The whole "buy to sit" argument is a bit of a red herring because it's such a tiny, tiny proportion of overall transactions. (With buy to sit I mean buying an leaving the place empty). Although it's headline- grabbing, it really is insignificant. Sure lots of Belgravia houses are empty most of the time because the foreign billionaires are away, but then that was always the case when they were owned by Lord So and So and he was in his country estate.

So if foreign investors are buying they are more likely to either be living there (what's the problem with that) or renting them out (which fills a market need so isn't a problem).

So there's no need to worry about these mysterious foreign investors really.

GuyD73: Thanks for the reply.

I repeat what I said about "buy-to-leave" being a trope that appears a lot in the media but is a virtually non-existent phenomenon in practice for properties worth less than £2m. I trust evidence not empty political rhetoric. Indeed, if in fact so many of the apartments are going to be empty it undercuts many of the issues raised re pressure on trains, services, etc.

I don't see the point of this claim you make: " It’s also quite well documented in the case of London property that due to the ability to use shell companies to purchase these assets, it’s easy both to hide the true ownership of those assets and potentially to use proceeds of crime and money laundering to buy them. " It's not relevant from a planning perspective. It's also not clear how the use of companies to own London property is any different from the use of companies to own property elsewhere in the U.K. or indeed in other countries. I note that the U.K. (unlike most other countries) has higher taxes on properties owned through companies than by individuals.

I repeat what I said about it being a mistake to have your campaign fronted by an independent school-educated £320k a year earning rugby player.

Yet another development of flats and money to a developer.

I spoke to an elderly retired neighbour who works at that Homebase and they have made them all redundant.

he is gutted.

Papinian, I have a couple of things to take issue with here. Firstly I resent enormously any suggestion that my statement constitutes ‘soft xenophobia’. I abhor xenophobia in any form, was appalled by the outpouring of it that we saw in the wake of the Brexit vote and will speak out against it wherever I encounter it. To answer your question, no there is no difference being ‘foreign’ capital and our own when it comes to buying up housing assets, they both reduce the supply of housing and fuel priced inflation. It is however, well known that England, and particularly London, is seen as a very safe place to park money, so we get all the capital from corporates and our own HNW individuals buying up property assets but we get the rest of the worlds too. It’s also quite well documented in the case of London property that due to the ability to use shell companies to purchase these assets, it’s easy both to hide the true ownership of those assets and potentially to use proceeds of crime and money laundering to buy them. Also it seems to be widely acknowledged that lots of these kind of flats, particularly new developments are bought as investment vehicles and rarely if ever used, how do you think “buy to leave” became a thing and a frequently used phrase by politicians of every hue? Article below a little bit old but...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/scandal-of-the-buy-to-leave-investors-who-keep-flats-empty-8702570.html

You may also have missed the fact that ‘affordable housing’ is an actual thing too. In certain circumstances, it is taken to mean the proportion of housing in any given development put on the market below market rates, purely for the benefit of keys workers on modest salaries (teachers, nurses, policemen etc). Of course the term ‘affordable’ in normal parlance is relative, I don’t dispute that, but you seem to have entirely missed the point with this paragraph
As regards the flats being affordable, if they were not affordable they would not be sold. Of course, they won't be affordable to many people, but then neither are houses in Chelsea. And if the buyers of them have to buy something else then that will push the price up of lower priced properties.
I’m also really struggling to see how Chris Robshaw’s education or salary as anything to do with anything….

"Wandsworth will become an urban catastrophy"... probably a bit dramatic for some flats being built on a car park! :lol:

If anyone wishes to speak with our councillors about this, there is an opportunity to do so next week at St Annes church on Thursday evening http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/13768/fairfield_ward_residents_get_to_ask_the_questions?utm_source=Wandsworth%406&utm_campaign=8a218649ca-Wandsworth%406&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fbd64a91fa-8a218649ca-398469881

Are they planning to build a new school? Or to provide more transport solution? If not, I am sorry to say that the idea is crazy. They built the Osier Road development a few years ago, they are building on the brewery site and now on the Homebase site. I am not sure of their plans but if no new school or transport solution is provided then Wandsworth will become an urban catastrophy.

People seem to be talking as if this will be some series of sky scrapers being built on an area of outstanding natural beauty or in the middle of Wandsworth Common. It's not. It's some (fairly big) buildings being built on a derelict scrap of land close to some other big buildings, a busy road, a DIY store and a council tip. Yes new tall buildings might block some views - of PC World in Fulham....

We need more homes in London, and in the whole of the South East in fact. And building them on brownfield sites seems sensible to me.

Sure the council will get more money - but isn't that a good thing? And sure there will need to be proper provision of services like schools and trains AND A CAR WASH (I miss that). And sure there will need to be affordable housing (which is required by law now anyway)- I agree with all that.

But London can't stand still, and we can't say to people sorry it's full, we are not building any more homes. That would be unrealistic and bad for the country as a whole. And All that anti- foreign investor sentiment is nonsense and a bit UKIPy - deal with that by tax if we must. People's energy should be focused on making sure the council makes the proper provisions of schools etc, not on objecting to new homes.

