strae

In a similar vein: Let's start a petition for a giant perspex cloche to descend on ED to preserve the way of life we know and love. They are currently on special on Rumplestiltskin.com unlurked Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As have clearly stated in the Ooh a new cinema is > coming thread with local libdem politicos in > league with private chain businesses, eg the > cinema, M&S etc, the green light has been given to > all chains to turn LL into a dross filled flat > pack high street shopping precint to remove choice > and line pockets of huge environment destroying > fat cat companies. You got what your short > sightedness wanted.

Actually AF, I find it much easier to form opinions without the benefit of having seen the applications. I leave it to more diligent citizens of the EDF to argue points of detail - I will stick to being outraged on principle. Arthur Facksake Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > strae Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Suspect they have also forgotten about a > > pedestrian barrier / cattle grid to ensure that > > offending patrons (e.g. old people and young > > children) emerging from the darkness of the > cinema > > into the light of the street are prevented from > > causing unnecessary traffic disruptions. > > > Actually if you'd bothered to visit the > presentation or view the photo of the proposed > scheme posted above you'll see the pedestrian > barriers which are already there will stay, > probably for the exact reason you've stated.

I take back what I said about thoughtful process - agree with unlurked that lice is a big problem, and disappointed that there was no provision for anti-lice upholstery in the planning application. Suspect they have also forgotten about a pedestrian barrier / cattle grid to ensure that offending patrons (e.g. old people and young children) emerging from the darkness of the cinema into the light of the street are prevented from causing unnecessary traffic disruptions. I vote for Lord of the Flies.

Such great news and so happy that they have taken time and been thoughtful about the process... Worth celebrating when something is done right I think!

Seems we have a few posters on this thread who are calling a bubble and awaiting the day of reckoning. How did this group make out in 2007/08? Did you all pounce and buy your dream homes for a fraction of the price? I am not sure I know of anyone in London who: 1. Was forced to sell at the bottom (negative equity maybe, but mortgage payments much lower than rents definitely) 2. Whose house is now not worth more in absolute number of pounds since then 3. Whose historical mortgage is not "cheaper" relative to current offers I do know a few people who were renting, and sitting on a deposit for a house patiently waiting for the crash, who then found themselves facing: 1. A market with fewer homes for sale that were actually desirable (i.e. buy to let stock not the same as family house) 2. Much more difficult and expensive mortgage market 3. Devaluation of their savings due to inflation being higher than savings interest rates I was one of them. Thx to QE/BoE, patient/risk-averse savers didn't exactly do well and its hard to make the case that aggressive risky behaviour was punished. At least not in London. Why do we think it's going to be any different?

Amusingly, the 2 houses you point out are right next to each other and exchanged one day apart! motorbird83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DaveR Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BTW, has anybody actually paid ?1 million yet > for > > a 'normal' ED house? > > Yep: > > http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatc > hing.html?prop=42438371&sale=50402987&country=engl > and > http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatc > hing.html?prop=39909598&sale=50172515&country=engl > and > > This last one is also pretty close and given these > properties would have gone under offer back in > late summer, I imagine many extended 4-bed > terraces could now fetch ?1m > > http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatc > hing.html?prop=40926643&sale=50668643&country=engl > and

We should remember that in 2007 the pound peaked at 2.1 USD to 1 GBP and we are currently at 1.67. The story vs the Euro is very similar. So 1 pound today is worth roughly c. 80p in 2007 pounds in an international spending context. In the mean time, UK inflation (as measured by RPI) has been c. 23% in total (not per annum), between 2007 and today. If you wanted to measure it via CPI, inflation has been c. 21% over that time. So 1 pound today is worth roughly only 80p in 2007 pounds in a domestic spending context. So from the context of an "international" buyer, London today is STILL 20% cheaper than 2007 (purely from currency perspective). And for "local" buyers, house prices would need to be c. 20% higher just to have kept up with inflation. And despite all that, it's not clear that taken as a whole London house prices have actually done all that well. According to the Halifax London House Price Index (seasonally adjusted), the peak was 810.6 in September 2007. The latest reading for Dec 2013 is 778.8 (so just in London, according to this one index, we are still 4% below the peak in 2007). The problem with indices (not saying this one in particular) is that they mask a multitude of specifics. As an extreme example, House A may have gone up by 100%, house B has stayed unchanged, while house C could have halved in value. And if we equallly weight all three, then the average change is an increase of 17%, which tells you nothing useful about how the price of any of those 3 houses has performed. The boffins that calculate the indices try their best to adjust for this, but the principle of the average not being especially helpful about the specific remains true to some degree. Yes - houses in ED are changing hands for more pounds than ever before. But those pounds are also worth less in real spending power. This isn't breaking news. But certainly you can see why our politicians are not keen to point it out, because no one wants to be associated with the great loss of value that has otherwisely stealthily taken place, and not when the prospect of housing riches makes the average punter go out and spend more. Perhaps I am cynic. Perhaps another ?4 coffee will cheer me up. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I keep hearing how (in some areas) prices still > haven't returned to 07 prices. But surely that's a > good thing? 2007 was the last time that the market > was dangerously overheated. > > DaveR Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In particular, in much of the UK (and in > > many parts of Greater London) prices remain > flat > > and have not returned to 07 prices

Very nice indeed!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-40772164.html?premiumA=true 1 bedroom flat in Battersea - a snip at ?830k. Relative to this, ED is not even on the radar...

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just had to the call to say I've completed on our > flat in Penge. So I am now the proud owner of a > whopping 7% of a property. And whilst it may not > be the home I always dreamt of buying (actually > I've never really dreamt about buying a home), I > do feel very fortunate to be in this position. > > And I'm a 10 minute walk from McDonald's! ;-) I look forward to the inevitable article touting Penge as the new hot spot! Shortly followed by the also likely inevitable post about on these forums about how Penge is just not quite what it was! Jokes aside, congratulations and well done!

FWIW, the planning site provides a list of all the neighbouring properties consulted, so if anyone feels they should have been consulted, but have not received a letter, you should be able to cross check to the list. And as Londonmix has pointed out, anyone else is free to submit their views too.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes LondonMix. Department of Health so painful > (excuse the uninended pun) that we've had to find > alternative sites. > First permanent one found, just need to find > second permanent site. > > Saying that I still hope the temporory Primary > school site will be the Dulwich Hospital. Thanks for the update James. Against the realm of possible outcomes, the fact that this will become a school is great, all things considered.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saila and DaveR touch on something as important in > the price rises. From the 40s to the 80s, even > into the 90s the overall trend was for most middle > class people (infact most people) to aspire to > move away from inner city London, the ideal was to > move out. It's a simplification of course but it > was the underlying aspiration for many. In the 90s > suddenly City life became seen as more hip again, > there were more singles, people not getting > married as early, the emergence of a more > confident and out gay culture (which is pretty > city focussed; inner city infrastructure and life > had a linked rennaisance. I also think that > changes in the work place including more woman, > including mum's, in full time 'career' type jobs > and dad's actually wanting (or being > allowed/expecting) to see and help with their kids > than in the past combined with job pressure > meaning longer hours at work meant that commuting > longer distances looked more impratical/infexible. > So many of us embrace the urban - with smaller > more expensive living rather than the beefeater > and golf course life. The return of the city being > popular for families again has driven prices; > educational improvement; and gentrification of the > inner city. > > and MickMack wrote: ----------------------------------------------- As regards, being out of reach of most people - "most" people don't set the prices, the prices we see are set by those who can afford to move and actually do move. I'm not one of those. If everyone was moving, the prices would reflect what everyone can afford to pay. The trouble is that the people who can't afford to move are looking at prices set by those who can, and there is obviously going to be a mis-match. __________________________ Completely agree with both views: - ED is nothing special, no more or less outrageous than other similar areas in London - "Similar" meaning: Victorian housing stock, village feel, proximity to schools and green spaces, transport into town - "Above" market percentage price increases in ED are simply a catch-up, comparing to Clapham, Wandsworth etc (and without even needing to go North) ED is still less expensive and sadly probably has room to rise further (check out house prices in the above and you will see what I mean), provided that the folks who buy in Clapham are ultimately the same type of folks who would buy in ED... - Re ????'s observation, commuter villages have not experienced the same level of increase, despite arguably benefitting from the same economic drivers (low rates, London economy) probably at least partly because of the change in living patterns you describe: living in family-friendly zone 1-3 London is now more attractive for the average family than it was previously. On another note, wanted to make a counter-factual argument which I think is seldom made on these forums: 1. We have lots of people who long for the sepia-toned past where we are told ED was in its heyday (for newcomers like me, understand this completely but honestly hard for us to relate to because we simply weren't there) 2. Lots of people who wish prices were more affordable in ED (me too, and this is up there on my list along with wealthier, taller and more attractive to both sexes, this is 2014 after all, why shouldn't we have it all?) But imagine the scenario where ED was not participating in what is otherwise a London wide phenomenon? One that saw Peckham and Brixton house prices rocket away while ED languished... Would folks in camps 1 and 2 still be pleased then? Because clearly if that were true, we'd probably have bigger problems to worry about than rising houses prices... Not suggesting that the answer is that we all stop worrying and learn to love the Bubble - just saying other side /= greener grass.

