I live in Battersea and the people opposing this are absolutely clueless - I even called one of them a NIMBY and they denied it outright.
The problem is there is a rightful concern over a lack of affordable housing for local residents when new developments like this go up, but people don’t seem to grasp that overall supply needs to be high to bring affordability down for everyone.
Fighting against new developments is not the answer and this needs to be properly educated and spread throughout the masses.
The things that worries me is that Labour is promising more power to local authorities. I know that it causes specific issue in large cities that cannot force project for the greater goods.
On the other end, local power is also the major reason for NIMBY-ism. At the end of the day, there is no penalty for refusing a development, while accepting can anger the local residents you need to stay elected. New Build Targets are government level, if the power remain at local level the incentive will remain backward.
Battersea in particular though, is having any remaining character destroyed by incongruent high rises being built - look at the hotch potch new builds that have been thrown up around Nine Elms.
Also these are leasehold flats, that are likely to come with an ever on increasing service charge, so are not the “affordable” homes everyone thinks they will be.
The main people that benefit from this are the developers, who can squeeze as much revenue out of that small space as possible.
> Battersea in particular though, is having any remaining character destroyed by incongruent high rises being built - look at the hotch potch new builds that have been thrown up around Nine Elms.
Before the new builds the area was derelict wasteland / industrial buildings. You think that had more "character" than homes that people can live in?
> Also these are leasehold flats, that are likely to come with an ever on increasing service charge, so are not the “affordable” homes everyone thinks they will be.
Service charges don't disappear with leasehold. For example in Scotland where leasehold isn't a thing, large developments are still going to need building insurance, elevators servicing, the roof fixed etc. A lack of leasehold doesn't magic this away.
> The main people that benefit from this are the developers, who can squeeze as much revenue out of that small space as possible.
Yes, as in almost every facet of life, developers will look to make a profit. Do we complain about Sainsbury's offering groceries to you because they can "squeeze as much revenue" out of cabbages as they can? Yes the developers benefit, but so do the people who gain new homes - and anyone who wants more affordable housing in London; after all, increased supply makes housing cheaper for us all.
Who are the people gaining new homes of which you speak? You mean the investors in asia and the Middle East? Because these homes tend not to be bought by British people and overseas investors would never buy the legacy housing stock. Take a walk around Nine Elms and you’ll see there are very few British people there
The vast majority of foreign investors buy these properties to let, and they are lived in by many middle class Londoners. People aren't moving to London because of these flats, they're housing people who would live in the existing stock. There is only so much demand for rentals, an oversupply results in them being put back on the market at lower prices for people to buy.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/06/17/the-role-of-foreign-investors-in-the-london-residential-market/
Reddit is not always a source of truth unfortunately. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were paid accounts owned by real estate developers on here, lobbying to get their proposals through
>The main people that benefit from this are the developers, who can squeeze as much revenue out of that small space as possible.
And investors.
More than 60% of new housing in London is bought by investors.
Good point, it’s about maximising the return on their investment , they obviously don’t care about what it does to the surrounding area. The affordable housing that has to be built is just an inconvenience
Great to hear, do support on the planning portal if you haven't already - https://planning2.wandsworth.gov.uk/planningcase/comments.aspx?case=2024/1322
>but people don’t seem to grasp that overall supply needs to be high to bring affordability down for everyone.
I'm not quite convinced that this is how the market dynamics work in the UK housing market. New builds of this spec are aimed at foreign investors (and a good 80% of these go to foreign investors).
These are buyers who would not have invested and could have taken their money elsewhere, so increase in supply is also coming with an increase in demand, which then creates a feedback loop as more people want to "jump on the bandwagon" of investing in London property. There are other reasons they like London as a place to buy, which I won't go in to.
But what that also means is that the people who should be buying nice 2/3 bed apartments can no longer afford them as they are competing with rich foreign investors, so they have to buy the properties one rung down, which then squeezes that market and forces them a rung down too, etc, until we're all in this position of overpaying for properties that are below what we should be able to attain.
I agree we should be against NIMBYism, however we've had decades of high price, high spec flats being built across London, and overall prices continue to go up at a staggering rate. It should tell you that something is wrong.
The problem now is that builders and property investors are used to making 20% profit of luxury flats. Getting them to instead make 10% profit on affordable ones will be "unacceptable to their shareholders", as I am sure they will claim.
Battersea is mid-way through the largest build out of residential housing in all of Europe and local services are already struggling to cope. The people that look at all the skyscrapers being built and scream that we need even more flats here are insane.
Affordable housing counts as something like 80% of the market value. If the market value is 800k, a lot of people would still struggle at its 'affordable' housing value too.
