Concrete House Lordship Lane - Public Inquiry

[Jah Lush]

It might come as a shock to you Brenda dear but you can't trust landlords.

[Brendan]

Never! Next you?ll be saying I can?t believe what the government says to me.

[Jah Lush]

It's true Brenda. All true. Have I ever talked to you about Santa?

[ian164SE22]

What about Santa, Jah? I only ask because I saw him in the queue at the kebab shop on LL on Saturday. (Strictly speaking, one for the "Most famous person I've seen in ED so far.... " thread...)

[archi]

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!!

[Sue]

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.

[elloriac]

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...

[ruffers]

Just walked past here and there are workman on the site clearing away rubbish so works can start.

[Sue]

Hooray!

[gloworm]

Anyone interested in this sorry saga over the years should look at some back issues of "Private Eye" who have carried details of this on-going scandalmany times.

[steveo]

How long has it been derelict? It's at least 25 years to my knowledge

[undergran]

Workmen here all this week, but huge bonfires too - trust they won't just burn it down!

[Jeremy]

undergran, I imagine there's a lot of rotten timber which is beyond repair.

[steveo]

Work seems to have stopped.

Anyone know what the huge post is next to the house, on the junction of Underhill and Lordship?

[handyface]

Hi all,

We're looking to record a piece on the concrete house for the ED/Peckham podcast, Here Be Angels. Who should I speak to? Any volunteers?

Heather

herebeangels.wordpress.com

[Dee]

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.

[Huguenot]

Hello Dee, where have you come from? What's your interest in this?

[bob]

Interesting first post Dee

BobS

[fazer71]

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!

[James Barber]

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.

[fazer71]

As I Thought.

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

[cazza]

The programme 'Empty houses' on last week on claims it's going to be social housing - but not sure when! See link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0197bf7/Britains_Empty_Homes_Series_3_Andy_Erlam/

[fazer71]

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

[James Barber]

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.

[Sue]

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.