Jump to content

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, ED_moots said:

The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes...

The private sector is not going to build a significant amount of social housing. Everyone is very keen for *everyone else* to subsidise construction of social housing. I take it none of the objectors to this scheme was suggesting putting up council tax so Southwark could build more social housing...?

Social housing isn't going to appear in serious numbers if the state doesn't borrow money and build it.

Edited by Dogkennelhillbilly
  • Agree 1
On 02/04/2025 at 13:45, Earl Aelfheah said:

This wouldn't surprise me. I never understand how approval to drop affordable housing commitments is granted post planning permission. Shouldn't be possible, but often seems to happen.

I think that the value of one unit of social housing in a luxury block is so great that taking the money and building real social housing elsewhere with it, can be a preferable option.

Meantime,  pushing this development through allows Cllr McAsh and the Council the opportunity to spin 'positive' numbers and data, to show they are meeting the council and Labour's new housing targets. 

Yes - and this is a good thing because meeting housing targets is a good thing. If Labour or any other party had managed to do it consistently over the last decade perhaps we wouldn't be in a housing crisis.

I'm not sure if "don't build more housing because it's only rich foreigners that will end up living there" is official Lib Dem policy or not.

Sounds like Southwark needs to build some social housing and the Dulwich Society needs to stop objecting because new housing is "visible".

But if people were really concerned about housing costs, they'd be in favour of increasing the supply of housing to a growing population. "In favour of development so long as it's low volume social housing paid for by the private sector" is really just austerity NIMBYism with a mask on.

1 hour ago, alice said:

10000 Southwark people on council waiting list.

But the bulk of the build is for student accommodation, with just 'some' affordable housing which will, if history is anything to go by, become much less once the scheme is started. Southwark has, I believe, quite a number of empty properties which are not in use. The number of people on Southwark's waiting list is frankly irrelevant to this scheme, which won't touch the surface.

52 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Sounds like Southwark needs to build some social housing and the Dulwich Society needs to stop objecting because new housing is "visible".

This isn't 'new housing' which is visible, but commercially profitable student bedsits (at least, the developers hope it will be commercially profitable). 

  • Like 1

A govt. research briefing (25 March 2025)  indicates that while higher education student numbers reached record levels in the early 2020's, those numbers are dropping. The rise was largely international students in postgraduate courses who are now being put off by higher university fees and visa costs/issues, whereas the trend for entrants to other undergraduate courses has fallen. Applications for full time undergraduate places in 2024 were lower than the high of 2022.

Schools are closing and it is projected there will be fewer 18 year olds going into higher education. Very short term there may or may not be demand for this level of student housing, but a development of this size and scale and impact on the locale must be future-proofed. Are we sure this has been done?

Edited by first mate

Interesting the projected demand.  One imagines that you don't undertake this kind of investment without the business case to back it up.  There's one going up near a friends office in the City that is for 782 students.  OK, these are much closer to HE establishments but there still has to be the demand.

https://dominusrealestate.co.uk/projects/65crutchedfriars/

42 minutes ago, first mate said:

Schools are closing and it is projected there will be fewer 18 year olds going into higher education.

There is also I believe some evidence that students are choosing to go to universities, where they do, closer to home so as to avoid additional costs by living at home. Personally I think this is a mistake - being an undergraduate is a first chance for independence - but if economics and costs are making this so the demand for accommodation such as this will again be weakened.

@ ed pete "there still has to be the demand".

I don't know but wondering if developers have been able to make a case based on the increase in demand from 2023-2024. The research I looked at said demand had risen by 500 in that period,  but was still below an all time high in 2022.
 

There will be others who know much more about this area who can give the rationale in favour; perhaps this latest govt. research is incorrect or only gives part of the story. My point is if, as seems likely, this development does little to solve the current housing crisis at local level for the non student population, I hope that the council is very, very sure that this level of student accommodation is warranted at this location.

I have not managed to look at the plans in detail but how sustainable are the plans for the build; how will it be heated, what about impact on water and waste services?

 

 

Edited by first mate

There's still a massive shortage of student housing in London regardless of short term fluctuations - just look at how expensive it is now and what a barrier it is to mobility!

What are people worried about anyway? That there will be so few students in London that a private landlord has to cut rents and makes lower profits? Oh no! 😂

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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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