benmorg

v.high risk of subsidence around East Dulwich and Norwood. e.g. the clay subsoil under dawsons heights is flowing downhill, which is why half of dunstans rd is missing. You need to ring around a bit. Buildings insurance premiums in East Dulwich and Norwood are among the highest in the UK. I had no problems with direct line.

Andyng Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is also apparent some peoples views ,and > all the talk of global recession has been > as a result of the media.As I said earlier > if you have a descent deposit and job you have > nothing to worry about -forget the media OK forget the media, but you can get info about the housing market directly from the people who monitor it, e.g. Nationwide report out today says house price inflation is now year-on-year negative. See attached image for their updated graph of real prices vs the long-term trend. As they say, buyer beware.

Andyng Wrote: > > > The 2012 olympics ,the govt chucking money to > > > bank> > All this pessimissm is a chain > reaction from > > the > > > media and estate agents.Eg scenes of queus > > outside > > > northern rock. > > > > no, it's becausee we've all lived through an > > astonishing boom in house prices. Nobody > expected > > it to last forever or to end painlessly. House > > prices in London are now ten times average > > earnings. That simply isn't sustainable. > > > > So your saying the queues outside northern rock > did not > bring any panic at all no, that's not what I'm saying. The slowdown in the market is caused by changes in the global economy. The northern rock crisis had the same cause, so is linked to the house price falls, but it isn't itself the cause of house price falls, though it may have been a factor. For a good assessment of the current state of the london property market, here's yesterday's Evening Standard: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23480853-details/Advice+to+first-time+buyers+and+investors%3A+don%27t+do+it/article.do "Advice to first-time buyers and investors: don't do it Mira Bar-Hillel, Property Correspondent 28.04.08 After the heady market conditions of last year - with its gazumping and 125 per cent mortgages - the spring downturn is starting to cause panic. The market is facing gridlock because many sellers are being unrealistic about prices. At the same time buyers are reluctant to commit to a market that they think - quite rightly - has further to fall. The result? A freeze. Houses are still going on sale at inflated prices but, in stark contrast to a year ago, no one is interested. Prices are "slashed", but if they are reduced from a fictional original asking price the decreasing number of buyers will buy neither the "reduction" nor the house. The result is a 40 per cent drop in property sales. So what should people do? As usual, it's horses for courses. For anyone who has no pressing need to sell, I would suggest not selling. Now is not the time to move house on a whim or to "test the market". If you must sell, frequent reality checks are needed. If buyers are not biting, it can only be because your property is overpriced and no amount of wishful thinking or estate agent's jargon will change that. If you bought with a City bonus but now need to sell because your job is threatened by the credit squeeze, think very carefully. There is a dearth of buyers out there and you must not delay the sale hoping someone will pay a larger price. Just find a buyer of some kind before prices fall further. Anyone else facing redundancy or even repossession should make every effort to sell before the latter takes place. The experience of the early Nineties is that being repossessed is the worst possible option. My advice to buyers - especially first-timers and investors - is much simpler: don't do it. There can be no rational reason for buying anything, let alone the most expensive purchase of most people's lifetime, when the expert consensus is that it will lose at least 12 per cent of its value over the next two years. This is also not the time for homeowners to move. The coming months - perhaps years - are likely to be quite stressful enough."

maybe that would explain the price. People pay a premium for celebrity neighbours

Both at the moment. Had two flats last year. Sold the one I was living in and now renting, but still currently trying to sell the other, before buying again (prob this winter).

It's a very dangerous time to be buying houses and people have got every right to be skeptical about the merits of properties that have been refurbed by developers (as the Telegraph article implies) and put up for sale at hundreds of thousands of pounds more than anything comparable.