A letter from a supportive resident has been posted on the website, but I don't see any dissenting letters. Is it time for us to don the aluminium foil hats?

Twirly, it doesn't really get into transport, except for impact of Crossrail, which is only going to move house prices in one direction in areas where it arrives... Re planning, the issue is that you cannot control demand (hard to imagine legislation which dictates where people are allowed to live) and it is hard to add supply in existing areas of London due to a combination of planning laws and local preference. Paradoxically, the voices who bemoan how much ED has changed (lost character, too expensive, chain stores on high streets) are at least part of the reason for the change. By this I mean that one consequence of preserving the heritage / preventing the further development of areas such as ED is that existing property prices rise disproportionately because there is no other way for the market to allocate the scarce space. IMHO I agree with this view and that is why I moved here (to be in an area where there is an appreciation of heritage and where the preference is for what came before, rather than necessarily the new). But I also have had to come to terms that this means people like me have paid / will have to pay over the odds to live here (relative to places where this is not the case). Frankly if the forces that be allowed a 25 story block of flats to be placed smack in the centre of LL, I am sure it would make ED a cheaper place to live, but then perhaps I and others on this forum wouldn't want to live here... Re your other point, of late real estate commentators have been advising owners of property in Greater London who have ambitions of moving to the country to sell up and move now because the bow wave of rising prices hasn't yet affected prices in the country to the same degree (yet)...

DaveR you are spot on, thank you for pointing out the glaring mistake. It is 300,000 potential homes in the planning pipeline over the next decade, so 30,000 per year. Here is the PR accompanying the release of their report. The full report is available if you register on the CBRE website and then navigate to the news and events tab. ____ CBRE has reported there are currently around 300,000 residential units in the capital?s planning pipeline. However, as London?s population is set to increase by 14%, more than 1 million people, over the next decade, the capital city is unlikely to reach the level of housing required. We estimate there is a significant imbalance between supply and demand with potential supply satisfying just two thirds of the estimated level of future demand for housing. During the past 20 years, London has built an average of 17,350 homes per year, well below the 42,000 target which was recently unveiled as part of the Homes for London publication by the Mayor of London. The findings revealed by CBRE demonstrates that 52,000 new homes will need to be built in London each year, 10,000 more than the revised target, and well below the number of units built in 2012, which was approximately half this level. Jennet Siebrits, Head of Residential Research at CBRE, comments: ?Over the past decade London?s population has increased by around 800,000, however only 200,000 new homes have been built. Out of 33 London boroughs, only 7 currently have enough stock in the development pipeline to satisfy the projected growth in households over the next 10 years.

An observation from someone who wished he had realised this sooner: A. Each year, 52,000 NET new households are created in London (as estimated by CBRE). B. Number of homes currently in planning for Greater London over next 5 years = 300,000 or 25,000 per year. There is not much we can do about A in the near term. In fact, if demographics stay stable, this is likely to rise given we are emerging from recession. Absent another recession, this only goes down if the structural balance of old vs young people changes in London - hard to see how this happens given the trend is for younger people to come to London seeking employment etc and for older people to move out etc at the end of careers. There is also not much we can do about B, thanks to planning laws which limit how quickly and how many new homes can be added. In the case of areas like ED, where there is a large stock of Victorian/Edwardian/Period family homes, this is exacerbated even further because (in general, clearly there are exceptions): - You cannot demolish period houses to build new ones (so effectively, number of homes is fixed) - There is obviously no new supply of period houses - Buyers continue to prefer period houses (not all of them, but many) Therefore with each passing year, we have more and more buyers for the same fixed stock of homes. The conversations that long-time ED residents are having about incomers is the same conversation that almost every resident in any other London borough is having. This doesn't mean the situation is fair or right. It is what it is. And perhaps unfortunately, no amount of gnashing of teeth or wringing of hands will change things, at least in the near term.

very nice work Mikeb. No doubt they will market proximity to leisure centre as "on-site fitness and leisure facilities"

A recommendation from me for Laura: Prompt, courteous, friendly and professional. Did a fabulous job for us as agreed, no surprises and was very neat and tidy as she went along. Heartily recommend for anyone looking for a regular or occassional garden service in the area

Very sorry to about the incident, sharchat/landlover... Must be a terrible experience. Thanks for letting us know and good luck with the sleuthing!

Hi Angharad_L, My point is exactly re economies of scale - i.e. we make choices as customers and these choices have consequences for us and the high street. If we want to keep a high street full of uniques / independents / smaller businesses, there is a "cost" to that, because we would need to pay more / lose out on the economies of scale and scope that larger chains may be able to offer. The other argument is trivial, i.e. if we could choose between a corporate chain and a local business at the same price for the same quality, we would not be having this debate, because then it would come down purely to personal (subjective) preference and there is no point debating because lovers of red will not be able to convince lovers of blue and vice versa. The point I was trying to make was simply acknowledging that I am torn between the best deal for my bank balance (cheaper prices) vs what I would ideally like (a thriving high street of independent shops, at potentially higher prices) and I think this is a choice we all ultimately make. So in a way, WE (more than the shops themselves) are responsible for the way our high street turns out. If we want more independent shops, we should support them with our custom. We shouldn't blame or demonise the chains for trying to provide goods and services at good prices - and clearly if they take over the high street, then there must be enough customers who prefer that. I for one, will try my best to spend as much time (and money!) as possible in the shops I enjoy and wish all the plucky people who try and start something on North Cross, LL, Bellenden etc the very best. Long may it last!

BigED, I have sympathy for your argument re independent high streets, but am not sure if your line of argument proves the point or just the opposite? If an independent high street is thriving, how does it come to be slowly and surely taken over by chains? Over time, the shops that thrive are those that do the best job of providing the goods and services the area wants (as measured by patronage and custom): if our high streets come to be dominated by chains, surely that is a reflection of our preferences and habits as customers, rather than the often demonised "ambition" of chains? Yes, they go where they hope to find profits, but profits are only there if we, the customers provide them. And there's the rub: like many on this forum, I would prefer a high street of unique independent shops, each offering an individual curation of items and services, but if I am honest, I do have to think carefully each time I pay ?1.00 for something that might cost 10 or 20p less at a less "independent" store. And in tougher economic times, these decisions get harder, not easier.