Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Buying and selling property

The hidden cost of buying a new build

Felicity Hannah
by Lovemoney Staff Felicity Hannah on 10 April 2012  |  Comments 38 comments

The Government wants more homebuyers to buy new build properties. But they could end up in unsuitable, unsustainable homes as a result.

The hidden cost of buying a new build

The Government wants to help first-time buyers onto the property ladder. That’s apparently why it’s launched schemes like FirstBuy, where Government and home builders provide an equity loan of as much as 20% of the value.

New buyers stump up a 5% deposit but can then qualify for a 75% mortgage, which will have a better rate. There's also the recent NewBuy scheme, which we looked at in Government NewBuy scheme and mortgages launched.

I think this is a way of supporting house builders, not new buyers and certainly not the property market more generally. New build homes cost a lot more than simply the mortgage, and I should know – I’m trying to live in one.

Here’s why I don’t believe the Government should be urging new buyers into new builds.

My Wendy house

As you’ll know if you’ve read my previous article Should I get a buy-to-let mortgage?, my husband and I bought our first home just before property prices plummeted.

But if the house was a bit more live-in-able, that wouldn’t be a problem because we wouldn’t need to move. It’s a three-bedroomed home on an acceptable estate near the town centre; it should meet all our needs for some time.

Unfortunately, it’s tiny. Absolutely miniscule, a play house. The rooms aren’t really big enough for proper-sized tables, chairs and beds – a fact that was cunningly concealed when we visited the show home through the use of three-quarter-scale furniture.

Try to add wardrobes into that mix and you’re stuck clambering over chairs to get out of the room. When I was pregnant, I couldn’t reach the far side of the bedroom without climbing over the bed. It's a good thing heavily pregnant women are so lithe and graceful…

And this is not a problem with our specific builder or area, it’s a national disgrace. A survey by the Royal Institute of British Architects found that the average new home in England is only 92% of the recommended minimum size. The recommended minimum. Most of us would probably prefer a bit more elbow room than the absolute minimum.

We’re struggling to fit in this house and I know that the 10,000 new buyers the Government hopes will take up the FirstBuy scheme will end up in the same boat. Not only that, they will have lost money compared to buying an existing home.

The new home premium

When you buy a brand-new home, you’ll usually pay a premium for the privilege of living somewhere that no-one else has. It’s very pleasant to move into a property where everything is brand new, but it can be expensive.

It’s hard to say exactly how much a home is devalued when it’s no longer new and perhaps some don’t lose value. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, says: “Approaches to the assessment of any new-build premium vary, and there is certainly no defined percentage of the selling price that can be ascribed with any confidence.”

But for some properties it’s as high as 10% of the home’s value, instantly trapping some new owners in negative equity. If new buyers were purchasing existing homes, they wouldn’t be running that risk at all.

The lack of cupboard space

From lofty financial concerns to simple pragmatics. New build starter homes like ours often have very limited cupboard space as the kitchens aren’t exactly large.

That means that new buyers will struggle to fit in all their pots, pans, tins, dried food, cartons and so on – a problem that gets far worse if a baby arrives with its mountains of equipment.

Because of this, these homeowners will have to buy smaller packets of everything, from loo roll to dried pasta. That makes everything more expensive.

Throwing away things you could reuse

Another way that the lack of storage space hurts is that homeowners can’t hang onto stuff. We’ve found ourselves selling or Freecycling kit that we know we might one day use again, from a hamster cage to a bicycle.

But because there isn’t enough space to actually live in, let alone keep anything that isn’t regularly used, we’ve had to get rid. It’s necessary but it’s a complete waste of cash.

Limited space to socialise

Did I mention that most newly-built starter homes are too small? The other issue with the lack of space is the lack of space to socialise.

New buyers snapping up a tiny house through the FirstBuy scheme may soon find that they can’t fit more than four friends in the sole reception room of the property (without resorting to some sort of double-stacking situation that even IKEA hasn’t yet managed).

That means that when they want to gather with friends, they’ll have to do so somewhere else, most likely in a pub, club or restaurant, where it will cost much more.

Although this might sound like a relatively minor and even whingy complaint when some people don’t even have roofs, think about how often you see your friends. If it always had to be outside of the home, it would cost you a lot more. New buyers shouldn’t have to just suck that up.

No room to grow

New homes don’t just have small rooms, they often have the smallest garden the builder can get away with (and don’t get me started on the ‘soil’).

