LondonMix

You can get a 3 bed house the size of Frogley rd for 625k. I live in ED and love it but the premium between ED and Forest Hill shouldn't be that high. People will just start moving to ED surrounds I think before regularly paying that for such a small 3 bed.

Exactly world wiser. The indies that sadly fail have been replaced by other indies. Cave de Bruno taking over Old Villa and ToastED taking over Green and Blues. @ Louisa: I don't prefer chains to indies. All things being equal I prefer indies and use many on LL. More than indie or not I like specific shops. For instance, The Flying Pig is a favourite as are the Flower Shop on North X, Callows, Dulwich DIY, the Patch, Pretty's, Mrs Robinson, Odonnos and Il Mirto. I also like Sainsbo, GBK, Lloyds pharmacy, and Oliver Bonas. I would also love to see Ping Pong open here! I'm thrilled about the cinema. I could do without the Coop and have never been in Cafe Nero or White Stuff. I just want a high street with services and amenities I want to use period and I think the idea that a wave of chains is moving in so far is totally unfounded. I can't think of any recently at all.

You can't control who can sign a lease with a private landlord. Only if the premises require redevelopment do the authorities get involved and even then only for matters falling under planning law which doesn't include the tenant per se. This thread is absurd. Small indie units are still opening so it's premature to call their demise. Callows which is now on Melbourne grove was replaced by an indie jewellery store. Odonnos replaced the flower shop, the Patch is an indie pub. Franco Manca is taking over the draft house. These units are too small for anything besides small scale shops which is why the are indies / small chains. The larger premises have been chains for some time. M&S replacing Iceland is not more chains, it's one chain replacing another...

Another Winkworth property has seen a price reduction: the 5 bed on Chesterfield Grove has reduced to 1.1m vs 1.2m. Winkworth was Aldo behind the crazy 925k valuation for the Frogley rd property which has been reduced to 850k and is still on the market. Hopefully this means the market is calming down somewhat!

It's a state school opened via the free school program. It is planned to be co-ed, non-faith, and non-selective.

One thing besides moving out that made it less stressful for us is that while we were waiting for planning and building regs we picked out all our fixtures and fittings in extreme detail. When the work starts you won't have time. Also, things always cost ,order than you think. Having the cost of out kitchen, bathrooms, flooring, bifold doors and lighting selected helped us stay on budget when the quotes came in. We balanced it at the quote stage by reducing some of our spec for the fittings and the building work so we were comfortable. Building is like the fog of war... Make as many decision beforehand as you can!

:) the threads on both topics are long so that's the abridged version

Move out if you can afford it!

Ah, so you are benefitting from the rising market between when the council made its offer and now. Good for you! I hope it all works out.

That sounds lovely but I think I am still missing how it works. If they council for instance were willing to sell you your house for 400k and it was in reality worth 500k, there would automatically be 100k of equity in the house. However, if you sell within 5 years (which appears to be your intention), they clawback the market discount-- ie. you sell for 500k and have to repay the council 100k so you are left with 400k. If you use a mortgage plus your existing savings to buy the place for 400k in the first place, I can't see how you are raising any more cash than you have already to live your eco-farm dream. I realise I must be missing something as I am not actually that familiar with Right to Buy so if you could tell me what step I've got wrong, I'd be genuinely interested to learn.

How does that work exactly? Do you have to give the equivalent of the discount back to the council out of the sales proceeds. After you repay your bridge mortgage will that actually net you much equity (enough to build a house some place rural)?

http://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/councillor_asks_government_to_rule_on_future_of_dulwich_hospital_site Here is the information and the process. I think tomorrow is some sort of milestone in the process but am not 100% sure.

The proposal is for part of the site to be used for a school and part for a community medical centre.

I wasn't slagging off Charter. I repeatedly called it a terrific school. If you can't even honestly discuss the differences between the options what on earth is the point... ETA: The above would have been clear if you quoted me fully.

I said questions could be raised about it given the Charter had to be forced to enforce their own admissions policy. Ignoring a component of the safe walking distance that would increase the number of students admitted from social housing could be seen as a concern, particularly after the school granted successful appeals mounted by parents without then changing its policy overall. I don't know what Charter's motives were but these were concerns raised by the admissions watch dog, the Office of the School's Adjudicator. The events mentioned above came to light AFTER the most recent OFSTED report in 2009. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/feb/01/academy-school-catchment-council-estates With that said, I do think the Charter is a great school as I already said. However, if the steering committee was specifically looking for a school with great inclusion policies (as reported in a previous post), clearly the events above regarding the Charter would have figured into their assessment of the ethos / governance at Charter vis-a-vis other potential operators as concerns inclusion. By contrast, Haberdashers has a specialised inclusion team at each of its schools.

How have I attacked Charter?

