Daydream thread continues.....

Davesnave

rozeepozee wrote: »

Our budget is towards the top of what we planned, but you can't take it with you and it will be a fantastic home.

I think the essential difference here is that you're at the right age for this type of project, and we aren't.

'Taking it with you' is exactly what one does with equity when down-sizing. It's fine to spend out if you can expect 20 - 30 years from a place, but perhaps not so clever if the anticipated use of the property is less, especially if it is ag-tied, as ours is. There's a ceiling, as someone local to us has found out, to their cost.

Most ag-tie places are a bit crappy, to put it bluntly, because few are willing to invest large amounts in them. Not so much down alfie's way, but generally. I think with the level of abuse that goes on, they will die a death at some stage, though maybe not in my time.

However, I have a cunning plan.....:cool:

Itismehonest

Even quotes can't be taken as completely reliable, Dave.

For instance, when we were reinstating the shippon at one end of this place the Building Reg guy came to look at the foundations & decided that, due to the make up of the ground & the fact that it was at the downhill end of the building, we'd need to go further down & also use steel in the foundations. That wouldn't be accounted for in any estimate or quote made before the first spade was even turned.

There are things which just can't/don't get foreseen which add to the costs.

Davesnave

Hence the reason why we designed our refurb in two stages, with a flexible second stage, though on a 70s/90s bungalow there is less room for nasty surprises.

I checked the foundations and they're all good. The big extra expenses are actually rectifying sound but stupid 'improvements,' all passed by the building inspector in the last ten years!:rotfl:

rozeepozee

Davesnave wrote: »

I think the essential difference here is that you're at the right age for this type of project, and we aren't.

'Taking it with you' is exactly what one does with equity when down-sizing. It's fine to spend out if you can expect 20 - 30 years from a place, but perhaps not so clever if the anticipated use of the property is less, especially if it is ag-tied, as ours is. There's a ceiling, as someone local to us has found out, to their cost.

Most ag-tie places are a bit crappy, to put it bluntly, because few are willing to invest large amounts in them. Not so much down alfie's way, but generally. I think with the level of abuse that goes on, they will die a death at some stage, though maybe not in my time.

However, I have a cunning plan.....:cool:

Hehe, I'd love to know what that is

Age makes a huge difference, of course. Seeing as 75 is the new 60, it looks like we've got 30 years to ensure we're financially comfortable before we're viewed as being on the economic scrapheap Plus, 30 years for property prices to do their thing, although I think that huge price appreciations are a thing of the past. I don't think we'd be making a profit if we were on Homes Under the Hammer but this is very much a home for the family, not an investment property. I think the location is a great one and the views, aspect and composition of the land is pleasant (well, apart from the clay!) and convenient. Any improvements are all with the aim of "adding value" to the bricks and mortar, not purely cosmetic. Energy consumption would also be drastically reduced. Our strategy has always been to keep our debts to a minimum, so we don't have to worry about negative equity and to reduce long term running costs.

It's still a little heart in mouth though!

lostinrates

Davesnave wrote: »

Hence the reason why we designed our refurb in two stages, with a flexible second stage, though on a 70s/90s bungalow there is less room for nasty surprises.

I checked the foundations and they're all good. The big extra expenses are actually rectifying sound but stupid 'improvements,' all passed by the building inspector in the last ten years!:rotfl:

Just a note....ours passed some tests within the time we bought it ( e.g. Electrical safety) yet still needed updating.


Aso.ute
Y agree the unforeseens are unforeseeable.....that's why they are unforeseens. Luckily they don't occur on e ery pretty, else they would become foreseeable !

Davesnave

lostinrates wrote: »

Aso.ute
Y agree the unforeseens are unforeseeable.....that's why they are unforeseens. Luckily they don't occur on e ery pretty, else they would become foreseeable !

Yes, even predictive text can have problems, predicting! :rotfl:

rhiwfield

Hmmm, see that someone locally is asking for offers on an Anya Hindmarch bag that cost her £645 at a nearby boutique :eek:

That's roughly equal to my fruit and veg production value in an exceptional year :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

COOLTRIKERCHICK

Alfie.... We all want you to find a soul mate... and to be honest you will find him when you are not looking..

choille

Good news FK.

I'm not selling hardly any eggs at the gate. It is disappointing.

I wish I hadn't got the extra hens now.

Came home yesterday & a hen had had a prolapse. Never had one have that before. She wasn't good & OH despatched her plus a Lavender Orp who had been going mysteriously down hill for a while. She weighed next to nothing even though she was still eating, but just the hunched up way they go.

r.a.i.n.b.o.w

rozeepozee wrote: »

I'm just skim reading rainbow. I lived in London for ten years, pre children. Don't know how folk do it now that I'm here. It struck me not ong after moving that city folk get domesticated to being in such confined spaces, they adapt, but I much prefer being free range :rotfl:

That's a fabulous analogy!:money: I'm definitely domesticated, but have such a burning desire to free range! Battery hens are my soul mates, rescue ones are first on my "dream" shopping list!