That means that buyers will struggle to grow their living space later on, for example, by adding a conservatory. If homeowners couldn’t sell their property because the market was still sluggish, they’d have far fewer options for expanding it.

Expensive extras

When the builder is selling a new property, it will probably make a big deal about how the buyer can choose the décor and add as many extras as they like. But those extras cost extra – and by extras I mean things like carpets, proper garden fences and even grass.

Most new buyers will be flat broke when they buy their first homes and won’t be in a position to pay for these things. That means they will have to buy them later on, which wouldn’t necessarily be the case with an existing home.

Real help for first-time buyers

It seems that what the Government wants to do is support new buyers and the home-building industry. And that’s laudable; there is a housing shortage in the UK and so it makes sense to encourage the creation of new homes.

But that’s not exactly going to get the property market moving further along, as new homes will soak up all the prospective buyers. Would-be second steppers like us will be unlikely to benefit for a good many years, so it’s hardly going to get the property market moving again.

However, would-be buyers don’t have many options in this tough market and so will end up in newly-constructed homes through FirstBuy, whether they want a new build or not.

Clearly the Government is in a bind; it wants to support new buyers but needs the home builder industry to assist in the equity loan. However, it must be possible to support new buyers in other ways so that they have greater choice. Leaving the Stamp Duty exemption in place would have been a start.

More on property:

Annual house prices continue to fall, say March reports

Spa towns see house prices jump £1,000 a month

Will borrowers with rented solar panels have trouble remortgaging?

Co-operative Bank hikes standard variable rate

Tenants: how to get your deposit back

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (38)

  • Henry-GBG
    Love rating 46
    Henry-GBG said

    You should try buying a new house in Sweden. Lots of space and lots of storage. Unless you live right in a city centre or one some lakeside frontage the property costs little more than the building cost.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • leeds011
    Love rating 0
    leeds011 said

    I've moved into a new build Urban Splash redevelopment in Leeds, and for me in particular shared ownership has been a godsend. Also, the rent on part of the property is very reasonable - probably subsidised by the government, and also fixed contractually. And there is a gym and mini allotments on site, as well as gardens. I think that the future of new build is high density housing like apartment blocks, but with bigger rooms for people, modular arrangements for new families, and more amenities in the buildings to encourage people to opt for high density living. They also need to be built with very good noise proofing standards as well. We don't have the space for the new housing sometimes called "noddy boxes" any more, and they're becoming increasingly unfashionable. We need any remaining unclaimed green space on our crowded island for farming and wildlife.

    I'm sorry about your experience in the "Wendy House". It's also symptomatic of problems for people getting on the housing ladder. Thirty years ago, your family would have probably been higher up the ladder before you had your child. What I would say to people in general is move up North - the cities are more liveable than London, it doesn't take more than an hour to travel to visit your friends, and the housing is more in reach. Also it's friendlier than a lot of London.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Vern54
    Love rating 12
    Vern54 said

    Aren't the builders falsely representing the product by using three quarter size furniture? Seems a con to get people's hard earned cash.

    On the other hand, there is a small 200 year old terrace house along the road where a family with seven kids were raised (in living memory). It has a main bedroom and a tiny room to call the second bedroom, one living room and a galley kitchen. The back yard was just four feet and the width of a room, and two dustbins will just fit in the front garden. The more things change, the more they stay the same ...

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • pc2574
    Love rating 13
    pc2574 said

    Your experience really resonates with me. I moved into a three bedroom new build two years ago with my wife. We subesequently had a baby and may start thinking about another later this year.

    Our experience of the property is that everything is done as cheaply as possible - but in the little ways that you only notice when you have been in for a while. For example:

    - The garage isn't really wide enough to fit a normal car in, certainly if you are planning to get out of the car once you have got it into the garage. When you think about it, they've probably saved the width of a couple of bricks throughout which, when you multiply that (and the additional space it would take) by the hundred or so garages on site, you can probably fit in another house as a result;

    - For the cheaper properties, there is only one parking space. Larger (5 bedroom and up) properties have more parking, but two bedroom flats and the small houses only have one allocated space. With limited parking available on the road, you end up with cars everywhere which makes the roads quite dangerous;

    - The patio looks fine when you first move in, but if you want to actually use it by putting out a table and chairs, it needs to be extended significantly; and

    - The third bedroom is tiny. Even for a baby, once you have a cot, a changing table and a little storage, the room is not big enough.

