excellent news. Sold in March and planning on buying next year
We don’t have a monopoly on sh1it, near sided politicians who can’t see further then the next election
theguardian.com/money/2014/o … for-260000
Reports of the death of the London property market may be premature. A gap between two shops has sold at auction for more than a quarter of a million pounds. When the hammer came down on the 0.016 acre site, which is currently* a hole between other buildings** but has planning permission for a studio, it had fetched £260,000, more than four times its £55,000 guide price. The thin strip of land, a passageway between a coffee shop and a charity shop, is on the Northcote Road in Battersea, south London, an area where prices have rocketed by 24% over the past year. Nearby, one-bedroom flats regularly change hands for more than £500,000*
Anecdote alert - I was in a very prosperous area of mid-Sussex over the weekend, 45 min commute from London in the South East. I noticed the local Fox & Son estate agents had price reductions on a lot of properties in their windows. I have NEVER seen this estate agent do this before, in my experience they see themselves as a cut above anything so grubby as a price reduction.
It looks like London is in for a ‘soft landing’…
At the top end of residential in London, a lot of the buyers are from oil and gas producing countries (Russia, Middle East). With the oil price fall, these buyers should be pulling in their horns.
Anyone seen analysis to bear this out?
The following map in the Evening Standard shows how the green belt around London has restricted the physical growth of the city. This has been in existence since the 1930’s when it was decided to protect the countryside near London from becoming a huge urban sprawl.
The population of London is growing by about 150,000pa but there are no greenfield sites on which to build new houses/flats to house all of these people. Most new properties have to be built on brown field sites. Very often this will mean buying a site with buildings (commercial or houses) already on it, demolishing them and building high rise flats that can support a higher density population. All of this is expensive and hence the number of new homes being built are nowhere near what is required. On top of this, many of the new flats that are being built, even in the outer suburbs, are being bought up off-plan by overseas investors.
There is still a lot of “brown” land within London that can be redeveloped into decent flats, much of inner London is suburban sprawl from the end of the 19th century. Much of this housing is of poor quality and low density, just needs a radical solution to level it and replace with modern flats. There is no need to expand outwards when you have plenty of underutilised land already in areas with good transport links.
Never realised there was a planned green belt around London - great idea.
The panic to build on it doesn’t really stack up when you look at the figures from around the world, also makes the Dublin sprawl look pretty pointless! It would mean that some of the single story buildings in the city centre may need to be re-used, but properly planned it would rejuvenate many areas.
London population = 8,414,535, density per sq km = 13,870
Paris population = 2,234,105, density per sq km = 21,196
Dublin (city) population = 527,612 , density per sq km = 4,588
Manila population = 1,652,171, density per sq km = 42,857
All info from wiki.
Developers have already bought up the cheaper old industrial land that was available and are building flats, for example, Battersea Power station, Nine Elms, the Isle of Dogs, pubs, and petrol filling stations. They have started knocking down large DIY stores and supermarkets now too. Many of the flats are being bought by Far Eastern investors who price ordinary working Londoners out.
Much of the “inner London suburban sprawl” of 19th century that you refer to is made up of very expensive real estate. It would be prohibitively expensive to buy it up to knock down and build flats. For example, small 3 bedroomed terraced 19th century houses in places like Cricklewood are now going for £750,000 to £800,000 and these only occupy a small footprint because they have very small gardens so several of these would have to be bought in order to build a block of flats.
Also, local borough councils in London are very strict when it comes to granting planning permission and many have height restrictions which would make it uneconomical to build because many projects are only viable if they can build high enough to fit in a large number of flats on the site. Sometime it can take several years to obtain planning permission to do something which looks reasonably straight forward to the casual observer. For example, I am aware of a situation where it took about 4 years to obtain planning permission to demolish a pub in order to build a 3 storey block of flats. The pub was of no historical significance either.
It appears that owners want it to stay that way. That’s why I said that it would need a radical approach. Much of London property is no longer for owner occupiers, I’m surprised that people still think that they can buy to live in London.
Barring excessively high council taxes on low density housing in the inner city areas that need higher density, the situation won’t change.
Russians Quit London Luxury Homes as Only Super-Rich Stay
bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-1 … -stay.html
as predicted a year ago…
Central London house prices fall ‘by up to 22%’
^^I wonder if we will be reading the same thing in the Irish Newspapers a year from now.