New build on historic landfill

abhishop5525

Hi All,

I’m in the process of purchasing a 5-bedroom house that checks all the boxes for me. The location is great, and there are promising factors like bigger front and rear garden, upcoming primary and secondary schools nearby, which may contribute to property value appreciation in the future.

However, one concern I have is that the property is being built on a historic landfill site, which was closed in 1991 and primarily used for farm-related waste. I’m satisfied with the remediation work done by the builder, and the build quality is solid.

My worry is more about future resale value. Would potential buyers in the future be likely to completely avoid a property built on a former landfill, despite proper remediation? Or would this simply lead to negotiation on price, assuming no other major issues arise?

I’m currently being offered a good deal with a 5% deposit contribution and around £15K for upgrade options. I don’t mind passing on some incentives to a future buyer if necessary, but if there’s a high risk that people will avoid the property altogether due to its history, it could end up being a significant loss, given the higher price point.

I’d appreciate any insights or feedback from those with experience in similar situations.

Thanks in advance!

Bigphil1474

You're not avoiding it, so presumably others wouldn't in the future. Give it enough time and the only people who will even remember it's an old landfill will be the surveyor doing the next survey, and some old crusty documents. Wouldn't put me off, but the last house we bought we lived in for over 20 years, and plan to do the same in our current house. If you are thinking of moving in a few years, might be different. Bear in mind you're generally overpaying initially on a new build, so would take maybe 2 or 3 years before the value catches up with what you've paid. 

user1977

Bigphil1474 said:

Give it enough time and the only people who will even remember it's an old landfill will be the surveyor doing the next survey, and some old crusty documents. 

It's pretty commonplace for buyers to get a desktop environmental search, which is likely to identify from the crusty old maps that it used to be a landfill. Unfortunately (as we've seen from many threads here) that sometimes makes buyers twitchy, because nobody's given them the advice to check whether there is any further evidence (such as the planning documents) to show whether contamination was investigated further and remediated.

But no, it shouldn't affect the objective market value assuming people are properly advised.

sammyjammy

It would make me twitchy but I would do my own research, it wouldn't be contamination that would worry me but subsidence.  Not saying thats rational!

GoogleMeNow

My mother's property (that I grew up in) was built as part of a new estate of hundreds of properties.  It was built on land that was "contaminated".   The land stopped being used as industrial just after the 2nd World War and the properties were built in 1960.  My mother lived there for sixty years.  I sold the property earlier this year and the buyer's solicitor insisted on having a contaminated land indemnity policy.  Rather than argue backwards and forwards about the fact that neither my mother nor I lived there all that time without any lasting damage, I just bought the policy (£176) in order that we could proceed in the sale.  Problem solved.

user1977

sammyjammy said:

It would make me twitchy but I would do my own research, it wouldn't be contamination that would worry me but subsidence.  Not saying thats rational!

Ground stability would also be something covered off in detail by the developers.

Lorian

Some things to think about. How and when was it capped. Do the plans for the build make any mention of precautions relating to the infill. Are there methane vents near the properties and are the readings available. 

ReadingTim

I would suggest that most new builds, in towns and cities anyway are going to be on brownfield sites, ie land which has had a former use of some kind which may require remediation by the developer.  This is just part and parcel of buying a new build (or relatively newly built property), as not so many properties are built on totally greenfield sites, and people need to understand that. 

If that scares some people away, then a new build property is not going to be for them, so as a seller they're not really buyers you need to worry about

Annemos

I once purchased a new show-flat in 1988 that was built on a site where a factory was demolished. Also a clay area.

Building was 3 flats high and 4 flats wide. Mine was a Ground Floor Corner flat. 

Within 3 years, cracks inside and outside. Went to the NHBC and they said it was simply thermal movement. 

But it was enough to stop any potential buyer from getting a mortgage. Actually had 3 potential buyers. It failed all their mortgage surveys. 

Having purchased the thing for 54,000 pounds, I had to sell it for 21,000 pounds to the owner of the next door flat, who bought it off me to rent out. (So he then had the two rental flats.)

I just had to walk away and put it behind me. I did not get any further investigations done, so was never sure if it was actually settlement or clay movement, rather than thermal movement? Or was it poor and inadequate foundations?? 

All I can say is, I was so grateful to that chap who took it off me and enabled me to move on with my life. 

lincroft1710

Annemos said:

I once purchased a new show-flat in 1988 that was built on a site where a factory was demolished. Also a clay area.

Building was 3 flats high and 4 flats wide. Mine was a Ground Floor Corner flat. 

Within 3 years, cracks inside and outside. Went to the NHBC and they said it was simply thermal movement. 

But it was enough to stop any potential buyer from getting a mortgage. Actually had 3 potential buyers. It failed all their mortgage surveys. 

Having purchased the thing for 54,000 pounds, I had to sell it for 21,000 pounds to the owner of the next door flat, who bought it off me to rent out. (So he then had the two rental flats.)

I just had to walk away and put it behind me. I did not get any further investigations done, so was never sure if it was actually settlement or clay movement, rather than thermal movement? Or was it poor and inadequate foundations?? 

All I can say is, I was so grateful to that chap who took it off me and enabled me to move on with my life. 

1988 was a peak for house prices in many areas, followed by a rapid fall until 1995. So your perceived loss may not have all been down to possible subsidence issues

abhishop5525

GoogleMeNow said:

My mother's property (that I grew up in) was built as part of a new estate of hundreds of properties.  It was built on land that was "contaminated".   The land stopped being used as industrial just after the 2nd World War and the properties were built in 1960.  My mother lived there for sixty years.  I sold the property earlier this year and the buyer's solicitor insisted on having a contaminated land indemnity policy.  Rather than argue backwards and forwards about the fact that neither my mother nor I lived there all that time without any lasting damage, I just bought the policy (£176) in order that we could proceed in the sale.  Problem solved.

I don't mind getting a indemnity policy if it helps future perspective buyer. I can include Subsistence as well :-) 

Thanks mate!