Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton Riverside
Comments
-
I understand your point - and for what it's worth I agree with you to a large extent. But you are inserting your own definition, which may indeed be more valid, but that isn't how it works.jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
1 -
I can understand why it might appear attractive to peg affordable rents to how much a tenant can afford but it just isn't how the market works and if that was the policy, it would reduce housebuilding massively (from a very, very low current base in London - so much so that the Government and the Mayor has had to introduce emergency measures cutting the required affordable housing provision to 20%).
Under the current definition, affordable housing is basically provided at a small loss or is cost neutral to the developer. If the rent was pegged to a percentage of the London Living wage, then the developer would have build at a significant loss and in most cases simply would not build.1 -
Not sure I follow you.Jints said:
What percentage of the London living wage would you consider to be affordable?jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
If somebody puts in 40 hours a week at the London Living wage, then the monthly repayments ought to be reasonably covered along with the other fixed bills.0 -
You said that someone on the LLW would get £2,400 before stoppages. What should the monthly rent for an affordable flat be, in your view assuming the tenant was on the LLW?jose said:
Not sure I follow you.Jints said:
What percentage of the London living wage would you consider to be affordable?jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
If somebody puts in 40 hours a week at the London Living wage, then the monthly repayments ought to be reasonably covered along with the other fixed bills.0 -
Back of the envelope.Jints said:
You said that someone on the LLW would get £2,400 before stoppages. What should the monthly rent for an affordable flat be, in your view assuming the tenant was on the LLW?jose said:
Not sure I follow you.Jints said:
What percentage of the London living wage would you consider to be affordable?jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
If somebody puts in 40 hours a week at the London Living wage, then the monthly repayments ought to be reasonably covered along with the other fixed bills.
Stoppages might be £330 per month
Council Tax, gas, electricity and water £220
What have I forgotten, service charge…the pressure to have internet connectivity for so much…something else?
Anyway that might mean a take home of £1850 a month before housing costs.
In that context, and given the shocking context that average monthly rent for an apartment in South East London is between £1500-£2200, and also allowing for food and clothing, I think the ‘affordable’ monthly housing cost for a one bedroom in the proposed Charlton Riverside development should be no more than £800 per calendar month.
Do you have a take on what is ‘affordable’?0 -
I think you are right.Jints said:I can understand why it might appear attractive to peg affordable rents to how much a tenant can afford but it just isn't how the market works and if that was the policy, it would reduce housebuilding massively (from a very, very low current base in London - so much so that the Government and the Mayor has had to introduce emergency measures cutting the required affordable housing provision to 20%).
Under the current definition, affordable housing is basically provided at a small loss or is cost neutral to the developer. If the rent was pegged to a percentage of the London Living wage, then the developer would have build at a significant loss and in most cases simply would not build.
The market forces related to the London Living Wage would mean no building.
The other side of that appears to me that the alternative choice for the householder would be no eating.
Maybe that explains the explosion in food banks in the last 15 years, we have food bank collections around Christmastime at the Valley.0 -
Intermediate affordable housing is set at 65% of market rent - AI tells me that would be in the region of £950-£1,200 for a 1 bed flat. Social rent would be more like £650 but at present very few are being built.jose said:
Back of the envelope.Jints said:
You said that someone on the LLW would get £2,400 before stoppages. What should the monthly rent for an affordable flat be, in your view assuming the tenant was on the LLW?jose said:
Not sure I follow you.Jints said:
What percentage of the London living wage would you consider to be affordable?jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
If somebody puts in 40 hours a week at the London Living wage, then the monthly repayments ought to be reasonably covered along with the other fixed bills.
Stoppages might be £330 per month
Council Tax, gas, electricity and water £220
What have I forgotten, service charge…the pressure to have internet connectivity for so much…something else?
Anyway that might mean a take home of £1850 a month before housing costs.
In that context, and given the shocking context that average monthly rent for an apartment in South East London is between £1500-£2200, and also allowing for food and clothing, I think the ‘affordable’ monthly housing cost for a one bedroom in the proposed Charlton Riverside development should be no more than £800 per calendar month.
Do you have a take on what is ‘affordable’?
I'm not sure if someone in this situation would be entitled to universal credit.0 -
£800 a month?! I haven't paid that low in rent since I first moved out in 2011!
There's a reason so many young professionals live in flat and house shares, and they're the people earning more than LLW.