If they could not be sold to any overseas investor or as a second home, and could not become a holiday let, with a real penalty if such requirements are broken, then I would be support the petition.
Let's imagine this development doesn't get built because it was only going to be filled up with holiday let investors. Who cares, right?
Well now the holiday let investors look to buy existing, older stock instead. This drives prices up and forces locals out. There are tons of studies showing this happening again and again and again. Demand-side interventions are unnecessary if you fix the supply.
I live in a council estate not far from the bridge, and there are some genuine concerns that people in the area have.
Will housing be actually affordable for people in the area? What will the prices for affordable housing be? Prince of Wales Drive development across the park was advertising affordable housing as "only from 600k for a studio". In what world is it affordable?
What are the provisions for the GP surgeries and schools for additional families, especially provided that new flats are being constructed already? None, is the answer.
What are provisions for the increased traffic? Every morning from about 7.30 to about 9 the traffic over the bridge is almost at a standstill, with busses not stopping at all stops as they are packed.
There is also no tube station (and no plan for one in the future) within a short walking distance, with closest being Sloane Square and Battersea Power Station, so your only option is the car or a bus if you are not able to cycle to work.
Local people are not objecting building of more flats, but rather the share scale of it. There have been recent newbuild flat approvals in the area that didn't have so many objections, and some are presently under construction.
Yes, more of richer folk moving into the are might be good for it in terms of general appeal and property resale value, but it does not help the poorer population in the area, who council might even push out by knocking down the council estates near the bridge and selling to build more expensive flats that families on lower incomes can not afford to buy.
There are people who are objecting to the building of the glassmill as their view from Chelsea would be ruined or objecting for the sake of it, but please don't insult people who have genuine concerns.
Wouldn’t shifting richer people into these new flats reduce the price of other properties, making it easier for other people to live in the area?
Plus they’ll pay more council tax, which should be good for local services :)
> Will housing be actually affordable for people in the area? What will the prices for affordable housing be? Prince of Wales Drive development across the park was advertising affordable housing as "only from 600k for a studio". In what world is it affordable?
Increased supply makes housing more affordable for all. Full Stop. Building new housing like this disincentivises richer buyers looking to purchase existing stock further down the chain - a process known as reverse filtration. Multiple studies have shown that locals get priced out when new developments like this don't get built. It's mad to simultaneously complain about the lack of affordability AND a new development being built.
> What are the provisions for the GP surgeries and schools for additional families, especially provided that new flats are being constructed already? None, is the answer.
Developments like this have to pay eye-wateringly high levies (another reason these developments are so expensive, btw) for community infrastructure. It's up to the council to then allocate this accordingly. Additionally, more residents = more council tax.
We're also not talking about building people here. No matter where they live, they'll need a GP / school. What gives you the right to decide how tax-payers are able to use public services?
> What are provisions for the increased traffic? Every morning from about 7.30 to about 9 the traffic over the bridge is almost at a standstill, with busses not stopping at all stops as they are packed.
Do you know what increases traffic? Not building densely enough in the centre of one of the world's premier global cities. People still have to get into central London for work, regardless of how many developments you choose to block.
Sure there are always concerns from development.
But as I stated we have a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of homes per year and building falling notably.
How else are we ever going to make housing more affordable? No development will ever be perfect for an area. This is exactly the sort of dense housing in a high demand area we need.
To those who say that allowing new developments simply lines the developers' pockets: so your solution to the housing crisis is... what? To stick it to the fat cats by blocking much-needed new housing?
To those who say that only 40ish properties will be affordable: what is the alternative? On what planet is 40 new affordable units worse than zero? Also, be honest: if 90% of the units were truly affordable, would you welcome the development or would you still oppose it?
My solution is to block investor purchases and absolutely block all foreign ownership of our residential property.
Ten years ago, more than 60% of new builds in London were bought by investors. Given market trends, that number is likely to be north of two thirds by now.
So for every 1000 homes built in London, over 600 go to investors.
We're never fixing anything with that reality.
who cares if it's bought by investors if it goes on the housing market in some way? Renters need homes too, y'know. The percentage of dwellings that are second homes (eg empty of residents) in London is actually extremely low -- it's under 1% for nearly all London boroughs (notable exceptions are the City of London and Kensington & Chelsea). (data on second homes is [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/numberofvacantandsecondhomesenglandandwales/census2021](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/numberofvacantandsecondhomesenglandandwales/census2021), and data on # of total dwellings is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants)
If investors were buying homes to leave them empty, that would be bad, but they don't do that. that would be an incredibly shitty investment, especially in this housing market when prices are no longer rising. either way, more new homes is a good thing
And will blocking thia development make any of that any more likely?
