Has anyone recently bought a Gleeson Home and have a copy of their 40+ covenants?

RelievedSheff

Heres_the_deal said:

davilown said:

Perhaps don’t buy a Home from Gleesons?

The buyer is not in a position to be choosy. With the current incentives, their young age and low savings they have to take what they can get. It doesn't hurt to be forwarned about potential issues, and that's all I'm trying to do.

Gleeson may be budget and crafty, but they do give young people a chance.

While Gleeson Homes may appear to be a budget option for first time buyers, by the time you have added the "extras" onto the house that you would get as standard with other developers they are really not any cheaper.

AdrianC

Heres_the_deal said:

davilown said:

Perhaps don’t buy a Home from Gleesons?

The buyer is not in a position to be choosy. With the current incentives, their young age and low savings they have to take what they can get.

Of course they are! That's a lousy cop-out.

Nobody is FORCED to buy an off-plan new-build on a development just because it's there.

That mindset is how developers get away with throwing any old rubbish up, packed in like sardines.

RelievedSheff

AdrianC said:

Heres_the_deal said:

davilown said:

Perhaps don’t buy a Home from Gleesons?

The buyer is not in a position to be choosy. With the current incentives, their young age and low savings they have to take what they can get.

Of course they are! That's a lousy cop-out.

Nobody is FORCED to buy an off-plan new-build on a development just because it's there.

That mindset is how developers get away with throwing any old rubbish up, packed in like sardines.

The planners and their planning policies dictate the number of units per hectare that they want to see per development, so you can't really blame the developers for that!!

AdrianC

RelievedSheff said:

AdrianC said:

Heres_the_deal said:

davilown said:

Perhaps don’t buy a Home from Gleesons?

The buyer is not in a position to be choosy. With the current incentives, their young age and low savings they have to take what they can get.

Of course they are! That's a lousy cop-out.

Nobody is FORCED to buy an off-plan new-build on a development just because it's there.

That mindset is how developers get away with throwing any old rubbish up, packed in like sardines.

The planners and their planning policies dictate the number of units per hectare that they want to see per development, so you can't really blame the developers for that!!

They dictate the MAXIMUM number of units per hectare.

If they didn't sell at that density, they'd build them lower-density.

The land value depends on the GDV, so it'd simply reduce the land value, not increase the cost of the properties markedly.

RelievedSheff

AdrianC said:

RelievedSheff said:

AdrianC said:

Heres_the_deal said:

davilown said:

Perhaps don’t buy a Home from Gleesons?

The buyer is not in a position to be choosy. With the current incentives, their young age and low savings they have to take what they can get.

Of course they are! That's a lousy cop-out.

Nobody is FORCED to buy an off-plan new-build on a development just because it's there.

That mindset is how developers get away with throwing any old rubbish up, packed in like sardines.

The planners and their planning policies dictate the number of units per hectare that they want to see per development, so you can't really blame the developers for that!!

They dictate the MAXIMUM number of units per hectare.

If they didn't sell at that density, they'd build them lower-density.

The land value depends on the GDV, so it'd simply reduce the land value, not increase the cost of the properties markedly.

The other way around. They specify a MINIMUM number of units per hectare that they want to see to achieve their housing allocations per year.