Charlton, believe it or not, is a desirable place to live right now due to easy commutes into The City, West End, CW and Kings Cross, and it's in zone 2/3 so it's cheaper travel than the outskirts.
That's always going to push prices up.
Anything between 1k-1300 is more realistic IMO.
I'm not saying it's right, or fair, but it's more realistic1 -
My original point is that ‘affordable housing’ is a sweetener term, not defined in relation incomes.Jints said:
Intermediate affordable housing is set at 65% of market rent - AI tells me that would be in the region of £950-£1,200 for a 1 bed flat. Social rent would be more like £650 but at present very few are being built.jose said:
Back of the envelope.Jints said:
You said that someone on the LLW would get £2,400 before stoppages. What should the monthly rent for an affordable flat be, in your view assuming the tenant was on the LLW?jose said:
Not sure I follow you.Jints said:
What percentage of the London living wage would you consider to be affordable?jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
If somebody puts in 40 hours a week at the London Living wage, then the monthly repayments ought to be reasonably covered along with the other fixed bills.
Stoppages might be £330 per month
Council Tax, gas, electricity and water £220
What have I forgotten, service charge…the pressure to have internet connectivity for so much…something else?
Anyway that might mean a take home of £1850 a month before housing costs.
In that context, and given the shocking context that average monthly rent for an apartment in South East London is between £1500-£2200, and also allowing for food and clothing, I think the ‘affordable’ monthly housing cost for a one bedroom in the proposed Charlton Riverside development should be no more than £800 per calendar month.
Do you have a take on what is ‘affordable’?
I'm not sure if someone in this situation would be entitled to universal credit.
On this thread there is some progress towards what that term might mean, and I suspect that progress has taken us further than a developer might take us.
If affordability in the present context means developers won’t start,
one solution might be to set the London Living Wage closer to £20 per hour.
Wouldn’t it be a drag if ‘Charlton Riverside’ properties all ended up as air b and b’s?0 -
Somewhere else to dump the Sadiq cycles
Will these homes have vegan kitchens?1 -
Sponsored links:
-
"Affordable housing" is defined in planning law and policy - it's not a developer term.jose said:
My original point is that ‘affordable housing’ is a sweetener term, not defined in relation incomes.Jints said:
Intermediate affordable housing is set at 65% of market rent - AI tells me that would be in the region of £950-£1,200 for a 1 bed flat. Social rent would be more like £650 but at present very few are being built.jose said:
Back of the envelope.Jints said:
You said that someone on the LLW would get £2,400 before stoppages. What should the monthly rent for an affordable flat be, in your view assuming the tenant was on the LLW?jose said:
Not sure I follow you.Jints said:
What percentage of the London living wage would you consider to be affordable?jose said:
The point I am making is that any definition of affordability is or should be related to what people can afford i.e. their income at a humble level, which I have related to the London living wage.Off_it said:
So, it is defined/explained, it's just that you have you own definition which is different?jose said:
I wouldn’t say it is well explained because I can’t see ‘affordability’ related to income.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
There is reference to the market, as in a percentage of local rents or prices, but as I say no reference to income.
I would’ve thought the term ‘affordability’ is directly related to income.
In this instance the London Living Wage is £14.80 per hour before stoppages. If a person works a 40 hour week that is £592 per week, or around £2,400 per month before stoppages.
Then there is the unavoidable costs of energy, water and council tax to pay.
I believe the word ‘affordability’ should be made explicit to something like the London ‘living’ wage, not related to rents and such like.
So in the link it is not defined in relation to affordability, but in relation to the market.
If somebody puts in 40 hours a week at the London Living wage, then the monthly repayments ought to be reasonably covered along with the other fixed bills.
Stoppages might be £330 per month
Council Tax, gas, electricity and water £220
What have I forgotten, service charge…the pressure to have internet connectivity for so much…something else?
Anyway that might mean a take home of £1850 a month before housing costs.
In that context, and given the shocking context that average monthly rent for an apartment in South East London is between £1500-£2200, and also allowing for food and clothing, I think the ‘affordable’ monthly housing cost for a one bedroom in the proposed Charlton Riverside development should be no more than £800 per calendar month.
Do you have a take on what is ‘affordable’?
I'm not sure if someone in this situation would be entitled to universal credit.
On this thread there is some progress towards what that term might mean, and I suspect that progress has taken us further than a developer might take us.
