Jump to content

Recommended Posts

According to this article in the South London Press, the new buyers have paid well in excess of 5 million pounds for the former site. Quite astonishing considering the limited room for development that there is. So guys, take your bets, do you think 5 mil was a fair cop or daylight robbery? Also who's the buyer?


http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=1965&headline=It?s%20a%20fair%20cop!


Louisa.

My understanding (could be quite wrong) is that roughly 1/3 of the price of a new build property is the cost of the land. Therefore if the land is being sold for ?5 million, the developer will be looking to build properties on that plot of land worth ?15 million. Lets say that is roughly 30, two bedroom flats selling for ?500,000 each. Taking a rough look at the size of plot I suspect that many flats could be fit on that plot of land e.g. a 3 story building with 3 flats on each floor on the Lordship lane and Landcroft road side of the plot of land and 4 flats on each floor on the Whateley road side.

What's all this rubbish it talks about being as asset of community value? A disused, old, anonymous block, which had very little public access unless you were on the wrong side of the law. The sooner they knock it down the better. I'm amazed the campaigning for Waitrose hasn't started up again to be honest. A cinema would be good but if not I can't imagine why anyone would object to houses and flats being built.


Also, does anyone know the status of the old flying squad house and land that is being developed opposite the Actress on Crystal Palace Road?

my guess...


definitely - apartments on upper floors, around 20-25 flats, typically 2bed, likely 2-3 stories on Landcroft stepping up along Whateley to 3-4 on Lordship


inevitably - retail on ground floor, like a Little Waitrose


probably - lots of forum members fretting about future parking mayhem?

(ps, I'm a neighbour and welcome this site being redeveloped)

The building is an eyesore, and anything the buyer can do to improve the site would be great. It is a deceptively big site, so not surpised it went for alot of money.


Mixed retail/residential would be good. Waitrose/M&S downstairs and two floors of flats above.


Done.

picmicnic Wrote:

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

> My understanding (could be quite wrong) is that

> roughly 1/3 of the price of a new build property

> is the cost of the land. Therefore if the land is

> being sold for ?5 million, the developer will be

> looking to build properties on that plot of land

> worth ?15 million. Lets say that is roughly 30,

> two bedroom flats selling for ?500,000 each.

> Taking a rough look at the size of plot I suspect

> that many flats could be fit on that plot of land

> e.g. a 3 story building with 3 flats on each floor

> on the Lordship lane and Landcroft road side of

> the plot of land and 4 flats on each floor on the

> Whateley road side.


Doesn't the ratio of land price/build cost = value vary massively dependent upon where in the country or even where in London the property is, as build costs are fairly uniform but land costs vary hugely?

neilson99 Wrote:

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

>

> Also, does anyone know the status of the old

> flying squad house and land that is being

> developed opposite the Actress on Crystal Palace

> Road?


xxxxxx


Developers looking to build high flats, thus plunging neighbours into darkness, amongst other things.


Immediate neighbours and other nearby residents contesting plans.

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.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> picmicnic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > My understanding (could be quite wrong) is that

> > roughly 1/3 of the price of a new build

> property

> > is the cost of the land. Therefore if the land

> is

> > being sold for ?5 million, the developer will

> be

> > looking to build properties on that plot of

> land

> > worth ?15 million. Lets say that is roughly 30,

> > two bedroom flats selling for ?500,000 each.

> > Taking a rough look at the size of plot I

> suspect

> > that many flats could be fit on that plot of

> land

> > e.g. a 3 story building with 3 flats on each

> floor

> > on the Lordship lane and Landcroft road side of

> > the plot of land and 4 flats on each floor on

> the

> > Whateley road side.

>

> Doesn't the ratio of land price/build cost = value

> vary massively dependent upon where in the country

> or even where in London the property is, as build

> costs are fairly uniform but land costs vary

> hugely?


Yes the ratio will vary massively dependent on location.

In East Dulwich and other similar areas of London I believe its roughly 1/3.

e.g.

-Assuming the ?500,000 2 bed flat is 1000 sq ft and the build cost is ?200 per foot. The build cost for the flat is therefore ?200,000 or 40% of the purchase price.

-Expenses + stamp duty + cost of selling + profit I believe is roughly 25% of the purchase price (give or take 10%)

-Leaving about 35% for the cost of the land


Note - I am no expert, this is based on a conversation with someone in a pub a couple of month back.

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

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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