Tapestry Rails

[Nigel Watts]

Stacey's already said that she needs to sell the period features in order to raise funds to do the conversion. I guess if she had the funds available without selling the features then she'd leave them where they are.

She gave two reasons: to fund the conversion and because she didnt want them to be sold/damaged after any sale.

I have sympathy for the first of these reasons. I think if I were faced with this predicament I would want to develop a financial case for the conversion. How much would the house sell for as separate units, how long might it take to sell, and what kind of standard of conversion would be needed given the area are the first questions to answer. I would then work out a budget for the conversion work itself. If the increased sale value exceeded the conversion cost, allowing a reasonable margin for error, but I didn't have the cash flow to do it I would look to see if there were any other forms of finance, eg an increased mortgage, before considering flogging off the mantelpieces. An alternative might be to rent the property for a period (converted or otherwise) until the market picks up.

Worrying about whether the next owner will sell or destroy the features does not strike me as a particularly good reason for selling or destroying them oneself first. Generally speaking I think it is best not to worry too much about what future owners will do to one's beloved house. They are bound to do hideous things so try to spare yourself the angst by not dwelling on it. There might be a few things you could do. Trying to get the house listed is one. Another might be to try to include a restrictive covenant in the contract of sale or in the contract between the leaseholder and freeholder. Generally speaking flats in converted houses are sold on long leases which means someone has to own the freehold and that there has to be a contract between the leaseholder and freeholder, and quite often the leaseholders will jointly own the freehold. These contracts can always be changed by mutual agreement, but it is pain to do so, and if it were a jointly owned freehold all parties may have to agree.

 

[wobs]

Not an expert in splitting up a property, but it is certainly common. We were in London at the weekend, and noted how many large terraced houses had multiple door bell buttons.

I note that you are in Humberside (East Riding Of Yorkshire surely). If you are in or near Hull, have a look down Albion street in the city centre. There are a number of properties that have been converted into flats that seem to have a number of period features. Also, a friend of mine has a flat in the old Post Office building in the old town, and the old oak panelling and door frames are still there. They really work well with the modern style of the conversion that the building underwent.

The point is that such features can really enhance a conversion, and ripping them out can/may reduce the value of what you have broken up. Using what you have rather than selling off for use in other properties can make financial and asthetic sense.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Sense prevails at last...

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/12/17/top-floors-being-reconverted-to-traditional-lofts/

 

[Moo]

Oh, if only !!!!

I especially like the idea of the designer touches (defunct Amstrad and dead starling...)