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

    • Because our posting, banking and counter services needs have changed and the Post Office and Royal Mail can't compete with the myriad of parcel delivery services (none of which make any money either) that are there to satisfy our every immediate delivery whim and then when we decide we don't want said goods we block up the Post Office trying to return them for free. Or the sense of dread when you realise a parcel has been sent by Royal Mail and you get the text that says: we will be delivering between 7am and 7pm today (or maybe tomorrow or the day after but we will only tell you that at 6.59pm) and if you want to change your delivery click here and we will put you into an endless loop of clicks that don't let you change anything. I sense this is why our local politicians offer such a weak response as they know the system is broken and there is nothing they can do about it and they don't want to put their necks on the line. P.S. I am using the Royal "we"!
    • There have also been a few instances of it on Whateley Road recently.... Horrible.
    • You seem to have had a run of bad luck, but I don't understand some of what you say. What do you mean by each shop requiring a different bar code etc? Surely you only have one thing to show for each package you are sending or  collecting? Don't you get an email or some other kind of notification which contains the thing you have to show? Are you suggesting that it would be easier to queue up at the Post Office than do it at a shop? You have to show barcodes etc there as well. Where did I ever imply that anybody was "thick" or a "troglodyte"? I did suggest that some people wanted to hang onto the old ways of doing things, like only using cash, that's true. And it isn't that this country "can't run a decent, simple post office." It's that Crown post offices are losing money by maintaining  buildings which are expensive to run,  whilst no longer providing  the range of services they used to, because for various reasons they are no longer needed. And the services which are still needed can be more cost effectively provided elsewhere without causing undue inconvenience to customers. Things move on.  But in any case, nothing has been decided yet. The closure of the Lordship Lane post office is just a proposal. I hate self service tills 🤣
    • In case it is relevant here .... Albrighton Community Fridge [just further up from DKH Sainsburys on opposite side] are taking in unwanted electricals.   https://www.albrightoncommunityfridge.org/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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