cost of building a House

mewbie_2

kissingthepink wrote: »

I oversaw the building of a bungalow with total costs of £206,000 which included everything (land, legal costs, interest, builder who supplied all materials other than the kitchen and bathroom which I bought myself and is included in the £206k). The agent valued it at £225k, which would mean a net profit of about 10%.

That is not a huge profit given the amount of capital involved. What if prices were to fall!

LillyJ

The people behind my parent's house sold their garden just before they moved. They sold it for about £250k I think about 3 years ago. My parents were going to buy it, mainly to stop it being developed, and extend our garden as at that point we had no other houses that we could see from the back.
On the land (not that big a plot I might add) they got planning permission for 3 x 5-6 bed houses. They built them with a tiny garden and the houses nearly touch each other. They are also very ugly indeed.
They sold for between 1.1 and 1.4 million EACH.

Now I don't know how much it costs to build a house but I am pretty sure they did well for themselves out of that development.
I think the key was the land sold without planning permission otherwise it would have cost a hell of a lot more. The developer took a risk on getting the permission and it paid off.

If it hadn't he could have always sold it to my parents! (He didn't know that at the time, obviously).

My parents fought the development to the bitter end, as did all the neighbours, but lost.

Luckily, they aren't overlooked by the new houses and there are oak trees and the like between the gardens.

mewbie_2

I wonder how big was the risk. I have my suspicions about the whole planning permission process. Neighbours object, but as long as no councillors live in the road, and the chances are that the builder will be local and know at least one of the councillor's - surprise, surprise - permission granted, and another lovely area ruined.

I think there should be a much higher level of public scrutiny available in the planning process.

dopester

In 2008 this guy finished building his castle-home for £50,000 (ok he was an idiot doing it without planning permission).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510161/Hay-presto-Farmer-unveils-illegal-mock-Tudor-castle-tried-hide-40ft-hay-bales.html

Development land is going to crash hard too - you can source materials cheaply if you are determined - and acquire good labour if you set about it in the right way.

LillyJ

mewbie wrote: »

I wonder how big was the risk. I have my suspicions about the whole planning permission process. Neighbours object, but as long as no councillors live in the road, and the chances are that the builder will be local and know at least one of the councillor's - surprise, surprise - permission granted, and another lovely area ruined.

I think there should be a much higher level of public scrutiny available in the planning process.

A fair few have been turned down recently nearby.
That is because it is a catch 22. If they put in for planning for large houses, they say there is a need for "affordable housing" nearby. If they put in for "affordable housing" they say it wouldn't fit in to the area (which it wouldn't).

Saying that though there is a lot to be said for having someone in your street on the council.

The fact is, they are on the edge of National Trust land and so the developers can't go any further that direction, they are 7 mins walk from the mainline to Euston, and are a nice walking distance to the town. So there is much demand for land. Trouble is there isn't much left.
They have taken to developing the town centre further now as there are already lots of "apartments" there so they are building more and converting old houses in to flats.

John_Pierpoint

How about this place?
Site involved demolishing one of those solid walled Victorian buildings.
A snip when built at 10K ?
Built before its time and of course listed.

My understanding is that it was very difficult to find a suitable tenant because of the running costs.

http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/The_Homewood,_Esher,_Surrey
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-thehomewood/w-thehomewood-virtualtour.htm
http://www.c20society.org.uk/docs/building/homewood.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/2069203/UK-heritage-The-Homewood-Surrey.html#postComment

Personally I would only agree to live in it if you paid my fuel bills, gave summer time airconditioning and had a builder on call to deal with the flat roof, each time it leaked.

Ionkontrol

justpurchased wrote: »

Hi Mate i agree my last house was 1960s. Wood work not great flooring etc (suspended woden floors arnt great and a bit cold) but OK its when you go back to pre-cavity walls, (then 3 ft walls). By by heat I miss you.
I now have a new build and at the moment it is better built than my 1960s house, and no one as decided to take any internal walls down!
PS new house is chaper to run than 1960s house (no draughts) and 3 times the size! there as been massive steps on insulation and boiler systems in the last 10 years. So sorry you would never get a pre 1990 house as energy effecient as a new build never mind pre 1900.
PS mine was not a agument it is true they are my relatives. My parents house was a 1920s council house, single brick and pre modenisation you used to get ice on the inside of the windows at winter.

My father who was self employed builder who worked for Wimpey/Eve/Costain/Balfour etc during the 60/70/80s would not touch a house built duing that era. Why, the build quality is rubbish.

He bought a victorian house and refurbed it himself, confident that it would last at least 100 years. I cant get over people buying newbuilds. They are built to a profit driven price. Think Wimpey etc = Kia. If you think otherwise you are foolish. Pay a bit extra to re-insulate a period property that will outlive you and your offspring.

justpurchased

Ionkontrol wrote: »

My father who was self employed builder who worked for Wimpey/Eve/Costain/Balfour etc during the 60/70/80s would not touch a house built duing that era. Why, the build quality is rubbish.

He bought a victorian house and refurbed it himself, confident that it would last at least 100 years. I cant get over people buying newbuilds. They are built to a profit driven price. Think Wimpey etc = Kia. If you think otherwise you are foolish. Pay a bit extra to re-insulate a period property that will outlive you and your offspring.

My mate is a site manager and he has one of his own houses so I take that of a bit of an endorsement! Not a great one for your dad though, If I had the skills I would build my own house!
You may want a better comparable I think kia outstrip most german marques in relibilllity and build quality now.

justpurchased

Ionkontrol wrote: »

My father who was self employed builder who worked for Wimpey/Eve/Costain/Balfour etc during the 60/70/80s would not touch a house built duing that era. Why, the build quality is rubbish.

He bought a victorian house and refurbed it himself, confident that it would last at least 100 years. I cant get over people buying newbuilds. They are built to a profit driven price. Think Wimpey etc = Kia. If you think otherwise you are foolish. Pay a bit extra to re-insulate a period property that will outlive you and your offspring.

So would the pyramids in egypt I think technology as paid a big part in making buildings cheaper to build.
How many old houses have been pulled down, subsided, burnt down etc. you can't judge past craftmanship on the remaining good property's only people in 100 years could judge todays houses surely.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Except that houses like that are wonderful.

I agree...and I love 'age' but wouldn't it be wonderful to build something with the hope and integrity of it becoming valued enough to be listed? If more housebuilders thought like that imagine how exciting even newbuilds could be!