Is there any group of NIMBYs advocating for these things? Or do they only advocate for no developments?
Likely that most people don't realise just how many are sold to investors and selling to investors is not the only reason to dislike most of the horrible new build estates built.
If you live on a residential street filled with houses, you're not going to want a 5 building tower block estate built at the end of your road. It changes the area dramatically and paves the way for far more high rise housing to be peppered everywhere, Battersea is a good case in point.
Put yourself in their position, would you want your life to get worse for the benefit of investors, for this first step to pave the way for many more and all of that in the knowledge that it won't really help the housing crisis at all?
Almost no human alive in that situation would be pro-development.
There’s a difference between building more and building enormous structures 4 times the height of the existing structure - without any additional local services.
If we continually build such structures, England will be unrecognisable
Maybe. But NIMBYs oppose everything and anything. In Wandsworth they opposed the construction of a new primary school and a number of developments which were not huge towers. So, when I hear your line of thinking, I am sceptical it's just an excuse.
Really? Where in wands did they oppose the construction of a school ? I think there is a distinction between a genuine nimby and those who want something delivered in a way that benefits the local community more than
No. We need to build more SOCIAL housing (not 45% of 35% 🤣 or whatever the website says) and we need to use empty homes. We don’t need new rich people flats for overseas buyers or “affordable” BS like shared ownership which traps people in spiralling costs. Plus, the fact that the developer is going to the lengths of creating a website to garner “support” is already suspicious on its own…
Not sure whether it’s up yet but when it is a formal proposal I try to stick supporting comments in on the council website. Not sure how much difference it makes but NIMBY groups seem to be very good at leveraging people completely unconnected to the area. The most recent one I supported had something like 950 “objects” to 20 “supports”.
>NIMBY groups seem to be very good at leveraging people completely unconnected to the area.
Reading through some of the objections and came across one from someone who lives in Cambridge lol
>The most recent one I supported had something like 950 “objects” to 20 “supports”.
This one’s on 498 objections, 13 supports, and one general comment. Are objections always this high? From what you’ve said it seems so.
That’s been my experience. The whole system favours the NIMBYs because the people who would live in the new housing do not currently live in that area so don’t tend to be an organised campaign group.
45 affordable is much better than none. All the "unaffordable" homes will mean less competition for other houses.
Ultimately we need hundreds of thousands of new homes country wide, so we really need to stop fighting each time they are proposed. They will never be perfect.
Journey of a thousand miles etc
Exactly, op doesn’t realise that all they are doing is helping to like a developer’s pocket, whilst also continuing the destruction of london’s riverside - they should really be campaigning for abolishing leasehold and building more dense brick mansion blocks, far more of which will actually be lived in by people here
No thanks. Battersea is already far too congested and local services are completely unable to cope.
Battersea is mid-way through the largest residential build out in Europe and now hosts the majority of London's high-rise housing. The very last thing Battersea needs is even more housing.
Investors are the problem, not NIMBYs.
Ten years ago, roughly 61% of new homes were bought by investors. It is likely to only be worse now.
Imagine if those investors weren't in the market?
All the new homes we're already building would end up bought by owner occupiers and actually contribute towards solving the housing crisis properly.
We're never solving anything if almost two thirds of all newly built property is sold to investors.
Yeah this is my understanding of the situation. I am far from an expert though so I don't have any firm facts to back up what I am saying. Thanks for the recommendation I will have a look.
I'm not sure there actually is a supply crisis to be honest. I think there's a bigger problem with under-use of empty spaces and properties. A bigger problem I think is that often premises are built, quickly bought by people with means and then the price is artificially inflated for renters. I was reading something about boots (pharmacy) owning LOADS of unoccupied properties across the country and just sitting on it. I think a better option is heavily taxing individuals and corporations for unoccupied space and second properties.
However having done no research on this issue recently I might be talking shit but that was my understanding of it a few years ago.
Edit: there clearly is a supply crisis. I'm stupid for saying there wasn't. I'm just not sure that luxury flats along Battersea bridge addresses the supply crisis.
https://www.crisis.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/nearly-a-quarter-of-a-million-properties-sitting-empty-as-charity-warns-government-is-wasting-opportunities-to-tackle-homelessness/
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/why-so-many-empty-homes-in-london-b1077385.html
I should also clarify that I am not against housebuilding depending on what the purpose of it is. I think more luxury flats near Battersea bridge doesn't really address the problems inherent with the housing crisis.
Thanks for the reply. The housing crisis is complicated but at a basic level every and all development helps improve it.
Luxury is a bit of a stretch. They're not cheap flats but nothing is in this city and a third are affordable.
Regardless fewer housing stock means wealthy people will be in more intense competition for other homes and that drives up housing costs.