Another house that's been Beenied by someone hoping to make millions by arranging furniture. Getting an article in the paper is good marketing, but the Telegraph isn't flattering about the location. Even the idiots at foxtons have used pictures showing how overlooked the garden is by the neighbour's roof terrace.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does Foxtons have its own estate agent's lexicon? > > Sold = ? presumably Foxton's definition of sold includes "sold", "under off", "was under offer but now back on the market", and "sold a year ago but we'll leave the sign up because it's free advertising"

SimonM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well Foxtons put a ?1.3 million tag on an > (admittedly done-up but still not terribly > spacious) 5 bed semi on Underhill Road a month or > two back and the "sold" sign went up after about > 3 weeks. yet that property is now back on the market

chris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems that Upland Road is on the up, you can > move in for a mere ?1,025,000! > http://www.foxtons.co.uk/property-for-sale-in-east > -dulwich/batt0328583 been on the market a month and already dropped in price ?75,000. Presumably no offers anywhere near asking price. See attached image from rightmove with "property bee" showing the price drop. You can install property bee at http://www.property-tools.co.uk/ - it remembers houses you've browsed and highlights any changes to the listings.

interesting that you can buy unrefurbised equivalent, also 4 bedrooms, for 500,000: http://wates.webdadi.biz/image.dtx?propertyid=BB9AFB70-E55A-4A68-8D73-1EC7E057C757&from=details&imageid=78C82B97-017E-4CBF-BB89-B004B2880B2D A prospective buyer would have to be very stupid not to notice the competition is 59% of the price. Is the refurb really worth an extra ?340,000 plus view of a noisy building site for three years?

Andyng Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think waiting on the market is risky business a > friend of mine > was trying to buy a flat 2 years ago he waited and > waited now the > flat he wanted is 50k more and he is now priced > out.Everyones > saying they'll wait. he was priced out becuase the boom hadn't run it's course. Now the boom is definitely over. House prices are falling in US, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand, France. Do you think the UK will be the only country where house prices keep going up and the credit boom carries on? > If everyone waits and they decide to buy at the > same time > there will be more demand equaling higher prices. the trick is to buy before everyone else. But look at graphs of house prices during the last crash from 1988-1995. It took 3 or 4 years for prices to stop falling. This time round the falls are happening after a boom that lasted much longer, so it prices could carry on falling for longer too. I doubt they will fall as steeply as in the last crash, but the total drop could add up to the same amount if they keep going down for long enough. > > The 2012 olympics ,the govt chucking money to > bank The government chucking 50 billion at banks is unprecedented and shows just how badly damaged the economy is. It smacks of panic. It is more likely to cause alarm at the state of the housing market than to make buyers feel confident again. > > More Interest rate cuts this was done very aggressively in the USA but house price falls accelerated. > All this pessimissm is a chain reaction from the > media and estate agents.Eg scenes of queus outside > northern rock. no, it's becausee we've all lived through an astonishing boom in house prices. Nobody expected it to last forever or to end painlessly. House prices in London are now ten times average earnings. That simply isn't sustainable. > Also estate agents are taking longer to sell and > get there commission so they are telling people > to > drop.They don't care what a vendor sell for there > just after there commision. Yes I agree that estate agents are now talking down prices, but they have no choice in a falling market. Sellers have to price low at the moment to stand a chance of selling because there is now an oversupply of property. Check SE22 on Rightmove if you don't believe me. There are now more than 400 properties for sale in East Dulwich. There were 260 in late 2007. Inventory has risen by more than 50%, but demand has fallen. Prices are determined purely by the balance of supply and demand. > Yes a mortgage is like paying rent on a house over > a long period.But you get a house out of it. > What do you get from renting ?Landlords will > charge pretty much anything and have no probs > getting tenants because people have no choice and > cannot afford a property,and have to pay for > relocation costs every 6 months when tenancy runs > out or rent goes up. at the moment, a lot of people in East Dulwich are selling and moving into rented. If house prices fall, the seller's money remains safe in a savings account and earns interest, which covers rent. If the seller decided to keep their house instead of selling, their main asset would depreciate. People who haven't yet bought stand to gain by continuing to rent because they will be able to buy a much cheaper house in a year or so and can continue saving for a deposit in the meantime. Why buy a house now if it will be worth 5-10% less in year? > > Not many people buy outright and have ?250 spare > cash.If they did they;ll use that s deposit for a > ?600k > property. Yes i agree with that. > > Shortage of affordable housing that's a myth. If housing was truly in short supply, rents would have risen in tandem with house prices. In reality, rents have kept pace with wage inflation and houses have risen far faster. The reason for rampant house price inflation is simply that interest rates have been kept too low for too long, causing a credit bubble. This has happened all over the world, which is why house prices are now falling in other countries too. It's not simply a question of the UK being a "small island" with a shortage of property - that has merely been one factor. > > Dont think prices will spiral downwards in a huge > way,although > they may be stagnant. I suspect they will slide down gradually. I don't see any reason for a dramatic crash, but I do think they could keep falling gently for a long time.

