I guess that their reasonable prices are taking Vantage Heights (Taymount Rise) as a basis:

2007-12-21 Flat 13, ?550,000
2007-11-06 Flat 4, ?330,000
2008-03-18 Flat 12, ?325,000
2007-11-09 Flat 10, ?320,000
2007-12-07 Flat 11, ?246,800

Anyone wishing to comment should do so before 11 Sept via the Planning Portal: Appeal Details

A flat in Taymont GBP 550k . How big are these.? Seems quite amazing , was that the whole block.

Cannot LBC sue BH for non compliance of contract. I assume dates of latest finish were agreed by LBC in writing.

I doubt that Lewisham Council would want to upset a developer. More properties mean more council tax revenue.

Yes but if devolpment mothballed no council tax.
No one working today , I am sure they have been working Sat's up to now.

Comparing one block of wildly overpriced apartments (Vantage Heights) with another block of wildly overpriced apartments (FH Central) serves little purpose. Neither will sell at current asking prices.

The comparison needs to be between the prices/facilities on offer at FH Central with what you can buy in other parts of SE23.

FH Central has one upside for those who want that sort of thing - it is very close to the railway station. On the downside, the flats are cramped and offer highly restricted parking. Most are single aspect
(there are one set of windows pointing in one direction) which causes problems of ventilation and light. And, let's be honest - the block is not sited in one of SE23's most attractive areas.

For the asking price of a restricted one-bedroom FH Central flat without parking, you can buy an attractive spacious two-bedroom flat with parking elsewhere in SE23. And for the price of a two bedroom flat you can purchase a house locally!

Why would anyone in their right mind pay the prices currently being asked?

Well virtually no-one in truth. And Berkeley Homes almost admit as much in their Appeal statement:

"The Appelant (BH) has been marketing the Appeals site since October 2007, but received a limited interest..."

It's Emperor's New Clothes time. These units will only move if they are reduced by ?80-?100,000 a time. And even then, it's going to be a hard sell.

Hopefully, the Appeal will fail. It's a total diversion from the real problems facing this site.

As for current market price, a 2-bed on Manor Mount is currently being offered at 170,000. Sales going through at 90% or less of offered price so maybe 153?

Low ceilings mind, but Manor Mount v FHC? Even with the fancy taps you'll get in the FHC bathroom its no contest, and it is literally less than half the price.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-1...1&tr_t=buy

I agree Andrew I think you have the current prices summed up well.
Also I would imagine the station announcements will become a real pain.

Re: Appeal against decision on DC/08/67914, 1Hinsleys Place and 31-51 Perry Vale, Forest Hill, SE23

I am writing to you on behalf of the Forest Hill Society regarding the appeal by Berkeley Homes to the council planning committee decision, in support of the council?s decision in this case. We believe that the right decision was reached for the reasons stated by the committee and for a number of other reasons which we included in our submission.

1. Background:
1.1. We have welcomed Berkeley Homes? commitment to Forest Hill and to building on a site which was in need of development, although we have previously questioned the high density which they were granted on this site. The last few months have been difficult for house builders, although Berkeley Homes has weathered the crisis better than many other house builders. We are very pleased that they have been able to do so and wish them every success in selling the units being built in Forest Hill.
1.2. In making their decision the chair of the committee instructed officers that they could not take account of the market value of the properties and whether this was the right value for market conditions, as this is beyond their remit when making planning decisions. However, we continue to feel that this aspect is central to the case made by Berkeley Homes and central to the reason why Berkeley Homes have found it difficult to sell the units.


2. Berkeley Group Announcement April 2008:
2.1. ?Since November sales levels have been approximately 25% below historic average levels. ... the main contributor to this drop is private housing, where sales levels are down more than 50% in the last six months of the year?.

