Forum Topic

Dickens Yard

Has anyone else noticed that there has been a change to planning permission for the Dickens Yard development, taking 59 flats from ‘discount market sale’ to ‘private’ sale? I guess this means that they will no longer be labelled as affordable housing, instead very unaffordable. It seems that there were only 11 flats under the affordable housing scheme in dickens yard. If so (and I may be wrong), what a joke. They build these ‘lovely’ new apartment buildings and under the guise that we need more housing, while actually it’s only in reach of the very well off.

Anna Henderson ● 4578d21 Comments

And this is why we are on the cusp of the break up of the UK.It's politics and politicians at every level that yet again is screwing up our society and it's stability.Scots are fed up with the rule of Westminster, trouble is so is everyone else who happen to be not Scottish.

Anthony Waller ● 4215d

It had to be, who knows what goes on 'behind closed doors'.Noticeable absence of Labour councillors on here since they were re-elected - what a surprise!

Nigel Brooks ● 4216d

The sad thing about this is that it fies in the face of the Labour policies on inclusive communities and social housing. A decision of this sort would have had to be politically approved by Ealing Labour.

Neil F. Weber ● 4216d

I thought so , thanks for reminding me Mr. Weber.

Gerry Tan ● 4217d

Dear Mr Tan,The public housing provision is forever being whittled down. It has been going on for some time with Dickens Yard.

Neil F. Weber ● 4217d

Susan,Where is this council land? They must have some on which they could build. When they bought the YMCA in Bond Street they could have made that into a hostel for single people until development started. Same for the cinema site..there could have been caravans or park homes there. So Eric is right and so are you. Where is LBE response to the current crisis? And where is the Prime Minister's Action man Mark Prisk the housing minister who keeps a low profile. Finally Susan when we talk about replacing the 59 flats St George has his eye and gauntlets on are we talking £62,000 or the proper figure of £620,000? I hope it is the later then while St George escapes his obligation maybe 200 households benefit...win win?

Arthur Breens ● 4561d

The last big housing crisis was just after WWII. What the Government did then was build pre-fabricated houses, which were cheap to build and quick to put up.Last year just 98,000 new homes were built in the UK - the lowest total since 1923. Radical measures are needed as there is a minimal supply of new homes for 'social renting'. Social rent levels were for decades defined as 40% of market rates. This Government defines social rent levels as 80% of market rates. As Shelter continues to tell those who might listen there are ten of thousands of people who cannot afford to pay this new level of social (now called ironically 'Affordable') rent.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4561d

The Council can easily build flats for less than that, if they already have the land, and they must have loads of land standing about empty.

Susan Kelly ● 4561d

The £3,650,000 that St George are offering LBE for 59 flatsworks out at £62,000 per flat. Can St.George explain where you might build a replacement for £62,000? If St George gets its way then it might be able to sell these flats for say up to £620,000. Multiply that by 59 after taking off the purchase price and you make a cool £33,000,000 profit.Beats slaying dragons. This is the sort of money St George should be offering LBE...but even so twoodent be right.

Arthur Breens ● 4561d

The new owners may never visit the UK but their tenants will (almost by definition :-) )!

Tony Colliver ● 4570d

Business rates do not go to the council but go direct to central government (unless I am very much mistaken and the rules have changed since they were introduced).

Tony Colliver ● 4570d

I wouldn't cry too much over the businesses on Bond Street. That is about £1000 a week overhead for a shop. The businesses there are very effective fleecing machines for those with more money than sense. I stopped buying anything on Bond Street when Kings the Florist ceased to exist, it is cheaper to go anywhere but to Bond Street. Yes, business rates are high, however even if they were lower than the waiters and waitresses in all the cafes would not get any more money. If Ealing Council ever did a proper job of policing the minimum wage and legal employment it would find that most of the people in these high-priced establishments are employed on a cash and below-the-minimum wage basis. Small businesses in Ealing - whether in South Ealing, Northfields, West Ealing, or Bond Street (let alone Southall) all function on the basis of cheap and illegal cash employees and would never dare rock the business rate boat for fear that someone might discover that their five employees are not members of their family and have never paid tax or NI.Kierem.

