London SE1 community website

Housing, development, and the changing population - Discuss!

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Current: 11 of 11
Thursday 20 August 2015 7.34pm
drog wrote:
folks need to help themselves instead of expecting everything to be handed to them on a plate.

Heygate Estate leaseholders were offered £150,000 for the two bedroom flats they had purchased.

On the same site a studio starts at £460,000, and you call these victims folk who expect everything to be handed to them on a plate.

Also, Southwark sold off the entire estate for £50M plus a freehold on a nice plot of land on the Draper Estate. It cost the council £44M to empty the estate, and £21.5 to plan its redevelopment.

Lend Lease has built 3,000 homes there. Even if they were all studios priced at £460,000 (which they most definitively are not), we are looking at £1,380,000,000, and that is just for the residential properties: it doesn't take into account all the commercial properties, various shops, cafés etc and even a full size supermarket.

Do the maths and let me known if you think Southwark residents got a good deal and that you seriously believe your analysis to be reasoned?
Friday 21 August 2015 5.56am
Im saying that southwark council negotiated these deals.

How much did the Heygate leaseholders pay for there flats originally? 40,000 ? These were subsidised by right to buy. Ok with 150,000 you cant buy anything in central london. Do you think 500,000 woud have been a fairer price? Not much at that price locally either.
Friday 21 August 2015 10.02am
Even if it is unique Boroughonian what are council tenants to do now developers are honing in? Obligingly move to some backwater because the estate they live on, say Rockingham for example has lots of space not utilised!
Friday 21 August 2015 4.36pm
[quote drog]Im saying that southwark council negotiated these deals.

How much did the Heygate leaseholders pay for there flats originally? 40,000 ? These were subsidised by right to buy. Ok with 150,000 you cant buy anything in central london.[/quote]Do you think 500,000 woud have been a fairer price? Not much at that price locally either.[/quote]

You are labouring under the assumption that all ex local authority leaseholds are held by those original council tenants who exercised their right to buy.

This is not always the case, since many right to buy properties were eventually sold onto the open market, at open market prices.

[quote drog]Do you think 500,000 woud have been a fairer price? Not much at that price locally either.[/quote]

What I think would have been fair, would have been for LBS to offer to buy on behalf of the Heygate leaseholders properties of similar size on the new development, and grant them a lease of equal length to that which they had remaining.
Saturday 22 August 2015 8.54am
Carney15 wrote:
Even if it is unique Boroughonian what are council tenants to do now developers are honing in? Obligingly move to some backwater because the estate they live on, say Rockingham for example has lots of space not utilised!

My clumsy point was, we keep telling ourselves that we are in the best city in the World, perhaps it was the diversity of the place that made it so.

Now we're throwing that diversity away.
Monday 24 August 2015 4.01pm
The £150k valuations were low but they were made at a time when two bed flats on the Rockingham could be bought privately for £180k. But then the market rose.

There is definitely something wrong with the compulsory purchase system in a rising property market but to be fair the council cannot do much about the entire compulsory purchase system, or the housing market.

What it did have the power to do was how it sold / regenerated the estate. They didn't have to sell it all as one huge chunk (so huge that only a handful of developers in the world could take it on; and they're at the whims of the property cycle hence the huge delays in it starting). But they did, and that has led to delay and lack of competition.

The current administration is doing a fair job with what it inherited - after it's not open to the council to breach their contract with the developer, and splitting it into chunks and retendering it all would lead to more delays. (For political Balance I'd point out that nationally it's the Tories that have given councils the ability to be more hands on with housebuilding).

They took a hands on approach with demolition (and its huge cost has meant very low overall receipts for this prime land) but if only they had taken a more hands on approach to the land disposal and split it up. Holding on to the remaining plots as they rose in value, enabling existing residents to be rehoused in situ rather than moved away, and greater competition would have been achieved.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Current: 11 of 11

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions