Revised new - M&S planning application to replace Iceland..

[fazer71]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> You're getting a bit paranoid, fazer.

>

> I was suggesting, in an obviously too subtle way

> for you, that you might wish to have a word with a

> professional who might be able to work with you in

> order to reduce or minimise what I consider to be

> your obsession with socialism. If you don't regard

> it as an obsession, then so be it.

>

> However, it might help to stop me thinking that it

> is an obsession on your part if you stopped

> referring in a derogatory way to socialism in so

> many posts that you make on the EDF.

I see.

I don't regard it as an obsession, I regard it as common sense logic, where it affects the conversation, creates an illusion or nasty edge I enjoy pointing out the illusion.

We live under Southwark Councils socialist agenda unavoidable it affects us in planning so it's relevant to this thread as can be seen by the comments and socialist undermoan.

I promise if we had a right wing council and the conversation was r/wing, I'd be equally vocal against any inhumane oppressive no progressive illogical mathematically absurd etc policy's and comments.

[Zebedee Tring]

Only two uses of the word "socialist" in your latest post, fazer. Perhaps you're on the road to recovery.

[fazer71]

:)

I recovered from the illusion many years ago.

[akd]

Having to wade through pages of exchanges like the above, in order to find relevant information on significant local issues is getting really tedious, please please consider this before you rant on at each other.

Thanks!

[fazer71]

akd

I stay on topic and use relevant points, others keep derailing the thread.

Zebedee Tring looking at you here. ;)

IMO the more flats / homes and shops we get the better, that's progress.

Housing density isn't any where near saturation point.

Everywhere manipulation has been attempted it fails to help, it simply delays the inevitable.

Three years on this thread as mentioned above.

People wonder why there's a lack of housing!

Did the Victorians go through this idiotic process ... No they got on with it and build on available plots.

We are the procrastination generation. Truly sad.

[V511]

Fazer71 - It's inaccurate to think the market has or will build enough homes. This graph shows that as government housebuilding declined, the market didn't step up to match public need. http://www.cityam.com/216218/uk-house-prices-whos-building-britains-houses-and-can-we-really-build-200000-homes-year

Primarily because why would they? If demand goes up and you restrict supply, prices go up. It's not some evil capitalist system - it's just simple capitalist supply and demand. There is no incentive for the market to build what is needed.

If it was for something inconsequential like luxury cars or smartphones then so be it, I don't mind, but when it comes to one of the most basic human needs of shelter, I don't believe the market can work to cover society's need. It's internal logic means it won't. So I don't blame it for sticking to its nature. Instead, I blame and moan about various governments abdicating their responsibility in providing for where the market cannot.

And as a believer that shelter should be considered a human right, I'm proud to moan about the failure of a society to provide the means to house it's own citizens.

[fazer71]

Nonsense

If plots of land were made available.

People would build their own homes as they do in Spain France Germany etc..

The fact is the are no available plots for individual home owners to build on.

Only Barratt etc have access.

Your view is wrong.

[V511]

Well I think your response proves my argument rather than being wrong. Who is going to make the plots of land available? Barratt etc won't because they want to make money. And Governments have lacked the will to either make public land available or to buy back private land.

So my point stands. Markets won't and governments haven't.

[fazer71]

Markets would if planners and government local and national did.

I thought your point was the market wouldn't.

It's a case of allowing the market some freedom.

What we have in the UK is a restricted market.

[V511]

From the data in that graph I posted, there is no evidence the market is desperate to build more houses if only governments would unshackle them. They've had 50 years under various governments of all colours and differing regulatory regimes and haven't fundamentally changed how much they build. Your faith in markets isn't backed up by the evidence in this area.

My argument is simply that they don't build more because controlling supply is a simple way of maintaining profits.

And if governments don't cover the gap between what the markets will build and what the public need, then we get a structural housing shortage. Hence why I will moan about government inaction, not markets.

[Jeremy]

Problem is that every half baked new build is being marketed as some sort of exclusive "luxury" development, with developers determined to push the prices to unheard of levels for the area. When it comes to housing, the market is not always your friend...

[fazer71]

V511

I see what you're saying but I believe the only government action required is to free up the planning system with some straightforward permitted development to allow new houses to be built through avoiding the planning system and permitted allowance to build on plots adjacent to existing housing our within X distance of services.

That is ALL the Government need do nothing more!

As for price it's about time regulation was introduced to show prices in sq ft or sq m so there is clarity of price.

And though such a system mortgage lenders would only lend based on the market price which would slow spiralling prices.

It's what the rest of Europe does.

[poppet27]

Right, all I can see from skim reading is an irrelevant petty argument clogging up the thread.

For those who don't want to read 68 pages of it,

Is there definitely going to be an M&S on Lordship Lane, and if so, can anyone tell us when?