Kieren A Wroblewski ● 4570d

The majority of the flats in Dickins Yard will be rented out to hard working (they'll have to be to pay the rents) Ealing residents. Very few, if any, will be left empty as that would lose annual rental income of some £20,000. Other social housing will be built elsewhere in the borough with the money from the developers. Property in London is an attractive investment for people around the world. Complex planning rules plus local NIMBYs delay building more flats which are very much needed to introduce more competition into the housing market and reduce both rents and flat prices. High business rates, which council's retain, encourage the over designation of retail space even when a lot is vacant. Redesignation of retail space to housing would also help increase supply of flats and so reduce rents and prices. I'm not sure but I think rent and business rates would be something around £50,000 a year for say a small shop on Bond Street. The shopkeepers need to sell an awful lot of bikes; flowers or pizzas to generate enough profit just to cover those overheads.

Steve Chambers ● 4570d

Phil,Go on the Council's web site. Go to Planning and go to New Planning applications. The ref no. is PP/2013/3676. I know of no publicly available audit trail of affordable housing units being created. 'The Guardian' 18 September 2013 however quoted recent research that 60% of Britain's biggest housing developments are falling short of local affordable housing targets. 2,300 affordable homes have been axed across the UK over the last five years after so called Section 106 (i.e. developer tax) renegotiations. All this has been on the basis of developers' accountants producing figures showing financial non-viability of redevelopments with affordable housing units. However the combined pre-tax profits made last year by 10 of the UK's biggest housing developers was £1.1 billion. St George during the period 2006 to 2012 made after tax profits of £268 million.St George tried to sell the Dickens Yard Phase 1 retail space at first and then, presumably when there were no takers, invented a strategy to fill them at the end of the residential project in 2014/5/6 ....St George, the developers of Dickens Yard, told a meeting of the Central Ealing Neighbourhood Forum in 2012 that 50% of Dickens Yard sales were made overseas.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4571d

Phil - I saw this on posted on a tree or lamppost near the development. I then checked the council webpage to find out the details.

Anna Henderson ● 4571d

I have a deep well of ignorance on this area.Where can I see the details discussed here re changes to planning permission?Is there any sort of "audit trail" to follow whether any affordable housing units are created and sold?Also - Eric - where did you get the info about the percentages of overseas buyers at Dickens Yard?  I presume one of the reasons Ealing Council were in favour of the scheme as a whole is that the amount of new services (surgeries, schools, ambulance stations etc) would be much less than some predicted because so many new owners would never visit the UK.Was it envisaged that retail units would be created in the part of the development already completed or was it for the next stage?  As per quite a few recent posts on the forum, I can't see why retailers would expect to be successful here whilst units are vacant in all other parts of the Borough.

Phil Kay ● 4572d

Interesting. So in effect the developer is paying the council to have these affordable housing tenants moved away from their 'luxury apartments'?I have to say I agree with the pessimistic view of the shops. If we can't fill the high street with anything decent, I am not sure how we're supposed to fill Dickens Yard. Not to mention the new cinema development will have retail units. And of course 160+ 'apartments'. I'm sure they will all be within easy reach for those first time buyers...

Anna Henderson ● 4573d

All developers call flats 'apartments' these days, Eric. Usually 'luxury apartments', even if they're like broom cupboards.

Susan Kelly ● 4575d

50% of the private sale flats at Dickens Yard have been bought by buyers overseas, including those from China and India. Calling the flats 'apartments' was a clear sign that the properties would be marketed internationally. How this foreign ownership is of immediate help in meeting local housing needs is unclear.As I understand it (and the wording used in the planning application is convoluted to say the least) St George has paid Ealing Council £3.65 million to 'persuade' it to allow St George not have to build these 59 Affordable Homes in Dickens Yard. The deal is that the cash will fund Affordable Homes' construction somewhere else (unknown) in Ealing. Some of us think that we will never see the retail sites at Dickens Yard used as shops.In years to come they will no doubt be converted to flats. The as yet redeveloped Arcadia site is likely to have new retail sites closer to, and on route to, Ealing Broadway Station.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4575d

As Anna has pointed out the proportion of "affordable" housing in the development was derisory in the first place so can hardly be reduced any further. Now that it is being built I hope that it will have a positive impact on Ealing and will bring some decent new shops to the town centre. It's not the type of development that I want to see any more of in Ealing though and I hope we can do better with future development opportunities.

Paul Conlan ● 4576d

Or perhaps it means instead of being sold as a bulk buy to one organisation they are now being sold as individual units. In any event I would guess that a large number will be sold as buy-to-let.

Sue Rowe ● 4577d