Mole Man
William Lyttle was the Mole Man. He was the person who had this obsession with digging tunnels under his house in Hackney.
He started in 1960 as he wanted to create a wine cellar. But for some reason the original wine cellar wasn’t big enough and he started to dig some more. Eventually the basement become a warren of tunnels large enough to hold three cars and a boat and possibly the winery for the wine cellar. During the process he damaged the adjacent pavement and neighbouring properties including a 450V cable. He even reached down deep enough to reach the water table – maybe he was planning on creating a lake for the boat.
Eventually the council had to step in to stop him damaging other people’s properties through his activities. When he made no effort to stop the work nor to fill it back in he was removed from his own home in 2009 and re-housed in a flat elsewhere. He was also banned from re-entering his own property, partially because it was now deemed unsafe and uninhabitable and partially to stop him doing more digging.
Though he was deprived of living in the property he owned by the state I think this is one of the few occasions where it is right for the state to step in. This because other people’s property was being damaged and affected by William Lyttle’s actions.
William Lyttle has now died, in June 2010, and he left behind the property and unpaid debts of £350,000 caused by the council’s legal bills, the cost of propping up the property and his re-homing.
This legacy has now been passed on to his heirs who have inherited the debt. They have instructed the firm of Fraser and Fraser (of Heir Hunters on BBC1 fame) to handle their case. To pay it they either have to use their own money or use the proceeds of selling the property. To maximise the amount of money they can recover to pay the not insubstantial debts the plan was get planning permission on the now dilapidated house with no roof and the propped up with acro-props to knock it down and build a block of flats which made use of the basement. As it is, the house would be lucky to make £200K due to it’s state. So the only solution would be to get planning which would increase the sale price to around £500K which allows the heirs to pay of the debt.
But planning permission has been denied.
I should say at this point that the house was originally built in the 1800s for the De Beauvoir family, a large land owning family, and was a large 20-bed mansion. So it should be acknowledged that it has some history. It’s possibly the only thing that gives some meaning to the conservation area.
The reason for denying the planning permission is because knocking down the property, which is on the verge of collapse by itself, would result in the “loss of a building of townscape merit” within the De Beauvoir Conservation Area.
So because the conservation officer is so dead set on keeping the building at all costs he will actually initiate the destruction of the house. That’s because the William’s heirs will not put any money into keeping something which would stop them from being able to sell the property and pay off the debt. The conservation officer is also blocking the payment to the council of £350K. All on the principle of keeping a historical artefact which no longer has any meaning to anyone except possibly the conservation officer.
The area was so important that it was only granted it’s status in 2008. So it’s not really a historical conservation area. It’s an area where the council decided, without any public consultation, that no change should be made to the outside of properties to keep it’s special character of garden walls, railings, door cases, original windows, ridge tiles, etc. The residents will gain some benefit as the prices of their houses will increase because of the conservation area though in return they will have to put in planning requests for the most minor of changes such as changing the colour of their front door.
But look back and see when William Lyttle was moved out. 2009. Just after the conservation was created. By then the property was already an eye sore. Maybe the planning was denied because the area was created when Lyttle’s house was already destroyed, so maybe it has to be kept in a destroyed state. There is one thing a civil servant has to do at all costs – follow procedure to the letter.
So though the conservation area was granted to increase the value of the properties in the area the conservation officer is also causing the value of neighbouring properties to fall. So they have all the downsides of the conservation area but none of the benefits.
Do you think the left hand in the council doesn’t care what the right hand is doing?
Update: Now up for sale at £500K.
May 9, 2012 at 19:50
-
“Do you think the left hand in the council doesn’t care what the right hand
is doing?”
Does an ursine defecate in a sylvan setting?
That’s about par for the course for almost every council in the
country!
- May 9, 2012 at 18:53
-
It is very hard to inherit debt in the UK, (think IHT at date of death and
then for the value of the asset to drop to be less than the IHT payment, Only
ever heard of one case of that and it had £1 million RBS shares, took the
council 2 years to hand estate over to heirs by that time the shares were
worth £100k and the IHT bill was about £280k, but you can always renounce your
entitlement so you wouldn’t have to pay some ones debts)
The council bills are not just the £350k that is the legal costs, cost to
pump concrete in to the hole, and interest on these costs. There is also an
ongoing cost to the scaffolding firm, once F&F got involved they removed
as much scaffolding as possible as it was costing more than £1k per week this
was arraigned by the council. F&F also arraigned for the roof to be
removed this was done to stabilise the building as you can guess a building
with no foundations, internal walls or major structure and a big (top heavy
roof) was not very stable, that is why there was so much scaffold used.