2.2. ?Berkeley continues to use its expertise to add value to its land holdings through the ongoing review of all its planning consents?.
2.3. Source: http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/index.cfm...ction=view

2.4. Two important points are raised by this statement:
2.4.1. Berkeley Homes have seen a drop of 50% on demand for private housing across the board. This is far from unique to Forest Hill, but in a slowing market it will take longer to sell properties than would otherwise be the case.
2.4.2. Berkeley Group has a company strategy of finding ways to increase profitability to land holding, including reviewing previous planning consents and attempting to make them more profitable. Despite the claims by the applicant that the change of use is focused on market demand, the company strategy exposes this change as part of a strategy of maximising value from properties with existing planning consent.


3. Sustainable Communities and two bedroom properties:
3.1. The Forest Hill Society is concerned about the mix of housing in the local area. Forest Hill is a diverse community ranging from one bedroom flats to detached houses. It is this mix of housing that gives Forest Hill a sense of community, and the ability to support a variety of local shops and services. The mix of housing allows people to stay in their community and work their way up the housing chain. Couples and small families, who require more habitable rooms per unit are more likely to feel part of the community rather than individual who can roll out of bed and straight onto a train, to whom the one bedroom units are directly marketed (see appendix C).

3.2. Building a development that meets the mixed needs of the community is important to Forest Hill residents. As recognised in paragraph 6.14 of the Berkeley Homes appeal, there has been a significant amount of predominantly one bedroom developments in the centre of Forest Hill in the last few years. It is for this reason that it is essential to build more properties to balance out this imbalance in properties available in the local area to provide a sustainable community incorporating different family sizes.

3.3. In granting initial planning permission the council recognised that the agreed form of the development has the appropriate mix, not only of affordable housing, but also the appropriate mix of one and two bedroom units. This was one of the considerations made when allowing a partially five storey building on a site that had been recommended in the Forest Hill Urban Design Framework as being suitable for three or four storeys. By allowing a high density development in this location the council believed that the merits of increased two bedroom, as well as one bedroom units, outweighed the concerns over density on this site.

3.4. We believe that the reduction by 30% of private two bedroom units, and the increase by 100% of private one bedroom units on this site does not recognise the housing needs of the local community or help to fully develop this site as part of the Forest Hill community.

3.5. Similarly when considering the number of affordable units, paragraph 5.6.2 of the appeal recognises that according to the Housing Needs Survey 2003, only 39.7% of a development should be one bedroom properties. This development provides over 60% one bedroom properties, which clearly goes against the housing needs for local people. It should be recognised that this percentage does not change substantially between the two schemes, but it is another reason why reducing the number of two bedroom units is inappropriate for the community.


4. Market Demand and Market Value:
4.1. Paragraph 6.3 of the appeal states that there were difficulties in selling two bedroom properties in October 2007. At exactly the same time I personally put my two bedroom flat in Forest Hill on the market. I had a number of interested parties and had an offer within a week. However, I put my property on the market at the price recommended by a number of local estate agents ? at ?xxx,xxx. When buyers are able to buy properties that have been standing for 100 years and in good condition for this price, it is not surprising that they did not choose to invest in properties that had not been completed and ranged in price from ?315,000 - ?440,000. Whilst it is not possible to compare two non-identical properties I have used this real example for the purposes of illustration.

4.2. One bedroom flats are on sale in this development at ?250,000 - ?295,000 which is closer to the price of a two bedroom flat in the local area.

4.3. Comments on local forums, such as SE23.com, confirm that there was a strong feeling in the local community that the prices asked were unrealistic. Further evidence comes from property websites which provide details of average asking and selling prices for properties in the area.

4.4. Appendix A is from http://www.findaproperty.com this details current average asking prices for properties in Forest Hill. For 1 bedroom flats this is ?182,000 and for 2 bedroom flats it is ?245,000. This puts the lowest prices for flats in Forest Hill Central at 39% and 29% higher than average for 1 and 2 bedroom flats respectively.

4.5. Appendix B is from http://www.home.co.uk and provides trends for property prices and demand in the last year in Forest Hill. This shows a 13% reduction in price for flats in the area, despite a continued upward trend for terraced and semi-detached houses between June 2007 and June 2008. Over the same period the overall number of properties sold in Forest Hill has significantly decreased, with the reduction in sales of flats being 58%.

