Homebuyers Report

flashg67

kingstreet wrote: »

A semi in Fulham = rebuild cost significantly less than market value.

A terrace in Burnley = rebuild cost significantly higher than market value.

In the first instance, the value of the land will be far higher than the cost of the building on it.

In the second, the opposite applies and the damage to the adjoining properties from eg a fire will increase the cost dramatically.

I have the privilege of owning 2 terraced properties in the NW - nothing wrong with them btw, but on a sale valuation of 60-70k, the rebuild costs are several £000 above this, should they require fully rebulding, and take out the adjoining walls on each side!

kingstreet

Yo! I'm from a council estate in Eccles, so no offence was intended.

I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. Just explaining it the way it was explained to me about 30 years ago.

thesurveyor

Thanks everyone for the reply. I've contacted the surveyors to see if it's a copy and paste error. If it was a touch over then fair enough but it's 50k so I highly suspect it's a error. Will keep people posted.

phill99

Surrey_EA wrote: »

I would have said the opposite is true.

The land will carry a value on its own, even if there is not a property that exists on it.

Are you saying it is relatively common for properties to be sold for less than they cost to build?

No. What I am saying is that it is relatively common for properties to have a higher REBUILD cost (which includes debris removal costs, planning fees, engineering works etc) than the OMV. It's not uncommon to have a rebuild cost higher than the OMV. This is often the case for Terraced houses (which require shoring up of adjacent properties and difficult access) or unusual constructions (such as natural stone houses).