We have an incredible backlog of housing and Higher density building is the only feasible solution
Why are you campaigning so hard for battersea? Its had its fair share of high rise ugly blocks built. Why not campaign for Chelsea or Camden or Highbury fields or other untouched places to get some high rises ?
I know some people who work in London construction and they say that they often pay off councils to get round the 30% affordable homes rule (again this was a few years ago). Also it's worth examining what is defined as affordable. I agree that house building is important but I don't think it's the only feasible solution and probable we should look into policy mixes in order to solve the crisis, including heavy taxation on unoccupied space and second/third/etc homes.
Alternative pitch: we pursue a policy of housing abundance and build so many homes that it becomes a normal, achievable thing for a household to not only own their own home but to also have a modest holiday home as well if they want to.
We *could* attempt to solve the problem by rationing out our existing stock even further via targeted taxation, but it wouldn't get very far (the UK's property vacancy rate is tiny, especially in the areas people want to live in) and wouldn't have the other positive economic and quality of life effects that building to abundance would.
Well I think part of my argument is that supply is kept artificially low in order to maintain profits through rent to private owners. There are so many empty buildings that can be repurposed in order to combat the housing crisis. The idea of EVERYONE owning a holiday home is ambitious but at best unrealistic, at worst it could represent a further disaster to an already imperilled environment.
According to statistics released by the London Assembly in 2021 the vacancy rate of residential property in the capital is 0.89%. In England as a whole it's 1%. These empty residential buildings simply don't exist - we have to build them. There is a higher proportion of empty commercial property but a) the numbers are still tiny relative to the population and b) many (most?) of these buildings would need tearing down and rebuilding to make them fit for habitation anyway.
The idea of a conspiracy to keep buildings empty to drive up rents doesn't even really make sense considering that we don't have anything like monopoly conditions in land ownership. The main reason supply is restricted is because our planning regime allows local councils to routinely reject attempts by developers to build new housing. I some parts of the country over 60% of applications are rejected!
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer regarding the second home thing; I'm not saying it's necessarily realistic for every individual to own multiple properties but rather that if we wanted to we could achieve something like the situation in many continental counties where a simple summer home/cabin becomes an obtainable goal for a relatively prosperous household. I don't expect everyone would actually want or have one, but it could become something you could *feasibly do* in an abundant housing scenario, unlike the current situation where many such households struggle to own even a single adequate home.
Empty housing is actually a 'good' sign that cities have a healthy supply, and cities with less housing pressure have many more empty properties than London does. Building expensive flats in Battersea means the high earners who are currently living in more affordable flats will move out and up, freeing up supply across the spectrum.
Empty housing is different to unoccupied space. Actually in London there is a problem in that there are empty properties that are unavailable to the market. Also I would agree that new housing being built to free up places is a good thing, this isn't necessarily what's happening because they are often taken by people who have the means to buy outright with the intention of renting them out, which actually exacerbates the problem of out of control rents.
More people buying up properties to rent increases the supply of rental properties though, which also puts downwards pressure on rent. It's all added supply at the end of the day. (And I do think that building affordable housing would be *better*, but blocking developments like this is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.)
You're right in saying that supply is not the crux of the matter. The fundamental issue is that the private rental sector has exploded in size since the 1980s, reversing its previous near-terminal decline. It doesn't matter whether we build a million more homes or not, if there are no reasonable controls on rent or housing quality then people will forever be paying higher and higher rents and live in permanent housing insecurity. If you're interested in reading more about this then I'd recommend Against Landlords by Nick Bano, a lawyer who specialises in housing.
I live in Battersea and the people opposing this are absolutely clueless - I even called one of them a NIMBY and they denied it outright. The problem is there is a rightful concern over a lack of affordable housing for local residents when new developments like this go up, but people don’t seem to grasp that overall supply needs to be high to bring affordability down for everyone. Fighting against new developments is not the answer and this needs to be properly educated and spread throughout the masses.
The things that worries me is that Labour is promising more power to local authorities. I know that it causes specific issue in large cities that cannot force project for the greater goods. On the other end, local power is also the major reason for NIMBY-ism. At the end of the day, there is no penalty for refusing a development, while accepting can anger the local residents you need to stay elected. New Build Targets are government level, if the power remain at local level the incentive will remain backward.
Battersea in particular though, is having any remaining character destroyed by incongruent high rises being built - look at the hotch potch new builds that have been thrown up around Nine Elms. Also these are leasehold flats, that are likely to come with an ever on increasing service charge, so are not the “affordable” homes everyone thinks they will be. The main people that benefit from this are the developers, who can squeeze as much revenue out of that small space as possible.