    I could go into a lot more detail about the poor quality of fixtures and fittings, but I feel the point has already been made. Fortunately, I rent this property and the experience has led me to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to buy one myself. It is also cheap enough to rent that saving to buy an older property is not completely unrealistic. Obviously businesses look to maximise profits, but I suspect these properties will not stand the test of time.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • iainso
    Love rating 1
    iainso said

    My impression is that new builds in my area are priced at 25% more than equivalently sized 'old' builds, so I don't see any benefit for first-time buyers, only the building industry. First-time buyers are being thrown like cannon fodder to prop up the housing market it seems.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    When my parents bought a new build in 1962 the rooms were spacious (except the small bedroom, but I only needed a single bed and it was wide enough for that and a walkway!). My son bought a new build 5 years ago and they've had to move out because although a 3 bed, it just wasn't big enough for the two of them and my grandson, let alone overnight guests (like me...). But, the more houses you cram on a field, the more profit you make. And that is what is important. Seems strange that a new house is a depreciating asset, just like a car.... How many "economists" saw that coming?

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    How the baby boomers are treating the younger generation is an absolute scandal. Lets hope the young are a forgiving bunch.

    David Willets has written a good book called The Pinch - how the baby boomers stole their childrens future.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Stanex
    Love rating 5
    Stanex said

    Here's another factor. Most "re-owned" homes come with carpets and, often, curtains. Bought new these are a serious expence, and with no spare cash it is tempting to load up the credit card with them - storing up another problem.

    Another nonsence with larger, non-first-time-buyer houses, id the size of the "garage". These are typically too narrow to take modern cars - which are (stupidly) getting longer and wider. So the cars sit out in the street and the space is used like an over-large garden shed. Then, conversions are made to make the garage part of the main house, which is all fine and dandy except.... The calculations for parking agreed with the planners reckoned on the garages being used - they aren't, and now can't be, and estate roads get blocked up. The whole area looks like a used-car lot, and property values fall.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • richmoll
    Love rating 26
    richmoll said

    I am a baby boomer and agree with a lot of the article and follow up comments. Much of this is a consequence of the housing shortage which has been growing for many years. It is caused largely I believe by middle class, middle aged policy makers who are driven by their values. These include issues to do with the environment, sustainability and so on. Add to this political pressure by various NIMBY groups such as National Trust and Council for Protection of Rural England and we have a system that thinks green fields are preferable to decent housing. Now I don't want to see fields built on but we do need many more houses and we must release more land for building. We must also introduce minimum space standards for new homes, both in terms of room sizes and plot sizes. Of course the NIMBYs will respond with comments like concreting over the country side but the actual amount of extra land need is quite small. I would also argue that properly designed new housing with decent gardens probably has more wildlife and diversity than the typical farmers field with its monoculture and everything sprayed and killed apart from the crop itself.

    On the point of using sub-sized furniture in new display homes, this may be a breach of the property misdescriptions Act - anyone out there care to comment

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Perry525
    Love rating 25
    Perry525 said

    Seven years ago we decided to move out of London, due to the noise, traffic and pollution.

    I spent hours on line looking at homes, then spent fifty days and drove over 5,000 miles looking at properties. It quickly became clear that modern homes are too small with almost none existent gardens in peculiar shaped estates where there is no privacy...homes in strange positions where all gardens and windows are overlooked.

    For a decent sized home and garden you have to look at homes built in the 1930's if you can find one, where part of the garden hasn't been sold off to cram in another modern box.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • EastExpert
    Love rating 30
    EastExpert said

    Both me & my wife were lucky to be endowed with some inheritance: real estate in other country. That allowed us to realise the dream which seemed unreachable - to buy our very own house without going deep, deep into debt. But don't yet start to get envious here.

    We found ourself a reasonably priced 4-bed detached house in a new development. We managed to haggle and get the builder drop £25K in price, and give us better plot than we originally looked at, at the same price, with an extra parking space. Add here a promise of £5K voucher for options. Hunky dory eh?

    But caveat emptor.

    The builder's sales woman tried to side sell us all the substandard products she had in store.

    * Mortgage advisors that ask YOU for payments (£100+VAT!) once you take the mortgage (and that while everywhere on money help sites it's said: Good advisors charge banks, not the loan taker!) and still give you expensive products from their panel of mortgage provider, with product fees in the range of £2,000 and interest rates more than a percent point higher than best buys!

    * Conveyancers that charge you over £1,000 for standard process (Nationwide gave me that for FREE!).

    * Options from builders that come at about double price compared to independent builders. (trying to scare you into buying these options "lest you want to come to an empty house!")

    * Range of options deliberately missing middle priced materials so that people would be either forced to buy expensive upgrades or to waste their money on crappiest solutions.

    And I can't blame her as she got targets to meet, it's common practice.

    As a result, it's now official £16K worth of options from the builder, and probably about £20K+ of options, mirrors, floors, back garden, etc. If we didn't have just sold one of our inherited properties, I honestly don't know how we (even with my quite solid salary) would have accumulated the deposit, OR how we would pay for "chattels".

    We were able to save a lot on our everything by meticulously analysing what's on offer, taking realistic ones and vehemently denying to be taken for a ride errr side-sell.

    But even now, with all our hard work, it's gonna be very expensive experiment, which probably would leave us in a need to buy a car on a loan, when our existing contract expands. That's until our second inherited property is sold and we'll cut our mortgage in half and eliminate all loans...

    Still leaves me thinking hard... Who on Earth are these prices made for? I see these prices and then I see ordinary people who can't remotely afford them. They come to see the houses, learn the prices and sadly say goodbye and "sorry - we can't afford this".

    P.S. Stamp duty holiday ending right before we will have to pay for our home, will leave us another bill of about £2,500. Again, thank you Mr Osborne, oh so much you do to help first time buyers....

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Chorlton1
    Love rating 61
    Chorlton1 said

    "Unfortunately, it’s tiny. Absolutely miniscule, a play house. The rooms aren’t really big enough for proper-sized tables, chairs and beds – a fact that was cunningly concealed when we visited the show home through the use of three-quarter-scale furniture."

    Another trick to watch out for is removing all the doors into the rooms whch also gives the impression of more space. New build is not the answer to the housing problem there isn't a shortage of houses if you look around at the number of empty properties.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • EastExpert
    Love rating 30
    EastExpert said

    Chorlton1

    Ah! More tricks here:

    In their show home, they have put a £300+ worth mirror in the downstairs cloakroom, so it would appear 2x as big. Had even to argue with my wife that no, we are not buying this mirror for gosh darned £300+ so that our guests could see themselves urinating in that cloakroom... She's the aesthetic, artsy type, I'm the pragmatic, stingy one :)

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    Of course we have many empty homes because we lightly tax wealth and heavily tax income. Until we sort this out we will always have idle and/or under-utilized assets. Heavily taxing income creates runaway welfare and stops social mobility.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    Taxing wealth would free up building land. This land would be cheaper, developers would build (and not hoard land) and new houses would be larger.

    The UK has the smallest houses in the developed world and we are asked to pay the most for them.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    The high rise flats of the 60's looked nice when they were built and turned into slums. New homes should be restricted by councils rather than allowing builders to cram in as many as possible on a small plot of land. Where I live they build on the edge of parks, nature reserves and open spaces. People end up living in cramped little boxes with no open spaces. It is a national disgrace and until people learn to live together better, we have more people living alone; we will continue to need more housing. Perhaps some low rise apartments, with large rooms would help. We could use the land currently occupied by private golf courses and country clubs perhaps?

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Pitachok
    Love rating 21
    Pitachok said

    I just don't understand how anyone can get into such trouble.

    When you buy a house you go to a range of estate agents and ask to see what they've got, old and new - you don't just turn up at a new development and buy the first thing you see. The estate agent then gives you all the spec sheets and the first thing you look at, after the price, is the size of the rooms. By seeing that the third bedroom is only 5 feet wide on the spec sheet you already know cupboard space would be tight, but if you choose it that's because you've gained on something else (location, price) compared to the other houses you're looking at. By comparing houses, old and new, you're choosing the limitations you're happy to live with. New houses are small because people choose them over old houses - and there are a number of reasons for that.

    Once you've gone through the spec sheets you pick out the homes with the biggest rooms in the best locations you can afford and go and have a look at them. So if you go to view a house with small rooms it's because the rooms are as big as you can afford, not because it's new build. Perhaps there's an extra room, and to squeeze it in all the other rooms are smaller, but that's what you chose. The point of going to look at them is to see how big the garden is, what the layout's like and the quality of the build. You can see if there's room to extend or not. You might also decide whether you like the 'feel' of the house, which may be better for a new build as it's new, but not an all-encompassing factor. You certainly don't turn up with no idea of room sizes and go by how it looks to the eye.