Andyng Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes but if everyone waits by the time you commit > them > everyone will commit and supply will drive up. > > Once the govt starts pumping money to banks > mortgage should be easier > to get get hold of.Also a few drop in interest > rates should create > a bit more demand.Wait by all means but will > expecting a drop > ,waiting till 2012 and paying 4 years of money > down the drain > rent is financial suicide. you say rent is money down the drain, but so is the interest paid on a mortgage. If you take out a large mortage, you are effectively renting the money to buy the house. Over the lifetime of the mortgage, you pay for a house twice over. For an average east dulwich house, that means you'll fork out more than a million. Doing this is utter madness right at the end of a boom, when prices are unlikely to climb again for years. If you have enough cash to buy a house outright, it might make more financial sense than renting and leaving the money to stagnate in a savings account, but to buy a house with a large mortgage at moment amounts to spending ?1 million on a noose.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all know you can make statistics say anything. > But generalised statements such as "london prices > fell 29%" don't mean much unless you relate it to > locality and time. am attaching a map showing how London house prices fell during the last crash, between 1988-1995. East Dulwich is in the danger zone. The map makes it clear that London was hit very hard in the last crash, with only the most expensive houses and locations holding their value. Anything that might have sold to a first-time buyer was well and truly clobbered. > Victorian stock, good schools and organic butchers > will prevent a 30% slide in East Dulwich and my > estimate is up to 15% off last summers highs > before we regain some stability in a year or two. Estate agents tell me that East Dulwich is already 10-13% off last summer's peak, so we'd need stability very soon if your prediction isn't going to be an underestimate. But I think it's unlikely the property market will rebound or stabilize at any point in 2008. > Gordon Clown will get back into my good books if > he can actually breathe some life back into the > mortgage market as that would be a massive help. But a massive help for who? Estate agents? Certainly not for first time buyers. Most people in the UK, including existing home-owners, would actually benefit from a modest fall in house prices. It would getting on the ladder easier and would also make moving up the ladder easier. Unlike the crash in the early 90s, which was accompanied by rocketing interest rates that made mortgages absurdly expensive, the current crash could proceed quite painlessly if interest rates are kept low. I don't think we're heading for armageddon, even if house prices do fall by a significant whack.

Muttley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A quick look at Rightmove suggests that perhaps 30 > "properties" (god I hate that word) are coming > onto the market each week at present in SE22. That was September 2007. There are now about 70 coming onto the market every week and stock levels building up faster than people are buying.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich is said to be an "at risk" area. At > ?100k for a one-bedroom flat, prices have a little > way to fall yet. absolutely. The areas that fell most in the last crash were secondary areas that had only just gentrified. People are pushed by the ripple effect into such areas during the boom, then flee those areas first in a downturn. East Dulwich has only been considered yuppified for a few years. It's not long at all since it was a bog-standard run-down south london area. A lot of people seem to think London is safe from house price falls, but in the last crash it was hit harder than nearly everywhere else. Prices fell on average 13% in the UK in the early nineties, but london prices fell 29%. Given the vast price rises that have happened in E. Dulwich over the last couple of years, you have to wonder how much they might fall if things do get worse.

the copyright argument was used to block links from property snake to rightmove or estate agents' websites, but all the properties are still there. You have to identify them by price, then marry them up with the listings on rightmove. the fact that nothing's been on the market for more than 343 days doesn't signify much, just that the oldest property has been on sale for nearly a year. It's interesting that some of the biggest reductions on propertysnake are in south london. On the home page you'll see a flat in Streatham at number 1 position, reduced 50%, and a Greenwich property at number 7. So much for London being "safe" in a crash. It's more likely that locations where prices have peaked dramatically, including East Dulwich, will show the steepest falls. Only time will tell..

