Patient London FTB

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Patient London FTB

  • Rank
    HPC Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

926 profile views
  1. You don't explain why they've gone cold on London Phil - so is it right to infer it's due to the terrorism?
  2. My guess at a timeline of what's happened here. PRE-GRENFELL: Berkeley (aka St Edward which is a JV of Berkeley and Prudential) applies for planning permission for luxury flats K&C Council says yes but you must build x% affordable homes as part of this deal Berkeley says ok and applies to the Homes and Communities Agency (part of the government) for a grant to fund the building of the affordable homes Berkeley offers the affordable homes on the open market to housing associations, but hasn't yet had a taker (or the taker is the City of London Corporation which invests in social housing itself anyway) ***GRENFELL FIRE HAPPENS**** K&C Council and central govt look around thinking where can we house these people City of London Corporation wants to help too Berkeley wants to help and demonstrate its social credentials City of London Corporation stumps up the cash to buy the affordable housing from Berkeley, saving K&C Council and the govt money It's better that K&C Council manages the housing so the management is transferred to them, but City of London Corporation retains ownership The Govt makes the announcement because the Homes and Communities Agency is the regulator of social housing providers Also, the govt says it will chip in extra (remember Berkeley has a grant from the HCA to fund the building) to hurry up the building to get the flats ready by end of July That's my take. I admit it is half-informed speculation, hopefully someone better informed can clarify?
  3. Haven't seen all the details, but the deal today isn't straying too far from established precedent, which is that councils have a duty to rehouse people in social housing in the local area if possible. The flats that have been acquired were already being built and designated as affordable housing (i.e. shared ownership / subsidised rent). They won't be the £2m ones that are for private sale. Looks like they were acquired by the City of London Corporation and handed over to Kensington & Chelsea council to manage as social housing. From the Guardian: "The most luxurious four-bedroom apartments are currently on sale in the development for £8.5m but the homes being released to Grenfell residents are part of the affordable quota being built and feature a more “straightforward” internal specification, but have the same build quality. The complex includes a 24-hour concierge, swimming pool, sauna and spa and private cinema. It is not yet clear if the Grenfell residents will have access to the facilities, which are normally not included for those in affordable housing." And from the Standard: "A source close to the deal said the City of London Corporation paid around £10 million for the flats thanks to an “extraordinary gesture” of goodwill by St Edward in selling the properties at their cost price."
  4. Rental costs aren't just set by local incomes. They're a big factor, but supply and demand are important too. I understand your point about build-to-rent developers pricing out development for owner-occupation, but you also have to accept that build-to-rent developers are going to render a tranche of buy-to-let units uneconomic and push them onto the sales market, lowering prices.
  5. I agree. And the end purchasers fund it and take the losses too. The first bit is true, but effectively such developments are lowering the cost of rented accommodation, which has a knock-on effect on the cost of housing available for owner-occupation. I say that after land value plummets in the crash we need to legislate to restrict overseas ownership and that will keep land value low in future.
  6. Great post
  7. Hysteria even before prices actually start falling. Amazing.
  8. I've read about Berkeley requiring 30% before. Not to piss on your chips, but they're smart. However, slashing the price is a different story, good stuff.
  9. Ah, sorry, thought you mean actual voters. Fair enough.
  10. The median age is not set in stone. It refers to the profile of voters in the past, and can be changed by more (or less) people voting in future.
  11. 35-44 age group is absolutely key, but not necessarily for the reasons you think. Yes, some of them are renters, but more of them are homeowners. With huge mortgages because of their entry point. That they haven't paid off because of poor wage growth. They will really turn away from the Tories in an HPC because they will be the most f**ked, and angry. Either we get an HPC and that happens, or we don't get an HPC and the generations below 35-44 get increasingly alienated. In the fullness of time this is electoral trouble for the Tories, it's just a question of how long it takes to brew.
  12. Nope - they will have forced her to appoint Barwell, who is well-regarded and perceived as due a good turn due to having lost his seat due to May's cack-handedness
  13. Yep. It either ends with a crash now or it ends with a political revolt by the priced-out and a crash later.
  14. Also according to ONS, London rents have increased by 22.9% since January 2011.