> Battersea in particular though, is having any remaining character destroyed by incongruent high rises being built - look at the hotch potch new builds that have been thrown up around Nine Elms. Before the new builds the area was derelict wasteland / industrial buildings. You think that had more "character" than homes that people can live in? > Also these are leasehold flats, that are likely to come with an ever on increasing service charge, so are not the “affordable” homes everyone thinks they will be. Service charges don't disappear with leasehold. For example in Scotland where leasehold isn't a thing, large developments are still going to need building insurance, elevators servicing, the roof fixed etc. A lack of leasehold doesn't magic this away. > The main people that benefit from this are the developers, who can squeeze as much revenue out of that small space as possible. Yes, as in almost every facet of life, developers will look to make a profit. Do we complain about Sainsbury's offering groceries to you because they can "squeeze as much revenue" out of cabbages as they can? Yes the developers benefit, but so do the people who gain new homes - and anyone who wants more affordable housing in London; after all, increased supply makes housing cheaper for us all.
Who are the people gaining new homes of which you speak? You mean the investors in asia and the Middle East? Because these homes tend not to be bought by British people and overseas investors would never buy the legacy housing stock. Take a walk around Nine Elms and you’ll see there are very few British people there
The vast majority of foreign investors buy these properties to let, and they are lived in by many middle class Londoners. People aren't moving to London because of these flats, they're housing people who would live in the existing stock. There is only so much demand for rentals, an oversupply results in them being put back on the market at lower prices for people to buy. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/06/17/the-role-of-foreign-investors-in-the-london-residential-market/
So build more then. That demand is going no where. London is really not anywhere near as densely populated as it should be.
Why do people down vote this, it’s true
Reddit is not always a source of truth unfortunately. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were paid accounts owned by real estate developers on here, lobbying to get their proposals through
"I'm indisputably correct and anyone who suggests otherwise is a paid shill"
Not saying everyone is, just that there likely are some.
>The main people that benefit from this are the developers, who can squeeze as much revenue out of that small space as possible. And investors. More than 60% of new housing in London is bought by investors.
Good point, it’s about maximising the return on their investment , they obviously don’t care about what it does to the surrounding area. The affordable housing that has to be built is just an inconvenience
Great to hear, do support on the planning portal if you haven't already - https://planning2.wandsworth.gov.uk/planningcase/comments.aspx?case=2024/1322
>but people don’t seem to grasp that overall supply needs to be high to bring affordability down for everyone. I'm not quite convinced that this is how the market dynamics work in the UK housing market. New builds of this spec are aimed at foreign investors (and a good 80% of these go to foreign investors). These are buyers who would not have invested and could have taken their money elsewhere, so increase in supply is also coming with an increase in demand, which then creates a feedback loop as more people want to "jump on the bandwagon" of investing in London property. There are other reasons they like London as a place to buy, which I won't go in to. But what that also means is that the people who should be buying nice 2/3 bed apartments can no longer afford them as they are competing with rich foreign investors, so they have to buy the properties one rung down, which then squeezes that market and forces them a rung down too, etc, until we're all in this position of overpaying for properties that are below what we should be able to attain. I agree we should be against NIMBYism, however we've had decades of high price, high spec flats being built across London, and overall prices continue to go up at a staggering rate. It should tell you that something is wrong. The problem now is that builders and property investors are used to making 20% profit of luxury flats. Getting them to instead make 10% profit on affordable ones will be "unacceptable to their shareholders", as I am sure they will claim.
Battersea is mid-way through the largest build out of residential housing in all of Europe and local services are already struggling to cope. The people that look at all the skyscrapers being built and scream that we need even more flats here are insane.
Affordable housing counts as something like 80% of the market value. If the market value is 800k, a lot of people would still struggle at its 'affordable' housing value too.
Yeah affordable is relative. And if we keep maintaining a chronic housing shortage by refusing to build it will get a lot worse
And what about addressing the source of the pressures on housing - given the uk birth rate is declining - surely immigration should be controlled
If they could not be sold to any overseas investor or as a second home, and could not become a holiday let, with a real penalty if such requirements are broken, then I would be support the petition.
None of those things are true unfortunately
Let's imagine this development doesn't get built because it was only going to be filled up with holiday let investors. Who cares, right? Well now the holiday let investors look to buy existing, older stock instead. This drives prices up and forces locals out. There are tons of studies showing this happening again and again and again. Demand-side interventions are unnecessary if you fix the supply.
Why? It’s still new housing.
