Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The Hub at Turnpike Lane - Rabbit Hutch Studio Apartments
Many people will have noted the large, ugly white building looking over Ducketts Common, which has just been completed. If it looks bad from the outside, then a look inside (via Paul Simon's website - (http://www.paulsimonhomes.net/?property=the-hub&community_featu...) - shows it is even worse inside. The gallery of photographs of these "studio apartments" shows what looks like rabbit hutches, with barely any space. The gallery of photos is hilarious - the rooms are so small they have had to use wide angle lenses to get even part of the room in the shot. There's no information about the size of the apartments, but they look tiny even by the standards of contemporary developments. If anyone has had a chance to look inside, it would be instructive to hear views of the real thing, as opposed to the photos. Paul Simon are well and truly living up to the standards we have come to expect from them. It is a disgrace that Haringey Council have allowed such a dreadful development.
My apologies if there is already a thread on this.
Tags for Forum Posts: development, haringey council, hub, paul simon, turnpike lane
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Harding on
-
I'd have loved one of these when I was a student or in my early 20's. Pointless thread imo.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Good point, they certainly beat the situation I see in the front rooms of some ladder houses where there are three single beds.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Although they may look like student accommodation, I doubt they are aimed at students. Well not the ones without a trust fund anyway. The blurb implies young professionals
state of the art luxury studio flats
New York style concierge serviced apartments for those with a busy lifestyle
which is fine. They are small though and those are the show homes.
30 flats were applied for. 60 built. Not all of them are going to have lovely views of the common - indeed some may have borrowed light rather than proper "views". Paul, this isn't about what is there but about density and the implications and precedents it sets for further development. People I work with need homes where they can settle. Places like these are catering to a very small market and not really addressing the needs of housing in the borough which needs small flats for older folk, family homes and places that key workers can buy.
Christopher, we discussed this when the application went in here and objections were raised on *density* issues (the site needed development, it wasn't very nice) but Haringey had already agreed so legally there was nothing could be done, even by the local MP. Essentially, a planner can submit a perfectly reasonable development that no one could object to e.g. 30 flats which is given permission under change of use but the developer can then pretty much cram as many rooms (e.g. 60 "studios") as they like after permission without needing further permission.
Our planning laws are a licence to print money for developers who also often renege on agreements such as affordable housing (see the Heygate development) or public space (see the risible Sky Garden in the Walkie Talkie)
-
Permalink Reply by Lauren on
-
What about the needs of folks who are not elderly, key workers or families? We need affordable homes too! I earn a reasonable salary but still am forced to live in a substandard rental flat without central heating, constant hot water or damp-proofing due to ridiculous rental prices in the area and not ever having been able to save for a deposit to buy. Catch 22. I've lived here all my adult life, and am being forced out as it's just not feasible to live here any more. I'm now not only competing with other couples or singles for 1/2 bed accommodation but groups of up to 6 sharers who don't mind substandard living and are better able to afford the high prices as a group. The landlords know this and put their prices up accordingly. I'm late 30's, but my standard of living is worse now than when I lived here as a student in the late 90's, despite me having what would be deemed a good job and salary. It's hopeless and depressing.
-
-
This is the situation faced by many in London, indeed in England. Is there a single political party that would do something about this and therefore attract those votes? No.
-
Permalink Reply by EMC2 on
-
Presumably it was subject to planning permission - if you know the road check the application here
- you should find details of room sizes.
-
Permalink Reply by Rob B on
-
It's 14a Willoughby Road I believe. Some figures for their planning application for the top floor flats:
Unit 1 1 bed 1 person flat 41sqm
Unit 2 1 bed 1 person flat 42sqm
Unit 3 1 bed 1 person flat 39sqm
Unit 4 1 bed 1 person flat 38sqm
Unit 5 1 bed 1 person flat 37sqm
-
-
£896pcm. If it wasn't "student" accommodation they'd have to put outside space in the form of balconies on the building which would restrict the number of units. But 60*£896*12 = £645,120 per year income. Presuming the building "cost" £4 million, that could be an astonishing return of 16%.
-
-
If it wasn't "student" accommodation they'd have to put outside space in the form of balconies on the building
Is this true? On what do you base that statement?
A 'studio" in Crouch End goes for £706pcm inc bills and council tax and furnishings - presumably the £896 covers the cost of that "New York style" concierge. They seem expensive for studios but cheaper if called a one bedroom flat but perhaps they'd need that balcony to be called that?
It would appear that Paul Simon homes will be making a tidy profit on this. As I said, a licence to print money, especially with our developer friendly laws and council. Meanwhile, this is the picture for our residents with a different kind of busy *lifestyle" *...
*by this I mean they're busy just keeping the roof over their heads
-
-
£4 million was a guess based upon local real estate prices and how long they took doing the building works.
£896pcm is what they're advertised for on Rightmove. 60 is how many flats there are. 12 is how many months there are in a year. You then use these numbers to give you the yield of 16%.
-
-
When accounting for yield on a rental property you don't factor in maintenance or vacant periods. It's just a way to compare properties to one another and to compare them to the traditional rental base of 5% for a valuation.
If they'd had to stick to 30 one bed flats then the maths would look like this:
1100*30*12 = £396,000 and therefore a 9% return.
Let's imagine that they were looking for 5% which is the bare minimum a landlord would take, that puts the valuation at nearer £8 million. That's the most it could cost and implies a yield of 8% given that they actually squeezed 60 bedsits in there.
-
-
I'd rather call them educated guesses.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
