CROYDON COMMENTARY: As local resident LUCIA BRIAULT explains, retirement housing complexes as proposed for ‘Purley Pool Towers’ offer sky-high living but at sky-high prices
Later living blockage: developer Polaska’s proposals are for four blocks of up to 12 storeys where Purley leisure centre and multi-storey car park now stands
I’ll admit that I’m not a fan of flats.
I guess the main reason is a lack of control: you can’t control the state other people leave the communal areas in, you can’t control the noises and smells that assail your senses, you can’t control the temperature because heat rises from the flats below you.
But most of all, a leasehold tenure means you can’t control the timing and cost of repairs and maintenance. Social media is filled with complaints about local landlords not doing what they are supposed to do, in the public and private sector. Residents pay monthly service charges but the management company can still invoice residents if anything “major” needs doing. These problems often arise not just in flats but in “planned estates”, too – those new developments where the roads are unadopted by the council and residents have to pay towards the upkeep of the public realm or even “basic” services such as waste collection.
But “later living” developments, like the one proposed for the Purley leisure centre site, take management fees, service charges and add-ons to a whole new level.
Before we consider those service charges, let’s start with the price tag. Whether you want to buy or rent, later living developments carry a significant premium.
First, there’s a new build premium. This never ceases to amaze me, given that developers seem to get away with increasingly shoddy workmanship, such is the poor, or non-existent, state of councils’ building control and planning enforcement, particularly here in Croydon. Developers can even “in-source” building control, which sounds a lot like marking your own homework to me.
High maintenance: The Fold, in the Queen’s Quarter, was completed in 2021 but residents were reporting serious damp and mould issues by 2024
Reports abound detailing building defects and problems with condensation and mould even in new builds. Some developments remain empty long after completion because they haven’t passed muster. Brick by Brick springs to mind, inevitably.
Secondly, there’s an additional premium for the “luxury” on-site facilities offered by these retirement communities.
Retirees will normally find extras like on-site bars, restaurants and cafés, a convenience store, library, a community centre or lounge and meeting rooms, a hair and beauty salon, and guest suites for visiting relatives. In short, it’s like a proper village from times gone by: everything you need within walking distance. It sounds wonderfully sustainable.
If you downsize from a house and garden to a flat with fewer bedrooms, you’d expect to have some money left over so you can better enjoy your retirement. A Saga survey found that the most common reason for moving into a retirement home was to free-up capital, allowing retirees to make the most of their post-working years.
But this is simply not the case when it comes to the majority of later living homes.
I live with my partner in an older three-bed semi with a sizeable garden, but my research tells me I couldn’t afford to buy even a two-bedroom retirement flat if I want to stay in my local area.
Here’s an example of properties currently on the market: a two-bed, two-bath apartment in a retirement village in East Grinstead costs £450,000. A typical two-bed, two-bath apartment in East Grinstead costs between £250,000 and £300,000.
I actually wouldn’t want to buy a retirement property anyway, as the re-sale market is fraught with difficulties reminiscent of timeshare properties. Research from the Elderly Accommodation Counsel suggests that around 50% of retirement homes were resold at a loss, and there’s often exit fees to pay. Rental sounds like a much safer option.
But if I did want to live in a retirement community, I certainly wouldn’t pick a tower block. I’m not alone in this: 84% of retirees voted a garden as a “must have”.
According to Lottie (a free service that helps families and retirees find the country’s best care homes and retirement living communities), these are the average costs of buying or renting a retirement flat in London and the South East:
Now let’s turn our attention to those pesky ongoing charges and add-ons.
According to the Association of Residential Managing Agents, the average service charge in London should be in the region of £1,800 to £2,000 a year for a typical one- or two-bedroom flat. For retirement communities, these charges vary enormously, but using the two-bed, two-bath apartment in that East Grinstead retirement village as an example, the service charge is £10,992.62 per annum for single occupancy. There’s an extra £300 pa for double occupancy.
As with normal leaseholds, there’s ground rent to pay on top of that, too.
At the planning application stage, we don’t know the purchase price, rent or service charges for Polaska’s proposed later living apartments in Purley. Based on the averages in the table above, let’s say that rental for a two-bed apartment is £3,500 and the service charge is £6,000 a year (the senior residents will have to share their gym and pool with the general public after all).
According to Lottie, the average monthly service charge is £523.99.
So core monthly costs would be around £4,000, plus bills. Oh yes, the rent doesn’t cover utilities, Council Tax, broadband, TV licence and so forth… My employer pension is nowhere near that figure. I have to wait a bit longer for my state pension (currently forecast to be about £150 a week), but that still won’t add up to anywhere near enough to cover living in a later living flat.
If I stay in my three-bed semi, my employer pension covers my bills with some money left over for “treats”. At the moment, I have to dip into my savings to cover property repairs and maintenance, but my partner and I are able to look after the garden and do most repairs and maintenance ourselves. Both my parents lived to around 90 and stayed happily independent in their home in Purley without needing to go into social care. My siblings are in their mid-70s and have not downsized – in fact, they have extended their homes to accommodate visiting children and grandchildren.
