I phoned Mr Nick Raynsford MP for Greenwich, text of his letter as follows:
"Further to our conversation earlier today, I am writing to confirm that I have written to Greenwich Council about the matters we discussed.
I will also be discussing the issue with the Director of Strategic Planning at Greenwich Council and I will, of course, contact you again as soon as I have any information."
My reply to Mr Raynsford:
"Thank you very much for your letter of 8 May.
During our recent phone conversation I told you that the proposed developments by Hyde Housing and Standard Property Investments involved the compulsory purchase and demolition of my habitation and business premises. The opportunities offered by these, together with the large stock of books they contain, are what I am depending on for my future security as I get older.
I feel that even given this particular development to which, I believe, there are many good grounds for objection, which I have stated in my letters to the Council, I cannot see it as unreasonable to ask, at least, for my premises to be excluded from it.
You referred, quite naturally, to the appearance of the scaffolding, and you probably implicitly included the dilapidated state of the exterior of the building suppported by it. This naturally follows from the impossibility of doing anything to it while the scaffolding is there, to date three and a half years.
The situation here may well seem rather confused to someone not personally involved so I would like to outline it. There are three legally and actually distinct properties here which to the casual observer would look like one property.
Coming from the centre of Greenwich, to the east, first is what was number 262 Creek Road which belonged/belongs to the London Borough of Greenwich. They demolished this sometime before my partner and I arrived here, but did not stabilise the remains which adjoin number 260, as apparently they should have done.
Next comes number 260, the small dwelling house, the eastern part of which has been pulled eastwards by the subsiding and twisting remains of number 262. The effect on number 260 has also been aggravated by the roots of arboreally uncared for trees also belonging to the Council.
The scaffolding was erected by the Council when they discovered what was happening and apparently did not realise that number 262 was their own properety. The scaffolding therefore is not something we have inflicted on the Public but something the Council has inflicted upon us. This has deprived us of the use of our front door and much of the building for the past three and a half years.
The Council has admitted their responsibility but so far have avoided paying the compensation needed to put the matter right, (i.e. according to the structural engineer we engaged this includes underpinning). About a year ago, we sent the Council a "Letter before Action" but then yielded to their, until now, unfulfilled promise of an early settlement.
258, the Edwardian Public house, the only remaining period property in the neighbourhood, has been the store place for my seventy to a hundred thousand books, pictures and other goods for thirty odd years. You may notice that new windows have recently been installed at first floor level and the exterior painted.
You will, I hope, appreciate that quite apart from the impossibility of finding anywhere else which suits me so well as a person, (including accessibility to transport and amenities essential for my somewhat impaired mobility and which takes account of the fact that over thirty years ago I chose this place over all others, because I love the situation and the view of the river), it would equally present almost insurmountable problems to find somewhere that would accommodate my very large stock.
I am sorry to have given you such a long letter to read.
With best wishes and thanks for your help.
Yours sincerely
David Herbert"
Comments