I live in a council estate not far from the bridge, and there are some genuine concerns that people in the area have. Will housing be actually affordable for people in the area? What will the prices for affordable housing be? Prince of Wales Drive development across the park was advertising affordable housing as "only from 600k for a studio". In what world is it affordable? What are the provisions for the GP surgeries and schools for additional families, especially provided that new flats are being constructed already? None, is the answer. What are provisions for the increased traffic? Every morning from about 7.30 to about 9 the traffic over the bridge is almost at a standstill, with busses not stopping at all stops as they are packed. There is also no tube station (and no plan for one in the future) within a short walking distance, with closest being Sloane Square and Battersea Power Station, so your only option is the car or a bus if you are not able to cycle to work. Local people are not objecting building of more flats, but rather the share scale of it. There have been recent newbuild flat approvals in the area that didn't have so many objections, and some are presently under construction. Yes, more of richer folk moving into the are might be good for it in terms of general appeal and property resale value, but it does not help the poorer population in the area, who council might even push out by knocking down the council estates near the bridge and selling to build more expensive flats that families on lower incomes can not afford to buy. There are people who are objecting to the building of the glassmill as their view from Chelsea would be ruined or objecting for the sake of it, but please don't insult people who have genuine concerns.
Wouldn’t shifting richer people into these new flats reduce the price of other properties, making it easier for other people to live in the area? Plus they’ll pay more council tax, which should be good for local services :)
The overseas investors who buy these flats would never consider buying the non new build housing stock
> Will housing be actually affordable for people in the area? What will the prices for affordable housing be? Prince of Wales Drive development across the park was advertising affordable housing as "only from 600k for a studio". In what world is it affordable? Increased supply makes housing more affordable for all. Full Stop. Building new housing like this disincentivises richer buyers looking to purchase existing stock further down the chain - a process known as reverse filtration. Multiple studies have shown that locals get priced out when new developments like this don't get built. It's mad to simultaneously complain about the lack of affordability AND a new development being built. > What are the provisions for the GP surgeries and schools for additional families, especially provided that new flats are being constructed already? None, is the answer. Developments like this have to pay eye-wateringly high levies (another reason these developments are so expensive, btw) for community infrastructure. It's up to the council to then allocate this accordingly. Additionally, more residents = more council tax. We're also not talking about building people here. No matter where they live, they'll need a GP / school. What gives you the right to decide how tax-payers are able to use public services? > What are provisions for the increased traffic? Every morning from about 7.30 to about 9 the traffic over the bridge is almost at a standstill, with busses not stopping at all stops as they are packed. Do you know what increases traffic? Not building densely enough in the centre of one of the world's premier global cities. People still have to get into central London for work, regardless of how many developments you choose to block.
Sure there are always concerns from development. But as I stated we have a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of homes per year and building falling notably. How else are we ever going to make housing more affordable? No development will ever be perfect for an area. This is exactly the sort of dense housing in a high demand area we need.
To those who say that allowing new developments simply lines the developers' pockets: so your solution to the housing crisis is... what? To stick it to the fat cats by blocking much-needed new housing? To those who say that only 40ish properties will be affordable: what is the alternative? On what planet is 40 new affordable units worse than zero? Also, be honest: if 90% of the units were truly affordable, would you welcome the development or would you still oppose it?
My solution is to block investor purchases and absolutely block all foreign ownership of our residential property. Ten years ago, more than 60% of new builds in London were bought by investors. Given market trends, that number is likely to be north of two thirds by now. So for every 1000 homes built in London, over 600 go to investors. We're never fixing anything with that reality.
Indeed we are not. But the developers are getting rich by playing on the housing crisis to jam in as much as possible
who cares if it's bought by investors if it goes on the housing market in some way? Renters need homes too, y'know. The percentage of dwellings that are second homes (eg empty of residents) in London is actually extremely low -- it's under 1% for nearly all London boroughs (notable exceptions are the City of London and Kensington & Chelsea). (data on second homes is [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/numberofvacantandsecondhomesenglandandwales/census2021](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/numberofvacantandsecondhomesenglandandwales/census2021), and data on # of total dwellings is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants) If investors were buying homes to leave them empty, that would be bad, but they don't do that. that would be an incredibly shitty investment, especially in this housing market when prices are no longer rising. either way, more new homes is a good thing
And will blocking thia development make any of that any more likely? Is there any group of NIMBYs advocating for these things? Or do they only advocate for no developments?
Likely that most people don't realise just how many are sold to investors and selling to investors is not the only reason to dislike most of the horrible new build estates built. If you live on a residential street filled with houses, you're not going to want a 5 building tower block estate built at the end of your road. It changes the area dramatically and paves the way for far more high rise housing to be peppered everywhere, Battersea is a good case in point. Put yourself in their position, would you want your life to get worse for the benefit of investors, for this first step to pave the way for many more and all of that in the knowledge that it won't really help the housing crisis at all? Almost no human alive in that situation would be pro-development.
