New Build or Old But Done Up - Which would You Choose...

Without a shadow of a doubt my personal choice would be the older property. You cannot beat a house with a bit more character,that has been a bit more lived in.

not over looked, with established hedges all around it's just under 1/2acre plot

That would sell it for me. It doesn't matter how nice the new build is, it's overlooked and has a tiny garden in comparison. The older house will ultimately be worth more if you get the work done too, by the sounds of it.

Everything you have said points to the older house being worth a lot more than your £300k offer.

Go on...increase it

Until recently I'd have never considered a new build but surprised myself by reserving one last weekend. For the money we were looking at, the older houses we looked at were smaller, pokier, in less nice areas and, well, just not as nice. The house we're buying is in a lovely area, will require no work doing to it (obviously), has lots of natural light, loads of space (more than the older houses), a bigger garden, no through traffic, closer to the railway station, and better local amenities, and I was really surprised at the high quality of the build.

We had considered looking for a 'project' to 'add value' but then the thought of trying to do up a property (assuming we'd have found one in as nice an area as the new build we've reserved) with a young baby in the house meant that was not a realistic option.

Also, having had an older house which we'd done up before, we knew we didn't have the appetite for it. I loved my older Victorian terrace home but it seemed that with every little piece of work, we uncovered an even bigger problem that needed patching up. Frankly, although I did well out of the property, I'm one of those people who have contributed to the fall in profits at B&Q and Homebase having decided that life is too short to spend doing up houses, and I'd rather just enjoy living in it. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

What you go for really depends on your personal circumstances but it sounds like the older house has potential to be nicer just because of where it is. If you have the the appetite for it, then go for it, but be prepared to uncover things that you haven't budgeted for and ending up spending lots more than you expected. For my own family's situation, getting the new build was a no-brainer, but then again, a lot of the decision was based on the immediate local area.

Older property any time (new-builds are horrible and most won't stand the test of time). However, I wouldn't call a 1960s or 1970s' property 'old' either, and don't personally find the architecture from that period very appealing. I'd say that if you can, go for something Edwardian or before that (although 1930s' mansion blocks can be pretty good too . . .).