LondonMix

Agree with that too. No one I know had a car before they started thinking of starting a family except 1 friend in London. A car is a huge expense for a young professional in London that's totally unncessary before kids.

It?s ridiculous to call the newcomer idiots because the prices have increased. They want to live in London and ED has the amenities that make it the best choice given their budget within London. Telling people that they should simply refuse to pay for a house they can afford because you think it is too much is daft. You could easily say the same thing about all us old timers who value staying in ED (for the amenities and convenience) rather than selling our homes, cashing in and moving someplace cheaper.

I tend to agree. Also, if you look at earlier posts in this thread, most people were unaware the parking spaces behing Iceland existed. Various people checked it out at various times of the day and it was totally under-utilised. Therefore, losing those 17 spaces can't be so significant regarding parking stress. There are other elements of the application that are of greater concern-- specifically how the trucks will access the back of the development safely without causing property damage. I am not sure what the final conclusion on that point was in the appeal.

Minder, the minimum wage is a gross figure, meaning its what you earn before tax is deducted. Nanny pay is oddly quoted net- i.e. its the amount the any earns after tax and national insurance is deducted. A net wage of 6GBP per hour is equivalent to about 7.25 GBP per hour gross full time. You can't compare net nanny wages to the way most people earn / talk about pay. In fact, I can't think of any other industry besides nannying where pay is typically quoted net rather than gross.

6 GBP net is NOT below the minimum wage. You aren't comparing apples with apples... devsdev Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nannies who bring their own children to work will > usually not work for just ?6 an hour (this is > below the minimum wage in any case). The lowest > really would be ?7 net, some would ask for ?8 net. > Agree that she should pay for her own child at > playgroups etc., but her son would eat with your > children and share the food prepared for them > (which she would cook/freeze as well if you want). > This kind of a share is really convenient (since > you don't have to coordinate with another family > or leave your house) and it's great for your son > to have another child to play with while your > daughter is at nursery. > > On how you decide on pay - speak to a company like > Nannypaye about whether to agree a gross hourly > figure rather than a net figure as with the latter > you're unsure how much you will ultimately be > paying out (the taxes and NI costs that are paid > quarterly depend on your nanny's tax code). Not > sure exactly how it works as we have a net amount > agreed.

Most Chinese investors rent out their flats-- they are in it for the long hall but they absolutely rent them out. The number of people that actually buy London real estate as a luxury crash pad is so small as to be largely irrelevant to the broader housing situation. I agree there should be a tax on empty homes, particularly those owned by foreigners but I don't think it will solve the housing crisis in London.

Yes, Dulwich Hamlet are going to run it as a free school.

That?s a bit simplistic. The Chinese investors rent out their flats for profit. An increase in the number of rental flats will result (like for like) in a decrease in rental prices. A drop in rental yields will result in a rebalancing between homes for sale and homes owned for investment. The truth is there is a shortage of rentals as well as a shortage of homes for purchase so as long as homes aren?t being left empty, any new development will help address the housing shortage in London.

Sorry, I meant primary schools. So the Whately Road site is one of two approved primary schools with DfE funding behind them? I was only aware of one school having parental backing.

Second site for what? Is Harris opening 2 secondary schools in the area? Did they get enough support from parents for this? Or are you looking for a site for another free school?

Is this the school that had support and was targeting the hospital site or is the a 2nd Harris primary school.

Part of it is cultural as well. English people (more so that other nationalities who live in large cities like NY or Hong Kong) are genuinely averse to living long-term in apartments. However, families living in higher density purpose built apartments is the only way to satisfy the need within London for family accommodation. This is totally normal in most metropolises and London is particularly well suited to this given the large number of parks and commons. The other cultural issue is that the English prefer living in period properties and there is no way to increase the supply of those! The premium that exists for period houses means that a whole house is worth more than the two flats that could be created out of it. The bigger solution though is that the government needs to redirect some economic growth out of London and back to the regions. The housing shortage can?t be solved if all of the growth and jobs are in London and every clever kid feels they need to move to London to have a decent career.

So has it been sold to the Department of Education or a private buyer who intends to use it as a school? What is the current status of things?

Agree MickMack. However, when demand is greater than supply, to upsize you often see that people have to move. That is what is happening in London at the moment at a phenomenal rate. I liked to an article earlier that showed that the rest of London was now growing at a faster pace than central London, underlying the trend a lot of us will have seen anecdotally. In ED its no longer people priced out of Clapham moving here (ED and Clapham for the same sized house aren?t actually very different at this point) but rather buyers priced out of North London. Droves of people in ED are moving to Beckenham. Moving up the ladder in your own neighborhood is becoming increasingly difficult for many buyers.

Foreign buyers are having an impact Mick Mac. If you think of London as only having 9 houses its easier to picture. Let's say 3 houses are in central London (most expensive area), 3 houses are in Dulwich, a 3 houses are in Eltham. If only 9 people wanted to live in London, the richest 3 would live in the most desirable area (Central London), the next 3 richest would live in Dulwich and the remaining 3 would live in Eltham. If you allow one foreigner from Hong Kong to buy a house and they are richer than the 9 people who already live in London, the foreigner will buy in Central London, one of the people who previously could live in central London would move to Dulwich. The extra demand in Dulwich would push prices up-- remember (the guys who was forced out can afford to pay more than the others). The poorest person that could previously could have afforded Dulwich move to Eltham and push prices up there, and one person in Eltham would be forced out of London all together. The bottom line is whenever more people enter the buying market, unless supply increases, prices will increase. However, I don't think the foreign buyers are having as much an impact as people suggest for a few reasons: They tend to buy new build flats and rent them out. To the extent that there is a shortage of properties for rental this in and of itself doesn't cause prices to go up. Moreover, many schemes wouldn't be developed without knowing they could be sold to foreign investors, therefore, foreign buyers presence in the market is actually increasing the total housing stock by stimulating building. Foreign buyers mostly cause a problem when they buy flats and leave them empty. However, the number of people that can afford to do that is so miniscule that even though its irritating, in and of itself, it cannot have a very significant impact on the housing market. The fact is, more people want to live in London than before. The population of London is growing and it's growing faster than the increase in the supply of new housing.

