Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Housing Developments in Kent
Comments
-
Looking to move with my partner, middle to late next year, anywhere from Dartford down the A2 corridor towards, but no further than Falconwood area, easier and cheaper commuting for her job in central London. She is selling up from the Denham area near uxbridge, she has always lived in the south bucks area. The market really has dried up at the moment, understandably, as we both been doing tentative Zoopla type searches, nothing new is coming on the market0
-
It’s the infrastructure that’s over crowded, not the land.Algarveaddick said:Good link SJ. Look out of the aeroplane window is always a point I make when people come out with this "tiny overcrowded island" nonsense.
5 -
There is a reason for that. Most Estate Agents are closed. They are not allowed to do viewings unless it’s an empty property. They can’t take on new instructions as they can’t go round to measure up, give valuations etc. The market isn’t moving because a lot of chains are on hold for various reasons and many removal firms have closed. The market will take a long, long time to pick up and prices are likely to fall which will benefit first time buyers but is all relative to those upsizing or downsizing.DA9 said:Looking to move with my partner, middle to late next year, anywhere from Dartford down the A2 corridor towards, but no further than Falconwood area, easier and cheaper commuting for her job in central London. She is selling up from the Denham area near uxbridge, she has always lived in the south bucks area. The market really has dried up at the moment, understandably, as we both been doing tentative Zoopla type searches, nothing new is coming on the market1 -
Forgot to mention our own little battle down here....... gone to judicial review, the council want to build along the sea front, on the coastal pathway, and heritage canal, despite most of the council being kicked out in the local elections, the leader and his vanity project still looks like going ahead, with a promise of a new sports centre as an inducement!. They are even going to move the coastal road, expensive second homes that no one seems to be in favour of as they will have a price of £500,000 plus, despite there being several developments empty, one at the corner of my street for the best part of a million.https://www.facebook.com/SavePrincesParade/
0 -
I get that, hence my comment. understandablyLargeAddick said:
There is a reason for that. Most Estate Agents are closed. They are not allowed to do viewings unless it’s an empty property. They can’t take on new instructions as they can’t go round to measure up, give valuations etc. The market isn’t moving because a lot of chains are on hold for various reasons and many removal firms have closed. The market will take a long, long time to pick up and prices are likely to fall which will benefit first time buyers but is all relative to those upsizing or downsizing.DA9 said:Looking to move with my partner, middle to late next year, anywhere from Dartford down the A2 corridor towards, but no further than Falconwood area, easier and cheaper commuting for her job in central London. She is selling up from the Denham area near uxbridge, she has always lived in the south bucks area. The market really has dried up at the moment, understandably, as we both been doing tentative Zoopla type searches, nothing new is coming on the market
although there are one or two new listings appearing each week, but if your correct they must be empty properties0 -
Blimey, just seen there are now a further 4 pages since I looked yesterday. Only skimmed read the first 3 so things might have moved on but I will add just 2 points to all the nimbys & greeners contributing on here.
Please don't advocare high rise buildings so as to "save space". Not thinking of Grenfell but more the hideous & crime ridden Estates that were built in the 1960's & 1970's. Broken lifts smelling of piss & muggers waiting in every dark alleyway.
And if you love & cherish the greenbelt so much and want people to live far away from you then I suggest you move to The Highlands or remote parts of Wales. I can never understand people who buy somewhere & then want to stop others moving there to.3 -
It is not about nimbyism @golfaddick , it is about stopping a once beautiful county from being overdeveloped and the loss of green spaces. If you've only skimmed the first 3 pages, please have a look at the links I posted showing statistics regarding the growth of the population of Kent, you might then realise how much the county has changed in the last 25 years or so. Maidstone's population alone has increased from 93,900 in 1998 to 170,000 in 2018, that is a massive increase.
I can never understand people who move to a place and want to see it change so much.
4 -
Well said ME...sadly another member of the nimby club...ME14addick said:
It is not about nimbyism @golfaddick , it is about stopping a once beautiful county from being overdeveloped and the loss of green spaces. If you've only skimmed the first 3 pages, please have a look at the links I posted showing statistics regarding the growth of the population of Kent, you might then realise how much the county has changed in the last 25 years or so. Maidstone's population alone has increased from 93,900 in 1998 to 170,000 in 2018, that is a massive increase.
