What effect does non-standard construction have on value?

Davesnave

Looks like the sort of place a retiring Boomer would decide to buy for living a little of the Good Life. Many people in that age group have the funds to buy outright, and if they don't have much more, then something like this may be what they'll settle for. The alternative, a conventional house/bungalow on an estate, won't necessarily appeal to an active, country-loving, downshifter.

True, the plot could be redeveloped, but it's narrow, and regardless of the ag-restriction, not large enough for keeping a horse. The agricultural restriction on the land beyond the original garden will stay, as there's no obvious reason for lifting it. So, a few pigs, an orchard and some chickens, perhaps.

There's a property near me that's concrete panel in its central section, and that won't sell, even though it has 15x the amount of land this one has, but it's in a very different price bracket, where alternatives with land are easily possible.

So in answer to the original question, there's bound to be a lot of interest, much of which will be too cautious to secure it, but there's also likely to be one or two people who think, "S*d it, why not?" and bid a bit beyond what's sensible.

Davesnave

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

The value of that house is, I suspect, in the plot. You could probably get 2 bungalows or 3 2-storey houses on it, even more if you can get the agricultural restriction on the paddock removed.

The fact that it's a detached bungalow (and so less vulnerable to structural problems compared to a 2-storey or semi-) and there's value in the land mean it may be mortgageable with a sizeable deposit.

You might get a pair of semis on there, but the house plot is too small for two separate buildings and there's no question of infill development, or a change of use from farm to building land on the paddock.

Indeed, the owner has managed to build across the entire frontage, which is a pretty stupid thing to do when access might be required for machinery etc.

ed110220

That's a difficult question and hard to answer as there are so many variables.

The main one is that 'non-traditional construction' is by definition a very mixed bag as it's defined by what it isn't rather than what it is. It includes steel-framed structures, concrete framed structures, pre-cast concrete panels, in-situ cast concrete structures, wooden framed houses etc etc.

The best non-traditional systems are no more likely to suffer problems than the average traditionally-built house, while the worst have been found to have serious structural defects. That is reflected in the mortgagability - the best are fully mortgageable, the worst cannot be mortgaged.

Given this, it's essential to know exactly what type of house you're dealing with. Most were built in large numbers and have a 'model name' as it were.

I live in a steel-framed house, which was about 15% cheaper than a traditionall-built house on the other side of the street that is a little smaller and of less pleasing proportions with a smaller garden.

Werdnal

If the brick skin is just that - and external skin or cladding for aesthetic purposes only, then it does not make any difference to the property being NSC and therefore this will affect mortgage availability, value and even make getting house insurance difficult and more costly.

However, some NSC properties are rectified by taking out the pre-cast concrete slabs they were constructed with, and building a full structural brick wall in their place. We have a lot of Cornish Unit type properties around us - I used to live in a local authority one when I was growing up. Recent renovation work has involved the replacement of the walls, and as long as this is fully certificated, and correctly done by an approved contractor, the house is now perfectly sound and mortgagable.

Depends what type of non-standard construction is involved, the work this place has had done and whether there are any building regs/certificates to prove the quality of the work has made is acceptable for mortgage. Never take the EA's word for anything, do you own research and ask for proof!

This might help:

http://www.prcproperties.co.uk/

kingstreet

I'm not sure how good an answer you might get, but you could ask the agent;-

"What name was given to the method of construction? Is the construction method now deemed defective under the Housing Act 1985?"

Better_Days

Thank you to you all for the valuable info.

The EA says that the property is not an 'Airey' house, but is a breeze block shell with a brick skin. The interior walls are plasterboard, and half of the double garage has been converted into a bedroom.

Owain Moneysaver as you say, I suspect that any alterations that have been done are innocent of building regs. The property has a 'Heath Robinson' feel with a drain cover poking up 6 inches in the floor of the lean to. The brick retaining wall in pics 8 and 11 have no mortar, the bricks have simply been placed on top of each other.

As GDB2222 pointed out the roads are an issue too, although not busy by town standards, I don't see a lot of point in purchasing a rural property like this which has lots of cars whizzing by. One of the roads is from Elmswell which is a large 'village', and generates a fair bit of traffic.

Even with the land I am not convinced it is worth £200k, well not to us anyway. Davesnave has summed it up for me:

So in answer to the original question, there's bound to be a lot of interest, much of which will be too cautious to secure it, but there's also likely to be one or two people who think, "S*d it, why not?" and bid a bit beyond what's sensible.

I will keep an eye on it and see what happens. Thanks for all your input.

Perelandra

Also, there's an agricultural restriction in that area, which may restrict you from buying it personally (unless you or your OH work in agriculture), and will also impact on its value.

ed110220

Better_Days wrote: »

The EA says that the property is not an 'Airey' house, but is a breeze block shell with a brick skin. The interior walls are plasterboard, and half of the double garage has been converted into a bedroom.

If that's an accurate description of its construction then there's nothing non-traditional or non-standard about it: traditional construction is usually defined as brick, stone or concrete block masonry walls. Brick outer and breezeblock inner layers are probably the commonest type of house built for several decades.

Kingstreet's suggestion of finding out whether it's a type listed as defective under the Housing Act 1985 is a good one.

The other issue is what is meant by 'prefab'? Strictly a prefab was a building, usually designed to be temporary, which was literally prefabricated in one or a few parts at a factory, rather like an early mobile home. Most of those have gone, and if it's one that survives it will need a lot of work done to it, if it hasn't had it already. Informally, but rather inaccurately it is often used to refer to a house that was fabricated on-site, but with non-traditional components, usually designed as permanent.

Davesnave

Perelandra wrote: »

Also, there's an agricultural restriction in that area, which may restrict you from buying it personally (unless you or your OH work in agriculture), and will also impact on its value.

Agricultural restrictions apply to individual properties, or parts of properties, not to "areas."

In this case, the restriction applies to the small paddock beyond the garden.

Although the OP might not want a road with a road outside with a "fair bit of traffic," someone who wanted to use the land to produce and sell eggs, honey, fruit & veg etc might think differently.