Then you could have had a cheaper house.
You are in none.
Read Unaffordable Housing by the Policy Exchange. All there. Get back when you are stuck.
This fool doesn't know when he is being ripped-off
Dribble, as might be expected, managed to delete all the meaningful content of my previous post. Said content is repeated below:
direction to a few adverts for cheap building plots? Just say what you would consider cheap and I will try to accommodate you."
comprehending a simple question, let alone having the capacity to answer it.
Dribble is still incapable of saying what he thinks is a cheap building plot. Something anyone with an IQ of more than 50 should manage without any problem.
Roger, none of your posts ever have meaningful content.
Doctor Drivel wrote: snip
Think what you like but to the rest of usenet all your ravings do is confirm what an imbecile you are.
I see you still haven't managed to work out what you think is a cheap building plot.
Not typical, and certainly not cheap, but The Independent had a report last week on a quarter acre building plot in London on the market for, IIRC, £600,000 with the suggested building costs £800,000 - £1,000,000.
That looks a lot closer to the 35% I quoted earlier than Dribble's two thirds. FWIW ISTM that it just doesn't make sense to build a rabbit hutch on an expensive plot and that is equally valid whether the expensive plot is £100,000 or £1,000,000.
That sounds implausible to me. IIRC the last time I checked rebuilding costs for someone in the UK I got a figure of about £1,500/m2. Call it £2,000 and you are talking about a house of 400-500m2, say 5,000ft2, an awful lot of house for that size of plot. I would have expected a house of around 2,5000ft2 max at which point you're much nearer the 35%
The real problem is 'what is a rebuild'
To rebuild a basic equipped shell with magnolia painted interiors and no =
fitments beyond the basics given a decent foundation is about =A360 /sq f= t
To equip a London penthouse flat already existing *shell* to full=20 magazine quality bling, may be 3 times that...
Likewise its a lot cheaper to take a well equipped new build site with=20 decent access than it is to build in Central London, where access and is =
restricted, adjacent houses are in the way of heavy equipment, parking=20 is a nightmare and building costs are high..
From The Independent Wednesday 22nd July:
************************************************************************Sourcing woodland in an urban setting is rare, particularly if it comes with planning permission. However agents Wooster and Stock are marketing a quarter of an acre plot in Grove Park, south London, which comes complete with mature trees and planning permission for a five-bedroom house. "It's very rare that something like this comes on. Two years ago it would have flown out of the window, but it will sell to someone looking for something special," says Luke Wooster.
The plot's current owner, an architect, is well versed in the rigours of the planning process but, despite this, it still took almost five years to get full planning permission. "Anyone without that sort of knowledge would have been incredibly frustrated," says Wooster. Build costs are estimated at around £800,000-£1,000,000 on top of the plot itself, which is for sale at £650,000. However, the eventual buyer will end up with a property set among mature trees, which come with a preservation order, where the hustle and bustle of city living isn't an issue.
"Nobody overlooks you and you can't see another house, yet you are within 15 minutes of the city." Prospective buyers will need to bring with them more than imagination: "It's incredibly overgrown with lots of nettles. You will definitely need long trousers."
******************************************************************I couldn't find the original article before my previous post so I relied on memory which proved a bit faulty. Plot price was £650,000, not £600,000. Sorry about that.
Whole article can be found on line:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.