If affordability in the present context means developers won’t start,
one solution might be to set the London Living Wage closer to £20 per hour.
Wouldn’t it be a drag if ‘Charlton Riverside’ properties all ended up as air b and b’s?1 -
There will be a new east/west road through the middle of the site. Bus route 301 will be extended to Anchor & Hope Lane.sam3110 said:The main thing it needs is a better road network and more transport links.
However where all these new flats are going to be built is in a corridor between North Greenwich and Woolwich where the car seems to be enemy number 1, and long term disruptions to bus routes have exacerbated matters, not to mention the lack of investment into SouthEastern.
Instead of fucking about with a DLR extension to Thamesmead and nowhere else, an entirely new DLR line should be built alongside The Thames, it could even loop from Thamesmead, linking through Woolwich, Charlton Riverside, North Greenwich and down to Greenwich proper, but it would cost huge amounts and no-one will want to fund it as it's "Sarf a da Rivuh"0 -
If you are interested at general planning policy direction of travel, have a look at the London plan draft that's currently out for consultation, lots of interesting stuff in there1
-
Now sort out the Anchor!1
-
No one's been in or out for weeks now and it's looking very shabby.Curb_It said:Now sort out the Anchor!0 -
Yes I have looked.jams said:If you are interested at general planning policy direction of travel, have a look at the London plan draft that's currently out for consultation, lots of interesting stuff in there
Interesting stuff indeed.
However at no point is the term ‘affordable’ related to any sense of income in all the documentation, so I don’t know why any of the movers and shakers in this particular world use the word ‘affordable’ at all.
Possibly it is a way of smokescreening or obfuscating the harsh reality of housing in the land, and allowing the planning of for example the dreadful developments in central Lewisham, and what is about to happen in Lee Green. As in ‘its chite, but never mind ordinary people will be able to afford it’.
But they won’t.0 -
Who are the right people?ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.0 -
The roads around Greenwich/Charlton are frequently snarled up and this has been going on for years. Infrastructure is invariably never upgraded to meet local needs.Crusty54 said:
There will be a new east/west road through the middle of the site. Bus route 301 will be extended to Anchor & Hope Lane.sam3110 said:The main thing it needs is a better road network and more transport links.
However where all these new flats are going to be built is in a corridor between North Greenwich and Woolwich where the car seems to be enemy number 1, and long term disruptions to bus routes have exacerbated matters, not to mention the lack of investment into SouthEastern.
Instead of fucking about with a DLR extension to Thamesmead and nowhere else, an entirely new DLR line should be built alongside The Thames, it could even loop from Thamesmead, linking through Woolwich, Charlton Riverside, North Greenwich and down to Greenwich proper, but it would cost huge amounts and no-one will want to fund it as it's "Sarf a da Rivuh"
Plenty of broken pavements and rubbish ridden roads around the peninsula and Charlton. Greenwich never seems to get a decent commitment from the developers.
There should be a DLR link from Greenwich to Woolwich. The 177 bus route from Charlton to Greenwich is not sufficient and incredibly slow.
3 -
All sounds good to me, if they manage to build the homes and if they do it well.
I doubt the homes will be built in a reasonable time. More likely to be yet more flat/apartments. They will probably be low quality identical mass produced with high density builds. Some may be affordable but only affordable once and relative affordable to London. And in the interest of fairness any nice view will be built sideways on so no one gets it.
0 -
Its only 'affordable' as youre buying a % of the property. But you then end up paying rent and a mortgage, while only being able to sell it to someone else who also qualifies for the scheme.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
jose said:
Yes I have looked.jams said:If you are interested at general planning policy direction of travel, have a look at the London plan draft that's currently out for consultation, lots of interesting stuff in there
Interesting stuff indeed.
However at no point is the term ‘affordable’ related to any sense of income in all the documentation, so I don’t know why any of the movers and shakers in this particular world use the word ‘affordable’ at all.
Possibly it is a way of smokescreening or obfuscating the harsh reality of housing in the land, and allowing the planning of for example the dreadful developments in central Lewisham, and what is about to happen in Lee Green. As in ‘its chite, but never mind ordinary people will be able to afford it’.
But they won’t.From the draft London Plan:
3.48 The Mayor’s preferred affordable housing tenures are set out below. Other affordable housing products may be acceptable if they are genuinely affordable, meet the definition of affordable housing and can achieve the relevant eligibility and affordability criteria.
