| |
SALFORD IN UK TOP TEN GREEDY PROPERTY SPECULATOR HOTSPOTS
|
|
Star date: 19th October 2016 WHILE SALFORD LOSES £42MILLION, SPECULATORS CASH IN The Salford postcode M3, which includes Trinity, Chapel Street and other areas on the border of Manchester city centre, has been named in the top ten of UK `Buy To Let Yield Hotspots' by the website Totally Money. M3 - "where you could build the most profitable property portfolio" - is cited as providing a return of 8.31% for greedy speculators. Meanwhile the developers building these buy to let blocks of apartments are costing the city £millions as they avoid planning fees. Everyone is cashing in on Salford's building boom – except the community that actually lives here. Full details here...
|
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
click image to enlarge
|
Over the next couple of days, Salford City Council representatives will be spending council tax payers' money at the property orgy MIPIM 2016, where they can hobnob with Legal and General and assorted developers. Last year, the Council spent over £3,500 to share a stall with Peel Holdings and `friends' (see here). While the Council begins its bean-feast at MIPIM, Salford has emerged in the top ten of the UK's `cash in hotspots', cited by website totallymoney.com. The postcode M3 – which includes Chapel Street, Adelphi Street and Greengate, as well as parts of Manchester city centre – is ranked seventh highest in the UK for buy-to-let profits, with yields of 8.31% on rental properties. Under the headline `Cash in on the UK's buy-to-let hotspots...Find out where you could build the most profitable property portfolio' M3 is ranked below Leeds, Liverpool and Bradford but way above London boroughs where yield percentages are low but rents are high. The website talks of speculators taking advantage `of the soaring demand for rented accommodation'. Developers are also taking advantage of the `soaring demand for rented accommodation' by throwing up rental blocks all over the Salford/Manchester border, while taking advantage of Salford Council's generous planning fees get-outs, fuelled by Tory Government policy. Fortis Developments, backers of the Adelphi Wharf buy-to-let blocks, at the back of the Old Pint Pot pub, for example, avoided almost £677,000 in planning fees due to `viability' issues - ie its profits wouldn't be high enough – despite selling out its first phase of flats. Salford Council didn't even include a `clawback' agreement, whereby if the development did become `viable' it could get some return (see here). Adelphi Wharf is just one of numerous developments that the Salford Star has documented, resulting in an estimated £42million lost to the city in planning fees, plus around one thousand affordable properties that should also have been included within null Section 106 agreements (see here). As developers and speculators cash in, the only losers are the people who live in Salford. Meanwhile, Salford City Council is hoping to attract more developers and speculators to the city at this week's MIPIM 2016.
|
|
|
|
Tahir Chakotai (Independent Housing Advocate) wrote
at 17:24:40 on 20 October 2016 |
|
|
|
|
?
|
Alice wrote
at 13:03:18 on 20 October 2016 |
|
|
| Apart from condemning the disturbing knowledge that Salford is still bowing down to the Developers whose sole aim is to maximise profits, I am also concerned about the design and quality of life these high rise apartments (cubes or boxes!) offer. I wonder if the Council Planning members have ever absorbed the futuristic ideas of Ebebizer Howard, the Victorian Architect with enlightened views on what people need to be happy in an urban environment. (See Garden Cities) People need space, need trees and gardens, need opportunities to meet their neighbours and build communities. The crowding out if these elements leads to a shallow existence, one dominated by work with little opportunity to build a social framework which brings stability and security. People do need a roof but they need something more to make it a home. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 13:02:59 on 20 October 2016 |
|
|
| Some might suggest that ‘sweeteners’ have been given, but not to the local community.
But I wouldn’t dream of commenting.
|
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai (Independent Housing Advocate) wrote
at 07:21:06 on 20 October 2016 |
|
|
| There was a time where Developers used to offer the "Local Council" and the "Local Community" a sweetener, to make up for the noise disruption caused to neighbouring estates. For example, if a Local Developer wanted to build on some land near a school, they would sweeten the deal by offering to build extensions onto the school, free of charge, or donate computers and other hardware to the school. Therefore the neighbouring estates children were benefitting from a "Local Development". Because the Developers had done this, the expenditure needed to upgrade a schools facilities was practically nil. But now, they are building Apartment Blocks, which in my opinion, are ugly, cheaply built eyesores, that is making Local Developers and Local Investors rich, at the Local Communities expense. I live on Chapel Street, and I use a Mobility Scooter most of the time. While the Vimto Complex was being build, they blocked off one side of the pavement, left potholes in the road, and the delivery men parked on all the disabled access points. (Low Curbs). In one year I broke three axles, two wheel bearings, buckled one of my wheels, and cracked a Lead Acid Battery, as a result of falling down the potholes, having to make the Mobility Scooter go up and down high curbs, as the Delivery Guys kept blocking the disabled access and went over a house brick, which was left in the middle of the road, at night, by the Developers. I now have had to purchase three Mobility Scooters so I always have one that's repaired and ready to run. I am house bound without them. Did the Developer pay to have my Mobility Scooter fixed? "No they did not". So I am having to pay out, a great deal of money, because the new Developments on Chapel Street are blocking Public Access and Disabled Access, which is causing the disabled a great deal of distress and financial nuisance. In conclusion and in my opinion, these Developers should be putting something back into the communities they are disrupting. They are causing a great deal of noise nuisance on Saturdays and Sundays, blocking off public and disabled access, and / or leaving their rubbish in our streets for months at a time. So I believe that if the Developers are not contributing anything towards the well established communities, then they should sling their hook, and go away. If the Developers want to build, then they should be prepared to put their hands in their pockets, to help and support the communities they are building in. (Rant Over) Kindest Regards, Tahir Chakotai (Independent Housing Advocate). |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
