Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

'Haringey Labour councillors vote to press ahead with controversial £2bn HDV regeneration plan'

Tags for Forum Posts: haringey development vehicle, hdv

Views: 1762

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But that's a logical conclusion from getting older and not dying.  It would be weird if the majority of landlords were, say, under 35, as they simply haven’t lived long enough to acquire the amount of money buy a property to rent or buy a second home.  It’s rather a meaningless statistic. 

Specifically, 52% of BTL landlords are 55 or over: source Table 5 of the CTL report.

Michael - its actually the defining issue of the housing market today. Homeownership has been on the decline since I believe 2006 - dropped by c8% - at the same time renting has gradually over taken home ownership for under 34s and the number of private landlords has roughly doubled over a slightly  longer time frame. The concentration of housing wealth among 55+ and neighbouring age cohorts is close to becoming permanent. 

To add - neither of these trends remotely resembles core demographic trends eg growth amongst the ranks for these age groups.

it’s a bit of an inevitability. In previous decades a lump sum invested would have had a reasonable rate of return to fund retirement. As interest rates sank towards oblivion people started to look elsewhere and buy to let was plugged again and again as “the” investment decision. 

That's absolutely true - it's rational behaviour on behalf of individuals with the means to get into BTL/investment property as an asset class. An asset class that's out of reach for many, and with interest rates not looking likely to go back up to historical levels, possibly ever (see Japan) the situaiton isn't looking particularly rosy. 

It goes to show that measures to boost the supply of new homes can go quite some way towards rebalancing the situation. Where there's demand, prices will go up. But without the necessary increases on the supply side, that's only bound to get worse for those struggling to get on the property ladder, or to afford rent.

That shouldn't be news to anyone. Yet the newly-minted council is about to reverse a massive step in a positive direction, with no clear plan of what's to go in its place. The anti-HDV cheerleaders make noises about multinational corporations, foreign buyers, and demolitions, but not once have they reflected on the basic arithmetic of the plan. It's very very depressing. Here's to hoping something good comes out of the next local administration...

I don't agree. The HDV had no plans to build any new social housing, in fact there was to be a nett loss. The plans to build private housing, eg on the old gasworks site etc etc will go ahead. The new council will follow Hackney and others in imposing much more generous levels of genuinely affordable (ie 50% not 80% of market rent) housing. In addition we will work with not-for-profit partners maximising the return to Haringey (Lendlease planned to gain £300m plus in profits remember).

Firstly it's not just about affordable housing but about providing more housing thereby boosting the supply side, which will in due course impact house prices, and of course private rents. HDV would have delivered a factor of approx 5 - (new homes vs. replaced stock.) At least that's what the figures state - i could be wrong, or maybe looking at the wrong data. 

As for the affordable housing element I see an information request response stating that approx 1000 council homes were to be replaced with 1800 affordable housing units via the HDV? Affordable housing is actually down to the council to set, so in other words, the affordable rent ceilings are sort of a separate issue to the HDV and entirely within the gift of the council. 

Lastly, 50/50 refers to both risk and reward - so if Lendlease stood to make £300m, then the same would be the case for Haringey? Are you saying that by virtue of this new, as yet unpublished plan now Haringey stands to gain more. Or lose less?

It's impossible to say as it is over a 20 year period and so much context might change. But the Lendlease profits were based on there gaining council owned land without cost, essentially. The new plan for building new council houses benefits from the rent income stream and reduced reliance on hugely expensive temporary B&B for the homeless etc.

Lendlease are builders and also generate profits. They'd be doing a disservice to their shareholders not to charge whatever they could get away with for work done for the HDV, I don't think it would have turned a profit at all. Ever.

Without cost you say? Lendlease would have been responsible for 50% of the investment. As I explained previously, that's what a 50/50 partnership means Peter. As for the new plan - sounds a bit rough around the edges... We shall wait and see. 

Can anyone explain the difference between the seemingly now defunct HDV proposal and the new AAP consultation which seems to be the same thing by another name?

Different areas



© 2023   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service