4.6. Evidence presented in the change of use application said that no two bedroom units had been reserved and only 5 or 6 one bedroom units had been reserved. Had all 28 of the one bedroom units been sold and none of the two bedroom unit, then it would be clear that there was no demand for the two bedroom units at this price level. However, in the last nine months very few of the one bedroom units have been sold, so there is no evidence that there is such substantial demand for them that conversion of two bed units to one bed units should be considered.

4.7. In paragraph 6.15 of the appeal Berkeley Homes have referred to the value of the properties being set after ?extensive market research undertaken prior to the launch of the development?. This market research has not been submitted in evidence and we believe any such research that has arrived at such a value significantly miscalculated the property market at the time and over the course of the market readjustment that we have witnessed.

4.8. During this period of low demand and house price deflation, Berkeley Homes have not attempted to adjust their prices in line with market trends or in line with the realistic market price, and they have not sought a new valuation of the properties based on revised market research. We would question the pricing of these units and the market research that was undertaken to arrive at this price point. In a declining market with low sales levels, we reject the claim by Berkeley Homes in paragraph 6.15 that the price of two bedroom units is not hampering their sales.


5. Affordability to First Time Buyers:
5.1. The prices demanded for these properties should also be taken into account when examining the emphasis in paragraph 5.1.7 of the appeal to ?the need to deliver low-cost market housing as part of the housing mix? and in paragraph 6.5 which concludes that extra one bedroom flats would be preferable to the ?young, lower income, first time buyers?. These flats are not aimed at lower income first time buyers. For a one bedroom flat at ?250,000, with a 10% deposit, the purchaser would need to earn over ?56,000 to buy this property on a 4 times multiple mortgage. I do not believe it is reasonable to claim that people earning ?56,000 are in a lower income bracket. Even when split between a couple this income level is above the national average wage, not a lower income bracket.

5.2. Any statements that have been made about low cost housing or the needs of first time buyers in relation to this development should be read in the context of substantially higher than average prices for the area.


6. Abandoned Site:
6.1. Paragraph 6.16 of the appeal confirms that work has now stopped on the site, leaving a large ugly frame dominating the skyline in the centre of Forest Hill. Berkeley Homes have explained that this is due to cashflow problems following their inability to sell consented units (this would seem to include both two bedroom and one bedroom unit). We are disappointed by their decision to abandon the site and believe that the consequences for Forest Hill could be count-productive. An abandoned ugly building site in the centre of the town will have a negative effect on peoples? perception of Forest Hill and will adversely affect house prices, only making it more difficult for Berkeley Homes to eventually achieve a good sale value from the units on this site.

6.2. We would like to seek an assurance from the developer that, following the decision of the planning inspectorate, work will resume on this site as soon as possible in 2008, rather than leaving it over winter without anything more than the concrete framework.

6.3. We would like the Planning Inspectorate to consider the precedent that granting this planning application would set for Berkeley Homes and for other developers. Allowing them to cease developing sites, where appropriate planning applications have been granted, and effectively holding a local council and a local community to ransom until they are allowed to develop beyond the limits set out in the planning application, undermines the initial granting of planning applications. The behaviour of the developer on this occasion, by ceasing all operations when there is no external change to the planning consent, has been disappointing to local residents and is not what is expected of a company with a good reputation such as Berkeley Homes.


7. Summary:
7.1. Berkeley Homes states that the main reason for this increase in one bedroom flats is that there was not market demand for two bedroom flats. This was untrue in October 2007 and will continue to be true beyond the market readjustment currently being experienced. Thus their main reasoning for this planning permission is flawed.

7.2. Berkeley Homes motivation for this change of use is clearly in line with their corporate policy of finding added value by revisiting previously agreed planning consents.

7.3. The price at which units have been marketed has had a significant effect on the difficultly in selling these units. This has coupled with the housing price adjustments and credit tightening to make it harder to sell property. This is reflected in the inability to sell significant numbers of one bedroom properties as well as the two bedroom properties.