I can never understand people who move to a place and want to see it change so much.1 -
If people move to a place they see as worth living in, how can it be a surprise to them that other people might want to move to the same place?
The increase mentioned has been around 3,800 per year on average. Around 380 people per square mile per year.
The City of London has about 1 square mile, and in 1650 had a population of around 205,000. The area of Maidstone is 10 times bigger.
If my figures are wrong then I am prepared to be corrected with appropriate evidence.
0 -
Are some Charlton lifers from Royston vasey (Kent) by any chance?3
- Sponsored links:
-
not sure where you get this from from according to govt data the ave weekly pay of a Dartford resident in 2019 was £644, which equates to £33k pa. this is gross. Assuming some sort of pension contribution I think this would equate to roughly £25k. In most cases a house would be bought by a couple so looking at household income of say £50k.Wilma said:
Not sure on take home but average salary in Dartford is £25K.seth plum said:That's bad enough. 10 to 12 times average pay.
£270,000 borrowed over 30 years on an interest only mortgage at a 2% rate is a repayment of £450 a month I believe.
In order to own the house after 30 years you have to pay an additional £750 a month.
So essentially it is around £1200 a month in housing costs alone in Dartford if you've saved up £30,000 deposit and you want to own the property after 30 years.
What is the average take home pay?
Not easy, but was it ever? Rentals are often higher than mortgage repayments but a deposit is usually the biggest obstacle.0 -
But ME14 things have to change whether we want them to or not.ME14addick said:
It is not about nimbyism @golfaddick , it is about stopping a once beautiful county from being overdeveloped and the loss of green spaces. If you've only skimmed the first 3 pages, please have a look at the links I posted showing statistics regarding the growth of the population of Kent, you might then realise how much the county has changed in the last 25 years or so. Maidstone's population alone has increased from 93,900 in 1998 to 170,000 in 2018, that is a massive increase.
I can never understand people who move to a place and want to see it change so much.
We have a housing shortfall as it is at the moment.
The country is growing 8 million more in the next 20 years is estimated.
Part of the problem for parts of Kent is people moving there because they cant afford parts of south east london.
A couple of my cousins have moved down to Maidstone from se london.
It will only get worse, i think it was you who mentioned people moving out to Kent and travelling into London.
As more people work from home i believe they will move from London and only have to travel in a couple of times a week.1 -
In 1650? really?? wonderfulseth plum said:If people move to a place they see as worth living in, how can it be a surprise to them that other people might want to move to the same place?
The increase mentioned has been around 3,800 per year on average. Around 380 people per square mile per year.
The City of London has about 1 square mile, and in 1650 had a population of around 205,000. The area of Maidstone is 10 times bigger.
If my figures are wrong then I am prepared to be corrected with appropriate evidence.2 -
Yeah awesome huh?redman said:
In 1650? really?? wonderfulseth plum said:If people move to a place they see as worth living in, how can it be a surprise to them that other people might want to move to the same place?
The increase mentioned has been around 3,800 per year on average. Around 380 people per square mile per year.
The City of London has about 1 square mile, and in 1650 had a population of around 205,000. The area of Maidstone is 10 times bigger.
If my figures are wrong then I am prepared to be corrected with appropriate evidence.0 -
Wtfkentaddick said:Are some Charlton lifers from Royston vasey (Kent) by any chance?1 -
All the counties around London are getting loads of development, as are most London boroughs (particularly in the E and SE). Unfortunately you can't but help be political on this, as the choices made politically reflect through in the wider economy. I don't think any govt has had a handle on housing policy since Thatcher (and her's has caused a lot of the problems we now have - one of my colleagues complains that her daughter can't get a decent rented property and doesn't like it when I remind her that she took advantage of the Right to Buy, bringing about that very situation). There have been something like 17 housing ministers in the last 15 years. No sooner does a minister get appointed, learn their brief but they're off.
And I think that the problems in Kent are very real and people who live there are quite right to be concerned.
