Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Loft extensions on left of me

basements on the right

Here I am, stuck in the middle of it

(to the tune of Stuck in the Middle with you, by Stealers Wheel)


Understand why owners, particularly with families, need more space.


But building has gone mad at the moments which seems to be driven more by investment return than physical need.


Just surreal when there is a shortage of housing in London.


I am not going to be King Canute and try and stop the tide but interested in others' views including you capitalist barstool sons and daughters of Thatcher who think all this is great. Please take these comments in jest

malumbu Wrote:

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

> seems to be driven more by investment return than physical need.


One hell of an assumption...


And I don't understand the implied juxtaposition between a housing shortage and extending your home.

I don't think people extend houses unless they want to utilise the additional space. I agree someone wanting a 4 bed may think its better to buy a 3 bed and extend it themselves (its saves the money upfront and builds equity) but that doesn't mean they don't want 4 bedrooms. In fact for many, doing work might be the only way they can afford to get the space they want.



I say want, because no one needs space-- humans used to live in caves and 100 years ago 11 people would easily live in a small Victorian terrace. What we want / feel we need changes over time and there is nothing wrong with that. Less space has been shown to cause people higher levels of stress, particularly families.

There is an irony that there is a glut of extensions whilst not enough housing, in particular affordable housing.


And people view this area as a place to invest.


In my single party state we'd all have a maximum space allocation in our people's utopian palacre

malumbu Wrote:

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

> There is an irony that there is a glut of

> extensions whilst not enough housing, in

> particular affordable housing.


Actually - I think the two go hand in hand. The affordability of housing affects even people in housing already. As prices jump, the gap between the steps on the ladder increases. So going from a 200k place to a 400k place, becomes 400k to 800k place or whatever (pedants accept the principle and don't worry about the actual numbers, pls., I get there are holes in the example). This is on top of stamp duties, removal costs, hours and hours of dull admin and general upheaval. On the other hand, remortgaging and using theoretical equity for works gets people the space they want.


On top of which, I'm not sure good quality extensions etc. necessarily make a lot of, if any, money - it's a lot of hassle when equity gains in this crazy market are so good.

The new increase is but the entire system was revamped a year ago. If you house was worth less than 1m, you save stamp duty compared to the old system. If its worth more than that though, you are paying additional stamp duty. So to move up the ladder (at or above 1m) has become relatively more expensive.
The only time I challenged an planning permission I discovered that it was submitted by a property developer from South West London...admittedly owner/occupiers would extend if they need to , but actually how many of these planning applications for extensions are distant property developers trying to divide the houses up into flats I wonder?

Now I'm being a pedant, but I remember I ended up drawing out the changes at the time - 2014 - (because I felt burnt for buying a few months previous to the changes), and the stamp duty was equal to the previous regime at the upper bounds of each of the previous ranges (i.e at 249,999, 499,999 etc.).


Not that it matters to the general theme of stamp duty being a strong argument against moving house.

You are right-- near the humps where the bands change that's correct. I wasn't trying to give the minute detail of the changes just the general point that you were likely better off below 1m and worse off above it if you want to move.

Why have none of you picked up on the point of my thread. Is East Dulwich unbelievably stupid?


So - good place to move to because of improved connectivity and relatively cheaper prices. Yes I get that

Opportunities to make smaller places into family houses, so cheaper to trade up (and avoid estate agent fees, stamp duty, the hassle of moving). Yes I get that.


But the size of some of the projects? OK perhaps you are expecting to have a massive family, have your parents move in etc. Some of this must surely be for investment purposes.


I'd rather people post and say "yes, I don't care about affordable housing, I want to make a good return, you are just envious Malumbu". I may not like it but at least it is honest.


Not some of the piffle above. Not good debate. Come back when you have thought properly about it with an objective view.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Not some of the piffle above. Not good debate.

> Come back when you have thought properly about it

> with an objective view.


And will you come back when your definition of ironic isn't from an Alanis Morisette song?

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

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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