The property was marketed with out planning permission and received
national press coverage, the price was set at the total liability , although
there was interest a buyer couldn’t be found.
There have been several planning applications. Earlier this year planning
permission to build a property was granted, but the permission to knock down
the existing was refused.
Only yesterday after several appeals was permission granted to knock down
the building, I think the site now with planning permission will be sold this
is still considerably less the the price that could have been made if Mr
Lyttle had not destroyed the building.
I am sure 100% of the neighbours will be very pleased as the price of there
properties has risen substantially in the last few days.
-
May 9, 2012 at 19:46
- May 9, 2012 at 14:34
-
William Lyttle… The fellow was clearly barking mad.
In normal circumstances (are these ‘normal’) and unless you were party i.e.
a debt in joint names or as a guarantor to the matter prior to the death of
the debtor then you are not liable. Likewise, liability for debts incurred by
one party to a marriage prior to that union are not enforceable on the other
party.
If, however, the deceased made a will in which he instructed that all of
his lawful debts were to be settled from his estate, then that may be a
different matter…
Pity the wretched building cannot ‘fall down’ somehow and solve the
problem.
- May 8, 2012 at 23:54
-
Well since everybody seems to have figured out that this is no more than a
scheme by the council to get a valuable property at a rock-bottom price, there
seems little point in me commenting.
But perhaps the landlady will allow me to go a little off topic because
cascadian actively participated in blighting De Beauvoir Square back in 1972.
I spent a half-hour skimming the conservation report, and without knowing the
geography you would be hard-pressed to find the description of London Borough
of Acne’s demolition of some fine old houses and development of Lockner
sink-estate on the east side of the square, cascadian was part of the
construction crew.
Having bored you with that reminiscence, let me make my point.
Gentrification of the area (it is far more pleasant than in 1972) has been
achieved without council meddling, I suspect it will continue to improve
despite the best (worst?) efforts of LB Acne. I suspect LBAcne have a
structural engineers report detailing remedial works required and given the
passage of time without structural collapse I would bet the home could be
renovated quite easily.
I hope the family is successful in its legal action, LBAcne probably has
designs to convert it to an immigrant or yoof drop-in centre.
- May 8, 2012 at 21:16
-
Conservation areas only apply to the residents, and not to the council if
they happen to want to do something. In my case (in Lewisham), they set up a
ludicrously one-sided PFI deal to renovate council property, some of which is
in a conservation area, but they gave their chums carte blanche. For instance
they stripped off slate roofs which were perfectly serviceable, replaced them
with cheap substitutes and then sold the slate. If the resident had wanted to
replace the roof, the council would have insisted on slate, but as it was the
council’s chums, no problem.
- May 8, 2012
at 18:03
-
So let’s get this right. William Lyttle causes the Council to incur legal
and other costs of £350k to protect his unfortunate neighbours from his
construction work. The heirs of his estate would only realise £200k by selling
the house he wrecked as is, but if the Council granted them planning
permission they could redevelop the building as flats and sell for £500k.
Doesn’t that mean they trouser £150k after paying the Council’s costs? Why
should they benefit from William Lyttle’s incompetence (at best)?
The
Council should obtain an insolvency administration order against the estate,
to get the property, then apply for outline planning permission for a
sympathetic restoration, eg preserving the facade and then put the property
into auction with an uplift clawback clause. Let a developer take the
financial risk.
- May 8, 2012 at 21:21
-
“Why should they benefit from William Lyttle’s incompetence (at
best)?”
They are not benefiting from his incompetence, but from his ownership of
a valuable asset, which, due to his insanity, is worth a lot less than it
otherwise would be. I don’t see why you begrudge them what is rightfully
theirs.
- May 8,
2012 at 23:59
-
I begrudge them the capital gain that the property with planning
permission would grant them. It’s a pity the Council didn’t sue for
possession of the house during William Lyttle’s lifetime. Besides, what
did these heirs do to help the insane Mr Lyttle during his lifetime to
make them so deserving of £150k ?
-
May 9, 2012 at 00:37
-
First let me state that I do not believe the numbers being bandied
around here, 200,000 for a building lot close to central London-in our
dreams, 350,000 council costs for relocation and minor remediation-don’t
think so.
Given they are the only numbers we have I will use them, you seem to
be relaxed about a local authority potentially getting a property that
at one time was deemed to be worth 1,000,000 for 350,000. Why?
I suspect you also believe that the government owns all the
money.
