Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

Troy Steadman wrote:
> Under Kingston Borough's Section 106 Planning Obligation, if you build
> more than 10 units you are contractually obliged to...
>
> 1)....make half the units affordable and pass them over to the council.
>
> 2)..."pepper pot" these council houses throughout your development.
>
> 3)...build the maximum the land will accommodate.
>
> 4)...in the case of flats, ensure any service charge is also affordable
> ("full price" residents subsidise their "council house" neighbours).
>
> ...and the same applies to smaller developments wherever practicable.
>
>
>
> Surely nobody is going to be building new homes except Housing
> Associations?

or those developers building 10 or less units?

However how does the subject line square with your post?

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

Colin Forrester wrote:
> Troy Steadman wrote:
> > Under Kingston Borough's Section 106 Planning Obligation, if you build
> > more than 10 units you are contractually obliged to...
> >
> > 1)....make half the units affordable and pass them over to the council.
> >
> > 2)..."pepper pot" these council houses throughout your development.
> >
> > 3)...build the maximum the land will accommodate.
> >
> > 4)...in the case of flats, ensure any service charge is also affordable
> > ("full price" residents subsidise their "council house" neighbours).
> >
> > ...and the same applies to smaller developments wherever practicable.
> >
> >
> >
> > Surely nobody is going to be building new homes except Housing
> > Associations?
>
> or those developers building 10 or less units?

"3.62: The council will also encourage the provision of affordable
units on sites smaller than the size threshold where feasible and
practicable".

> However how does the subject line square with your post?

Because there is now an inverse economy of scale - the bigger your
development plot the *less* it is worth. You can't split it into
smaller chunks. No one will buy it except a Housing Association. Less
is more.

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

Troy Steadman wrote:

>> However how does the subject line square with your post?
>
> Because there is now an inverse economy of scale - the bigger your
> development plot the *less* it is worth. You can't split it into
> smaller chunks. No one will buy it except a Housing Association. Less
> is more.

So how much have they plunged, since say this time last year?

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

Colin Forrester wrote:
> Troy Steadman wrote:
>
> >> However how does the subject line square with your post?
> >
> > Because there is now an inverse economy of scale - the bigger your
> > development plot the *less* it is worth. You can't split it into
> > smaller chunks. No one will buy it except a Housing Association. Less
> > is more.
>
> So how much have they plunged, since say this time last year?

At least 50%. I live next door to a factory. A couple of years ago they
were offered =A31.6m to demolish part of it and build 14 flats. Today
the best offer for the *whole* factory is =A3800k.

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

"Troy Steadman" <> wrote in message
news:
Colin Forrester wrote:
> Troy Steadman wrote:
>
> >> However how does the subject line square with your post?
> >
> > Because there is now an inverse economy of scale - the bigger your
> > development plot the *less* it is worth. You can't split it into
> > smaller chunks. No one will buy it except a Housing Association. Less
> > is more.
>
> So how much have they plunged, since say this time last year?

At least 50%. I live next door to a factory. A couple of years ago they
were offered £1.6m to demolish part of it and build 14 flats. Today
the best offer for the *whole* factory is £800k.

========

Seems like a deal. Was 114k per unit (1.6M /14) now its 89k per
unit(0.8M/9).

Also, since the units will be bigger you can sell them for more.


--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Troy Steadman" <> wrote in message
> news:
> Colin Forrester wrote:
> > Troy Steadman wrote:
> >
> > >> However how does the subject line square with your post?
> > >
> > > Because there is now an inverse economy of scale - the bigger your
> > > development plot the *less* it is worth. You can't split it into
> > > smaller chunks. No one will buy it except a Housing Association. Less
> > > is more.
> >
> > So how much have they plunged, since say this time last year?
>
> At least 50%. I live next door to a factory. A couple of years ago they
> were offered =A31.6m to demolish part of it and build 14 flats. Today
> the best offer for the *whole* factory is =A3800k.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Seems like a deal. Was 114k per unit (1.6M /14) now its 89k per
> unit(0.8M/9).
>
> Also, since the units will be bigger you can sell them for more.

Doesn't work like that:

"4.2 The best use must be made of development sites...The Council will
look closely at proposals that fall short of providing 10 or units to
make sure the best use of land is achieved..."

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

Troy Steadman wrote:
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > "Troy Steadman" <> wrote in message
> > news:
> > Colin Forrester wrote:
> > > Troy Steadman wrote:
> > >
> > > >> However how does the subject line square with your post?
> > > >
> > > > Because there is now an inverse economy of scale - the bigger your
> > > > development plot the *less* it is worth. You can't split it into
> > > > smaller chunks. No one will buy it except a Housing Association. Le=
ss
> > > > is more.
> > >
> > > So how much have they plunged, since say this time last year?
> >
> > At least 50%. I live next door to a factory. A couple of years ago they
> > were offered =A31.6m to demolish part of it and build 14 flats. Today
> > the best offer for the *whole* factory is =A3800k.
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > Seems like a deal. Was 114k per unit (1.6M /14) now its 89k per
> > unit(0.8M/9).
> >
> > Also, since the units will be bigger you can sell them for more.
>
> Doesn't work like that:

Also your maths is faulty. You'd rather have =A30.8m than =A31.6m because
9 houses make better accomodation than 14? :)

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

Tumbleweed <> wrote:

> "Troy Steadman" <> wrote in message
> Colin Forrester wrote:
> > Troy Steadman wrote:
[]
> > So how much have they plunged, since say this time last year?
>
> At least 50%. I live next door to a factory. A couple of years ago they
> were offered £1.6m to demolish part of it and build 14 flats. Today
> the best offer for the *whole* factory is £800k.
>
> ========
>
> Seems like a deal. Was 114k per unit (1.6M /14) now its 89k per
> unit(0.8M/9).
>
> Also, since the units will be bigger you can sell them for more.

Whatcha mean?

800k for *one* *big* *house* now sounds like a good deal to me ;-)

rgds, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5

Re: Development Land values plunge in SW London...

"Troy Steadman" <> wrote in message
news:
Troy Steadman wrote:
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > "Troy Steadman" <> wrote in message
> > news:
> > Colin Forrester wrote:
> > > Troy Steadman wrote:
> > >
> > > >> However how does the subject line square with your post?
> > > >
> > > > Because there is now an inverse economy of scale - the bigger your
> > > > development plot the *less* it is worth. You can't split it into
> > > > smaller chunks. No one will buy it except a Housing Association.
> > > > Less
> > > > is more.
> > >
> > > So how much have they plunged, since say this time last year?
> >
> > At least 50%. I live next door to a factory. A couple of years ago they
> > were offered £1.6m to demolish part of it and build 14 flats. Today
> > the best offer for the *whole* factory is £800k.
> >
> > ========
> >
> > Seems like a deal. Was 114k per unit (1.6M /14) now its 89k per
> > unit(0.8M/9).
> >
> > Also, since the units will be bigger you can sell them for more.
>
> Doesn't work like that:

Also your maths is faulty. You'd rather have £0.8m than £1.6m because
9 houses make better accomodation than 14? :)

============

No, I'd rather *buy* it for 0.8M and build 9 houses, than 1.6M and build 14.
[hence 'sounds like a deal']

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com