Solar Panel Guide Discussion

zeupater

... If the estate agent doesn't recognise the potential value of the panels there's always the option of excluding them from the price-included fixtures & fittings then entering into private negotiations with the purchasers should they want them ..... it could end up that you pay up to a thousand-or-so pounds to remove them and you'll lose the FiTs, but, as they're your panels & you've paid a considerable sum for them and the estate agent has effectively stated that they are 'worthless' it would at least make a great point to the estate agent.

Anyway ... whatever the estate agent values the property at, it's up to you what you want it marketed at, so if you believe that they enhance the value, then set the price ... if you're wrong, the property wont sell as quickly, if right, then you gain.

Personally, I'd be tempted to tell the estate agent that you value the panels at £x,000, so considering that they believe they're 'worthless' then you would require that they deduct their commission percentage attributable to the panels from the final settlement when the property is sold.

In reality, the property will likely be the first (if not close to) with a solar array which the estate agent has been asked to market and as such they have absolutely no idea of how to value & have no idea how it works ... it'll therefore be up you you to do most of the 'selling' of the added value for them ...

HTH
Z

John_Pierpoint

When it comes to engineering those that can understand DO;
those who cannot understand become estate agents.

Now watch them become really really confused about which version of the FiT payments apply to you.

"This property comes with a built in £37k discount" might cause a dispute with the Advertising Standards Authority.

Cardew

An interesting study on the impact of solar(thermal & PV) on property values and sales in Oxford.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/opticon1826/currentissue/articles/Morris_Marsham_Issue11_Opticon1826.pdf

Conclusions





[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The study concludes that demand for properties with solar panels in Oxford [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]does exist amongst prospective homebuyers but it is not, at present, being [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]translated into increased property values. Estate agents were largely negative [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]or uncertain about the added value and saleability of properties with solar and, [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]in the majority of cases, did not mention panels in particulars or factor them [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]into valuations. This supports the assertion that a "vicious circle" exists [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]around features that reduce energy consumption and property value (RICS 2010, [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]4); property professionals do not draw attention to features that reduce [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]household energy consumption, such as solar panels, because they do not believe [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]they will add value and therefore buyers do not get the opportunity to express [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]preferences for them. [/FONT]





[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The study found considerable ambivalence towards solar panels with around [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]half of the prospective buyers surveyed stating the presence of solar panels [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]would not affect their purchase decision. Based on questionnaire and interview [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]responses, the study hypothesises that this ambivalence may partially stem from [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]a lack of information given to prospective buyers on the fuel bill savings [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]associated with solar panels. Therefore the study suggests that providing [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]information about fuel savings at, or before, the point of sale might increase [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]the price or saleability of these properties. Finally the study suggests that [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Energy Efficiency Ratings and information from surveyors and estate agents could [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]have an influence on prospective buyers purchase decisions and therefore that [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]these could be appropriate channels for information about the savings from [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]renewable energy installations. [/FONT]


[/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]


[/FONT]

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

An interesting study on the impact of solar(thermal & PV) on property values and sales in Oxford.

Got to admit I'm quite shocked at that report. Given it's age (Autumn 2011), and the levels of PV and solar thermal back then, it's surprisingly positive, when I would have expected some negativity.

"The study collected some evidence that solar panels increase the saleability of properties:
responses to Questions 1 and 6 of the prospective property buyer‟s questionnaire showed that those more likely to buy properties with solar exceeded those less likely to buy them, see Charts 1 and 2. The difference between those more likely to buy and less likely to buy a property with solar is 37% for solar thermal and 17% for solar PV. This implies that, on aggregate, between one sixth and one third of householders would express a preference for a property with solar panels, in a like-for-like situation."

It goes on to give results in a bar graph

Solar thermal
I would be more likely to buy the property = 47%
I would be less likely to buy the property = 10%
It would not affect my decision = 43%

Solar PV
I would be more likely to buy the property = 33%
I would be less likely to buy the property = 17%
It would not affect my decision = 50%

This would appear to support the more recent ING survey that solar is the most important "non essential" factor in encouraging a prospective buyer to agree to purchasing a house.

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/uk--solar-a-deal-sealer-for-home-buyers_100008517/#axzz2RVMYIOx3

Perceptions and opinions are certainly changing much faster than I'd expected.

Mart.

Cardew

The question being discussed earlier was the affect PV panels had on the value of the house.

The conclusions and the thrust of the report clearly demonstrate that solar(PV or thermal) does little to enhance the value of the house.

The study concludes that demand for properties with solar panels in Oxford does exist amongst prospective homebuyers but it is not, at present, being translated into increased property values[FONT=Garamond,Garamond].[/FONT]

Personally I would have thought that a house with an income stream would have had some impact on the price obtained. In that respect the 'older' PV installations with their 50p+/kWh subsidy would be more attractive.

The surprise for me was that solar thermal generated more interest than PV, when by any criteria PV is a better financial proposition.

WHICH make this statement:

Will solar panels affect the value of my home?

Solar panels and the feed-in tariff scheme haven't been around long enough to know whether or not the installation of solar panels could increase the value of your home. Therefore, don't necessarily consider that solar PV installation will guarantee a comparable increase in the value of your property. Which? will continue to investigate the relationship between solar PV installation and property prices.


Also remember that the inverter might need changing over the 25-year period and that, over time, the panels will reduce in efficiency. These factors need to be considered if you invest in solar PV and want to sell your home later on.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

The question being discussed earlier was the affect PV panels had on the value of the house.

The conclusions and the thrust of the report clearly demonstrate that solar(PV or thermal) does little to enhance the value of the house.



Personally I would have thought that a house with an income stream would have had some impact on the price obtained. In that respect the 'older' PV installations with their 50p+/kWh(1) subsidy would be more attractive.

