The London suburb getting 6,000 homes for first-time buyers
Housing in London is a truly depressing topic of conversation, especially if you're trying to get on the property ladder. The average price of a home in the city is £556,000, way above the UK average of £330,000. That's a loooot of cups of matcha latte (more than 139,000 actually).
It all seems pretty hopeless, unless you've got a rich relative on their last legs, or you win that mad competition for a big house in Borough. And money's only half the issue – the Greater London Authority (GLA) estimates that London needs around 66,000 new homes annually, with two-thirds being affordable, but construction has fallen significantly short of this target.
But fret not. A long overlooked northwest London suburb may just be the housing hero we've been waiting for, and it's on the Piccadilly line.
Alperton in Brent is set to become the next hub for hopeful young buyers, with 6,000 new homes being delivered this year. It was designated a Housing Zone by Boris Johnson way back in 2015 when he was Mayor of London and is a key Growth Area for the borough.
The suburb is just 30 minutes away from Green Park, and situated right next to the Grand Union Canal – so it's perfect for chilled out strolls, with two local parks, One Tree Hill and Barham Park, on its doorstep. The area will is currently undergoing improvements to infrastructure including new community facilities and better access to public transport.
There are several new developments at different price points being built in the area, where average house prices are less than neighbouring Wembley and Ealing.
The Grand Union neighbourhood will feature 3,350 new homes, including in new building Peninsula House, where studios and one, two or three bed properties feature full length windows and terraces overlooking the canal. It's also going to have exclusive access to a fancy co-working space called The Lock, which also features a two-lane bowling alley, as well as its own crepe and coffee shop aboard a narrow boat. Sounds pretty bougie. Prices start from £385,000.
For those looking for something more affordable, the One Hundred development of one, two and three bed flats with balconies or terraces for each property is available starting at £85,000 for shared ownership. Alperton and Stone Bridge stations are just 15 minutes away on foot.
And if you've got some serious cash to splash, you could nab a spot in Pear Tree Court, a gated community where a three storey maisonette will set you back £550,000. There are only three of them left, so you'd have to act fast.
There's also going to be another new development of both shared ownership and outright sale homes, Twyford Park, in parkland between Alperton and Hangar Lane, but the details and dates for that haven't been unveiled yet.
Renters will be able to shack up in Alperton Depot from next year, when the new purpose built site redeveloped from an old bus depot opens with 306 flats, a concierge service, gym and landscaped roof terraces. But with the average rent in the area coming to £1,953, it's pretty unlikely it'll fulfil the need for affordable options.
So… perhaps not the most thrifty of places to settle in – but if you can wangle a good mortgage and fancy living down the road from Wembley Stadium, you're in luck.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
Councils 'don't have resources' to force developers to build roads and schools
Councils don't have the resources to make sure developers of new homes are paying enough towards local services, a damning government report claims. Housebuilders can be required to pay money towards infrastructure such as new roads, schools and doctors' surgeries as a condition of their planning permission. They may also be told to fund the building of affordable housing. However, public spending watchdog the National Audit Office has said the system isn't working properly because under-funded local planning authorities often don't have the resources or skills to stand up to developers. In a report published today, it said: 'Current policy is not reliably delivering the infrastructure funding required for new developments. 'Local planning authorities are stretched, both in terms of finances and skills, meaning they are often unable to effectively challenge developers.' The local planning authority is usually part of the council, apart from on very large developments where responsibility might be handed over to a body such as the Greater London Authority. Councils' funding is handed out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Most are facing significant financial pressures thanks to funding cuts in recent years and the rising cost of providing services. The NAO report went on to say that experienced staff from planning departments were leaving councils for the private sector because they were unhappy with the 'working environment, caseloads and pay.' It also noted that developers could afford to employ professional negotiators and consultants, giving them an upper hand. 'There is an imbalance in capacity and capability between the public and private sector, and larger developers generally have access to specialist negotiating skills,' the report said. 'Some local planning authorities rely on external consultants to provide expertise, but there are perceived conflicts of interest, as consultants sometimes work both for local planning authorities and developers.' Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservative member of parliament and chair of the influential Public Accounts Committee of MPs, said: 'An effective and efficient system of obtaining contributions from developers is essential to providing local infrastructure, such as schools and health facilities, and delivering on Government's commitment to build 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. 'The NAO report highlights that issues around skills and capacity in planning authorities mean that too often the developers are favoured at the expense of local communities.' The Government says it has launched several programmes to help make the system more effective, including initiatives to enhance the skills of local planners, and to assist new housing schemes that are progressing too slowly. What do housebuilders have to pay councils? There are two main ways local planning authorities can get developers to contribute to amenities. Section 106 agreements can be drawn up between the council and the developer to help fund affordable homes. In 2023 to 2024, about 27,000 or 44 per cent of affordable homes built were paid for in this way. However, once built the homes must be sold to organisations such as housing associations which will manage them in the long term. As of October 2024, around 17,400 affordable homes remained unsold to according to a Home Builders Federation survey. In December 2024, MHCLG launched a service to match up buyers and sellers of affordable housing funded through Section 106. Developers can challenge the amount they are being asked to pay in a Section 106 if they can provide a financial assessment proving that it would make the development unviable. The NAO report said that local authorities found it hard to challenge these objections because of a 'lack of transparency, limited expertise, and the ability of larger developers to use consultants to reduce their contribution obligations.' The second funding method is by getting developers to pay something called a Community Infrastructure Levy. This can be used for things like roads and schools, but not for housing. Just over half of local planning authorities use these. Cllr Adam Hug, housing and planning spokesperson for the Local Government Association, which represents councils, said: 'Developer contributions play a vital part in delivering the infrastructure and affordable housing that communities need. 