PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Valuing a Basement in a Shared Freehold Property
Options
Comments
-
The other freeholders do no have to offer to grant you a lease extending to the ground beneath your existing demise.
If I was one of those freeholders given the likely disturbance and also risk of structural problems with the existing foundations I would refuse whatever the price.
I think you should test their likely reaction to your scheme before spending any money.
Being a Victorian building, the ground floor is likely to have high ceilings.
So if headroom in the basement is limited, instead of excavating the basement...
... it may be possible to raise the level of the floor on the ground floor.
That may be easier/cheaper than excavating the basement, but that's still very expensive, so only viable in expensive areas.0 -
Looking at the OP I don't think there is an existing basement.Being a Victorian building, the ground floor is likely to have high ceilings.
So if headroom in the basement is limited, instead of excavating the basement...
... it may be possible to raise the level of the floor on the ground floor.
That may be easier/cheaper than excavating the basement, but that's still very expensive, so only viable in expensive areas.0 -
I've seen several attempts at this in London, but it's expensive, pretty unpopular with neighbours, and can go spectacularly wrong.
Do all mortgage lenders and insurers in the building need to be on board as well as the homeowners, because I'm not sure I've heard of this ever happening in a divided property? Good luck with getting it all agreed.
To be honest, it looks like it would be nothing but unnecessary and unwanted trouble, a bit like trying to climb mount Everest from the inside, using a toothpick.
As martin says, look elsewhere.
Oh, it's happened in divided property. I distinctly remember a couple in a ground floor conversion flat who managed to destroy their home in a spectacular fashion, as well as their neighbour's above and are still paying the mortgage as neither the the builder's, nor their home insurance would pay out.
Fact is, if you're not prepared to spend thousands doing a proper test of the viability of it, it's not worth starting in the first place, because there will be plenty of professional fees to pay well before a shovel hits the ground even on a freehold property.Everything that is supposed to be in heaven is already here on earth.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards