Jump to content

Sadiq Khan acts to increase affordable housing and prioritise for Londoners


Recommended Posts

Interesting. It also shows though how law and planning rules are getting in the way of any meaningful attempts to do something. Also why does it have to be private developers who build on the land? Why can't it be housing associations or even councils the land is sold to?

Pity he couldn't have enforced a greater percentage of social/affordable housing in the new AFC Wimbledon stadium development.


http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/sport/14696865._All_systems_go___Sadiq_Khan_hands_back_AFC_Wimbledon_stadium_decision_to_Merton_Council/


9.6%. Great, that's really going to make a difference.

It doesn't have to be private developers. The article is simply assuming that even with the 50% affordable housing requirement, private developers (due to economies of scale and general efficiency) will be the highest bidders to join the joint-venture with TFL. That's not unreasonable to assume.


Anyhow, raising the affordable housing requirement (as was his pledge) was always going to reduce land values. It appears though that his focus will just be government land rather than imposing a new 50% requirement across all of London. Otherwise there would be no legal problem.


Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting. It also shows though how law and

> planning rules are getting in the way of any

> meaningful attempts to do something. Also why does

> it have to be private developers who build on the

> land? Why can't it be housing associations or even

> councils the land is sold to?

Londoners being given priority over overseas investors is the main thing.


If developers know that offplan will sell at whatever price they set (foreign investors, largely) then it will follow that they will aim for the high end market.


If they are restricted to sell at to Londoner's primarily, it should mean that prices will be lower, flats of smaller size/ lower spec.


It's a good thing.

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Naaah, it's rubbish - it would be a change of use so would need planning. https://www.planningdirect.co.uk/planningappeals/affordable-planning-applications/change-of-use/commercial-to-takeaway-change-of-use There's not enough footfall for a McDonalds, anyway, and they're quite picky about their sites 
    • So let's never do anything that might improve an area, because it will just be dragged down to the level of what's presently there? Is that what you are saying? I don't have the time or the inclination to do the research, but I'm pretty sure that I have read  that when people who had lived in a very run down area  were given  nice surroundings, they appreciated and looked after them.
    • Someone has tried to kneecap his political career.
    • No, it's the AA. https://www.nationalworld.com/arts-and-culture/these-are-the-uks-best-outdoor-pools-and-lidos-new-lido-league-reveals-top-swimming-spots-5218853  "Experts from The AA analysed 164 lidos and outdoor pools for the average monthly Google search volumes, average Google review scores, Instagram tags, entry and parking fees, as well as the average maximum temperature and hours of summer sunlight at each location, to determine the very best swimming spots across the UK."
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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