'Councils work hard to secure these contributions, but the current system is not delivering the full benefits it should. 'It's right that the National Audit Office recognises the challenges councils face, and the need for further capacity and capability support for council planning departments.' The NAO also criticised record keeping on how much developers were paying to councils. While councils who receive Section 106 or CIL money must provide a statement each year to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which oversees councils, it said some didn't provide them on time and others didn't have enough detail. MHCLG's latest estimate suggested that the value of agreed developer contributions was £5.5billion in 2022-23, down from £6.4billion in 2019-20. In 2024, the Home Builders Federation estimated that local authorities in England and Wales held over £8billion in unspent developer contributions. This is partly because building projects often take a long time to complete. Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: 'To ensure the developer contributions system delivers value for money, important issues must be addressed, including reducing the imbalance in skills and experience between local planning authorities and large developers; the complexity of financial viability assessments; and the lack of coordinated central Government support.' This is Money contacted MHCLG for comment.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's investment plans: sugaring the bitter pill of austerity
Inequality between British regions is not a new problem and Rachel Reeves is not the first chancellor to want to close the gap. In 2014, George Osborne promised a 'northern powerhouse' to rival the dominance of London and the south-east. He pledged devolution and investment in infrastructure to connect northern cities, to unlock productivity and growth. Since then, Britain's economy has suffered multiple shocks, some external (the pandemic, inflation stoked by Russia's invasion of Ukraine), others self-inflicted (Brexit, Liz Truss's mini-budget). Each time, the damage was more severe in places already falling behind. Boris Johnson claimed levelling up as his defining purpose. Rishi Sunak let the ambition slide. Now it is being revived by a Labour chancellor. In a speech announcing transport investments on Wednesday, Ms Reeves promised a 'renewal of Britain', with prosperity built on 'broad foundations' and a break from the failed model that relied on 'a handful of places forging ahead of the rest'. There was material support behind that commitment – £15.6bn of funding for local transport in regions across northern England and the Midlands. Less measurable but arguably more significant over time is the pledge to rewrite Treasury rules for evaluating return on public investment. The current model encodes a bias in favour of putting new infrastructure in places that are already prosperous. Changing that calculus, alongside revisions made last year to fiscal rules on borrowing for capital spending, gives Labour more scope and more fiscal firepower to direct money to needy parts of the country. Ms Reeves promises a £300bn uplift in public investment over the course of this parliament – the highest level since the 1970s. More detail on how this will be spent is expected when a 10-year infrastructure plan is launched later this month. The government hopes that these upbeat messages about investment and regeneration will sugar-coat the less palatable dose of fiscal medicine that Ms Reeves is due to administer next week in the comprehensive spending review. What flexibility the Treasury has afforded itself for capital investment does not extend to day-to-day departmental spending. There, the picture will be grim, with real-terms cuts in all but a handful of protected budgets. The combination of austerity in the short to medium term with investment over the longer term amounts to a colossal political gamble. The chancellor cannot realistically expect promised future benefits from transport, housing and other projects to comfort people whose daily lived experience is dilapidated services, shrinking benefits and councils on the brink of bankruptcy. In her speech on Wednesday, Ms Reeves spoke of 'spades in the ground' by 2028 and fleets of new vehicles coming on stream by 2032. With an election due in 2029, those timelines don't offer much prospect of a feelgood factor sufficient to persuade voters to let Labour complete the job of national renewal in a second term. Strategic planning that looks beyond the electoral cycle is admirable as statecraft. But it fails as politics without a more compelling narrative of collective national purpose and a palpable sense that things are getting better. In an age of endemic mistrust, governments cannot expect gratitude in advance for hypothetical improvements in their lives. And people who voted for Labour in expectation of change are already feeling their patience sorely tested by the chancellor.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
Boris can't win back voters who turned to Farage, poll finds
Boris Johnson cannot win back traditional Tory voters who turned to Reform UK, a new poll has found. Just 15 per cent of Reform supporters believe that the former Prime Minister would be a better pick for Downing Street than Nigel Farage, according to a YouGov survey. Although Mr Johnson is the most popular hypothetical alternative for Tory leader out of the current or former Conservatives, he is deemed a worse option than the Reform leader. It comes after rumours regarding efforts by some Conservative figures to reinstate the former prime minister, in the hope of turning the party's fortunes around. Allies have argued that Mr Johnson – repeatedly found to be the most popular option for leader of the Conservative Party – is the only person who could take on the Reform threat. But the recent YouGov poll appears to have poured cold water on such assertions, as only 15 per cent of current Reform voters say that Mr Johnson would make a better Prime Minister than Mr Farage. This is despite Mr Johnson being the only Prime Minister in recent times who a majority of Reform voters (57 per cent) think did a good job in office. Almost half said that they thought that he would make a good Conservative Party leader. The ex-PM came out on top of a poll which asked all voters who would do a good job as Tory leader – ahead of Mr Farage and current role-holder Kemi Badenoch. After Mrs Badenoch took over from Rishi Sunak last November, the Conservatives briefly enjoyed a small poll lead over Labour and were in first place on 29 per cent. But a haemorrhaging of support to Reform UK has been blamed for the party's dwindling fortunes. The Tories lost 674 council seats, many of them to Mr Farage's party, in the local elections last month. However, senior Tory MPs said there was no 'appetite' or 'enthusiasm' in the Commons for Mr Johnson's return. Some are said to have threatened to quit the party if he were to be readmitted. Speculation has continued to mount about a possible challenge to Mrs Badenoch, with less than half of current Conservative voters thinking that she will still be leader at the next election. Among the Tory MPs who would be eligible to run should there be a fresh leadership contest, James Cleverly was the most popular across all survey respondents. But it was Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who was the most popular candidate for Tory leadership among Reform voters, with 35 per cent thinking he would do a good job.
