Jump to content

C&RT Invest in a 505 (£130m) New Homes Construction Project


Featured Posts

Hale-Wharf-2.jpg
 
The scheme, which is being developed by Muse and the Canal and River Trust next to the River Lee, is expected to start in the summer and will involve build a pedestrian bridge for access from nearby Ferry Lane.
In total up to 505 new homes (35% of which will be affordable tenures) will be created at Hale Wharf, over two further phases of canal-side housing rising to around five-storeys. The total projects is worth around £130m.
 
Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's another of my favourite London moorings gone then. One of the few places you could get the car near without silly parking garage fees. 

I left there the last time a couple of weeks before Mark Duggan died on that bridge setting off the Tottenham riots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That area used to be absolutely awful many years ago and I wouldn’t have lived there if you paid me.  I was reading an article yesterday which made reference to Victoria Park in East London and developing property around there.  It mentioned that there were detached properties which were valued at £15 million!

Victoria Park was very popular with the London Boaters but they have moved elsewhere due to the high number of boats that were being broken into!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the way architects draw in moored boats to give the property drawings some atmosphere but I suspect that there is a strong probability that mooring will be curtailed or objected too once the buildings are complete. 

 

Eta. Just thought that I based the above on the assumption the boats were moored towpath side but on closer inspection I may well be wrong. 

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, reg said:

I enjoy the way architects draw in moored boats to give the property drawings some atmosphere but I suspect that there is a strong probability that mooring will be curtailed or objected too once the buildings are complete. 

 

Eta. Just thought that I based the above on the assumption the boats were moored towpath side but on closer inspection I may well be wrong. 

When this development was first proposed the developer included picture of mine badly photoshopped into an architects impression which made it look like we were approaching the lock at ramming speed!

 

 

41517FB2-09F6-4D9A-A9E6-D76F84891617.jpeg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim Lewis said:

When this development was first proposed the developer included picture of mine badly photoshopped into an architects impression which made it look like we were approaching the lock at ramming speed!

 

 

41517FB2-09F6-4D9A-A9E6-D76F84891617.jpeg

OI! Slow down can't you. 

 

Love the other tricks, couples walking hand on hand, friends chatting away happily, groups out for a stroll, parasols open on sun terrace. Must be a wonderful place to live. 

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
(snip)
In total up to 505 new homes (35% of which will be affordable tenures) will be created at Hale Wharf, over two further phases of canal-side housing rising to around five-storeys. The total projects is worth around £130m.
 

So 65% unaffordable tenures, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iain_S said:

So 65% unaffordable tenures, then?

'affordable' means 80% of market price - I'd say that's 100% unaffordable... They were very likely made to do this as a planning condition. Very social welfare of them altogether. Is their 'property' bit separate from or within their charity bit? 

Edited by Teasel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Teasel said:

'affordable' means 80% of market price - I'd say that's 100% unaffordable... They were very likely made to do this as a planning condition. Very social welfare of them altogether. Is their 'property' bit separate from or within their charity bit? 

Not strictly true. Affordable will be a mix of social and housing association homes and shared ownership homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

Not strictly true. Affordable will be a mix of social and housing association homes and shared ownership homes.

Oh right - has the law/policy changed? I thought 'affordable' was 80% and a different category from 'social' which is around 60% - 'The government's definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38067626 you've got your housing associations, tied to the first and social housing providers tied to the second.. I thought.. it speaks of 'tenure' rather than ownership, so I don't think the shared ownership thing's happening here.. please correct me if i've misunderstood! - 

 

Actually you're right! I've looked at the planning portal - http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=832635 some of the rents will be at 55% and 65% of local market rent - thanks! that's better than I thought.. 

Edited by Teasel
corrected myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter who they are, tenants or buyers, discounts on the lower rents or prices, comes from paying a 'below market price' for the land.

Everybody else involved in the constructions all charge the full market price....where discounts are typical of the scale - but nobody supplies anything a discount below market price, even housing associations

take their substantial cut.

 

It is nothing more than an accountancy trick in the Community Infrastructure Levi,  CIL, to force land to be sold at a discount.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horace42 said:

to force land to be sold at a discount.

just had a quick look at CIL - must admit it's way beyond me. How does this work if CRT already own the land? will they pay the levy by incorporating it into the price of the dwellings? I think there's often a planning condition in big developments that there has to be a percentage of 'affordable' housing otherwise no consent.. either way, would be good if they would also incorporate some affordable residential moorings on the offside (maybe? - don't know the waterways there) - or at least make sure they don't lose any public moorings that are there now.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks as if CRT are into this one as well http://wigan-pier.com/

 

Step Places has been chosen by Wigan Council, in partnership with the Canal & River Trust, to take forward Wigan’s flagship regeneration site with a world class vision to transform the historic Pier area into a striking modern visitor destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Teasel said:

just had a quick look at CIL - must admit it's way beyond me. How does this work if CRT already own the land? will they pay the levy by incorporating it into the price of the dwellings? I think there's often a planning condition in big developments that there has to be a percentage of 'affordable' housing otherwise no consent.. either way, would be good if they would also incorporate some affordable residential moorings on the offside (maybe? - don't know the waterways there) - or at least make sure they don't lose any public moorings that are there now.. 

Sorry but I do not have time to research the precise detail behind this particular development - but the principle of the CIL - is to pay for things the council must provide, or the community needs, in order to support the development - and they do this by the mechanism of a 'Section 106 Agreement' - which is a binding contact between the builder and the council on how much to pay and when.

The amount is calculated by the council based on the notional profit they think the developer will make.  (It is a bit like your income tax deducted this year in advance from your pay today based on what you should earn next year).

 

I think here, if CRT are the developer, using their own land on which to build, and retaining the land, the council will calculate the gross value of the project, and after all expenses have been deducted, what is left will be the residual value of the land. Which if the sums balance, will be about 80% of what it is worth if sold to a builder.

 

The counter argument is that the action of planning consent for development usually adds enormous value to the land - something the council are jealous of, and seek to carve themselves a large slice of it by using the CIL.  Fair enough for directly related work - extra roads, drains, bridges, schools, libraries, playgrounds, etc for big sites, but not to swell the coffers for a extra layer of unnecessary management'. 

 

The same valuation rules apply to the council should they use their own land to build their own 'council houses' - except no money changes hands - it does not generate an upfront income - but it costs money to build them - and they don't like doing that.

 

CRT in this case, keep their land (our land more correctly) pay the CIL and create a rental income thereafter to help reduce pending boat license increases.

 

There is a lot more to it than my simplistic approach, but that is the nub of the matter.

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

There is a lot more to it than my simplistic approach, but that is the nub of the matter.

Thanks Horace for taking the time to do that - that's a good level for me! interesting - and appreciated, cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Horace42 said:

Sorry but I do not have time to research the precise detail behind this particular development - but the principle of the CIL - is to pay for things the council must provide, or the community needs, in order to support the development - and they do this by the mechanism of a 'Section 106 Agreement' - which is a binding contact between the builder and the council on how much to pay and when.

The amount is calculated by the council based on the notional profit they think the developer will make.  (It is a bit like your income tax deducted this year in advance from your pay today based on what you should earn next year).

 

I think here, if CRT are the developer, using their own land on which to build, and retaining the land, the council will calculate the gross value of the project, and after all expenses have been deducted, what is left will be the residual value of the land. Which if the sums balance, will be about 80% of what it is worth if sold to a builder.

 

The counter argument is that the action of planning consent for development usually adds enormous value to the land - something the council are jealous of, and seek to carve themselves a large slice of it by using the CIL.  Fair enough for directly related work - extra roads, drains, bridges, schools, libraries, playgrounds, etc for big sites, but not to swell the coffers for a extra layer of unnecessary management'. 

 

The same valuation rules apply to the council should they use their own land to build their own 'council houses' - except no money changes hands - it does not generate an upfront income - but it costs money to build them - and they don't like doing that.

 

CRT in this case, keep their land (our land more correctly) pay the CIL and create a rental income thereafter to help reduce pending boat license increases.

 

There is a lot more to it than my simplistic approach, but that is the nub of the matter.

 

 

 

 

The developer is Waterside Places, a Limited Liability Partnership between C&RT and Muse. Waterside Places is the new name for ISIS Waterside Regeneration.
Waterside Places is also responsible for development at Brentford Lock West and Islington Wharf.
Part of the development is being funded by two Public Funding Agreements with the Greater London Authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The developer is Waterside Places, a Limited Liability Partnership between C&RT and Muse. Waterside Places is the new name for ISIS Waterside Regeneration.
Waterside Places is also responsible for development at Brentford Lock West and Islington Wharf.
Part of the development is being funded by two Public Funding Agreements with the Greater London Authority.

Thanks for the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The developer is Waterside Places, a Limited Liability Partnership between C&RT and Muse. Waterside Places is the new name for ISIS Waterside Regeneration.
Waterside Places is also responsible for development at Brentford Lock West and Islington Wharf.
Part of the development is being funded by two Public Funding Agreements with the Greater London Authority.

Would be interested to see their logo. Has it been re-designed lately ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssscrudddy said:

Usually the affordable but gets dropped before the end of the project, it only ever gets put in to get the permission in the 1st place but then never gets built or enforced

That makes sense and really profitable providing the builders can buy the land first at the 'residual' value  (the 'contribution' having been factored into the project cost) - then fight the issue with the council  - with a good chance of getting the contribution removed or relaxed - especially for 'small' sites (ten dwellings or half hectare) - which is in line with Govt. policy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neil Smith said:

It use to happen but the planners have closed a few loopholes so they can enforce it, ie they won't issue completion certificates until all conditions are met.

Neil

Yes, I imagine the councils are busy on this but can only succeed if the 'conditions' comply with planning law.

Where for small sites (up to ten dwellings or half hectare) the 'affordable homes' contribution does not apply now. 

I guess they are busy looking at all other permissible of Section 106 charges they are allowed to add instead.

....but it still comes off the buying price of the land..because everybody in the supply chain charges the full market price at full profit - that when knocked off the gross sale prices of the development  - leaves a residual value to buy the land. It is the land owner that takes a hit.

That is assuming they sell.

I really do not have time to delve into this case, but if CRT still own the land (or as tax payers we do) they benefit from the rental income - which nowadays is a good use of assets  - it is unlikely CRT would get the same sort of return investing the cash from the sale....even allowing for the 'affordable homes' bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.