Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know what is happening to the building on the corner of Underhill rd and Overhill rd ? The basement appears to be occcupied with clothing on hangers, the ground floor just has drapes obscuring the interior. If its squatters good luck, about time someone lived there, shame , great piece of land , ugly building.

I agree - the block of flats sums up the whole East Dulwich property market greed a few years back. The developers could have built a decent sized house there which would have appealed to the family market. But instead they tried to squeeze in five or so flats and then wondered why no one wanted to buy them.


I live near there so don't get me wrong, but the transport links in that area are hardly what young professionals interested in a two bedroom flat are looking for. And I defy anyone to want to live in a property where anyone driving or walking past can see your every move through 8 foot windows.


So, in response to you tamby - I agree it's about time someone used the property for a roof over their head.

I wondered the same when I saw the curtains had gone up - one of the windows at the top of the building was wide open (unusual) for several days previously.


Then I saw they had put a satellite dish up and assumed they must be legitimate tenants (although Mr Siduhe is sceptical - apparently squatters organise this kind of thing as well).


I've never understood why the owner doesn't just rent the flats out on short term contracts at a low rent. Even if he's losing money, he wouldn't be losing as much as he is with it empty or squatted and it would be easier to rent to others with a few people in it, notwithstanding the poor design.

cate Wrote:

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

> Why would Southwark Council have given planning

> permission for that pile of bad design to be

> built?

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


Sadly for us, Planners don't get Degrees in good taste

Ironic then that they should 'Police' Architects!

^ not a specific reference to this case, and of course not all architects have good taste either. I know :-S

Now for sale at c750k, I suspect a bit of hard bargaining would get it for 700k, which would be remarkable value in the area @ 175k for a two bedroom flat with en-suie. But have to agree with all, the design is far from appealing especially in its position and proximity might not be ideal for young city types. I am surprised the vendor/developer hasn't tried the rental route after all this time. I'm sure they'd get 800 PCM for each unit, that would have given them them over 75k whilst it has been stagnating and ultimately becoming a prime target for squatters.

Selling these places is a slippery slope. The longer they are standing empty, the less appealling they are for buyers, because they appear to be virtually unsellable. They probably will have to knock them down to something like ?175k just to get a sale.


In the meantime... usually I am rather anti-squatting, but after all these years, there's no reason to believe that the legit owner will need them back any time soon.

The flats are inordinately ugly, with unusable picture windows (overlooking a cemetery, great view) that offer no privacy unless heavily netted (and then what's the point?) and the house has lost any 'garden' space it once had. The history of the site (and what happened in it when the subsiding orginal building stood empty) is hardly auspicious. At the offer price it sounds appealing (if you haven't seen it), but only as a buy-to-let investment - the design means that it could never be economically converted to single occupancy as a family home - which is still (thank goodness) the most common tenancy at that end of Underhill.


If the owners are sensible they will be hoping that the squatters end up burning it to the ground (obviously with no injuries!), that way the insurance might pay for rebuilding a saleable property.

Presumably Ground rent would be shared amongst all the tenants.

If there was only one tenant, how would that work.


Who would want to be the first/only tenant.

It would be cold in the winter if all the other units were empty.

cate Wrote:

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

> Tenants don't pay ground rent. Leaseholders do.



Ok. wrong use of word tenant.


Presumeably these units are for sale.


Who would want to be the first/only Owner / Leaseholder.


Think Most people got my gist.

"The history of the site (and what happened in it when the subsiding orginal building stood empty) is hardly auspicious."


Are you just talking about the subsidence or was there some horrendous multiple murder to add to the story?

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

    • The ones I've dropped into may be organised by PCSOs in the SNT but regular PCs have attended. They have actually been a cuppa with a copper, but not necessarily loads of them. 
    • @Pereira Neves "Cuppa with a Coppa" is a misrepresentation as PCSOs are not real police.   They have no more powers of arrest that any public citizen. They may have the "authority" to advise the regular police of a crime - just like Joe Public. One exception is that they can issue fixed penalty notices to people who cycle on a footpath. We see people cycling on the footpath every day but have never seen a PCSO issue a fixed penalty notice to anybody. No  qualifications are needed to become a PCSO.  At best, all they do is reassure and advise the public with platitudes.      
    • Right.  Already too many people saying “labour pushed for longer and more stringent lockdowns” which if nothing else, does seem to give credence the notion that yes people can be brainwashed    Nothing ...  Nothing Labour pushed for was about longer lockdowns.  Explicitly, and very clearly they said “lock down early OR we will be locking down for longer “   ie they were trying to prevent the longer lockdowns we had   But “positive thinking” and “nothing to see here” from Johnson led to bigger problems    as for the hand-wavery about the economic inheritance and markets being spooked by labour budget - look - things did get really really and under last government and they tried to hide it.  So when someone tries to address it, no one is going to be happy.  But pretending all was tickety boo is a child’s response 
    • What would you have done differently, Rockets? I cannot, for the life of me, think of a financial strategy that would have satisfied 'working people' and businesses and driven growth and reduced the deficit. But I'm no economist. On another note, since we're bashing Labour, one thing that really got my goat was Labour's reaction to  Kemi Badenoch being elected leader of the opposition. When our own dear Ellie Reeves was asked for her reaction to KB's election, the first thing she said was "I'm proud that she's the first black woman to lead a political party, but..." Congratulating someone for being black (she's Nigerian FFS, not 'black') and female is such an insult. You'd be forgiven for thinking that that's all Labour sees... and it completely detracts from her achievements as a politician. It's almost as if they were implying that she'd done well in spite of her race and sex. If that's not racist... I think Kemi is an absolute nut job. People in her own party have said she'd start a brawl in an empty room and would cross the street to bite your ankle. But that kind of makes me like her. And if anyone can hold Labour's feet to the fire, she can.  (Ex labour party member here, who voted Keir for leader of the party, BTW, in case anyone wants to start a pile-on and call me a Tory lover). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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