One of the very few areas in Greater London that exceeded home-building targets over the last decade was the Purley and Coulsdon area at the southern edge of Croydon borough. The great majority of this came from developers buying up bungalows and other low-density single-family homes, then converting them into buildings with 6-9 apartments. I imagine you know of this case, but so many of these small developments have been done that, in aggregate, they have added a lot of housing to the area. These units were typically a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments, increasing housing stock of smallers units to an areas where smaller living spaces are rare.
One can also imagine that this caused a lot of objections locally, but the council policy adhered to broader housing policy and it did allow a whole lot of building.
However, when the politics of the council leadership (and new elected mayor) changed a few years back, they expressly flipped to a policy of default objection to any such building, so virtually nothing of that nature has been built since.
This wasn't even greenfield building, it was building (almost all of it in walking distance to a train station) on existing sites and increasing density.
I hope we can see more of this, given that London sorely needs more housing.
One other one in the area to look up is that Taylor Wimpey is now looking to build c300 homes on Chipstead golf course, very much short walking distance to Chipstead station. Between the golf course and the station there are already quite a number of apartment buildings that fit that economic need of affordable property close to a station. However above the golf course is an eye-wateringly expensive housing area, Chipstead village. The reactions have been predictable. Micro vs Macro as is understandable.
They should be reflected in the land prices paid and can provide early scheme cashflow.
A much more serious threat is the inherent tendency of the private speculative model to dribble out supply accordant with a perfectly rational commercial desire to maintain local pricing and profit margins as per Letwin report.
The question of viability also hinges on assumptions applied. In short, can depend on who is doing the developing.
Probably the correct phrasing is that AHOs can potentially reduce developer profits in some situations depending on business model applied and wider external market and public policy circumstances. .
The "dribble out" you refer to doesn't actually change how many homes get built each year. It changes the timing on particular sites, but makes no difference to the overall amount.
It's a total red herring when discussing quantity of housing.
Separately, it's massively overestimated in importance. It only applies to a fraction of locations, only for owner-occupied, and it doesn't even delay the median house on a given site very much
One of the very few areas in Greater London that exceeded home-building targets over the last decade was the Purley and Coulsdon area at the southern edge of Croydon borough. The great majority of this came from developers buying up bungalows and other low-density single-family homes, then converting them into buildings with 6-9 apartments. I imagine you know of this case, but so many of these small developments have been done that, in aggregate, they have added a lot of housing to the area. These units were typically a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments, increasing housing stock of smallers units to an areas where smaller living spaces are rare.
One can also imagine that this caused a lot of objections locally, but the council policy adhered to broader housing policy and it did allow a whole lot of building.
However, when the politics of the council leadership (and new elected mayor) changed a few years back, they expressly flipped to a policy of default objection to any such building, so virtually nothing of that nature has been built since.
This wasn't even greenfield building, it was building (almost all of it in walking distance to a train station) on existing sites and increasing density.
I hope we can see more of this, given that London sorely needs more housing.
One other one in the area to look up is that Taylor Wimpey is now looking to build c300 homes on Chipstead golf course, very much short walking distance to Chipstead station. Between the golf course and the station there are already quite a number of apartment buildings that fit that economic need of affordable property close to a station. However above the golf course is an eye-wateringly expensive housing area, Chipstead village. The reactions have been predictable. Micro vs Macro as is understandable.
For train station area development,
the French model of coordinated development zones (ZACs) is worth looking at
https://thefrenchbuild.substack.com/p/inside-the-zac
Affordable housing planning requirements don't and won't 'wipe out' developer profits.
They should be reflected in the land prices paid and can provide early scheme cashflow.
A much more serious threat is the inherent tendency of the private speculative model to dribble out supply accordant with a perfectly rational commercial desire to maintain local pricing and profit margins as per Letwin report.
The evidence suggests that high affordable requirements do in fact cut developer profits and make some schemes unviable.
https://cayimby.org/blog/california-cities-wanted-free-affordable-housing-turns-out-theres-a-huge-cost/
Thanks, Sam.
OK, they can cut developer profits below a desired set maximal level but can support the business models of others through cash flow support: see: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/market-system-adjustment-tale-two-developers-vistry-berkeley-newton-xzdye/
The question of viability also hinges on assumptions applied. In short, can depend on who is doing the developing.
Probably the correct phrasing is that AHOs can potentially reduce developer profits in some situations depending on business model applied and wider external market and public policy circumstances. .
The "dribble out" you refer to doesn't actually change how many homes get built each year. It changes the timing on particular sites, but makes no difference to the overall amount.
It's a total red herring when discussing quantity of housing.
Separately, it's massively overestimated in importance. It only applies to a fraction of locations, only for owner-occupied, and it doesn't even delay the median house on a given site very much