these leaseholders may have gone through the mill properly on this one, poor people, what a nightmare for them.


The 'owner and his business partner' sound like real d!cks. Imagine them being your freeholder ! :-S

Thanks James, the freehold issue was sorted in early 2008 under RTM legislation, but as you say, at no small cost. The company I worked for at the time gave pro-bono advice to some of the mock-goth owners, which is how I know a little bit about it.
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Those looking for pictures of the house in happier times (and some background) should read this article by Heritage of London (who will be responsible for refurbishing it once the CPO is formally approved)


On another point, one Mr Reg Laxman is currently applying for a Lawful Development Certificate for the White Gothic House to avoid it being demolished. Mr Laxman is the sole director of Arbus Ltd which was prosecuted by Wandsworth council for the unlawful demolition of Brtandelhow caretaker's house (another listed, concrete building). Any objections need to be submitted by this Friday.

LocalYokel,


How do you feel about the White Gothic House being demolished? Just curious, as whilst I think it would serve Reg Laxman right, it would be awful for the existing owners that have had such a dreadful time sorting out leasehold etc.


Legally, is is likely that the Lawful Development Certificate will be denied?


I hate the fact that the flats have been built so close to the Concrete House, it is of course wrong, wrong, wrong but at the same time my heart goes out to those living there.


Just wasn't sure which angle (if any?) your post was coming from?


Molly

The solicitors/conveyancers who acted for whomever bought/leased the flats in that house would or should have advised them of the uncertain legal status of the house. So I guess they took a gamble and it looks like they may lose, or may at least have some sort of legal redress against whomever built or sold them the flats?

More background on the house:


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


Unlike Heritage London, I never found any evidence it was designed by Charles Barry Jr, but maybe they know better. I think it's an interesting enough story without that. Poor Charles Drake was convinced concrete would catch on but he was about 75 years too early. It would be great to see it restored. Mr Laxman's actions have been appalling throughout.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...