If I did sell my house in order to move into a retirement flat in “Purley Pool Towers” (I’m sure consultants will come up with a much more attractive name), then I’d obviously need to use the proceeds of my house sale to top up my pension income. My calculations indicate that, even assuming that the value of my investment keeps up with any increase in rent and service charges, I’d only be able to live there for about 12½ years before I run out of money.
If I live as long as my parents, I’ll be homeless for the last 15 years of my life.
Read more: Residents scathing of report on Purley retirement flats
Read more: 75% object to revised scheme for Purley’s 220 retirement flats
Read more: GLA rejects Polaska Purley Pool plan as ‘wholly unacceptable’
Read more: Tories warn residents: don’t dare complain about Purley pool
- Former bank manager Lucia Briault was born in Purley and is now a pensioner who wants to escape to the country quite soon to enjoy a more sustainable lifestyle. But probably not in a retirement village
- Croydon Commentary provides a platform for any of our readers to offer their personal views about what matters to them in and around our corner of south London. To submit an article for publication, just email us at inside.croydon@btinternet.com, or post your comment to an Inside Croydon article that has caught your attention
PAID ADS: To advertise your services or products to our near 10,000 weekday visitors to the site, as featured on Google News Showcase, email us inside.croydon@btinternet.com for our unbeatable ad rates
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Our comments policy can be read by clicking here
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
There are quite a lot of rental property scandals at the moment where, although rent increases are capped, there are no restrictions on increases in service charges, so many of these are rising exponentially, with people moving out because they can no longer afford to stay.
In this respect it is easier to rent property, because you can move out and try to find somewhere with less extortionate charges and don’t need to worry about selling the old property. If you have bought a leasehold flat with spiralling service charges, you need to find someone to sell it to before moving out? Or hope to rent it out to someone for enough money to cover the service charges on the old property AND your rent and service changes on a new property?
Age of the property may also be relevant…..? I live in a 1970s flat, which was built before crooks took over the property market, so our service charges don’t rise much, and ground rent has been a constant £40 p.a. for nearly 20 years. The spiralling service charges all seem to be in new build properties ?!
Service charges depend a lot on how the property is managed. A common arrangement (“right to manage”) is that the managment company is owned by the leaseholders, who can do everything themselves or appoint a managing agent to work for them. Thus service charges are fixed by the leasholders themselves, not some rachmanite freeholder.
At those prices you can live half board in some good hotels (Warners) including activities and entertainment. You might even find some cruise ships to do likewise.
Later living flat, couldn’t think of many things more depressing. Spend your life savings living in one of these glorified coffins, then when you’ve been completely rinsed of every penny and bit of sanity and donated everything you have to the private property developer, you can be dumped in a care home until the end of days. What a delightful little system we’ve set up…
Later living flat sounds like something you do – not much of a life
Good article. There’s also the nightmare being endured by leaseholders caught up in the cladding scandal following the Grenfall tower fire. From what I’ve read, many have been left in flats worth zero as the construction industry argues with itself over who should fund the repairs. Even though Michael Gove introduced a cap on how much leaseholders should contribute, I understand a large % of buildings have yet to be repaired.
whats the obsession with corralling “senior tax payers” in old people ghettos….. I for one wouldnt want to set foot in a place full of old people and Im an old person in the eyes of the law ..
Simple answer, Hazel: Money.
£2000 a year is not too bad for a normal service charge … As a block director I’ve got it down to less than that but the only way to do it is to be involved in decision making, gain the right to manage and regularly sack underperforming Managing Agents. If you have a lot of garden that’s a cost too… The trouble is most Managing Agents have rolling yearly contacts so if they underperform then by the time the year is over it’s too late to take them to the regulator. The regulators are toothless. I took this up with Chris Philip who showed me government plans to force them to have more qualifications. But the problem isn’t how many qualifications they have (they all put their BSCs on their emails) it’s that they’re a service based industry and so it’s very hard to sue them for poor service. Ideally most Leases have a reserve fund clause which should fund the section 20 major works without major cash calls but many such budgets are not handled properly so not enough major works money is saved resulting in cash calls. Why do Managing Agents do this? Well they get their £4000 a year whether it’s a normal year or a more demanding year with multiple section 20 works… Basically doing more work is not in their interests. Unlike skiving. Indeed, you can in many cases in theory do without them at all but that requires a level of trust and bravery with the service charge money that I do not possess.
Thanks for your well written, informative and eye-opening article.
Yet another Insightful, interesting and disturbing article, thank you. These retirement flats are prohibitively expensive and for what? The only people that really seem to benefit from them are the developers and the leaseholders. Surely these schemes should be investigated. The plans for Purley Pool flats should be halted especially now Polaska wants Croydon taxpayers to fund the pool yearly when it was supposed to be free. We need transparency in this situation…who are the owners of this tax avoiding company located abroad? Why are Philps and Perry so keen to get this poor deal for Purley rushed through???
The only people able to afford them will be former CEOs and Directors of Croydon Council.