Are new builds really that bad?? Everyone is warning me off them

moneyistooshorttomention

I admit I also rather thought that developers tend to start off by trying to cram a hugely impossible number of houses into any given site and then there is an argy-bargy with the local Council. Concludes with the local Council being able to cut some of the "surplus" houses off the plans and the development ends up being built with way too many houses crammed in - rather than way way WAY too many houses crammed in (as the developer wanted).

I have never yet seen a newbuild development (even those "executive" type homes) where the plot sizes are remotely big enough.

Better_Days

I spoke to a plumber who was working on a new build 'town house' in Bury St Edmunds. Now these are not cheap. He was trying to fix a problem with the shower and in doing so knocked a hole through to next door. The party 'wall' was totally inadequate.

It is this sort of thing that puts me off new builds. I like proper walls, not plasterboard. Better for sound insulation and hanging up pictures!

moneyistooshorttomention

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Anyone know what the fascination with 3 bed houses now seemingly being built over 3 floors instead of two?

I just take that as being "This is how we manage to get a 3rd bedroom into those properties Fred on a site that small...we go up another storey". We've got some of those too and every time I see them I think "Fancy having to climb two flights of stairs instead of one" and think that would soon prove tiring and/or too much of a hassle in living arrangements for a lot of people. They are certainly far from suitable for the average British person as they get older - and unfitter - as most Brits do...I definitely cant picture a lot of OAPs I know of climbing all the way up to that 3rd storey to go to bed at night.



Re the paperthin walls between many newbuilds - the walls in a Victorian may not be as soundproof as I would wish...but they are one heck of a sight thicker and more soundproof than a newbuild. A nice flat perfect wall is good - but, given the choice between a wall that has had to have woodchip put up first before painting it but it's reasonable thickness or a flat/perfect/modern wall then it's no contest. I'd take the woodchip every time - at least that can be sorted out by taking it down and skimming the wall if you wish and then...bingo....you've got your flat/perfect/modern-looking wall and still got the greater thickness. There's little/if anything that can be done about every little whisper of noise coming through from the neighbours house (or your loss of privacy - as you wonder what they can hear going on in your house).

lessonlearned

Developers have far less of a free hand than you might imagine. They have to work very closely with the planning authorities.

For example - the affordable housing issues. Developers have to comply with rules on this. A certain percentage of the development - dependent on it's size - will have to be given over to affordable housing.

This is of course Central Govt's easy opt out clause. Let the private sector take the strain of providing affordable housing then we don't have to build council houses.

The same applies to schools and amenities. On large schemes it is the house builders who have to stump up for a large proportion of the cost. Saves the local authority the money.........

Off course high density housing means smaller gardens and driveways - that's a given.

Ultimately it's down to money and planning constraints.

For example if a new build costs say £300K but you wanted a plot say 50% larger would you be prepared to pay another 50% on top of the purchase price. Of course not - it would be unrealistic and unaffordable.

Profits are not what they were. In the past the average profit when building a house was in the region of about 30%. Now margins are much tighter and profits are nearer the 20% mark.

There really isn't much room to manoeuvre these days.

The only way for the situation to improve is to release more land for building.

moneyistooshorttomention

I can't see that a property would cost 150% of proposed price because it has a bigger plot - it would cost some more obviously..but there would still be the same amount of money spent on building the actual house itself.

I do follow the argument that the Council tries to get developers to provide facilities the Council itself should provide, as many Councils are trying to save every penny they can and then there would be the political difficulties involved in trying to persuade Council Taxpayers to stump up for the provision of facilities for a development many of them don't actually want built there anyway. That thought hadn't occurred to me before now - but...yes....I would fight to prevent my C.T. going up in any way I could if I knew that the "established" residents weren't going to get the benefit of that extra payment and we would end up having paid to lose more of our surrounding countryside.

There are some areas of the country where existing local residents have to fight tooth and nail to prevent any development they possibly can as it is - ie because the area is full up and any further development damages the quality of life for those already there.

Dan-Dan

The developments in Leighton Buzzard , Thousands of houses , doctors surgery promised - didnt happen Lower school promised - didnt happen - playing fields promised - took 12 years and the council ended up paying for it anyway because the developers owned an access road that they wouldnt sell

All at the same time as the whole place being `orange coloured` from all the lorrys , diggers etc

No thank you

zzzLazyDaisy

I bought a two yr old new build apartment years ago when I moved for work. I LOVED not having to do anything to the place after a lifetime of buying and doing up old houses. The pleasure I got from just being able to chill out and live in the place was enormous. BUT I bought it from the owners for the same price as they had paid for it and a LOT less than the brand new apartments on the same development (this was at a time of rapidly rising prices) Which suggests that there is a premium to be paid for a 'never lived in' new build. Interestingly, within 12 months all the apartments on the development had been sold, and by the time I moved out the following year, all apartments were fetching the same price, and I made a tidy profit as it was a popular development.

Of course profit is much less likely in the current economic climate, but the same principle applies to negative equity. If you can find a 'new build' that has only been lived in for a short while, you may get a better deal as the sellers have to undercut the developer to achieve a sale.

There are often good deals to be had on showhomes too, as these are (obviously) the last to go.

lessonlearned

Of course the actual build costs remain the same. The land costs don't though. Land in the UK is not cheap.

The answer lies in the density - how many houses can be accommodated on a given piece of land. One piece of land say 3 houses @ £300K = £900K, same piece of land 2 houses they would have to be £450K.

Building houses is a business not a charity.

Re the issue of building up into another storey ie townhouses. It means a smaller footprint therefore reduced land usage, therefore cheaper.

To achieve the square footages that a town-house can provide when building say a detached property you would have to susbtantially increase house's footprint. This would require a much larger plot.

It's all down to pounds, shillings and pence.

Release more land, build more houses and costs just might come down or at least stabilise.

lessonlearned

Whilst energy conservation is much better in new builds I agree that sound insulation can be poor.

However this is not confined to new builds.

I once owned a delightful terraced olde worlde cottage, single brick no cavity walls - freezing. However the noise levels travelling through the party walls were horrendous.

I could not live with the sleep deprivation. I had to pay to have the party walls soundproofed.

The only way to guarantee no noise is to buy detached. Even the most solidly built house will allow some transference of noise through party walls.

I have lived in terraced properties, semis and detached of all ages and sizes. Anything that was not detached had the same problem.

If you want peace and quiet then detached is the way to go, either that or you stump up for better sound insulation.

bclark

I currently live in a big 3 bed Victorian semi, I love much about it but there are also many downsides. Its cold and expensive to heat and you can hear next door chatting over breakfast.

I am, hopefully, buying a nice 4 bed detached newbuild. Its got loads of character, most of the things in the showhome were standard and its better value than similar old houses in the area. Almost all of the internal walls are brick and its amazingly well insulated.

Its swings and roundabouts really.