7.4. It is wrong to state that the one bedroom units would be low-cost when it has been demonstrated that the prices are significantly higher than market expectations (both today and in October 2007).

7.5. Forest Hill needs more than developments of predominantly one bedroom apartments, and the council planning committee were correct in recognising this fact when arriving at their decision.

7.6. We recommend that one bedroom units do not make up more than 50% of the units in this development and that this appeal is rejected.

The latest news on this proposed development is as follows;

Berkeley Homes have confirmed that their board has decided to suspend construction on the scheme pending the outcome of a recently submitted planning appeal. The appeal relates to a planning application which was refused by Lewisham Council's Planning Committee C on the 19th June 2008 for alteration of 10 of the 2 bedroom units previously approved by planning in June 2007 to provide instead 14, 1 bedroom units on the ground and 1st floors, which would result in 75 units in the scheme overall. Berkeley have stated that they will review their position in the light of the pending appeal decision when known. Based on current appeal timetables, which are taking 6 months to process, the outcome is likely to be heard in January 2009.

The associated S106 works to the surrounding highway have already been triggered, so there should be no problem regarding their completion.

Berkeley also have 16 months from the commencement of building works to agree the underpass improvement works with Network Rail, so that clock is also counting down.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Thank you Susan for the clarification.
It would appear work will be suspended for 6 months waiting for the appeal. Cannot the council sue them for not building the devolpment as per the original agreement?
Surely if a devoloper was allowed to blackmail the authorities to change important details which had been agreed when the devolopment approved then everyone would do , making the original contract a farce.

Personally, I think it makes sense to have a block of 1 bedroom flats at this location. It is ideal for a starter home and conveniently located.

In this economic climate I would rather see the building completed quickly. The purchasers will spend money locally and inject additional money in the local economy.

It is ideal for a starter home, if you are earning ?56,000 and have a ?25,000 deposit. Not really a starter home for most people.

But there is also a principle worth fighting for, but I am annoyed that this means we have to have another eyesore in Forest Hill for months.

Does anyone know what this means for the Perry Vale road closure? Will it be closed indefinitely until this situation is resolved?

As I said in my earlier post, the work on the road and underpass will continue, so Perry Vale will not be closed until the planning application appeal is resolved, unless of course those works need to take that long.
And according to recent housing needs surveys for Lewisham, 1 bedrom flats are not what is needed in our borough. What we need are more 3 bedroom family sized units, which is what we will continue to encourage developers to incorporate in their developments where we can.
As I understand it, the economic thinking is if the 2 bedroom units were not selling, why should anyone buy a 1 bedroom unit for not much less in price?

Is there any legislation that will force the developers into action? Can the council get a repossession order if the work does not continue within a reasonable time?

I can see the point of principle, but is it really worth risking, even slightly, permanently having that eyesore in the very centre of Forest Hill, for the sake of having/not having 10 two-bedroom flats?

Give them what they want, for God's sake

I agree with Gingernuts as I have asked before surely the contract signed between the council and BH would allow the council to sue in the advent the contract not adhered to.????????????????????????
It is totally unacceptable that BH agree one set of rules to get the planning agreement then hold everyone to blackmail later when they want to change the rules.
Stick to your agreement BH. Play the game.

Have any of you seen the contract? Just because work has stalled does not automatically trigger a right to sue. I'm assuming it's a standard JVC contract and there will be various clauses in there in respect of penalties for late completion etc.

Construction disputes tend to be very very costly and all parties, if they share a brain cell between them, will want to avoid a formal dispute if at all possible. Construction contracts usually have an arbitration clause in them in the event of the parties to the contract falling out and believe me, Arbitration ain't cheap!

For what it is worth I do not think that the council would have any right to sue Berkeley Homes. Planning permission does not constitute a contract to deliver a specific building to the council.

I am genuinely amazed that Berkeley openly admit that 'reviewing' planning consent is their official strategy. It's tantamount to admitting that they have no absolutely no intentions to stick by the original planning permission if they think they can get away with it.