Please object to this heinous Wandsworth Town development

18 posts
mealsonwheels
Posts: 33
Joined: Mar 2015
Contact:
Share this post on:

Re: Please object to this heinous Wandsworth Town development

Postby mealsonwheels » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:29 pm

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.
Post Reply
papinian
Posts: 577
Joined: Feb 2012
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Please object to this heinous Wandsworth Town development

Postby papinian » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:30 pm

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.
Post Reply
actuallyadad
Posts: 242
Joined: Dec 2014
Contact:
Share this post on:

Re: Please object to this heinous Wandsworth Town development

Postby actuallyadad » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:41 pm

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.
Post Reply

Start a conversation
To create a new post and start a new conversation, please click on the button.