empty flats on junction of underhill road and overhill road

[tamblynhirst]

Does anyone know what is happening to the building on the corner of Underhill rd and Overhill rd ? The basement appears to be occcupied with clothing on hangers, the ground floor just has drapes obscuring the interior. If its squatters good luck, about time someone lived there, shame , great piece of land , ugly building.

[tor]

I agree - the block of flats sums up the whole East Dulwich property market greed a few years back. The developers could have built a decent sized house there which would have appealed to the family market. But instead they tried to squeeze in five or so flats and then wondered why no one wanted to buy them.

I live near there so don't get me wrong, but the transport links in that area are hardly what young professionals interested in a two bedroom flat are looking for. And I defy anyone to want to live in a property where anyone driving or walking past can see your every move through 8 foot windows.

So, in response to you tamby - I agree it's about time someone used the property for a roof over their head.

[Siduhe]

I wondered the same when I saw the curtains had gone up - one of the windows at the top of the building was wide open (unusual) for several days previously.

Then I saw they had put a satellite dish up and assumed they must be legitimate tenants (although Mr Siduhe is sceptical - apparently squatters organise this kind of thing as well).

I've never understood why the owner doesn't just rent the flats out on short term contracts at a low rent. Even if he's losing money, he wouldn't be losing as much as he is with it empty or squatted and it would be easier to rent to others with a few people in it, notwithstanding the poor design.

[cate]

Why would Southwark Council have given planning permission for that pile of bad design to be built?

[espelli]

The whole block is for sale, so maybe it is squatters in there.

[Pearson]

cate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why would Southwark Council have given planning

> permission for that pile of bad design to be

> built?

--------------------------------------------------------

Sadly for us, Planners don't get Degrees in good taste

Ironic then that they should 'Police' Architects!

^ not a specific reference to this case, and of course not all architects have good taste either. I know :-S

[dubluke]

it was shown as under offer at 850k with truepenny's until quite recently, I'd imagine the sale has fallen through and they've cut the price drastically to try and re sell quick

[tibby]

yes it is squatters in there now

[Bunny19]

Now for sale at c750k, I suspect a bit of hard bargaining would get it for 700k, which would be remarkable value in the area @ 175k for a two bedroom flat with en-suie. But have to agree with all, the design is far from appealing especially in its position and proximity might not be ideal for young city types. I am surprised the vendor/developer hasn't tried the rental route after all this time. I'm sure they'd get 800 PCM for each unit, that would have given them them over 75k whilst it has been stagnating and ultimately becoming a prime target for squatters.

[Jeremy]

Selling these places is a slippery slope. The longer they are standing empty, the less appealling they are for buyers, because they appear to be virtually unsellable. They probably will have to knock them down to something like ?175k just to get a sale.

In the meantime... usually I am rather anti-squatting, but after all these years, there's no reason to believe that the legit owner will need them back any time soon.

[Penguin68]

The flats are inordinately ugly, with unusable picture windows (overlooking a cemetery, great view) that offer no privacy unless heavily netted (and then what's the point?) and the house has lost any 'garden' space it once had. The history of the site (and what happened in it when the subsiding orginal building stood empty) is hardly auspicious. At the offer price it sounds appealing (if you haven't seen it), but only as a buy-to-let investment - the design means that it could never be economically converted to single occupancy as a family home - which is still (thank goodness) the most common tenancy at that end of Underhill.

If the owners are sensible they will be hoping that the squatters end up burning it to the ground (obviously with no injuries!), that way the insurance might pay for rebuilding a saleable property.

[cate]

Perhaps they could be marketed to exhibitionists. Other than that I suggest putting up half shutters across the bottom of the windows.

[DulwichFox]

Presumably Ground rent would be shared amongst all the tenants.

If there was only one tenant, how would that work.

Who would want to be the first/only tenant.

It would be cold in the winter if all the other units were empty.

[cate]

Tenants don't pay ground rent. Leaseholders do.

[DulwichFox]

cate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tenants don't pay ground rent. Leaseholders do.

Ok. wrong use of word tenant.

Presumeably these units are for sale.

Who would want to be the first/only Owner / Leaseholder.

Think Most people got my gist.

[ian_b]

.

[jim_the_chin]

"The history of the site (and what happened in it when the subsiding orginal building stood empty) is hardly auspicious."

Are you just talking about the subsidence or was there some horrendous multiple murder to add to the story?

[Penguin68]

A child was abducted and held in the empty house, if memory serves.

[dubluke]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A child was abducted and held in the empty house,

> if memory serves.

Jesus - was it in the papers?

[Penguin68]

Probably - but it was also probably 10 years ago now, or a little less.