Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,


I've not written on here before but my friend insisted i take a look at this thread and very interesting it is to hear your thoughts, especially the tennants experiences (the genuine ones i mean)!


I've done rather a lot of research on this house, you'll be pleased to know that thanks to the Heritage of London Trust the house is soon to be rescued and restored to its original glory! (http://www.heritageoflondon.com/holt-ops/549-lordship-lane)


The owner of the concrete house Mr Chandra and the owner of the white gothic house Mr Laxman are allegedly shady characters to say the least. See this article written by Pilotti for the private eye:


http://www.dulwichsociety.com/newsletters/62-summer-2009/437-dulwich-society-news


It discusses Mr Laxmans previous convictions for illegally demolishing listed properties!


DanL87 this should give you something to write about!!

  • 3 months later...

There's a piece about the Concrete House in the November issue of Southwark Life.


Extract:


" Allowed to fall into decay by its previous owner, the house was reclaimed by the courts and handed over to the council and

is now being restored with registered social landlord Hyde Housing for use as homes."


It doesn't mention the "new" Concrete House.

I walked by here today on my way to Sydenham Hill Woods and noticed there's a notice up about planning investigation into the work done on the White Gothic House without permission - specifically it being built too close to the Concrete House, IIRC. Can't remember the relevant dates though...
  • 7 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
The so called Concrete House, was sold by a London Council and it wasn't Southwark Council, at an auction about twenty years ago. The buyer was not aware that planning issues were attached to the property which were not due to being a grade II building Heritage.
  • 3 months later...

So Depressing to see that house every time I pass it I think what is wrong with the property law that mean it has taken 25+ years to get a solution and it looks like we're going to have to wait another 25 years due to incompetent impotent local government.


Looks like it's going to cost us locals millions and for what?


Surely the money would be better spent on real housing?


At least it keeps the specialists lawyers and those with nothing better to get involved in, busy going nowhere.


A disgrace!

This chairperson of the Dulwich Community Council Cllr Lewis Robinson (whose ward this site is in) has kindly explained and my understanding is that the property owner was not happy with the public inquiry required for a CPO and is challenging it in the high court. Hence the delays to any work getting underway.
  • 1 month later...

Ah Yes


When it could have been knocked down and rebuilt to look identical, only without all the problems and flaws??


This is typical Upside-Down Council thinking at it absolute worst, WHY because they are spending our money and not their own!


Anyone with half a brain and their own money would have demolished this heap of Historical Hysterical Incompetence 13 years ago and build in its place a robust cost effective development which would be designed to work for its inhabitants.


Well at least it keeps Southwark (Dulwich Council lolls) planning departments ?Celia Isamajey? busy, Ah Excellent.

Nice Paul Latham is busy too.

Contractor Council will be busy charging like a Rhino!

All that will = Poor value for our tax money, LOVELY>>>>>>



So in summary


Lets spend a huge amount (probably 10 X times more) to build some social housing.


So that we can look at a building which can stand as a monument to how Drake didn?t know how to build in concrete!



Comic Incompetence Endorsed by Comic Incompetent Southwak Council


But that wouldn?t make a very interesting BBC program would it?.



Hehehehehehehehehehe

Hi Fazer71,

Southwark Council is compulsory purchasing this property. When that purchase completes it will back to back be selling it onto a developer who specialises in social housing in such historical rebuilds for the price Southwark Council pays.

However the legal fees te owner is incurring for themselves and the council I'm not clear about. That developer already has lined up planning permission for the works required.

After 13 years I'd expect te council to have a water tight case and leak fees to be awarded against the owner.


If you ever talk to the residents of the neighbouring property you'd understand that the freeholder has been challenging.


As for te architectural meritso f te building - it is listed. I think Britain would be much the poorer if we didn't preserve some of our heritage which is te purpose of grading.

James Barber Wrote:

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


> As for te architectural meritso f te building - it

> is listed. I think Britain would be much the

> poorer if we didn't preserve some of our heritage

> which is te purpose of grading.


xxxx


So do I.


An "identical" building would not be the same at all.


I think it's great that there's someone willing to take it on.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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