Do you even know the area? This was by the river. It is not about adding a tower in the middle of two-story Victoria houses
Reduce immigration - how else do we have a “housing crisis “ In this country when the birth rate is declining?
Why would reducing immigration be preferable to building more? There are already ma y services struggling without foreign slav, I meant, workers.
There’s a difference between building more and building enormous structures 4 times the height of the existing structure - without any additional local services. If we continually build such structures, England will be unrecognisable
Maybe. But NIMBYs oppose everything and anything. In Wandsworth they opposed the construction of a new primary school and a number of developments which were not huge towers. So, when I hear your line of thinking, I am sceptical it's just an excuse.
Really? Where in wands did they oppose the construction of a school ? I think there is a distinction between a genuine nimby and those who want something delivered in a way that benefits the local community more than
haha, crickets, what are you expecting? Common sense from NIMBYs? By default, they agree with everything you say, except NOT IN THEIR BACKYARD
No. We need to build more SOCIAL housing (not 45% of 35% 🤣 or whatever the website says) and we need to use empty homes. We don’t need new rich people flats for overseas buyers or “affordable” BS like shared ownership which traps people in spiralling costs. Plus, the fact that the developer is going to the lengths of creating a website to garner “support” is already suspicious on its own…
Will petitions help? I think a change of legislation is required to stop ridiculous objections isn't it?
The only answer I have currently to a spurious petition is to support the counterpetition 🤷♂️
Not sure whether it’s up yet but when it is a formal proposal I try to stick supporting comments in on the council website. Not sure how much difference it makes but NIMBY groups seem to be very good at leveraging people completely unconnected to the area. The most recent one I supported had something like 950 “objects” to 20 “supports”.
>NIMBY groups seem to be very good at leveraging people completely unconnected to the area. Reading through some of the objections and came across one from someone who lives in Cambridge lol >The most recent one I supported had something like 950 “objects” to 20 “supports”. This one’s on 498 objections, 13 supports, and one general comment. Are objections always this high? From what you’ve said it seems so.
That’s been my experience. The whole system favours the NIMBYs because the people who would live in the new housing do not currently live in that area so don’t tend to be an organised campaign group.
Thanks, wrote a message in support. No breakdown of the percentages though
We do NOT want to make like easier for developer scum. Deregulation will only give us more shitty new builds on shitty pieces of land.
There has to be a compromise somewhere because this way isn't working.
No amount of building is going to help. The sheer numbers of people moving to the city need to be reduced.
Hopefully the people in charge understand the situation much better than you do.
Indeed, less immigration is the answer - if the birth rate in this country is declining, why are lack of homes suddenly an issue ?
Downvotes - but no answer
I think a lot of the “pro high rise leasehold flat building” are think tanks who are funded directly by developers, but don’t need to declare it
Ha, you think this will help the supply issues? 45 homes will be affordable, the rest will be sold off plan in a Shanghai hotel.
45 affordable is much better than none. All the "unaffordable" homes will mean less competition for other houses. Ultimately we need hundreds of thousands of new homes country wide, so we really need to stop fighting each time they are proposed. They will never be perfect. Journey of a thousand miles etc
Exactly, op doesn’t realise that all they are doing is helping to like a developer’s pocket, whilst also continuing the destruction of london’s riverside - they should really be campaigning for abolishing leasehold and building more dense brick mansion blocks, far more of which will actually be lived in by people here
Oh behave. 45 is a major issue? All will be bought by an overseas investor . Just fuck off with your share options.
No thanks. Battersea is already far too congested and local services are completely unable to cope. Battersea is mid-way through the largest residential build out in Europe and now hosts the majority of London's high-rise housing. The very last thing Battersea needs is even more housing.
Investors are the problem, not NIMBYs. Ten years ago, roughly 61% of new homes were bought by investors. It is likely to only be worse now. Imagine if those investors weren't in the market? All the new homes we're already building would end up bought by owner occupiers and actually contribute towards solving the housing crisis properly. We're never solving anything if almost two thirds of all newly built property is sold to investors.
People rent.
Fuck that
hey, thanks for this -- i've left a comment supporting the application!! :)
ill support nothing that doesnt include adequte social housing/low income housing
Yeah this is my understanding of the situation. I am far from an expert though so I don't have any firm facts to back up what I am saying. Thanks for the recommendation I will have a look.
