Less mortgage or more London?

[philbee]

It looks like we might be able to move out of SE London to Bromley and just about wipe out the mortgage. House would be like for like, hopefully near enough a good primary and good secondary, as we are here. Commute 20 mins longer, and we'd be in proper suburbia, not the kind of inner London suburbia (yes, I know) we are in now. Would you move? There's a lot to do here, DD1 likes her school, we have friends here, it's 10 mins into London on the train. We can afford the mortgage, but it does tie us to earning a certain amount so retraining etc. would be tricky. Is it worth moving somewhere we like less to lose it? What would you do?

[Mintyy]

No, it has changed now. Aske's is a catchment school, tiny catchment at that.

[GrandPoohBah]

Is Aske's not exam entry any more then? Used to be that as long as you were in the boroughs of Lewisham, Southwark or Greenwich you could apply.

[Mintyy]

Philbee - it is very true that it is almost impossible to be in catchment for more than one good school, so the notion that we have a choice of six is laughable. Or it would be if it weren't so serious.

[philbee]

Grandpoobah, I don't think that's true. According to the distances last year Haberdashers had a max catchment of about 800 metres, and only in one ability band. Prendergast is further, but only 600m in the top ability band, and you don't know until year 5 what band your child is in.

[TheWave]

I would look at the prices very carefully. Affordable might mean just that bit further from a decent secondary.

[GrandPoohBah]

Sydenham puts you in the catchment for Prendergast and Haberdashers' Aske's, and has fantastic transport links.

[littlecrystal]

StainlessSteelBegonia this is very true but I often notice that the difference gets opposite for secondaries..

[philbee]

Thanks Nessus. I think the suburbia type feel is what we dread, but Sydenham / Beckenham seem too far from school. In Bromley I was looking at Langley school as Bullers Wood too far out and the grammars likewise and possibly too selective. Here we are closest to Prendergast Hilly Fields. I don't know how it compares to Langley at all. In either place it looks like there's be one good option but not really any more than that, seems impossible to be in catchment for more than one good school, but so much would be about the DDs feeling it was the right place for them, it's a bit of a gamble just picking one now. I guess if we waited then we could go and visit with older DD and see what she thought.

[nessus]

Btw fast train from Beckenham to Victoria is 14mins and I drive to Norwood Junction for fast train to London Bridge in 12mins so not really much to getting into 'town'

[nessus]

Typing on tablet makes for terrible grammar but then it might be the Penge affliction from living so close :p

[nessus]

Phil this is my manor so I will wade in if I may. Not sure what you have now but Beckenham is proper expensive. The only place I would live around Shortlands is Den Road area and that I think keeps you in Langley Catchment. The two primaries mentioned are the cream of the top but you would need to be Croydon road end of Beckenham to get a look in at CH, for MV you need to be Eden park / Elmers end but neither give the Beckenham vibe. The Beckenham Hill area might be more affordable but then it starts leaning into Catford territory.

DD went to MV and though I technically live in Bromley, post code is resolutely SE London, and unless you are moving to Hayes, Keston et al you are essentially still in the suburbs of SE London as attested by the screaming sirens around. Unless you are currently living in the bowels of Elephant and Castle I would stay put where you are until you can genuinely put some distance between you and SE London as I afraid to say Bromley or at least the parts you mention won't do that.

And if by good schools you are thinking of those nuisance academies, I would think again...

[ancientbuchanan]

Think about interest rates too.

But Bromley will always be there.

[crazyhead]

I'd wait until I hit an actual point where I wanted to retrain etc to consider this one, personally. Do you have a problem right now with being tied into earning? Do you hate your jobs? If not, there is currently no issue and no reason to move, I'd say.

I do understand what you are saying, we have a house and my old flat (rented out) in north London, big mortgage debts etc, and I sometimes think we'd have a very easy life if we sold up and moved elsewhere - we earn good salaries, but London houses swallow good salaries! But my thoughts are highly theoretical and in reality I think OH and I are both happy and lucky to be in a position we could trade in IF and only IF things changed for the worse.

[garlicvampire]

Philbee's looking at two similar houses: one in London, mortgaged; the other in Bromley, mortgage-free. So the value differential is already the amount of their mortgage. Even if prices go up by the same proportion in both places, each increase will widen the differential. It will become more and more expensive to go back, even without life changes that may make it difficult. Added to which, she lives in a gentrifying part of town: that should mean prices rocket much faster than they ever will in Bromley.

They would have to be loads richer to move back in after leaving, while staying longer will afford them more choices in future.

[Ihatemytoes]

The OP is talking about moving to Bromley, not the flippin' Shetlands! So hardly "near impossible to move back".

[garlicvampire]

More London. Once you leave, it's near impossible to move back - and the reasons for that are good reasons for you to stay.

[Driz]

More London, without a shadow of a doubt.

[littlecrystal]

OP I am considering an almost identical move from SE London to Bromley suburb and yes, I will be moving. But then I have never been a proud Londoner and never liked it much, have been always mad concerned with schools, catchment areas, gangs, fly-tipping, pollution etc. So I love the idea of moving away.

My main worry is the commute and losing everything being on my door step which saves lots of time. So I have plan B in my mind of moving to a small town in East Herts which would be sligthly more out of London, but would have the benefit of having the amenities.

[GrandPoohBah]

Don't forget the Langley Park schools also in the Beckenham/West Wickham area.

I personally would stay more London. I moved from Sydenham (zone 3, great transport, London postcode so 'proper' London) to Selsdon and I'm really as far out as I'd like to be. It very much depends on how much your quality of life would be improved by the extra money though.

[ancientbuchanan]

If on doubt don't move. The hassle is huge and always more expensive than you think.

But Beckenham is pleasant. One outstanding primary, Clare house, several good ones ( including marian vian which was rated outstanding by ofsted recently). Children go all found the borough for secondary and it's getting better since Harris took over a couple, though both were on the up and one gets quite a fee oxbridge and Russell group places.

But I would stay put on your investment.

[TheHeadlessLadyofCannock]

More London, any day of the week.

[ArabellaBeaumaris]

I'd stay put, no doubts at all.

[Mintyy]

I would go to Sydenham before Bromley. At least Sydenham is more like proper London. Or Teddington?

[greyvix]

I second the investment point. If you stayed in London, you would have more capital in a few years time, so you could move then.