New housing is now pretty much down to two things - the planning arrangements and the market. There is some subsidy available to councils and Housing associations to build new homes for social rent, but it's not a lot. It is at least an improvement though. The planning arrangements were changed a few years back by the govt so that it was easier for developers - one reason that scoring points about the political colour of a particular local council doesn't really stack up - whoever is in charge the govt-made rules will by and large determine what gets built, the council can only tweak things round the edges. I live in Lewisham - the area next to the station has 17 new tower blocks which are so awful they were nominated for an architectural award for bad architecture. One block of student flats,which are allowed to be built to even lower standards than regular flats, has just about enough room for a person to fit through the gap to the next one. The other blocks are mainly aimed at well off people working in Canary Wharf or the City, not people who live in Lewisham already. This is one factor of crazy housing market.
Another factor is blocks being built and marketed to investors in Hong Kong and Singapore, not locally. Hence there are tower blocks in places like Battersea where the flats are never moved into - the owners sit on them hoping they will continue to go up forever. These are places that sell for upwards of £500k. This is a bubble - I hope it bursts soon.
People who want to settle down or buy a first place in say SE London are faced with the only places being available to buy at under say £250k being ex council that can't get a mortgage on, or really poky. So they look at places with good transport links that they can afford - this means around Dartford, Gravesend, the Medway Towns and Maidstone. The population of pretty much every where in the SE has gone up. The borough of Lewisham lost half an MP in the early 2000s reorganisation as it didn't have enough people - since then the constituencies are amongst the highest number of people per MP; this is even more true of Greenwich when you think of all the building done along the river. It's change, it's a challenge. For the most part this is reflected nationally - most cities are growing, and towns in the SE and East Anglia are too. A lot of the towns in the north are not growing- housing is cheap and they are relatively affordable but there is no work. As others have mentioned, we have no regional policy. Choosing not to just means that your policy is to concentrate everything around London. You can't then be surprised that it is in the counties surrounding London that most house building happens. (Though I'm sure local politicians will say otherwise).
A combination of the effects from Covid-19 and the fallout from Brexit will mean that demand for housing will fall. It won't fall enough in London and the SE to stop this happening. Who knows, maybe the presence of Tory marginals in the Midlands and north will mean that a regional policy will happen? If there is ever a centrist or left leaning govt in this country they might look at using property taxes to rein in some of the worst excesses - an empty property tax would increase supply; a council tax revaluation or reform might lead to there being incentives for people in large family properties to downsize. But I suspect govt policy on housing will continue to be largely led by big property developers and the last thing they will want to do is make the sort of contribution to fund infrastructure.
5 -
I think it is inaccessible to construction industry as well. I have worked in house building for many years and councils are only interested in S106 agreements, or contributions to offset funding cuts.jams said:Each district council has to have a local plan in place for typically c 15 years, that allocates sites for development to meet the housing need. If this is approved by central government and the authority can demonstrate they have 5 years of housing land supply they are in a fairly strong position to refuse speculative applications. However many authorities don't have a 5 years supply hence speculative applications, which to be fair contribute to meeting the need.
The system is opaque, complicated and frankly inaccessible to the general public. A hell of a lot of stress and angst could be saved if more effort was put into publicising how the system works. At least we could then have an informed public debate about how to meet the country's housing needs vs where they are going to be built.
What is green belt land anyway? Protect national parks but not rape seed fields that will be redundant in January.0 -
A couple of friends of my parents moved into one of the blocks that has been put where the bus station used to be, and there were all sorts of stupid things wrong with it when they first moved in. For several months there was some kind of problem with the front door to the whole block, so they had to go into the adjacent block and then go through an access door. It made getting deliveries nigh on impossible, because no-one could find the place. Given how expensive the place was for Lewisham, and the fact that their move in date was delayed for about 6 months as it was, you'd have thought those things would have been sorted out before they were given the keys. Where are the student flats? Are they the ones that are slap bang by the railway bridge on Thurston Road?rananegra said:New housing is now pretty much down to two things - the planning arrangements and the market. There is some subsidy available to councils and Housing associations to build new homes for social rent, but it's not a lot. It is at least an improvement though. The planning arrangements were changed a few years back by the govt so that it was easier for developers - one reason that scoring points about the political colour of a particular local council doesn't really stack up - whoever is in charge the govt-made rules will by and large determine what gets built, the council can only tweak things round the edges. I live in Lewisham - the area next to the station has 17 new tower blocks which are so awful they were nominated for an architectural award for bad architecture. One block of student flats,which are allowed to be built to even lower standards than regular flats, has just about enough room for a person to fit through the gap to the next one. The other blocks are mainly aimed at well off people working in Canary Wharf or the City, not people who live in Lewisham already. This is one factor of crazy housing market.