I've been keeping a v. close eye on E. Dulwich market over the last year. A year ago there were around 230 properties for sale (you can see total on Rightmove) but there are now 370-380. Prices are all about supply and demand. Since december, supply has shot up and demand has dwindled. Normally there would be a "spring bounce" and hike in prices this time of year as people hoping to buy this year get into action and demand accelerates, but this year it hasn't happened. Estate agents tell me "we're still in january" - i.e. no sign of spring bounce. Depending on which agent you speak to, actual completion prices were down 10-13% from last summer's completion prices before the mortgage drought got out of control in the last 2-3 weeks. When the rising cost of mortgage filters through, prices are likely to come under more pressure. Several agents have recommended waiting until winter, when prices usually drop seasonally even in good years. That's likely to be a very good time to snap up a bargain, though there's no guarantee that the market will recover thereafeter.

I can't see a girls' schools ever getting sucked into the gangland culture of SE London. It's the boys' school that would be a worry.

tomk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I teach in an academy at a senior level and have > visited a number of others in a professional > capacity. I have also taught at a number of other > London comps. Trust me, 'academy' is just the new > word for 'sink school' - but with better > facilities. Most of the people posting on this > message would not send their child to an academy > (especially a boy-only one) if they knew what they > are really like. They are widely acknowledged as a > failure, just with shinier glass panels outside > and trendy corridor designs inside. Ultimately > this is because they continue to draw their kids > from catchment areas of social deprivation, which > brings with it all the ensuing problems. Accuse me > of nimbyism if you like (and it's been done all > too frequently on this thread) but this school > will end up being a magnet for trouble before and > after the school day - and very few people from > East Dulwich will send their boys there because by > the time the current crop of ED's would-be middle > class teenagers are old-enough, it will already be > overrun with all the boys from the local estates > who would otherwise attend Kingsdale and Peckham > Academy. If you are not already sending your boy > to one of these schools, you will not choose East > Dulwich Academy when it comes round to it. Don't > kid yourself that it will even be as good as > Charter, which at my last count was languishing > somewhere around 30% 5 A*-C grades (and yes I do > have kids, and no I cannot afford private > education). Academies are the last attempts by the > government to stem the anti-social tide, and they > do not manage to do this. If this is true, what effect will it have on the surrounding area? Could turn Peckham Rye into a no-go area like Burgess Park.

Well the quote above came from 2001, so a lot may well have changed since then, which would be good news for the boys academy as it would be run along the same lines and share resources & facilities.

some info below on the Harris Girls' school (formerly Waverley school). Academic achievements at this school are very poor and there is greater emphasis on sports. Pupils are predominanty from poor Afro-Caribbean backgrounds & from wide area of South London. The boys' academy is likely to be similar. "Waverley School is an 11-16 school for girls. In January 2001 it had 900 pupils on roll drawn from over 50 feeder primary schools and other local secondary schools across six London boroughs. The school is situated in an area of moderate affluence but many pupils live in electoral wards with the highest levels of social and economic deprivation. The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is over 55%. The pupil population is composed of a rich mixture of ethnic groups and cultures, many having English as an additional language. The proportion of pupils identified as having special educational needs is over 30%. Standards achieved on entry are very low compared with the national average."

It's an adapted overground line, but it will appear on revised tube maps, so it will effectively put SE London on the tube network as far as all tube users are concerned. Journey time to Canary wharf from Forest Hill/Honor will be 8 mins shorter than at present, and there will be 8 trains per hour (one every 7.5 minutes). East Dulwich station won't get the new tube line (and never will), but the line will run through Forest Hill, Honor Oak & Sydeham, all of which are a bus ride away from East Dulwich. Peckham Rye is pencilled in as a station on the proposed western spur of the East London Line extension, but that part of the project hasn't been approved and hasn't got funding, so may well get ditched after the Olympics.

it will link up to the Jubilee Line at Canada Water, which is one stop from Canary Wharf. Trains will also be frequent enough to give a "turn up and go" service like a tube station, so you won't need to worry about following the timetable.

embellina, how can you not like waterloo bridge?! At dusk or night it's the best view in london, though you should really be watching the road and not staring out across the river..