I really want people to get away automatically objecting to any new building. I think ultimately it stems from us growing up looking at the horrible post-war developments where Victorian cottages made way for soon to be urban decay tower blocks. (Though at the time of course lots of people in the new tower blocks enjoyed inside loos and heating for the first time). But we can't let those mistakes colour our views forever, and we have to hope that architects and councils have learned from previous mistakes.

[quote]when barely any of the flats will be affordable and, like many other new builds in London, they simply serve as a place for wealthy overseas investors to park their money safely and don't even get lived in![/quote]

I thought your original post and attachment were very articulate. However, I call you out about what you say in your last post:

- Is it okay for flats to serve as a place for wealthy [b]UK[/b] investors to park their money safely? What's the difference between [b]UK[/b] and [b]overseas[/b] investors? This line about overseas investors seems like the soft xenophobia that has become pervasive in the UK over the past five years.

- If your issue is that the flats won't get lived in, where is the evidence of this? This trope has been rolled out a lot in the media but there's never been any proof that it applies in the case of anything other than £2m+ apartments (which 98% of the apartments in the proposed development will not be).

- As regards the flats being affordable, if they were not affordable they would not be sold. Of course, they won't be affordable to many people, but then neither are houses in Chelsea. And if the buyers of them have to buy something else then that will push the price up of lower priced properties.

In any case, I'm not sure that having your campaign endorsed by independent school educated £320k per annum earning Chris Robshaw really sits with the affordability concern that you are putting forward.

Graceygirl, what I think Ginger cat means is we don't need developments like this that destroy an existing beautiful and historic neighbourhood when barely any of the flats will be affordable and, like many other new builds in London, they simply serve as a place for wealthy overseas investors to park their money safely and don't even get lived in! Good to see Chris Robshaw coming out against the development in yesterday's standard. please register your objection on the council's web site https://planning.wandsworth.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=planning&appNumber=2016/7356

[quote="Gingercat2"]This is why we moved away from Wandsworth..Just like Supergirl said..poor cheap planning to make a quick buck.
London is becoming tower block city..so oppressive and looming.
Such a shame they did so much 'slum' clearance in the 1930s..As all the beautiful little cottages and pubs along York Road wold be so valuable now.
We don't actually need all this housing..All these new developments are just bought by greedy overseas investors and never lived in. Look at Earls Court. .failing to sell.
Wandsworth is loosing it's character and becoming over developed. More property means more council tax and that is why Wandsworth council has the lowest council tax.
I will definitely sign.[/quote]

We don't need all this housing.... ha what planet are you on!?

Actuallyadad,
With respect, I feel you are somewhat missing the point. No-one is disputing we need more housing, what people are concerned about is the density and height of the development (destroying the look of a beautiful, historic neighbourhood) and the fact that it is going to make the trains even more crowded with no contribution from the developer to improving infrastructure. Neither is it ok to say if you want privacy, move out of London. I’m SW London born and bred and don’t have any issues living in a busy city, there’s a difference between that and moving into the Tonsleys for its tranquil, low-rise nature and finding someone wants to build a 15 storey tower very close destroying your privacy (being overlooked being a key reason that planning is not granted to individual householders). I don’t even live in the Tonsleys, just feel sorry for those that do, so not being NIMBYish either. Sure, build a less dense, low-rise development with some genuinely affordable houses for key workers, get a couple of £m from developers to put lifts in at the stations and perhaps hasten an increase in rush hour train capacity, rather than being both greedy and inconsiderate by trying to shoehorn as many flats as possible onto this site in pursuit of profit. THAT is the issue, I feel….

This is why we moved away from Wandsworth..Just like Supergirl said..poor cheap planning to make a quick buck.
London is becoming tower block city..so oppressive and looming.
Such a shame they did so much 'slum' clearance in the 1930s..As all the beautiful little cottages and pubs along York Road wold be so valuable now.
We don't actually need all this housing..All these new developments are just bought by greedy overseas investors and never lived in. Look at Earls Court. .failing to sell.
Wandsworth is loosing it's character and becoming over developed. More property means more council tax and that is why Wandsworth council has the lowest council tax.
I will definitely sign.

Actuallyadad: i dont suppose you live near Southside? I agree with you but what is Wandsworth doing in my opinion is making quick money by agreeing to all those development.
Look at the redevelopment of thr brewery near southside; it started well but now it is a monstruosity.
The buildings are do near each other. The local schools around both state and private are at capacity every year. The work on the gas network around the one way system is still going on after the 11 weeks advertise. The super sewer is coming next. Trains from WW town are overcrowded already and water pressure is very poor.

The problem is that it is very to agree yo all those development but (i) i wish the council would do more forward planning so it actually look nice and fit for purpose as per Liverpool Docks. And (ii) the council and the city of London are not investing enough on the infrastructures that are already over used.

Poor planning.

It looks quite smart to me, have written in support.

I'm afraid the reality is we need more homes around here and lots of people seem to object to anything new. London isn't standing still and people need to live somewhere. We can't have a situation where home owners (usually older, richer), stop those without homes (usually younger, poorer) from getting on the property ladder.

It's a scruffy patch anyway so will be better with a smart new development. (Though I miss the car wash...).

And if privacy and crowding are your concerns, maybe London isn't the best place to live anyway...