The US is one of the countries that won't allow children to register for school without proof of vaccination. For those questioning why outbreaks happen in Britain (which is highly vaccinated) and how their decision not to vaccinate their children puts other children at risk the explanation is rather straight forward. Vaccinations work both at the level of the individual and via herd immunity. Even though Britain still has a resaonably high vaccination rate, in certain areas, it is falling below the level at which herd immunity is effective. Diseases like measles are so contagious that without vaccination virtually every child would catch it at some point in their lives. When immunisation rates are high, the disease cannot easily spread to those that are too young or too sick (under going cancer treatment / suffering from an autoimmune disease etc) to be vaccinated-this is herd immunity. Allowing vaccination levels to fall below the herd immunity level puts these people at greater risk of infection. Therefore, the decision not to vaccinate your child increases the risk that your child will contract the disease and also increases the risk that other children too young or too sick for vaccinations will contract the disease and suffer severe complications. newtoedf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to think that parents who didn't vaccinate > their children were only putting their own > children at risk. Then I got a letter home from my > daughter's nursery about a case there. My child > was not quite 1 so almost due her MMR but not > quite. The realisation that my child was a risk of > contracting a potentially life-threatening disease > because of someone else neglecting to vaccinate > their child quickly changed my mind! It is with > noting that some countries won't allow > unvaccinated children to attend school.

I really don't think anyone is pushing themselves to breaking point. Personally, no one I know is doing that as they are all aware of potential interest rate rises (mortgage lenders have to illustrate this to you explicitly during your meeting). The stats also suggest that lending multiples are not increasing dramatically and affordability for 2013 compared to 2012 actually improved... https://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3620 http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3743 As you can see, lending multiples have increased by circa 4% for first time buyers from 3.59x to 3.74x between 2012 and 2013. Mortgage repayments (as a precentage of take home pay) have actually become more affordable for first time buyers in 2013 in London.

I have friends and neighbors buying here and in Brockley and houses are selling above asking in most circumstances. Our neighbors have gone to sealed bids on multiple properties. Trying to extrapolate what?s happening in East Dulwich to the rest of London isn?t appropriate. Areas that have recently gentrified are increasing in value at a much faster rate than London as a whole. In fact, prices in central London are actually lagging behind London suburbs now . http://www.bridgepoint-ventures.com/media-center/opinion/outer-london-property-prices-gaining-on-central-zone/ It appears the market is so tight in central London now that en masse, a large number of buyers are moving further afield to areas that once were too grotty for them to consider. Similar to most major cities, London is undergoing a shift. The current massive pricing discrepancies between areas within the city are reducing. This happened in New York 15 years ago. Manhattan once had grotty cheap areas but now is pretty universally gentrified and expensive. Even amongst areas outside of Central London, East Dulwich?s house prices are increasing faster than average in part due to new amenities?better transport links in surrounding areas, the increasing appeal of Peckham (the reputation of Peckham used to put people of ED but as its reinventing itself as a hipster / artistic hub that is changing), increasing numbers of nice shops and restaurants, improving schools, etc are all playing their part. I think most people who are buying are looking at where they live as a home not an investment. However, I agree that price rises has frightened more people into buying now to avoid being priced out of their preferred areas. However, I have 3 friends who have bought in the last 6 months and no one paid more than what they were planning to. Price rises meant they moved to cheaper areas or bought smaller houses. I?m not sure there is any evidence borrowing ratios are actually increasing in London or the country as a whole.

He said he would like it to be a school. There is a big difference...

That's right except that most two bed flats aren't 1,000 sft! Try 750 sft if you are being generous. The smaller size of the flat means that land is 45% of the final market value.

Land is more expensive in London for the reasons Duncan says. They will make back the 5m easily if they are allowed to develop residential on the site. I agree its likely going to be supermarket with flats. There are a lot of new flats coming up in the area. Don't forget about the ones on Lordship lane where the street art festival was plus the new development on Crystal palace. All the new flats coming to market should help meet demand. I have friends who are buying and 15 people at the open day to a pokey first floor flat shows how much excess demand there is at the moment.

Exactly-- Peckham used to be very affluent. Different people come and go from an area and that can change the way an area feels but its all ebbs and flows over time. Also, I think Rye Lane is most likely going to be more like Brixton. Due to social housing, the area will always be more economically mixed than other parts of London and that's not a bad thing. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckham's a dynamic area and always has been. It > started of as an affluent suburb and has been > through many transformations since then. It's > hardly turned into Clapham.

Thanks for the link DaveR

In 2009 many people simply couldn't buy and it had nothing to do with cowardice. Your idea that in 2009 most people in flats were flush with home equity and afriad to buy 3 bed houses doesn't really stack up. After that, the argument no longer holds water as people were buying and prices started rise as a result from 2010 onwards. It's totally illogical to say that those that didn't buy then were afraid. Afraid of what in a growing market? However, a desire to buy isn't the only thing that dictates when people make the move. Some will only be ready to buy this year other in a few years from now and its down to personal circumstances.

Friends did this. The most important factor is how much ceiling height you have below as Jeremy says. 240cm after lowering is fine. 2.1- 2.2m in the loft room is also fine as people expect loft rooms to have low ceilings.