Jump to content

Recommended Posts

0.6 acres, all of which has a street frontage. That's valuable land. The 'shed' is irrelevant (in fact, it would have been figured in by the buyer as a cost for demolition, not an asset.)


A better question would have been why Southwark don't build a number of properties itself on the site.

Loz Wrote:

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

> 0.6 acres, all of which has a street frontage.

> That's valuable land. The 'shed' is irrelevant (in

> fact, it would have been figured in by the buyer

> as a cost for demolition, not an asset.)

>

> A better question would have been why Southwark

> don't build a number of properties itself on the

> site.


Wot Loz said. Sounds cheap actually

Loz Wrote:

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

> A better question would have been why Southwark

> don't build a number of properties itself on the

> site.


Had the same thought. They could probably have built 3 houses and sold a lease on one to pay for the build. Councils are struggling to make budgets balance and provide social housing yet they squander assets in this way. Is there something which prevents this from happening?

What I find alarming is the statement saying the property has been siting empty since 2002.


I once spotted a property in SE1, checked with HMLR, asked Southwark Council about it and they didn't know they even had it. They then sold it. So perhaps this piece of land is another one like that. I will find out. Asset management in such massive councils is an issue.

"A better question would have been why Southwark don't build a number of properties itself on the site"

Loz, spot-on.


The BBC News report states:


"The council said the property had been sold without planning permission for demolition, but that did not stop the new owners applying for it.

Mr Livingstone added the money would be used to fund its housing investment programme which includes building 11,000 new properties in the borough by the 2040s."


Perhaps Councillor Richard Livingstone could explain the economics.


MarkT

This is not a 'shed' but a 1940s pre-fab - post-war housing meant to last 10 years but (some) still sound after 70. They are well proportioned and soundly built (although out of asbestos sheeting, frequently) - my grandparents lived in one after they were bombed out of 3 houses in the war. They were built on a decent sized plot (with gardens) and, for the time, were well appointed with good indoor plumbing etc. As bungalows they were ideal for older occupiers. With asbestos cladding they were warm (and, of course, fire-proof!). They are part of our London heritage - although use of the site can now be 'improved' - in terms of occupancy rates - these 'sheds' provided real comfort to many, and a limited few still do. There were quite a number in Underhill 20-25 years ago, sadly most (bar one, I think) now gone.
From what I've read the plan is to sell off high value sites and develop in lower value areas. Why develop a few flats on a plot of land worth 1 million quid when you can sell the land and use that 1 million quid to develop much more housing on cheaper land elsewhere in the borough. If they actually do it, its of course the most effective way of developing the greatest amount of social housing. The main drawback is it reduces socio-economic diversity in affluent / gentrifying areas.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Why

> develop a few flats on a plot of land worth 1

> million quid when you can sell the land and use

> that 1 million quid to develop much more housing

> on cheaper land elsewhere in the borough.


Where is this cheaper land?

There is plenty of money to be made! Its the LAND they bought and it wasn't actually 1 million, slightly under. A Bargain if you ask me. Yet they don't seem to have planning yet - which i guarantee they WILL get, the council will allow it as if the owner can build 3 homes if not more (which I expect 5) they will gain 5 points of council tax!!!! Although its a shame to see an old prefab from the war be demolished what else is supposed to happened to it. ?950,000 is cheap as chips in my eyes they should have sold it for more!!!!!!! Some people clearly have No clue on the value of the land they sit upon!

Do you think Peckham Rye has the cheapest land values in all of Southwark?



edhistory Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why

> > develop a few flats on a plot of land worth 1

> > million quid when you can sell the land and use

> > that 1 million quid to develop much more

> housing

> > on cheaper land elsewhere in the borough.

>

> Where is this cheaper land?

LondonMix Wrote:


> > Why

> > develop a few flats on a plot of land worth 1

> > million quid when you can sell the land and use

> > that 1 million quid to develop much more

> housing on cheaper land elsewhere in the borough.


> Where is this cheaper land?

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Or as someone said above, the council could have

> built new homes on it and sold a couple privately

> to pay for the homes to rent.


I don't think that would be a good move. More economical to develop larger sites.

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

    • I recently had a utility room built, next to the kitchen. Dean Richards and his team carried out the works, they did a fantastic job. Thorough, with attention to every detail.  If you are considering an extension, refurbishment or renovation, Dean comes highly recommended.  Dean Richards  07888 651798  
    • Thanks to all for the comments and advice.  I have now reported the incident to the police.
    • Thanks everyone for your comments, all of which I’ve taken something from. I originally posted to warn and help others learn from my experience – hence the title, first and last words of the post. However, the process of posting and reading your comments has helped me better make sense of what felt ‘off’ about the incident, why and what I’d do differently next time. I hadn’t expected this outcome, so thank you.  It’s also yielded several ‘golden nugget’ insights, one of which I share here for others. For context, I’m a longtime SE22 resident, who lives on a street with a primary school, so am used to scooting, cycling, walking with buggies, small children, pets etc. I like where I live and have never been struck on a pavement by anyone, on wheels or otherwise. I’ve been fortunate. When walking down Carlton Avenue towards Dulwich Village yesterday, I was on the left-hand side of the pavement but – ‘golden nugget’ approaching – not as close to people’s front garden walls as I could have been. The cyclist came from behind and overtook on the inside i.e. passed between me and the wall. The gap was too narrow and he hit my leg. For clarity, my original post was about the lack of adult supervision of a child. There’s been much comment here about the cyclist’s age. I didn’t know he was 4, until his father told me. I felt that this was a tactic – along with telling me I was over-reacting, talking about intent, apologising undercut with ‘but’ and laughing – to downplay and avoid taking responsibility for his part in the situation. But I accept that is my perception, readers weren’t there and may think differently. What also felt ‘off’ is that the father didn’t see what happened or ask any questions to find out. What happened? Where did he hit you? How hard? Are you alright? Is my son alright? Is everyone alright? This sounds obvious but wasn’t to me until last night. Back to age. Is the age of the cyclist important? If you consider it from the perspective of a four-year-old, it might be. He’s on his bike, helmet on, speeding along, sees a gap and thinks he can get through it. He doesn’t know and/or may never have been told about the risks (to himself and others) of undertaking on the left. Hits pedestrian. I was not expecting to be hit from behind or the undertaking. But had I walked closer to the wall – and not left a potentially inviting gap – this probably wouldn’t have happened. This is just one ‘golden nugget’ I will take away. It’s something I can easily do, doesn’t depend on anyone else doing anything differently, and could contribute towards keeping myself and others safe. All in all, posting here has been unexpectedly useful for me. I hope for others, too. I feel able to move forward with learnings, so thank you guys.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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