Jump to content

"Shed" Sells for ?1m near Bellenden Road

Tractorlad

By Tractorlad
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

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.

Seabag

Seabag

Posted
Posted

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

HopOne

HopOne

Posted
Posted

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?

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
Posted

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.

MarkT

MarkT

Posted
Posted

"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

Penguin68

Penguin68

Posted
Posted
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.
LondonMix

LondonMix

Posted
Posted
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.
edhistory

edhistory

Posted
Posted

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?

ourbubbleonline

ourbubbleonline

Posted
Posted
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!
LondonMix

LondonMix

Posted
Posted

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?

edhistory

edhistory

Posted
Posted

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?

Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Sue
      Up the reform

      By Sue · Posted

      Those studies are ten years old. I wonder if there is anything more recent. Also, I haven't looked at them, but from what you say,  the studies apparently asked people if THEY thought they were "racially prejudiced". For several  reasons, on the face of it that isn't likely to produce an accurate indication of the level of actual racial prejudice in that sample. Also, how was "racial prejudice" defined? And "racist attitudes"?
    • Angelina
      Car dilemma - do you manage without one?

      By Angelina · Posted

      I'd say hold on to it in case you need it. There may be a time when it helps you get around more easily. You'd know if that's easily done, if you've got somewhere to park it etc   
    • Sue
      Car dilemma - do you manage without one?

      By Sue · Posted

      I scarcely use my ancient (1998!) non ULEZ compliant car any more, which I have had for nearly 20 years. It is presently  used mainly to take bulky  things up to my allotment or the tip, occasional weekends away,  festivals or  camping trips, and sometimes giving people lifts to and from stations. But that's mainly because I have to pay the ULEZ charge every time I use it. It has been very reliable, is  in good nick and passes its MOT every year. Now, after months without use apart from opening the door to put things into the car, a new battery bought last September is dead and won't charge 😭 I realise this is my own stupid fault for not realising that you shouldn't let a battery completely discharge, and I should have gone for a drive or charged the battery before. I have hung onto the car because I am over the age limit for car share  club type things and car hire companies (though my daughter has just found a website with car hire schemes for ancient people). Also I am not used to driving more modern cars! I looked into getting a (second hand)  replacement when ULEZ came in, and it just all seemed like too much hassle. Now I don't know whether it's worth shelling out for yet another new battery (DUH) . The one I got is still  under guarantee, but only for "manufacturing faults" and I imagine this won't apply in this case. But if I don't I will have to somehow dispose of the car, which also needs at least one tyre inflating, for which I need a working battery 😭 If you don't have a car, how do you manage, especially if like me you are very old (but reasonably mobile, touch wood!) ?  And/or do you have any advice on whether I should keep the car, or if not what to do with it? 
    • first mate
      ED Nature Watch

      By first mate · Posted

      LOL, no Sue, definitely Musk Turtles.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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