- May
9, 2012 at 12:40
-
I simply want the Council to recoup the costs of the legal and
other works incurred as a result of Mr Lyttle’s actions. You note I
proposed that the property should be auctioned for development after
planning permission had been granted.
I realise that Libertarians
have an instinctive dislike of government but the situation would be
identical if Lyttle’s neighbours had incurred the £350k costs instead
of the Council. Who would you support then?
I won’t dignify your last comment with a reply.
- May 9, 2012 at 20:41
-
Brian, you were complaining about the family getting the remainder
after the £350K had been paid. I don’t understand your position. Why
do you prefer Hackney Council to get the money which belongs to this
guy’s family? If you’d dignified Cascadian’s last comment, maybe I
wouldn’t have to ask.
- May
9, 2012 at 21:01
-
Trooper Thompson, perhaps you could read my comment to which
cascadian replied. So you believe in a situation where the heirs can
walk away from Lyttle’s debts if they wish but benefit from a windfall
(no pun intended in the circumstances) if they get planning permission
for redevelopment? Why should the Council operate for the convenience
of the heirs? The Council is simply putting its interests, ie the
reimbursement of its costs, first.
- May 8, 2012 at 17:49
-
Inasmuch as I know it is possible, everywhere, to refuse a heritage.
- May 8, 2012 at 15:47
-
Call me suspicious, but what odds do you imagine you’d get on the house
being sold at auction, to someone not unconnected with the council, wheron
planning consent is granted and someone makes a lot of cash?
- May 8, 2012 at 19:25
-
I would not be in the least surprised if that is exactly what
happened.
- May 8, 2012 at 14:42
-
Can you inherit a debt?
-
May 8, 2012 at 15:03
-
Yes. See above
- May 8, 2012 at 20:59
-
I don’t think your link links to an explanation?
- May 8, 2012 at 21:03
-
Nah. The only way you can inherit a debt is if you were party to the
agreementagreement. The council has a claim against Mr Lyttle’s estate,
but not against the inheritors.
- May 8, 2012 at 10:48
-
It’s more likely that the council’s left hand does not KNOW what the right
hand is doing. Most of the time, the council’s left hand does not know what
the left hand is doing.
- May 8, 2012
at 07:25
-
“Do you think the left hand in the council doesn’t care what the right
hand is doing?”
A rhetorical question, I assume?
- May 8, 2012 at 07:15
-
How do you inherit a debt?
-
May 8, 2012 at 08:55
-
Sounds like a perfect revenge scheme. Get yourself into enormous debt and
leave ‘all your worldy goods’ in your will to your worst enemy.
- May 8, 2012 at 08:56
-
worldly?
-
May 8, 2012 at 09:13
-
The Estate.
- May 8,
2012 at 11:57
-
I didn’t think you could inherit debt. Even if you inherited the
estate, part of which was a property and part an outstanding debt, then by
way of selling the property, if it reached a value less than the
outstanding debts of the estate you as an inheritor just got nothing. You
were not liable for the debt, surely?
Otherwise, my ex-wife is in for a whole lot of trouble when I pop my
clogs as I will run up a huge debt and leave it to her in my will,
bwhahahahaha
- May 8, 2012 at 06:35
-
Those sixty-eight letters were probably being dealt with by about
sixty-eight different people Single, as planners seem to arrive one morning,
and are gone by lunchtime these days…
The file of course, remains on the shelf while their pensions mount up…
And your’s and my schemes take longer and longer.
We lost several vital months due solely to planners’ indecision and
downright laziness. The market went away in those crucial periods.
- May 8,
2012 at 07:25
-
Spot on!
- May 8, 2012 at 06:30
-
With my surveyor hat on, I can say he was probably in breach of party wall
legislation and neighbours could have stepped in to stop him, and probably
should have long ago.
Still with my surveyor hat on, don’t even start me on the local planners. I
put in an application for development scheme of three units last year and
sixty-eight (sic, yes 68) communcations went unanswered. Kinda hard to know
what the bastards want when they decline to talk to you.
- May 8, 2012 at 06:23
-
I’d suggest that the conservation officer is a scaffolding freak as well,
Sads!
Sounds like Hackney, looks like Hackney, so it must be Hackney…
-
May 8, 2012 at 06:10
-
It’s bloody Hackney………what on Earth is there to ‘conserve’?
How come it took the authorities nearly 50yrs to remove the maniac?
If he had been burrowing away next to my property – I would imagine that
sometime in 1973, there would have been an unexplained caving in of the hole
he was digging.
- May 9, 2012 at 19:54
-
Is ‘ackney where spotty cockneys come from?
OK, time for me to go…
{ 33 comments }