Property Snakes and Ladders; 2009

kriss_boy

Ive been watching property Ladder episodes from 2007/2008 on virgin on demand.

Its utterly sickening to see couple after couple make 50K-150K on every property in every episode.

The developers ignore everything Sarah advises and regardless of the awkward layouts, poor management of budgets and costly mistakes they ALL Walk away with thousands.

Its the same with homes under the hammer. Literally hundreds of winners and no losers whatsoever.

Thrugelmir

poppy10 wrote: »

Back to Rotherhithe - has this been posted?
http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9531130

30/01/2009
49 BRUNEL ROAD, LONDON, SE16 4LD
Proposal: Change of use from a single live/work unit and a separate office/studio (Class B1) to two new residential units, 1x 2 bedroom dwelling and 1x 1 bedroom dwelling with no external alterations.
Decision: Refused 05/05/2009
Reason: 1) The proposed change of use would result in the loss of Class B1 floorspace on a site than fronts onto a classified road. The application would therefore result in the loss of an employment site which benefits from direct access to a main road. As such, it is contrary to Policy 1.4 Employment sites outside the preferred office location and preferred industrial locations of the Southwark Plan 2007 and to the objectives of the Plan to protect business sites with locational advantage.
2) The site lies within Flood Zone 3a defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a high probability of flooding where the risk to life and / or property, from tidal inundation would be unacceptable if the development were to be allowed; due to the fact that the proposed development does not have a safe means of refuge in the event of flooding. Consequently, there would be an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the occupants in a flood event, which is contrary to policy 4.2 Quality of Accommodation of the Southwark Plan 2007.


_____
In the programme they suggested that they already had permission for converting the sausage factory into flats. Instead they've just resubmitted their application, it's in a consultation period at the moment.
http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9532512

So how did they build the penthouse ? Did they have planning permission for that part?

Thrugelmir

kriss_boy wrote: »

Ive been watching property Ladder episodes from 2007/2008 on virgin on demand.

Its utterly sickening to see couple after couple make 50K-150K on every property in every episode.

The developers ignore everything Sarah advises and regardless of the awkward layouts, poor management of budgets and costly mistakes they ALL Walk away with thousands.

Its the same with homes under the hammer. Literally hundreds of winners and no losers whatsoever.

But to keep the momentum. "Profit" was reinvested into further property. The higher you climb the further there is too fall.

How much of the profit extracted was invested into investments. Not wasted away on holidays, cars and their own homes.

For every winner there will be 19 losers.

Cleaver

kriss_boy wrote: »

Ive been watching property Ladder episodes from 2007/2008 on virgin on demand.

Its utterly sickening to see couple after couple make 50K-150K on every property in every episode.

If you find it sickening where are you watching lots of episodes?

harryhound

poppy10 wrote: »

Back to Rotherhithe - has this been posted?
http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9531130

30/01/2009
49 BRUNEL ROAD, LONDON, SE16 4LD
Proposal: Change of use from a single live/work unit and a separate office/studio (Class B1) to two new residential units, 1x 2 bedroom dwelling and 1x 1 bedroom dwelling with no external alterations.
Decision: Refused 05/05/2009
Reason:
#
#
#
#
2) The site lies within Flood Zone 3a defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a high probability of flooding where the risk to life and / or property, from tidal inundation would be unacceptable if the development were to be allowed; due to the fact that the proposed development does not have a safe means of refuge in the event of flooding. Consequently, there would be an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the occupants in a flood event, which is contrary to policy 4.2 Quality of Accommodation of the Southwark Plan 2007.


_____
In the programme they suggested that they already had permission for converting the sausage factory into flats. Instead they've just resubmitted their application, it's in a consultation period at the moment.
http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9532512

I missed the original programme (holidays) but this reason for rejection is a bit over the top isn't it?

The development is right next to the Rotherhithe tunnel and inside the famously expensive "Thames Barrier" yet it is too dangerous to sleep at ground level.
Has anyone told the bungalow owners of Canvey Island or the drunks in the local park?

Definitely an area for worrying about the locking wheel nuts on your car, but I think I would sleep soundly through a thunder storm.

barrooo

One question I have (this being the first season I've watched it) is are the houses sold with all the furniture in as well, and is this allocated in the budget, as I remember one couple spent a ridiculous amount on a table.

Just curious because I've never bought or sold a house that had much more than the fixtures and fittings left in, although I know in America they do tend to come furnished if new builds

harryhound

Probably not BUT the "developers" get the "trendy" furniture and fittings cheap/free from companies who want the "product placement" free exposure on the TV.

The series dates back to circa Y2K (from memory) and the first programme featured the conversion of a right to buy council flat just south of Tower Bridge, into potentially something that "you would bring a prostitute back to".

The presenter accumulated something of a "allo darlin" fan club in those days, which was somehow related to the size of her chest measurement. The programmes used to include more technical detail and item costings.

The really annoying thing is that in the grip of the house price bubble, even numpties who refused advice, could not organise a party in a brewery and always insisted in doing something to stamp their individuality on the development, always came out with a profit at the end.

There is a lot of Schadenfreude about in our audience of the latest series watching for the new concept of the property snake.

FungusFighter

Guys, much as I love seing you all getting your knickers ina twist about how much profit these muppets are making I feel I should point something out.....

Sarah says "How much did you spend?" and then does a quick calculation on how much they've made, no one counts interest payments, butyng and selling costs and most important there is nothing to stop the muppet LYING:beer:

Have any of you noticed how hard it is to get the bulls to admit they've made a loss on property? And you think this bunch are any different and are going to look like useless twots on national tv? I don't believe a fewking word of it, it's only tv anyway:T

pickles110564

FungusFighter wrote: »

Guys, much as I love seing you all getting your knickers ina twist about how much profit these muppets are making I feel I should point something out.....

Sarah says "How much did you spend?" and then does a quick calculation on how much they've made, no one counts interest payments, butyng and selling costs and most important there is nothing to stop the muppet LYING:beer:

Have any of you noticed how hard it is to get the bulls to admit they've made a loss on property? And you think this bunch are any different and are going to look like useless twots on national tv? I don't believe a fewking word of it, it's only tv anyway:T

Hello Mushroom, No one has lost unless they were stupid enough to sell.

FungusFighter

pickles110564 wrote: »

Hello Mushroom, No one has lost unless they were stupid enough to sell.

I don't suppose we count keeping up the payments on the humumgus mortgage then...or CGT, estate agents, solicitors, planning, removals etc etc:D

The stupid ones are actually brighter than you, at least they got out - yr only saying that cos you can't sell mate:rotfl: