LondonMix

These structures can last hundreds of years. Having used the wall for a few years more should impact that cost sharing at all in my opinion.

Yes, we incorporated the idea in our party wall notice from the begining so it would be clear. The costs were also the costs when they did it, not what it cost when we did it. If you haven't already agreed it in writing, you probably legally don't have to pay anything but I just wanted you to know that your neighbours aren't asking for something totally crazy. When you actually share the party-wall for the side extension its fairly normal. I hope that helps.

I've been through this with neighbours and 50% of the costs to build it as quoted by a reputable builder is standard practice. It's not much money-- depending on the size of the wall your share will be at most a couple of grand. We agreed to a wall on the boundary line as we knew we wanted to do our own extension eventually (as it sounds like you did). Altruism didn't really come into it. Also, we couldn't have blocked our neighbour's extension if we didn't consent to the party-wall notification. It would have simply required a surveyor to determine access rights, hours of work etc which is a totally unncessary expense if you can agree these points amongst yourselves as decent neighbours. Since what our neighbours did was within their PD rights, at most we could have forced them to build the wall 6 inches over on their side and then we would never have the right to use it. Noisy / party-mad neigbours is a totally different can of worms and really doesn't have anything to do with sharing the costs of constructing a wall. If they really are that inconsiderate though I feel for you as that's terrible.

Its totally normal that if you use the wall, you pay for half the costs of building it. It is completely natural that you should pay your share towards to cost of creating a wall that will now form part of your house. While you may have endured the noise the first time around, they will endure it now. I don't see how the noise argument comes into since she is now doing her own side return extension...

Congrats Otta

Maybe, but zone 2 of London really isn't comparable to Jersey. Most people who want to live in large global cities are much more comfortable with apartment living. I don't know a single English person who is happy raising a family in a flat. Whereas my French colleagues see it as entirely normal and part of city living. Ditto my American colleagues. As demographics in London are changing and more people are choosing to stay in the city to raise families, something is going to have to shift in terms of expectations. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...you over play the cultural dislike of apartment > living being a London/brit thing LM. Prime > expensive central London + StJohn's Woods is > chocker with them. Suburban families generally > don't want them but my memories of Queens and New > Jersey are rows and rows of standalone family > homes, many detached!

Agree with all of that DaveR. The poor people jab (while certainly partially true) was an over simplification designed to provoke. The issues facing London are complex. The changing demographics, the transformation of the housing stock via extensions, transport improvements, a cultural dislike of new builds and apartment living etc.

I get that. For some its the amenities, for other the commute and for some its the poor people. The point is, having to live somewhere without a lively pub is disappointing but its not the end of the world. Most slightly dull places are very near places with more going on. Friends who live in Eltham go out in Blackheath. Friends in Anerly go to Crystal Palace. Continuing to focus on how hard done by rich professionals-- because even people priced out of ED are pretty wealthy-- have it can only be banged on about for so long. East Dulwich while not the most expensive part of London is relatively expensive.

I think this sentiment is what I bothers me most about this thread. The underlying message is someone like me shouldn't have to live near poor people. My best friend just moved to Eltham-- it is really not the Greek tragedy some on here are making it out to be. Regarding coming up with solutions to the problem-- call me simple minded but I tend to think understanding and exploring the issues comes before making proposed solutions. I agree the situation is untenable (not necessarily because its a bubble) but because allowing London to lose all of its economic diversity is bad for the city in numerous ways. Every major city in the world is wrestling with this. They need to keep the city accessible for young talented people so the city can remain dynamic (economically and otherwise). In both San Francisco and New York (which both have already adopted denser living / apartment living for families) the mayors have allowed for the creation of micro unit apartments for single young professionals. And while I do have a lot of sympathy for those now priced out of ED (its happened to me elsewhere in the past) I most certainly would move some place cheaper if I couldn't afford to live here. I lived in ED before it was what it is and could comfortably live some place else similar to how ED was back when I first lived here. StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not so much about fairness or not - it's just > untenable > > If everyone saying "it's the market stupid, dems > the rules" had to take their salary, and their > partner (at whatever the peaks of boths salaries > were) and genuinely had to compete in the market > for a home now (now, not 12 months ago) , it would > be very instructive. Saying you can buy a 4 bed in > (say) Anerley for 350k is one thing but I'm pretty > sure not many people would. It doesn't even > remotely compare to ED 15-20 years ago

Sorry if you missed (or don?t care about) the point I was making. I think Mick Mack and I (though we disagree) are trying to understand what is happening to house prices in ED and why. Is this just part of a broader increase in London (not really as ED is growing faster the London on average and faster than Central London statistically) or is ED catching up with other areas. If it?s a catch up is it just due to the area becoming more appealing or is the area relatively affordable due to the smaller homes. Is the demand driven by more families staying in London? I know this isn?t as interesting as just moaning endlessly about how unfair it all is though?