The surprise for me was that solar thermal generated more interest than PV, when by any criteria PV is a better financial proposition.(2)

WHICH make this statement:

I wondered how long before you surfaced again. Perhaps there should be a study into you going quiet on here after being shown up yet again, and you re-surfacing?

(1) There you go again, getting even simple facts wrong. Or did you deliberately exaggerate it? Please point out where this amount is true?

(2) Have you considered that this study is therefore probably flawed, perhaps the people questioned didn't understand the true pros and cons of both systems?

I know you like to pull old, out of date 'facts' and regurgitate them continually. Is this study your new Monbiot? I'm sure everyone noticed you going quiet on the thread specifically made for you. What a surprise.

Of course as well as not seeming to take into account FiT payments in that study, installation prices have fallen dramatically since then too and energy prices continue to outstrip inflation.

So really, like the only other 'facts' you care to 'enlighten' this forum with, it's not really relevant anymore.

Martyn1981

spgsc531 wrote: »

I wondered how long before you surfaced again. Perhaps there should be a study into you going quiet on here after being shown up yet again, and you re-surfacing?

In his defence (am I really going to defend him - probably get one of those telling off posts from him, for being nice to a MSE member - oh well!) I thought it was extremely honest to post an article that is so positive about PV and ST.

I assumed that the UK would take 5 to 10 years to get bored with moaning about 'that roof no longer looks exactly the way that roof used to look'. But it seems acceptance started to arrive nearly 2 years ago, and when PV install numbers were only about 100k (don't know how many ST installs there were).

With growing acceptance and rising energy bills I can only assume that 'added value' will grow, just like double glazing, new kitchen, central heating etc..

[Edit: is 'added value' the correct term? I'm not sure we add value anymore for DG, GCH etc, instead perhaps, we fail to deduct value from the property. I suspect such items have moved form 'added' luxury to 'expected' necessities(?) M.]

Mart.

Dave_Fowler

I can understand the results of the survey showing that there is no great preference for purchasing a property with a solar PV system installed. As it is quite simple and no great hassle to have a solar system fitted, if the cost of the property is increased by £x because of a pre-installed system, £x has to be less than the cost of a new system.

Therefore now that the cost of a 4kWp system has dropped to around £6k, whether a property has a pre-installed solar system or not is not going to make a great difference to its value.

Anyone wishing to have a solar system on their newly purchased house would have to weigh up the difference in the value of a possibly older and inefficient system and that of a new system they could specify for themselves as part of the refurbishment that most people tend to do when they buy a previously-owned property.

In England, whenever a property is put on the market, the vendors often inflate the price knowing full-well that any purchaser is going to haggle the price down, and £6k will often pale into insignificance (on the cost of a rich person's house;)).

Dave F

spgsc531

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I can understand the results of the survey showing that there is no great preference for purchasing a property with a solar PV system installed. As it is quite simple and no great hassle to have a solar system fitted, if the cost of the property is increased by £x because of a pre-installed system, £x has to be less than the cost of a new system.(1)

Therefore now that the cost of a 4kWp system has dropped to around £6k, whether a property has a pre-installed solar system or not is not going to make a great difference to its value.(2)

Anyone wishing to have a solar system on their newly purchased house would have to weigh up the difference in the value of a possibly older and inefficient system and that of a new system they could specify for themselves as part of the refurbishment that most people tend to do when they buy a previously-owned property.

In England, whenever a property is put on the market, the vendors often inflate the price knowing full-well that any purchaser is going to haggle the price down, and £6k will often pale into insignificance (on the cost of a rich person's house;)).

Dave F

(1) The survey, and you it seems, doesn't appear to take into account FiT payments. Systems installed receiving the original FiT payment rate must have more value than systems receiving the current rate (also 5 year longer payment term).

(2) Taking into account the different FiT rates, I would say it makes a huge difference.

John_Pierpoint

As someone who initially slagged off Solar PV, as not providing an adequate Return on Investment; then went on to change his mind as the costs of PV halved and the outlook for returns on money on deposit were clearly "stuck" at half their long term rate, can I chip in my my thoughts?

I have a friend who is involved in "sustainable energy & conservation" issues.
His experience is that the decision is more directly related to consumers with an ethical stance; because they have realised that we need three planets to continue on our present pre global financial crisis path.
They feel they need to do something now and that they owe a debt to their children/grandchildren.
It also helps if they have disposable income and their property has a value out of all proportion to its building cost.

PV is not the best "green" investment BUT it is one of the few (like Cameron's silly wind generator) that is visible and makes a statement about its owner. Most green investments, if they ever come to light, just make their owners look poor.

As my DIY study, on "RightMove", of the three streets that make up the "impoverished community" of North Blyth (once upon a time the world's largest coal exporting dock, Blyth is now trying to reinvent itself as a centre for offshore generation etc.) green measures make no difference to the value of cheap houses, in spite of you and me as tax payers paying considerable sums to try to save these people from fuel poverty.

[The the agents and the buyers fail to understand the technology, and just how many people actually bother to read the Energy Performance Certificate?]

My bet is that when aerial photos get updated to March 2012, the greater proportions of houses generating PV will be in wealthy university cities but will be densest on ordinary modest owner occupied homes rather that on large private road detached properties? Places like Bristol, Brighton, Buckingham Cambridge Oxford and of course some parts of London [I am excluding municipal estates where some local authorities function as "rent a roof" investors].

Has anyone tried to do a survey based on the FiT database?

Anyway for those people schooled in the everlasting growth, market forces, cost minimisation model, like me; we all expect that Cardew drives an 11 year old diesel Ford, to minimise motoring costs, don't we;).