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

    • But it was under our electoral system in 2019! This must be part of the right-wing media conspiracy that did for Corbyn....;-) Corbyn was very closely allied to Unite and Len....
    • Goose Green Ward Panel Meeting   Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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