We may just have to agree to disagree. Prices even within an area vary due to proximity to transport, schools, ammenities etc. So we can continue linking endlessly to properties that illustrate our respective points. For instance, here is a 4 bed house is SW4 that is 1,845 sqft asking 1.35m http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42920359.html Below is a 4 bed house is SE22 that is 1,776 sft that is under offer at 1.3m http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29061372.html However, my real point was not about like for like comparisons but rather the price psqm. 3 bed houses in ED cost on a psm basis about the same as large houses in Clapham. ED houses aren't better value for money but represent a chance to acquire something affordable because of the relative smaller sized homes available in the area. A 3-bed in ED costs circa 700 per square foot which about the same if not a little more as houses in Clapham.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were included sold flats. I have already said that flats in Clapham trade a premium to those in ED anyhow and why. For houses however, that simply isn?t the case anymore for a variety of reasons. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's not quite as dramatic as that-- if you > look > > at your search a lot of the flats are 4 bed and > 3 > > beds which ED doesn't have because the houses > (and > > therefore the flat conversions) are smaller. > > No - my search was for 2 beds only - there are 16 > of them over ?700k in SW4. ED has one. > > http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find. > html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E2517&minPrice=70 > 0000&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=2&displayPropertyTy > pe=flats&oldDisplayPropertyType=flats&includeSSTC= > true&_includeSSTC=on&index=10

It's estate jewellery (hence the term pre-loved). The prices are reasonable for jewellery in my view too given the items are real. Callie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > http://www.lilasjewels.co.uk > > lol those prices are outrageous & stuff looks so > grannified

It's not quite as dramatic as that-- if you look at your search a lot of the flats are 4 bed and 3 beds which ED doesn't have because the houses (and therefore the flat conversions) are smaller. I do agree that there is a premium for flats in Clapham though whereas for houses the premium has disappeared. That probably has something to do with Clapham appealing to a younger demographic more so than ED. Also, Clapham has virtually no small houses which again pushes up the costs of flats. In ED there are still 3 bed houses. Clapham has been affluent for so long now that everyone has extended their homes (loft, side return, basement) and its hard to find something that's small and therefore more afforable. There is only ONE 3 bed period house on the market in Clapham at the moment at is 1,625 sft (larger than most 4 beds in ED). In ED there are 18 (13 of which are period properties). Buying a house in ED isn't really value for money compared to Clapham but it is more affordable given the current state of the housing stock.

Agree house prices in and around ED are catch up. The market is equalizing with other more affluent areas that are growing more slowly. I would say there is very little difference between ED and Clapham now. Clapham houses sell for me in general as they are larger (many have had basement conversions). However, when you have two houses of equal size they are marketed more or less for the same price in both ED and Clapham. In fact, ED is more expensive strictly speaking on a psm basis. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42743275.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29061372.html

I wouldn't say ED has increased 55% in two years. Prices only started going up in 2013 and I would say increased 30% between end of 2012 and end of 2013. That's a large increase in 1 year and well above the London average.

They send a specific notice to the neighbours affected and they know who they are by name. Anyone else can also write in and their comments will be part of the official record but the planners know who they have to legally consult/ notify given proximity versus other parties.

They send a specific notice to the neighbours affected and they know who they are by name. Anyone else can also right in and their comments will be part of the official record but the planners know who they have to legally consult/ notify given proximity versus other parties. Anyway, personal details are often redacted before being published.

If she lives above the shop then fair enough but in general a recurring fine should be paid for leaving building empty.

Also underlying this trend is school places. Now that families are staying in London, the pressure on school places is tremendous with shortages very common place. By contrast I remember reading somewhere that pupil numbers were falling in the Home Counties.

I don't know Stroud Green but I like Crouch End-- I have two friends that live there. I think Crouch End is more expensive that ED though. I think in general comparable neighbourhoods in North London still trade at a premium to South London equivalents due to the perception that the South is rougher and more suburban in general. London is going the way of New York. Within 10 to 15 years there won't be any areas within Inner London that are considered too bad. It will just be a question of taste-- do you like an arty vibe vs a genteel feel etc.

Finsbury Park isn't more expensive than ED. Certainly not on a per square foot basis. The 3 bed terraces tend to be a bit larger there but in general (besides the odd outlier) Finsbury get you more for your money than in ED at the moment.

Not that anything is wrong with Nunhead!

My only point is if there were comparable neighbourhoods for less money people would move there instead. Otta I bought years ago but instead of viewing those behind me as idiots I feel sorry for them that London is so expensive and I recognise that in there position I would do the same. I could sell my house in ED and move to Nunhead and pocket the difference. The fact that I don't want to is largely down to the fact I'd rather stay where I am which means I must think its worth it. Everyone in London is in the same position- i am sure newcomers to Penge are viewed as idiots by the locals as well! I just don't get why every discussion about London property has to descend into name calling. Everyone is just trying to do the best they can with choices and budget they have!

If it's poor value relative to what you could sell it for then people would be selling up in droves. It's not my opinion it's the opinion of everyone who is buying and everyone who is not selling.