[first mate]

Jeremy, exactly, where is the evidence that developers sit down and think how can we build decent, affordable property for lower waged, first time buyers. The evidence vis a vis markets is on this page, the developer on the site under discussion here could have built 8 flats but dumped that option, chossing instead to build two penthouses...not likely affordable for your average nurse, young teacher et..

[fazer71]

Who cares about affordable homes.

Affordable is misleading irrelevant and nonsense.

The demand will dictate supply.

The F&cking problem isn't affordability homes haven't been "affordable" since the 1960s.

So just f?cking build what makes financial sense rather than stifle market and skew the brains of simpletons with talk of affordability.

The mind boggles .. No wonder there aren't enough homes.

[first mate]

I gather there is still demand for investment property so there's your market and I am sure developers will be only too happy to oblige with supply.

[stephent]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

>

> As for price it's about time regulation was

> introduced to show prices in sq ft or sq m so

> there is clarity of price.

> And though such a system mortgage lenders would

> only lend based on the market price which would

> slow spiralling prices.

>

> It's what the rest of Europe does.

1) working out a price per square foot is pretty trivial these days if you really want too (every house listed on the big sites have a floor plan)

2) although in Europe they do measure in price per square foot using this as a valuation is a complete nonsense, as it means two very different houses can end up with similar 'prices' (i own a property in Italy)

3) this in no way stops over-lending/borrowing, property bubbles, etc (see almost every country in Europe for proof)

[fazer71]

OK Carry on as we are then .?

1. If it's so trivial why isn't price per SQM shown on agents sales details, maybe agents in the UK are too thick to work it out?

2. You'll know the price per SQm is different for modernised and un-modernised, it's easy to compare.

3. It doesn't stop it, nothing can stop lenders from breaking their own rules and fuelling the boom, that's where the price per SQM should make a difference.

Mortgage debt is what drives the rising prices tools to manage debt will result in a stable market.

The government could require all foreign property buyers to pay a percentage or all their tax in the UK or pay 25% foreigner stamp duty. Also laws requiring evidence of where foreign money have come from to stop criminal money coming to the UK, this problem makes us as nasty as the Swiss during WWII not that they're any less nasty today.

It's a complex subject,, stamp duty paid by uk tax payers doesn't help keep the property market liquid it causes stagnation who wants to move when it can cost tens of thousands to down size?

Everything appears to be setup to make property prices higher stifle supply and keep one or two old people in bigger houses than they need. Maybe oaps or owners of homes for over 15 years should pay no stamp duty.

Something needs doing because carrying on as we are isn't working.

[MarkT]

I've just discovered that an appeal was lodged some time ago for the rooftop extension.

Appeal Reference W/15/3065783.

The grounds for appeal is that Southwark Council failed to make a decision within the statutory period.

The Appeal documents are on the Council's website alongside the application documents. Application 15/AP/1186. Included is a list of 60 addresses that were notified of the appeal by a letter from the Council on 11th September.

My letter must have been either lost in the post or eaten by the cat. I am surprised though that over the last month, on this rather busy thread, which has included specific questions for updates on this application, and postings from usually well informed contributors, that nobody has mentioned the appeal.

The deadline, by the way, for submissions to HM Inspector, is 14th October.

I believe the Council is required to send on all objections that it previously received, but I think I will send mine separately. I won't take the risk that it might be eaten by HM Inspector's cat.

MarkT

[first mate]

No appeal letter here...strange.

James Barber, are you aware if the appeal ?

[fazer71]

Great.

I'll be writing that it's criminal underdevelopment there should be another floor or two to meet the UK's housing needs.

[first mate]

Mark T, I'm going to cross post to James thread. He said that the decision was to be called in but has never come back on what happened next.

[Angelina]

'Afforadable' is subjective and there are parts of England that are more affordable than London.

The argument that London has to be 'affordable' is interesting. Why not move to somewhere affordable?

I'd like to live in Monte Carlo - but I think that's not 'affordable' - perhaps I should insist they build houses I can afford, just so I can live there.

And no - I would prefer not to have an M&S. Largely unhealthy boring food. I'd prefer not to have a Starbucks either. Much is to be said for small independent businesses (helping people achieve the affordable) rather than a corporation in our midst.

[DulwichFox]

For some, having an M&S on their doorstep simply makes them feel better in themselves..

The next door neighbours, there are a joke

They cultivate a garden which they smoke

And send their kids to the local schools

They must be growing up a bunch of fools

The next door neighbours haven?t a cent

We own our house but they pay rent

Property owners should remain aloof

Especially when they?ve got a raven on their roof

Andy Roberts. Liverpool Scene.

Foxy..

[AbDabs]

This is the list of addresses that should have got notification of the appeal. Did anyone on this list get the letter? If not, it is rather disturbing.