    The 'new home premium' then doesn't actually exist. The 'premium' is how much you personally have paid because you liked the fact that it was new build (or, at a push, because it comes with a 10 year structural guarantee). There isn't a secret percentage that developers shove on top of all new builds. You pay what you're prepared to pay, having already compared the house to everything else on the market, old and new. You're not compelled to go for new build. If you paid more than you would have for an identical older house elsewhere, then that's the premium. If you didn't, then there wasn't a premium.

    You won't be surprised to learn that I bought a new build. It was built 6 years ago as a single house, not in a new estate, and has sizeable rooms, bigger than anything else we looked at. It's apparently now worth a little more than we paid for it, having comfortably kept up with the 'old build' houses around it. (I suspect some of the devaluation of new builds is because a lot of identical houses are built together, therefore creating an over-supply of the exact same house, which all come up for sale at about the same time as everyone bought them at the same time). True, it's timber frame so less solid, although much warmer than anything else I've lived in. The garden isn't huge but neither were the gardens of the older houses we saw (some of whose gardens had been sold off and built on). There's room to extend as it hasn't already got a conservatory or had the loft taken up with one of it's 'rooms', as often happens with older homes that pretend to be 4 bed when they're 3 and a loft. We've since had a baby and it coped comfortably with that - and we won't need to move or even extend if we have a second.

    'New build' just means you are the first in it, but it's not as if terrible housebuilding is the result of a new law (apart from parking - the number of spaces was in fact limited by the government to encourage use of non-existent public transport). I've lived in houses built in the 20s, 30s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 00s, and all have had something annoying about them. The 20s/30s were terrible for layout, plumbing and heating, with walls so solid you'd burn out a drill trying to hang a picture, no double glazing but rotting widows that gave plenty of ventilation, and with the bathroom downstairs or, conversely, no toilet at all downstairs. The 60s/70s/80s were poorly built/finished with some of the dodgiest wiring I've ever seen (as well as perhaps being the ugliest homes in Britain). And it's been harder to find a new build with a decent sized garden since the 90s, not least because the government insisted every development included 'affordable housing' and they had to cram them all into the development as well. This, of course, is an issue that's only going to get worse as we try to accommodate what the government believes will be another 20m people over the next 3 decades following population growth greater than at any time in our history - even than after the world wars, the industrial revolution or the Black Death.

    You also can't complain about paying for paint and carpets. You have to do that in older houses too, unless you want to live with the smell of an old wet dog, and then you have to pay to get rid of the old stuff too. New build even has added advantages - you can give the builder a snagging list to sort out before you sign anything, and if you want to change something (we added wood flooring) and you get work done before you move in, it's free of VAT (Ie 20% off). Quite honestly if you don't set aside money for the work you want to do when you move in you haven't done your homework, it's nothing to do with the house being new build.

    In terms of getting the housing market moving again, that's down to our economy, not anything the government's doing. Even if the help for first-time buyers is only for new builds, the developers just aren't building them anyway. The government is forcing local councils to approve ever more new homes but while the developers take the planning permissions they're not building them - because no-one's buying. That's what happens in a recession and it's hard on everybody. But if the predictions for the population are even half correct, people will be living in even smaller houses in the not-too-distant future and we'll count ourselves lucky to be in our nice big Wendy houses.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    Interestingly the income poor and asset poor have been told that the state will stop subsidising their housing need and their rent paid by the state is to be capped. These people are now told they will have to move if they can no longer afford their house.

    Why are the same rules not applied to the income poor but asset rich. The old are hoarding houses and allowed to do this because they are subsidised by the state.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    The state funding the (asset) rich but refusing to fund the poor is the wrong way around. Its difficult to offshore land and housing but income on the other hand......

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Kaz64
    Love rating 22
    Kaz64 said

    Aquasponge, surely "the old are hoarding houses" as you put it, because they have paid their mortgages, and are entitled to sit back and enjoy the houses they have worked hard to own.

    If you work hard to buy things and pay for things yourself, pay your taxes and NI, and you get into hot financial water, you are left to fend for yourself.

    If you own nothing because you can't be bothered to go and work for a living, the Gov will bail you out.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    Since houses became unaffordable, there have been umpteen articles like this. You don't normally hear much about the housing market when all is well.

    The only way to buy a house is with a straight forward repayment mortgage with a reasonable deposit. Anything else is a scam, like shared ownership for example. When prices collapse, you are stuck big time. Look at the shambles that is IO and endowment mortgages.

    This whole wacky house market will only be sorted when interest rates go up (BoE or mortgages) and prices are demolished by 50%. Mortgage rates are going up on their own now, and looking detached from the BoE rate.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    This morning George Osborne released a statement saying he was shocked to learn that the UKs super-rich paid less than 10% tax on their earnings and zero % on their wealth

    Kaz64 this blows your argument out of the water..

