Should You Demolish and Rebuild?

14It might seem a little counter-intuitive to take a perfectly good house and knock it down to build a new one in its place.

Why not renovate, extend or bolt another storey onto the existing building? Surely that would make better sense financially? In some circumstances this is the case and, of course, a lot
of people choose to take the home improvement route to great effect.

However, in many parts of the UK knocking down and rebuilding is by far the most cost-effective solution – and in areas where individual plots are rare, it is often the best way to secure the home that you want.

Here, I’m looking at the pros and cons of knocking down and starting again.

Why demolish & rebuild?

Houses can’t last forever. Many of the homes now available on the open market were built between the late Victorian period and the mid-1970s. They were designed and constructed for very different generations, with completely different expectations in terms of lifestyle, comfort and energy efficiency.

What’s more, prior to 1948 (without the influence of modern planners) anything went – so there are some pretty eccentric properties out there, which can be hard to sell.

This old stock comprises largely of houses that were originally built with no central heating system and little or no insulation. They typically have much smaller rooms, each with
a specific function but often without the creature comforts and flexibility we have come to expect from modern designs. Plus early properties in this period didn’t even have a bathroom, let alone an ensuite.

What they did have, at least in more rural locations, was land. If you had plenty of this before the Town and Country Planning Act came into force back in 1947, you could basically build whatever you wanted on your own property.

So this often meant that – by modern standards – relatively modest homes were being built
on very generous plots.

The usual candidates up for replacement are bungalows and detached houses built between the post-war austerity era (so from the late 1940s) and the decade that architecture forgot (the 1970s).

What properties are OK to knock-down and rebuild?

Obviously, terraced houses and even semi-detached ones are trickier to replace, as you will usually need to secure consent to demolish and replace several homes at once.

Without the agreement of everyone, that’s not going to happen. Some terrace renovations in high-value areas involve gutting the building to little more than the adjoining wall and the facade – but this kind of project won’t count as a full self build for VAT purposes (more on this later).

You also need to consider whether older properties with character would be better off being refurbished rather than replaced, as there is still a strong market for period houses.

What’s more, examples with historical or architectural significance will have been protected by the listed buildings scheme – although there are still a huge number of characterful properties that have not been listed.

You’ll soon find out if you have a building that has fallen through the net, as preservation orders can be obtained quickly if someone spots a structure about to be demolished that should be saved.

An interesting point someone made to me recently was that you rarely see an oak frame house being replaced. They tend to be built with longevity in mind, probably centuries, while most modern homes have a design life of 60-80 years.

It’s not that your home will fall down at that point, but more likely that tastes and lifestyles will have evolved so much by then, it’s time for something new.

The post Should You Demolish and Rebuild? appeared first on Build It.

Article reference Should You Demolish and Rebuild?