0 -
This must be a huge problem, I have a friend out here who's job is to sell UK based properties to Chinese investors, his clients are people who have never been to the UK and likely never will.rananegra said:
Another factor is blocks being built and marketed to investors in Hong Kong and Singapore, not locally. Hence there are tower blocks in places like Battersea where the flats are never moved into - the owners sit on them hoping they will continue to go up forever. These are places that sell for upwards of £500k. This is a bubble - I hope it bursts soon.
0 -
How is that possible? Create swamps in Horton Kirby, and then build houses on stilts over the top? Make a desert on the outskirts of Sevenoaks, and move a tribe of nomads in?ME14addick said:
I believe that developers are supposed to leave the development with a better outcome for biodiversity than was there originally. However when people move in there is no guarantee that it will remain that way.Algarveaddick said:
The development that you mentioned at the start appears to be on agricultural land, and has parks, formal gardens and nature reserves within it - well at least according to the map that came up when I googled it? It is surrounded by fields too. I agree that more use should be made of current empty buildings and vacant spaces in towns.ME14addick said:
There may be the space, but most is not brownfield, it is agricultural and we need nature reserves and green spaces for physical and mental wellbeing. We can't keep losing these precious areas.Algarveaddick said:
I am here in Kent right now... There's acres of space.ME14addick said:
When did you last visit Kent @Algarveaddick ?Algarveaddick said:Good link SJ. Look out of the aeroplane window is always a point I make when people come out with this "tiny overcrowded island" nonsense.
How is it any different to current towns and villages? People don't just start to build on parks and nature reserves (unless it's the tories selling off school playing fields) willy nilly.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Yes - infrastructure does need to be put in place, MF. Which is why the development in question has a railway station, motorway junction, shopping centres, green spaces and two schools, I guess?MillwallFan said:
It’s the infrastructure that’s over crowded, not the land.Algarveaddick said:Good link SJ. Look out of the aeroplane window is always a point I make when people come out with this "tiny overcrowded island" nonsense.
0 -
https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/business-management/biodiversity-net-gain-what-is-it-how-will-it-workAlgarveaddick said:
How is that possible? Create swamps in Horton Kirby, and then build houses on stilts over the top? Make a desert on the outskirts of Sevenoaks, and move a tribe of nomads in?ME14addick said:
I believe that developers are supposed to leave the development with a better outcome for biodiversity than was there originally. However when people move in there is no guarantee that it will remain that way.Algarveaddick said:
The development that you mentioned at the start appears to be on agricultural land, and has parks, formal gardens and nature reserves within it - well at least according to the map that came up when I googled it? It is surrounded by fields too. I agree that more use should be made of current empty buildings and vacant spaces in towns.ME14addick said:
There may be the space, but most is not brownfield, it is agricultural and we need nature reserves and green spaces for physical and mental wellbeing. We can't keep losing these precious areas.Algarveaddick said:
I am here in Kent right now... There's acres of space.ME14addick said:
When did you last visit Kent @Algarveaddick ?Algarveaddick said:Good link SJ. Look out of the aeroplane window is always a point I make when people come out with this "tiny overcrowded island" nonsense.
How is it any different to current towns and villages? People don't just start to build on parks and nature reserves (unless it's the tories selling off school playing fields) willy nilly.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/payments-schemes/environmental-schemes/natural-capital-on-farms-what-it-is-and-how-to-value-it
The Green Belt in Kent is far more than fields of rape seed. Kent has some very diverse and special habitats which must be preserved. Although the development may be on an agricultural field, access is often made through non agricultural land such as ancient woodland.
Building new garden 'villages' has far reaching consequences and to think that everyone will stay within the confines of that 'village' is just pie on the sky. As soon as a new devlopment is established, there is pressure to build on all the land in between, thereby connecting it to the next village or town.
In addition to the plan to build a small town in the Lenham/Harrietsham area, there are plans to build 5000 houses at Marden which has very poor road links and not much in the way of employment. Others such as on the Hoo peninsular and in the east of the county are also planned. Every town in Kent is seeing a massive growth in the amount of new housing developments.