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • victoriamke
    Love rating 0
    victoriamke said

    I agree. This is not about a caring government wanting to help struggling young families; it is about getting bricklayers, plasterers, joiners etc. off the unemployment register.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    I read the article and immediately thought that the title was wrong.

    The author simply has made massive mistakes with purchasing her current home and seems to want to blame everyone or everything for her mistake.

    Like as been said above. The brochure is there to look at room sizes, layout, storage etc.

    If people didn't buy these new home because of the design, then the designs would change, simple really.

    Report on 10 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    Not that simple I'm afraid. People are encouraged to hoard houses and if you gear up and offset your interest against income then it is very easy to pay no tax. Either that or set your asset to idle and pay no tax also.

    No wonder the young are forced to over pay for shoe boxes.

    Report on 11 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • savamac
    Love rating 0
    savamac said

    Alas, this is not a new problem :

    When I was looking at new 4-bed detached houses 25 years ago (not a mis-print), I looked at a newly-built show-house. The entrance hall was so small that you would have needed a traffic light system to accomodate more than 2 people in the hall at the same time !!

    Report on 12 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • matchmade
    Love rating 38
    matchmade said

    I'm a housebuilder and as usual this article is tarring every new house with the same brush, and adopting the same old "property developers are evil" attitude. Let's get some facts clear:

    1. There is no such thing as a "new-build premium". The Council for Mortgage Lenders explicitly instructs surveyors to value new property as if it were second hand. New homes are consequently valued at the same value as equivalent second-hand properties, despite being vastly better built: deeper foundations, built-in new kitchens and bathrooms, and far better energy-efficiency (just look at how the building regulations have changed and are changing towards so-called zero-carbon homes).

    2. Housebuilding is not a proftable business, certainly compared with many other lines of business like consumer electronics or professional services: most builders make barely 6-10% pre-tax profit, which is pretty feeble given the huge capital investment that is required and the long lead-times to get a project off the ground. What profit margins is Lovemoney achieving, I wonder?

    3. Developers do not cram their sites voluntarily: they know small gardens and room sizes damage the sale value. Buyers are not stupid and can see with their own eyes what they are buying; if they don't, what are they doing spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, probably the biggest purchase they will ever make, without assessing the property properly? Developers cram their sites because they are forced to by the planning rules and it's the only way to make a profit: there are minimum density requirements for housing which developers must follow, and developers are treated as a cash cow by every sector of the market: as well as the cost of the land, the nightmarish planning system, the architects, the estate agents, the bat and other environmental inspectors, we also have the council imposing S106 roof taxes running at £20,000 a house, and the developer has to give away 35-40% of the site as "affordable homes" to a housing association.

    The Affordable Homes rules are crippling the housebuilding industry because developers are expected to pay for the Government's social housing and benefits policies. Has Felicity Hannah checked out where her neighbours come from? She will find that about a 1/3 of the properties in her area will have been given away for free to people living off the State and contributing nothing to society. If developers didn't have to pay for all this free housing, and were free to build private estates because council housing was provided by the Government, the size of new private homes would go up and the price would come down. It's simple supply and demand: no-one forces buyers to buy new homes, and developers have to charge the prices they do because housebuilding is an expensive business, taxed from every direction and treated as virtually a branch of government.

    Report on 12 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • jegwe
    Love rating 20
    jegwe said

    They have recently built two nice and quite desirable four bedroom houses near me each with a small but perfectly useable back garden. I know this because the builder kindly let me look at them whilst they were being built.

    Unfortunately, they are not on the market as two four bedroom houses. They are being let as four two bedroom houses with no room for expansion. Totally inadequate.

    Incidentally Aquasponge, I am currently still working and am living with my son in my house that I have worked to pay for . When he moves out, I will be living in it by myself. I like my house and I want to continue living in it. That is not hoarding it. When I eventually feel that it is no longer appropriate for me, I will sell it. I will not sell it to a "poor" person. I will sell it to somebody, probably a family, who work and have a sufficiently high level of skills and earnings to be able to afford to buy it.

    Perhaps you should take your eyes off of what other people have achieved and start looking at what you have to offer. I realise that you may live in a part of the country where getting a decent job is very difficult, but even so, your problems are not being caused by people who have managed to obtain things that you don't have. There are not so many rich people in this country. Most of those whom you accuse of hoarding their own homes I would classify as being "not quite poor" and they are very vulnerable.

    Report on 12 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • A13xM0rr150n
    Love rating 0
    A13xM0rr150n said

    I was a 1st time buyer about 2 years ago (now a landlord after getting married and moving in to Armed Forces accommodation).

    My new build was more affordable than anything 2nd hand in the immediate vicinity of a similar size, far better quality, and everything was under warranty. Yes it was small - but everything in SE England was small on my budget! I also had far more help from the developer (in the form of a 5-year 15% equity interest-free loan, carpets, flooring, and white goods thrown in with the purchase price).

    I bought off plan - there wasn't much "proper" storage (ie cupboards), but clever use of furniture you can store things in (eg divans), and extensive use of the loft meant we coped absolutely fine.

    All things considered, I'd still prefer to live in my lovely, new, tiny 1 bed flat, than the 1950s, 3 bed, wood chip and magnolia house that I live in now! Open you eyes - if you buy a new build, it's going to be small. Either buy something else, or cope.

    Report on 12 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    Jegwe thankyou for your comment and you are probably right. The UK has two big problems. Firstly the average worker in China earns less than the average person receiving benefits in the UK. Secondly is a loose understanding of income for tax purposes.

    Reducing tax on income and replacing this with tax on things that can not be offshored helps. Of course this won't happen.

    I wish you and son well.

    Report on 14 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Lovemoney articles are turning into an outpouring of tantrums by journalists based on their own mistakes. You'd have thought that journalists would be first in line to move to a part of the country where houses are very affordable and they can be best suited to work from home. Can we also stop with these rants against anyone who may have a better or bigger house or who has made better provision for their retirements. Life isn't fair, unfortunately. There are plenty out there who are in reality too stupid to be gainfully employed and probably a lot more who are smart and lazy and doing their best to avoid being employed. Housing is just another area where we seem to be now wanting to define who deserves a property and what property they deserve, with inequality due to inheritances and 'family wealth' thrown into the argument. I hate to remind everyone but by virtue of being born in the UK we are very fortunate and before debating whether some poor retired old lady should keep her family home you might consider why you have a house and not a mud hut.

    Report on 16 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • billyboy121
    Love rating 18
    billyboy121 said

    I think a lot of people have missed the point of this article, which is really about why the author thinks that govt shouldn't be encouraging new buyers (which I presume refers to First Time Buyers) into new builds.

    To me, the crux of the argument is that FTBs could be trapped in a home that isn't suitable for them but that they will be unable to sell on. This is arguably a worse situation than being stuck in a home for a twelve month lease. Ok, rent may be higher, but that's the limit of your liability - after the term of the lease you can move somewhere else.

    If you've bought a place which is effectively unsellable, but it's not big enough for your needs, you have nowhere to go - you either sell at a loss (if you can) or you stay put for some time.

    No one is disputing that the UK is comparatively a great place to live with a great standard of living compared to 90 odd % of the rest of the world.Or that in the old days people made do with a lot less. With respect, those points are valid but are not relevant.

    The issue here is whether the UK govt encouraging people to enter into contracts that involve taking on a debt of six figures for a property that may not be suitable for them and that they may not be able to exit from for some time is really an appropriate policy for a government to adopt.

    The real answer here is to use at a more intelligent use of existing housing stock and working with the financial sector to allocate some of the extra millions running off the printing presses into subsidising use of empty and abandoned properties, rather than propping up bond and share prices.

    Report on 17 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • ndf9876
    Love rating 10
    ndf9876 said

    I think this article highlights some very good points. Having looked at three new build houses recently, from Barratts, TW and Bellway, I can agree that they were over- priced (around the £290k mark) and compared to other, older houses, very small with little room for growth. Perhaps other commenters have had more positive experiences, but in my experience, the author is spot on. The reason the builders charge such inflated prices is because they can - people rock up with very little money (5% deposit) and want a house, and with these FTB schemes, they can get it. I think billyboy121 summarised the issue perfectly. As for me, well I'll be saving for at least a 15% deposit before I buy - and it won't be a new build!

    Report on 20 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    Very few builders build to a standard. Many build below a standard, knowing that inspectors only inspect about 10% of new builds to see if they meet the quality required.

    Recent history is replete with stories of people spending hundreds of thousands on their dream home, only to discover that it is substandard. In quite a few cases, the home has needed to be demolished and rebuilt from the footings up.

    (One house was so out of square that they couldn't even put a conservatory up, as the gaps at the bottom were too wide to fill with mastic).

    Most house builders using three quarter scale furniture to make their showhomes look bigger than they actually are. They even leave doors off to make enclosed spaces such as hallways appear more airy than they actually are. In my mind, using three quarter scale furniture should be illegal, as they are basically committing fraud if they state that regular furniture would fit, when it doesn't. Unfortunately, our government don't have the balls to tackle this issue.

    That's not to say that ALL builders are the same. David Wilson tend to build more spacious properties.

    Also, remember that developers use the services of estate agents to sell their properties, and you will never find a bigger group of liars than those. When I viewed a five bedroom executive home, I questioned why it has such a small garden, only to be told that the modern executive doesn't want a large garden. I suppose the modern executive also drives a Mini.

    On another plot with a tiny garden, the sales assistant told me that the reason the plot was so small was because of government legislation that DEMANDED each property had a small garden, rather than the real excuse, which was that the developer wanted to cram as many rabbit hutches onto as small a plot as possible.

    By the way, there is a new fad among developers, whereas they can reduce the footprint of a property by building three storeys instead of two. This means you get the same living area as a two storey building, but on a much smaller footprint of land, with the distinct disadvantage of having to scale two sets of stairs instead of one. The other disadvantage to having three storeys is that you are more likely overlooked in your minuscule garden, making privacy a real issue.

    (I live in a bungalow, and am surrounded by bungalows, so my privacy is intact, thank God).

    Other things to beware of, are tandem drives and tandem garages. Unlike a real double garage or drive, you need to remove the last vehicle in to get to the first vehicle in, so you don't have a true double. Tandem garages are only really useful if you have a lot of junk you don't want to store in the house, and a tandem drive only useful if you have a caravan you want to store at home. If you want to get your car out of a tandem garage behind a tandem drive, you might have to remove three other vehicles first before you can safely be on your way.

    On the subject of drives, many developers cannot be bothered to do proper levelling, especially in undulating developments, so if you buy a property with a drive that rises or lowers to your property, ensure that your handbrake works properly on your car. One property I looked at in Whiteley actually had a two tier garden, with the second garden being a twenty five foot drop from the first. Even though there was a mesh fence between the two gardens, anyone falling over the fence would, no doubt, drop to their death.

    Basically, the state of the modern build is diabolical, and developers know that they can more or less do whatever they want. New builds are supposed to be in keeping with the existing buildings, yet I know of one development of terraces that were built next to a row of detached properties, even though all the residents complained. The development company was disbanded as soon as the development was completed, so there is no comeback for the poor sods who bought those terraces.

    (Although I cannot prove it, I have it on good authority that quite a few backhanders were given out to select officials to sweeten the deal when putting through the plans, and the owner of the development company also owns another thirty nine other development companies, both defunct and active; appears he starts a development company up, builds a new development, then liquidates the company, then starts the ball rolling all again).

    Report on 21 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    I live a short walk from the Sultan of Omans UK pad (he was the worlds 8th richest person when bought) and a short drive from the UKs most expensive house (When sold in 2007). The Sultan only pops in roughly once a year, and hasn't dare leave Oman since the Arab spring (for fear of not being allowed back) and Park Place is being divided into 10 plots, pencilled in for two Russians, two Italians, one Spainard and one Greek.

    All have been bought through companies so shares can be transferred easily to friends and families without having to worry about telling HMRC. So much for our current system and theme park Britain really is turning into the citidel of thieves.

    Report on 21 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aquasponge
    Love rating 38
    Aquasponge said

    Wealth creators are good and should be encouraged. Wealth hoarders are bad and should be encouraged to change behaviour.

    We only have three weapons to choose from; legislation, tax or shame - I prefer the reverse order.

    Report on 21 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Happy Bunny
    Love rating 1
    Happy Bunny said

    Matchmade - I so agree with your comments - especially the affordable homes rule.

    Report on 21 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • anonyy
    Love rating 16
    anonyy said

    I was given the opportunity to view a council flat on a new development. It's a 1 bed it was tiny. I would have had to get rid off THREE quarters of everything I owned. My wardrobe was small three door. Would have had to buy a small two door. The bedroom was ONLY big enough to get a double and nothing else. No storage space not even flooring it was concrete. Was a kitchen / lounge. Again get rid of my oven as they had a built in one, get rid of dryer. Get rid of my two armchairs leaving me with only the three seater. All that for £70 - - a week rent. I hear they are around £90 a week now!

    Disgusting RIP OFF BRITAIN!

    Report on 02 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2