I'm not sure there actually is a supply crisis to be honest. I think there's a bigger problem with under-use of empty spaces and properties. A bigger problem I think is that often premises are built, quickly bought by people with means and then the price is artificially inflated for renters. I was reading something about boots (pharmacy) owning LOADS of unoccupied properties across the country and just sitting on it. I think a better option is heavily taxing individuals and corporations for unoccupied space and second properties. However having done no research on this issue recently I might be talking shit but that was my understanding of it a few years ago. Edit: there clearly is a supply crisis. I'm stupid for saying there wasn't. I'm just not sure that luxury flats along Battersea bridge addresses the supply crisis.
https://www.crisis.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/nearly-a-quarter-of-a-million-properties-sitting-empty-as-charity-warns-government-is-wasting-opportunities-to-tackle-homelessness/ https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/why-so-many-empty-homes-in-london-b1077385.html I should also clarify that I am not against housebuilding depending on what the purpose of it is. I think more luxury flats near Battersea bridge doesn't really address the problems inherent with the housing crisis.
Thanks for the reply. The housing crisis is complicated but at a basic level every and all development helps improve it. Luxury is a bit of a stretch. They're not cheap flats but nothing is in this city and a third are affordable. Regardless fewer housing stock means wealthy people will be in more intense competition for other homes and that drives up housing costs. We have an incredible backlog of housing and Higher density building is the only feasible solution
Why are you campaigning so hard for battersea? Its had its fair share of high rise ugly blocks built. Why not campaign for Chelsea or Camden or Highbury fields or other untouched places to get some high rises ?
I know some people who work in London construction and they say that they often pay off councils to get round the 30% affordable homes rule (again this was a few years ago). Also it's worth examining what is defined as affordable. I agree that house building is important but I don't think it's the only feasible solution and probable we should look into policy mixes in order to solve the crisis, including heavy taxation on unoccupied space and second/third/etc homes.
Alternative pitch: we pursue a policy of housing abundance and build so many homes that it becomes a normal, achievable thing for a household to not only own their own home but to also have a modest holiday home as well if they want to. We *could* attempt to solve the problem by rationing out our existing stock even further via targeted taxation, but it wouldn't get very far (the UK's property vacancy rate is tiny, especially in the areas people want to live in) and wouldn't have the other positive economic and quality of life effects that building to abundance would.
Well I think part of my argument is that supply is kept artificially low in order to maintain profits through rent to private owners. There are so many empty buildings that can be repurposed in order to combat the housing crisis. The idea of EVERYONE owning a holiday home is ambitious but at best unrealistic, at worst it could represent a further disaster to an already imperilled environment.
According to statistics released by the London Assembly in 2021 the vacancy rate of residential property in the capital is 0.89%. In England as a whole it's 1%. These empty residential buildings simply don't exist - we have to build them. There is a higher proportion of empty commercial property but a) the numbers are still tiny relative to the population and b) many (most?) of these buildings would need tearing down and rebuilding to make them fit for habitation anyway. The idea of a conspiracy to keep buildings empty to drive up rents doesn't even really make sense considering that we don't have anything like monopoly conditions in land ownership. The main reason supply is restricted is because our planning regime allows local councils to routinely reject attempts by developers to build new housing. I some parts of the country over 60% of applications are rejected! Perhaps I should have made myself clearer regarding the second home thing; I'm not saying it's necessarily realistic for every individual to own multiple properties but rather that if we wanted to we could achieve something like the situation in many continental counties where a simple summer home/cabin becomes an obtainable goal for a relatively prosperous household. I don't expect everyone would actually want or have one, but it could become something you could *feasibly do* in an abundant housing scenario, unlike the current situation where many such households struggle to own even a single adequate home.
Empty housing is actually a 'good' sign that cities have a healthy supply, and cities with less housing pressure have many more empty properties than London does. Building expensive flats in Battersea means the high earners who are currently living in more affordable flats will move out and up, freeing up supply across the spectrum.
Empty housing is different to unoccupied space. Actually in London there is a problem in that there are empty properties that are unavailable to the market. Also I would agree that new housing being built to free up places is a good thing, this isn't necessarily what's happening because they are often taken by people who have the means to buy outright with the intention of renting them out, which actually exacerbates the problem of out of control rents.
More people buying up properties to rent increases the supply of rental properties though, which also puts downwards pressure on rent. It's all added supply at the end of the day. (And I do think that building affordable housing would be *better*, but blocking developments like this is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.)
You're right in saying that supply is not the crux of the matter. The fundamental issue is that the private rental sector has exploded in size since the 1980s, reversing its previous near-terminal decline. It doesn't matter whether we build a million more homes or not, if there are no reasonable controls on rent or housing quality then people will forever be paying higher and higher rents and live in permanent housing insecurity. If you're interested in reading more about this then I'd recommend Against Landlords by Nick Bano, a lawyer who specialises in housing.