- Social Rent
- Key Worker Living Rent
- London Living Rent
- London Shared Ownership
3.49 To ensure affordable homes remain affordable to the households that need them, the following criteria apply:
- Key Worker Living Rent and London Living Rent rents set according to guidance provided on the GLA website
- Intermediate Rent and Sale is affordable to households on incomes up to the maximum threshold published by the Mayor, and homes should be provided for a range of incomes below this threshold
- Annual housing costs including mortgage, rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40 per cent of net household income based on household income limits.
0 -
That's not quite correct. The sell on clauses for shared ownership will vary depending on the RSL but for any property which has been constructed using grant funding from Homes England (about 40% of them - the rest are funded by private developers) the Government model has to be applied. This means that before selling, the owner has to notify the RSL that he wants to sell. The RSL has four weeks (its previously been longer) to find a buyer from its waiting list. If it doesn't the seller can sell on the open market (obviously the market is much smaller for a share in a property)shine166 said:Its only 'affordable' as youre buying a % of the property. But you then end up paying rent and a mortgage, while only being able to sell it to someone else who also qualifies for the scheme.0 -
The numbers seem to boil down to maybe just about manageable once all the hoops are negotiated.
OK.
Lets wait and see what Charlton Riverside turns out to be like.
Homes on brownfield is good, design is likely to be debatable, links will need to ne established.
If it directly leads to bigger support for Charlton then very good.0 -
I always wonder where all these people work to pay for these flats and houses, no industry in London, the financial centers shedding staff and more when AI become prevalent. London will soon be unlivable because of over population.ShootersHillGuru said:
Like it or not undeveloped land in London on a prime riverside site is a very desirable place to live, work and commute from. 100% it should be sustainably developed to provide all the things announced.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
We don't need more development in Greenwich and Charlton. The area is over developed with flats - the infrastructure and road network are insufficient.ElfsborgAddick said:Insufficient housing so this has to be a good thing.I just hope it goes to the right people.
There is plenty of space elsewhere - it's getting ridiculous. Every tiny patch of land is built on.1 -
As far as public transport goes, Greenwich Waterfront Transit with trams running from Thamesmead through Charlton Riverside to North Greenwich was proposed in the early 2000s. The proposal was downgraded to trolleybuses on dedicated lanes and then down to ordinary buses on those lanes. Mayor Boris Johnson scrapped the whole scheme in 2009 - not a surprise as he had hardly ever visited South East London!0
-
As a non driver who works on Riverside at Charlton i don't think there's much to moan about regarding transport at all.
Plenty of buses and trains. A slight gripe would be only one bus goes towards Mottingham
5 -
@Baldybonce - agree completely. When I moved to the area in the early 90s there was no Jubilee extension.
No DLR. Now we have that and the Purple Train! My only transport beef is the SL11. I wouldn't mind it not stopping anywhere useful (yet going past all the places I want buses to go) if it wasn't always empty.
My main fear about the development is that they will get rid of what little history remains, and drive out people who have made a community in the area, to uncertain futures elsewhere. The residents of the Woolwich Dockyard Estate are quite worried about this.
2 -
Good, that means there’s less chance of me accidentally ending up in Mottingham.Baldybonce said:As a non driver who works on Riverside at Charlton i don't think there's much to moan about regarding transport at all.
Plenty of buses and trains. A slight gripe would be only one bus goes towards Mottingham2 -
Discounted market sales housing: is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households.AberystwythAddick said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossaryjose said:No doubt somewhere along the line the sweetener term ‘affordable homes’ will be mentioned.
Never defined or explained properly.It’s pretty well explained actually
Is 20% below local market value affordable?
Affordable by what percentage of the population?
It would be interesting to look at median salaries and see what percentage of the population could get a 20 year mortgage at 20% below local market value.
0 -
Only the 177 runs from Charlton to Greenwich and invariably gets stick in traffic. The nearest tube is North Greenwich otherwise its Charlton BR. Given all the development on the Peninsula and in Charlton and Woolwich it would have made sense for a DLR link.Baldybonce said:As a non driver who works on Riverside at Charlton i don't think there's much to moan about regarding transport at all.
Plenty of buses and trains. A slight gripe would be only one bus goes towards Mottingham
The roads are not fit for purpose as traffic grows and the frequent roadworks just add to it. It dies seem poorly planned to me.
0
