buying a house which might get demolished if heathrow gets a third runway

Sunny2good

Guest101 wrote: »

The market price of a house will go down as plans become more concrete about 3rd runway.

So op pays 100k now
In 10 years if no runway is to be built, house could be worth 4x that easy.
But if it looks like the runway will be built there, the market price will be 40 or even 30k, the premise being that last minute profiteers may buy the land cheap ahead of any formal announcement looking to make some quick cash.

hmm interesting point.

I have had 2 valuations done. One was £370K and the other said £360K. I am getting the house for £320K. So I am hoping that even if I don't get the "market price" of the house, I will atleast not be out of pocket.

and like i said earlier, a colleague bought a 500K house with 10% deposit and banks had no issues lending. I am sure if the property prices were going to fall so drastically if the extension went ahead, banks would not be very keen on lending

agrinnall

The problem is always going to be what happens if you decide not to stay for life and there's still been no decision on a 3rd runway - how much do you think somebody else is going to want to pay in that situation, and how many people do you think would be interested at all?

ruggedtoast

I personally dont think the compensation you get is worth it, or in anyway offsets the hassle and disruption of being told you have a short amount of time to move.

There was someone on here a while back who was being compulsorily purchased and was having a nightmare as the 'market value plus a bit' they were given was not enough to buy them a comparable house.

Their argument was that they had a large detached and not overlooked house on a street they felt safe and happy on, although they accepted the market valuation of their house as it wasn't an expensive street.

Their only options in the end were move to a much worse area or go to a better area with a much worse house. Their contention was that they should have been offered enough money to get like for like but that is not the case.

The thread may show up in a search. I remember they were really upset about it and I was quite surprised how little recompense they actually got once you looked at all the hassle and disruption.

Sunny2good

agrinnall wrote: »

The problem is always going to be what happens if you decide not to stay for life and there's still been no decision on a 3rd runway - how much do you think somebody else is going to want to pay in that situation, and how many people do you think would be interested at all?

The decision to build or not to build will be made after the general election next year so things will be finalised in 2015. I don't think we would want to sell so shortly after moving in. Once a decision is made, i think the compulsory buy off will start soon after.

Sunny2good

Thanks ruggedtoast. I will search for that post. If you can find it, do let me know.
I do agree with you that its potentially alot of hassle, especially as a decision is a year away. But the dilemma I have is that it is our dream house. The property value of this house has gone up by 40K in the last year. There are 3 shortlisted options to build a runway and only one effects us. If i choose not to buy and the extension does not go ahead, will lose this wonderful house plus would be more annoyed when its doubled in value in 5 years time. (There is also 3 cash buyers waiting who want to turn it into a BTL, but the owner has given me first priority)
So the temptation is there to try our luck. Heathrow has given absolute guarantee about its package. I don't think they will value the house less then the price I am paying (I am getting it a discounted rate [40K below market value] anyway as current sellers are leaving the country).
ah decisions, decisions.

agrinnall

Sunny2good wrote: »

The decision to build or not to build will be made after the general election next year so things will be finalised in 2015. I don't think we would want to sell so shortly after moving in. Once a decision is made, i think the compulsory buy off will start soon after.

All well and good, assuming you believe anything that politicians tell you. Meanwhile, back in the real world.....

Sunny2good

agrinnall wrote: »

All well and good, assuming you believe anything that politicians tell you. Meanwhile, back in the real world.....

haha. point taken. but anyway still don't see myself moving. Family is all nearby, house big enough for future needs, schools, work etc is close by too.

CH27

Sunny2good wrote: »

We have seen a property in West Drayton which we really love. It's going to be our dream house and we can see ourselves living there forever. However it's in an area which is in the proposed north west expansion of Heathrow third runaway. If the plan goes ahead and heathrow is chosen to be expanded in North west, then this house among 800 others will be demolished.

Heathrow promises to pay 25% + market price and your stamp duty plus legal fees for new house. Just wanted some advice as to what you would do in such a situation when it's not clear whether an expansion would happen(I think a decision will be made next year out of 3 possible options). demand for property is very high though as lost of people have put in offers already but less than asking price. Shall I avoid or buy and get a 25% return incase runway does go ahead?

On a separate note, A colleague recently bought a house in the area and their solicitor did not warn or mention the expansion plans and that their house can likelybe demolished, are they not legally required to do so. Maybe not as no plans are confirmed yet?

I would buy somewhere where I could stay until I chose to leave.
I wouldn't like to settle into an area & then have to move at short notice.

moneyistooshorttomention

I thought the price above valuation that was paid on compulsory purchase was 10% uplift?

Anyway, I know I've watched places that were compulsory purchased before now and their "market value" went down in the couple of years or so before the building started and hence why it would not have been possible for the people living there to buy a comparable place.

It's a gamble I wouldn't want to take that's for sure.

The other point is that one of the tactics used when it comes to compulsory purchase (well it certainly was in that case...) was when the normal owners moved out one by one their places were filled with temporary tenants of the kind you definitely wouldn't want as neighbours in a quite obvious attempt to put pressure on those remaining normal owners that were holding out and trying not to move or to, at least, get paid a fair price for their property.

bouicca21

I lived in an area where a major proposed road building plan blighted houses for well something like two decades. The houses that were sold weren't let to tenants, dubious or otherwise, but were boarded up, which IMHO was even worse.

The road plan was abandoned. Property prices have recovered. So long term, fine, short to medium term, total nightmare.