Many species are in severe decline and may be lost forever if we continue to build houses at the current rate and we lose them at our peril.
2 -
"The Green Belt in Kent is far more than fields of rape seed. Kent has some very diverse and special habitats which must be preserved. Although the development may be on an agricultural field, access is often made through non agricultural land such as ancient woodland."
Is this the case with this development?
Building new garden 'villages' has far reaching consequences and to think that everyone will stay within the confines of that 'village' is just pie on the sky. As soon as a new devlopment is established, there is pressure to build on all the land in between, thereby connecting it to the next village or town.
Then the pressure needs to be resisted, where it exists.
In addition to the plan to build a small town in the Lenham/Harrietsham area, there are plans to build 5000 houses at Marden which has very poor road links and not much in the way of employment. Others such as on the Hoo peninsular and in the east of the county are also planned. Every town in Kent is seeing a massive growth in the amount of new housing developments.
I was referring only to the development you highlighted, ME14. However, you fail to mention that Marden has a railway station, and what small rural town does offer "much in the way of employment" ? I think "every town in Kent" and "massive growth" might be exaggerating for effect...
Many species are in severe decline and may be lost forever if we continue to build houses at the current rate and we lose them at our peril.
I agree that wild animals need protection. Are there rare creatures being destroyed by this development?0 -
Regarding your first point, it wasn't a reference just to the Lenham application.Algarveaddick said:"The Green Belt in Kent is far more than fields of rape seed. Kent has some very diverse and special habitats which must be preserved. Although the development may be on an agricultural field, access is often made through non agricultural land such as ancient woodland."
Is this the case with this development?
Building new garden 'villages' has far reaching consequences and to think that everyone will stay within the confines of that 'village' is just pie on the sky. As soon as a new devlopment is established, there is pressure to build on all the land in between, thereby connecting it to the next village or town.
Then the pressure needs to be resisted, where it exists.
In addition to the plan to build a small town in the Lenham/Harrietsham area, there are plans to build 5000 houses at Marden which has very poor road links and not much in the way of employment. Others such as on the Hoo peninsular and in the east of the county are also planned. Every town in Kent is seeing a massive growth in the amount of new housing developments.
I was referring only to the development you highlighted, ME14. However, you fail to mention that Marden has a railway station, and what small rural town does offer "much in the way of employment" ? I think "every town in Kent" and "massive growth" might be exaggerating for effect...
Many species are in severe decline and may be lost forever if we continue to build houses at the current rate and we lose them at our peril.
I agree that wild animals need protection. Are there rare creatures being destroyed by this development?
Every town in Kent IS experiencing massive growth -there are many developments everywhere. Can you name me a town in Kent where there are not new developments?
Marden is right in the middle of Kent and the railway line I believe doesn't have direct links to London. The A229 wasn't built to take the amount of traffic is does now, let alone the huge increase that will result if a further 5K dwellings are built.
Your agreement that wild animals need protection demonstrates that people associate 'species' with just animals. It is not only 'creatures' which need protection, ALL species be they plants, birds, insects or animals need protection. Biodiversity is essential and if we lose species from the food chain, there are severe consequences.
2 -
If Kent has a delicate ecostructure threatened by humans then people living there, if they care about the Kentish environment, should move away, they would be welcome in Lewisham and Kent could be free of humans.1
-
Regarding your first point, it wasn't a reference just to the Lenham application.
Fair enough - you picked a poor example in your original post then.
Every town in Kent IS experiencing massive growth -there are many developments everywhere. Can you name me a town in Kent where there are not new developments
Biggin Hill.
Marden is right in the middle of Kent and the railway line I believe doesn't have direct links to London. The A229 wasn't built to take the amount of traffic is does now, let alone the huge increase that will result if a further 5K dwellings are built.
As I stated, I was referring only to the Lenham development that you highlighted. There are direct trains to London from Marden.
Your agreement that wild animals need protection demonstrates that people associate 'species' with just animals. It is not only 'creatures' which need protection, ALL species be they plants, birds, insects or animals need protection. Biodiversity is essential and if we lose species from the food chain, there are severe consequences.
