"Shed" Sells for ?1m near Bellenden Road

[Tractorlad]

Some might says there's a property bubble. This is crazy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34718659

[KidKruger]

It's for the land obvs.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's a ridiculous sum of money. We seem to have learnt nothing from the credit crunch.

[Loz]

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]

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

[Tractorlad]

I suppose so on reflection. And close to the station too.

[HopOne]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

[steveo]

They might get 11,000 new properties on that plot

[LondonMix]

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.

[KidKruger]

..And then sell the new council properties off at a discount no doubt.

[cazbee]

The "shed" was certainly not sitting empty since 2002! The tenant only moved out a few matter of weeks ago, and had been there for as long as I've lived nearby.

[Sublime]

Spot on LondonMix

[Dog duck]

Seems a steal

[edhistory]

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]

Elephant and Castle. A prime piece of land went for just ?50 million. Oh wait!

[Jeremy]

That site cannot possibly be 0.6 acres. My guess it's a typo for 0.06 acres.

[Jeremy]

Maybe big enough to build 3 houses or 6 flats? I would think there's still money to be made.

[ourbubbleonline]

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!

[Blah Blah]

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.

[LondonMix]

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]

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]

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.