People thought the cap would reduce rents because they underestimated the demand for private rents. There has been a lot of speculation that housing benefit increases rents in and of itself as it allows tops up real incomes. However, there are so many people who want to live in London that the market could be sustained just on private renting. However, that would not for most people be a good socio economic mix for the city. If ownership and renting only went to those with the highest income. However, it important to realise that even if every home in London was owned by the council and offered at low rents there would still be a waiting list for housing. More people want to live in London than homes. In light of this a decision must be made about how much of the housing stock will be for affordable housing to ensure key workers and a reasonable mix of socioeconomic mix remains in the city. Right now the government appears to be targeting 20 percent affordable and 80 percent market. Whatever the number though, until more homes are built many private renters / buyers will leave London and the waiting list for the affordable stock will be long. Mick is also right. Growth here is far faster than most areas of London. East London is also growing very fast but on average London is not growing as fast as ED. This is mostly ED prices catching up with other areas for a number of reasons including changing amenities and improving school performance.

The owner of the building Iceland leases has been trying for ages to get a planning application approved that would allow the space to be redeveloped to suit M&S who are interested. The Picture House chain behind the Ritzy has concluded a deal with the church to open St Thomas More Hall into a cinema. An application for planning is in the works and they hope to open by the end of the year.

Thanks- I can see based on those criteria why they selected HA as they have delivered schools via this process before and have more experience in developing and managing new schools. It also does not have any issues regarding inclusion whereas questions could be raised about that for Charter. Academically both schools are very strong but the above combined with having a diversity of providers instead of multiple providers in the same area would make HA a logical first choice from the steering committee.

Charter is diverse though it's not fair to be concerned it appeared they were manipulating their own admissions policy to reduce the number of council estate children attending (even if that number is already relatively high). With that said, the Charter is a terrific school. Personal attacks on the James Barber and the volunteers of the Steering Committee should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Getting involved to help your local community should not open anyone up to libellous claims and personal attacks. With that said, learning more about the scoring process the led to the decision would be helpful so individual parents who might weigh up certain criteria differently can make an informed choice about which school to support in light of the competing applications. I personally want to thank James and the committee for all they have done and I believe they have acted in good faith and in what they believe are the best interests of the community. I hope that the competing applications don't result in splitting parents so much that neither school musters the support needed for a successful application? That of course would be the worst possible outcome if parents already committed to the steering group process withdrew support in favour of Charter. Can parents support two schools? Does the DfE then recognise that while there isn't necessarily demand for two separate schools, parents would support either school if they were selected?

You are missing Loz's point. Landlord's can't dictate rents. They can only charge what the market is willing to pay. Many landlords can't always cover their costs and some are forced to sell.

Worlwiser is correct. There are absolutely not enough homes in London to house ever person who would like to live here. There are also not enough homes being built to keep apace with projected population growth in London. That's not to say that buy-to-let isn't part of the picture but the fundamental issue is a shortage of homes to buy. This is a complex issue. Young families are remaining in the city longer than they used to and older people are living longer which both reduces the turnover of homes available for purchase to new buyers. The concentration of a scarce resource in the hands of the most wealthy will always happen without regulation. Regarding housing we as a society have to decide how we want to address this: either reduce the attractiveness of owning homes as investments in London or increase the attractiveness of renting so that its not an issue. However, in both scenarios there will be unintended consequences if you don't think it through. Finance for residential developments can still be expensive / difficult to obtain. Chinese buyers who invest in London real estate allow certain schemes to get off the ground that otherwise would never be built. Without them, the total number of homes in London would be less. Most of these investors also rent out these properties. The increase in homes available for rent in London, reduces the rate of rental growth which is good for tenants. Also, as the prospect for rental growth diminishes, the attractiveness of owning buy to let properties decreases, tipping the balance back in favour of owner occupiers. Given the supply of homes is the fundamental issue in London, my policy suggestion would be to give massive tax breaks to those willing to buy new build homes as investments as this increases supply. However, I would severely tax those who buy existing housing stock for investment purposes going forward.

The solicitors in my transaction were total pants. They were without a doubt the weakest link. Told us that nothing was outstanding and when we spoke directly to our buyers it turns out there had been a series of questions outstanding for two weeks that hadn?t been passed along to us?

Front path is that expensive, though a new front door and planting won't push it to 10k. I think most houses are presented reasonably well and some are very well presented. The ones that look the most rough look like they are occupied by the elderly (judging by style of curtains etc) which is entirely understandable on a number of fronts. One thing I have noticed is that one person smartening up the front of their house tends to have a knock on effect. 4 houses on my street are currently being painted. The first person started and it reminds others their place might be due for a freshening up.

From the Guardian. The question of foreign buyers isn't that straight forward. For one, many of the new build schemes they buy off plan potentially could not be developed otherwise. They act as a stimulus for supply which is certainly positive. Help to Buy is a bad idea (though I am very sympathetic to those who are making use of it as renting vs. being on a high LTV mortgage is tough). It would have been better if it was limitted to new builds in the South East as that would have stimulated building and supply which would have been a good thing. http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/nov/14/london-property-foreign-investors