I agree that all species need to be protected. I shall adjust my question accordingly: Are there rare species being destroyed by this development?0 -
Biggin Hill has seen new housing in recent years.Algarveaddick said:Regarding your first point, it wasn't a reference just to the Lenham application.
Fair enough - you picked a poor example in your original post then.
Every town in Kent IS experiencing massive growth -there are many developments everywhere. Can you name me a town in Kent where there are not new developments
Biggin Hill.
Marden is right in the middle of Kent and the railway line I believe doesn't have direct links to London. The A229 wasn't built to take the amount of traffic is does now, let alone the huge increase that will result if a further 5K dwellings are built.
As I stated, I was referring only to the Lenham development that you highlighted. There are direct trains to London from Marden.
Your agreement that wild animals need protection demonstrates that people associate 'species' with just animals. It is not only 'creatures' which need protection, ALL species be they plants, birds, insects or animals need protection. Biodiversity is essential and if we lose species from the food chain, there are severe consequences.
I agree that all species need to be protected. I shall adjust my question accordingly: Are there rare species being destroyed by this development?0 -
Biggin hill is in the London borough of Bromley.Algarveaddick said:Regarding your first point, it wasn't a reference just to the Lenham application.
Fair enough - you picked a poor example in your original post then.
Every town in Kent IS experiencing massive growth -there are many developments everywhere. Can you name me a town in Kent where there are not new developments
Biggin Hill.
Marden is right in the middle of Kent and the railway line I believe doesn't have direct links to London. The A229 wasn't built to take the amount of traffic is does now, let alone the huge increase that will result if a further 5K dwellings are built.
As I stated, I was referring only to the Lenham development that you highlighted. There are direct trains to London from Marden.
Your agreement that wild animals need protection demonstrates that people associate 'species' with just animals. It is not only 'creatures' which need protection, ALL species be they plants, birds, insects or animals need protection. Biodiversity is essential and if we lose species from the food chain, there are severe consequences.
I agree that all species need to be protected. I shall adjust my question accordingly: Are there rare species being destroyed by this development?0 -
I was answering the question as put. Now - not recently.seth plum said:
Biggin Hill has seen new housing in recent years.Algarveaddick said:Regarding your first point, it wasn't a reference just to the Lenham application.
Fair enough - you picked a poor example in your original post then.
Every town in Kent IS experiencing massive growth -there are many developments everywhere. Can you name me a town in Kent where there are not new developments
Biggin Hill.
Marden is right in the middle of Kent and the railway line I believe doesn't have direct links to London. The A229 wasn't built to take the amount of traffic is does now, let alone the huge increase that will result if a further 5K dwellings are built.
As I stated, I was referring only to the Lenham development that you highlighted. There are direct trains to London from Marden.
Your agreement that wild animals need protection demonstrates that people associate 'species' with just animals. It is not only 'creatures' which need protection, ALL species be they plants, birds, insects or animals need protection. Biodiversity is essential and if we lose species from the food chain, there are severe consequences.
I agree that all species need to be protected. I shall adjust my question accordingly: Are there rare species being destroyed by this development?
EDIT: My mistake - ME14 didn't say now. I would still contend that it isn't "massive" development. And was it on green belt land (genuine question)?0 -
We back to that old "Borough v Postcode" thing then?blackpool72 said:
Biggin hill is in the London borough of Bromley.Algarveaddick said:Regarding your first point, it wasn't a reference just to the Lenham application.
Fair enough - you picked a poor example in your original post then.
Every town in Kent IS experiencing massive growth -there are many developments everywhere. Can you name me a town in Kent where there are not new developments
Biggin Hill.
Marden is right in the middle of Kent and the railway line I believe doesn't have direct links to London. The A229 wasn't built to take the amount of traffic is does now, let alone the huge increase that will result if a further 5K dwellings are built.
As I stated, I was referring only to the Lenham development that you highlighted. There are direct trains to London from Marden.
Your agreement that wild animals need protection demonstrates that people associate 'species' with just animals. It is not only 'creatures' which need protection, ALL species be they plants, birds, insects or animals need protection. Biodiversity is essential and if we lose species from the food chain, there are severe consequences.
I agree that all species need to be protected. I shall adjust my question accordingly: Are there rare species being destroyed by this development?
In your opinion, is every town in Kent experiencing massive growth, as stated?0
