Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am hoping to buy a Victorian conversion flat and have been doing some research into neighbouring properties. It turns out that one of the houses next door is owned by Southwark Council, but when I looked on the council's list of street properties (here: http://tiny.cc/southwark) this address was not on there.


Does anyone know what that means? I'm just a bit concerned because if it's not listed as a street property, I'm wondering what the council does use it for. I don't want to unwittingly move next door to a hostel or something of that sort! Looking at the property from the outside, it does appear to be residential!

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Knock and ask?



Thanks e-dealer - yes, I could do I suppose!


No, it's not Balchier Road - why? I notice Balchier is included on that spreadsheet of Southwark properties. I'm just confused as to why this one isn't, as it does appear to be residential!

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Also there's no house numbers so what use is it

> anyway?



It doesn't really matter about the house numbers in this case, as the street I'm hoping to buy on is not listed at all - suggesting there are no council street properties located there! However, perhaps you're right and that's not a complete list. It would explain it...

Ask the council?


Wait about outside to check out the vile and horrible people who have the nerve to sully the street where you want to buy a flat by living in a hostel (or "something of that sort", whatever that is)?


Seriously, what is the problem with living next door to a hostel?

James Wrote:

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

> Um, perhaps the fact that there might be random

> scumbags having domestics all hours of the day and

> night on your doorstep?


Exactly, thanks James! I know it might be strange to some, but I want a peaceful life!

James Wrote:

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

> Um, perhaps the fact that there might be random

> scumbags having domestics all hours of the day and

> night on your doorstep?


xxxxxx


So people who live in a hostel or "something of that sort" are likely to be scumbags and/or likely to be "having domestics" on your doorstep?


And your evidence for that is - what, exactly?


Let's hope your personal circumstances never change to a point where the only option for you is to live in a hostel or "something of that sort", Girl82 and James.

I used to live next door to a hostel for those with addiction problems and its fair to say that whilst many of the residents were pleasant enough, it also contained a fair number of challenging / chaotic individuals. Of course there will be hostels and hostels, but it's not unreasonable to be cautious about who you'll be living next door to when buying a property.

Agree 100%.





Louisa Wrote:

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

> Face facts Sue, no one who owns a property wants

> it to be next to any institution such as a hostel.

> That's not snobbery, it's just a fact of life.

> Denying it just comes across as fashionably

> politically correct - just for the sake of it.

>

> Louisa.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> You've looked at a list of street properties for

> the Nunhead and Peckham Rye area only. That's only

> a part of Southwark.



Thanks James - I don't understand why it's not on the list if it's owned by the council and appears to be residential! What could that mean - any idea? Does it mean it could be a hostel or something of that sort, or could it just be that the council simply isn't undertaking any works to that property in the next 5 years?

Girl82 Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You've looked at a list of street properties

> for

> > the Nunhead and Peckham Rye area only. That's

> only

> > a part of Southwark.

>

>

> Thanks James - I don't understand why it's not on

> the list if it's owned by the council and appears

> to be residential! What could that mean - any

> idea? Does it mean it could be a hostel or

> something of that sort, or could it just be that

> the council simply isn't undertaking any works to

> that property in the next 5 years?




Email gerri.scott @ southwark.gov.uk, head of housing and ask her. Will short cut all this

James Wrote:

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

> Ridiculous political correctness strikes again. So

> if you were buying a flat/house, whould you choose

> one next to a hostel Sue? Don't think so somehow,

> whatever you say here in the name of being 'right

> on'.


xxxxxxx


Wherever I was looking to buy a flat/house, I would of course check out the neighbouring properties in case of potential problems.


And of course I wouldn't deliberately choose to live somewhere where it was clear that there was going to be anti-social disruption.


I wouldn't, however, assume that just because somewhere was designated as a "hostel" that there would automatically be problems, which seems to be what is being assumed here.


It's not about being "right on", whatever that's supposed to mean.


It's about looking at facts and evidence rather than making assumptions.

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> If you cannot get an answer she will pass it on to

> who ever to respond. Her mantra is Customer

> Service and she enforces it hard.



Oh great, thanks Charles - will drop her an email!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...