Someone posted a link to this show home on Reddit

[StanfordPines]

They wanted to comment on how small it was, and I agree.
I thought I’d share.
I’d be interested to see measurements and know how much they are asking for it.

www.revolutionviewing.co.uk/persimmon-homes/generic/the-morden/1/360/v-2/index.html?fs=true

I don't think this is new, my first house was 1980s and a similar size. We actually had even less storage, just an 80cm wide built in cupboard in the master bedroom. No under stairs cupboard because the stairs were in the living room. It was fine for a couple but we moved before we had children.

The layout is really good. As someone who has lived in a home like this, I can tell you that when you can afford nowt else, homes like these are fabulous.

Also, in regards to build quality, we left our two-bed tiny new build for a 1930s terrace. Our neighbour was a builder and reckons the woodwork on the whole estate was done by a pissed carpenter. None of the door frames were straight, the walls couldn't be cavity insulated and the third bedroom was titchy.

It's not just small, there's no storage.

It's a shoe box.

What a silly question, of course getting more for your money or spending less is always a better outcome

It’s not a silly question when you and multiple other posters seem absolutely content with the fact that developers are taking a 30% profit on necessary commodity. We wouldn’t stand for that in relation to other state supported services so why are people so happy to do that in relation to housing?

I’d be pretty appalled if a developer was putting up their own money and it was just good old capitalism that was allowing them to shaft those at the bottom of the housing ladder but when you factor in the tax payer subsidies it’s scandalous.

Lots of people are talking about affordable housing - How affordable are these 'starter' homes though. Those of you who cite that you lived in similar or smaller as your first home, what was the income multiplier required for you to obtain those mortgages, size of your deposit, stamp duty etc. A 1980's whimpey starter home was in fact affordable. Key to these properties is the fact the developers are prospering at the expense of the homeowner....it then feeds and fuels a skewed housing market from there.

I know what it took to buy my first property in the 1990's vs the impossibility of my children's ability to do it now. It is almost impossible for a single person to afford one of these. I never thought I'd have to hope my DC meet someone (-rich-) nice just so they can afford a first home.

Of course if one or two peoole living there it’s not substandard. How snobby can you get.

Have you looked at any of the cases involving the developer? No of course not you’re just being contrary for the sake of it and if you think that all that single parents and divorcees deserve are poorly built, overpriced houses, you’re the snob not me

It’s persimmon so they shouldn’t be asking more than £100 for it

Yes to PP who said about profit. My DH is a developer and there’s a lot of profit to be made on these types of houses. They sell well because they’re cheap, often all some can afford, and are extremely cheap to build. Usually less than 50% of the sale price.

@RedAntsBiteHard

Lots of people are talking about affordable housing - How affordable are these 'starter' homes though. Those of you who cite that you lived in similar or smaller as your first home, what was the income multiplier required for you to obtain those mortgages, size of your deposit, stamp duty etc. A 1980's whimpey starter home was in fact affordable. Key to these properties is the fact the developers are prospering at the expense of the homeowner....it then feeds and fuels a skewed housing market from there.

I know what it took to buy my first property in the 1990's vs the impossibility of my children's ability to do it now. It is almost impossible for a single person to afford one of these. I never thought I'd have to hope my DC meet someone (-rich-) nice just so they can afford a first home.

Exactly. I bought my first house in the early 2000. We bought a two bed terrace with two of us on little more than minimum wage. This was helped by the fact that they would give just about anyone a mortgage in those days.

Could someone buy this house on the same?

@PegasusReturns

Of course if one or two peoole living there it’s not substandard. How snobby can you get.

Have you looked at any of the cases involving the developer? No of course not you’re just being contrary for the sake of it and if you think that all that single parents and divorcees deserve are poorly built, overpriced houses, you’re the snob not me

The thread isn’t about the quality of persimmon. It’s about the size of the property, read the op. It’s not very long.

The thread isn’t about the quality of persimmon. It’s about the size of the property, read the op. It’s not very long

Perhaps follow your own advice. The OP explicitly asks about cost which speaks to value. It’s the third sentence if you’re struggling

Value clearly includes quality or lack thereof, something this developer is renowned for and frankly even if it didn’t since when do we have to stick only to the specifics raised by the OP. That would make MN very dull but you’re reaching now so you know that

@PegasusReturns

They are substandard. That is a demonstrable fact that can be verified by looking at the significant number of legal cases involving these particular developers and the appalling build quality of the houses.

Combined with lofts that cannot be utilised, rooms that don’t fit standard size furniture and the fact that these homes are often built a distance from reasonable infrastructure/amenities makes them substandard in terms of providing appropriate accommodation.

That is not a value judgement on the person that lives in them. Thousands of people live in substandard housing and frankly they deserve better. Why don’t you believe they do?

Agree. People deserve better. Not sure why everyone is so keen to side with the profit making developers

I posted up thread but as an affordable starter home....
Its 230,000 here (not London or anywhere especially fancy). That price does not include extras. Extras would be everything from any type of flooring, to turf in the garden. 230,000 would not get the house in the photos by any means

Even if we said the house actually cost 230,000

It would need at least a 23k deposit plus solicitors fees (5% deposits aren't a thing currently)

Halifax would expect over a thousand pound a month mortgage and for you as a couple to be earning over 55k.

Its not housing that is acessible to anyone in typical starter jobs, the average uk single person, or even something like a pair of newly qualified nurses. Let alone people with child care costs, people on minimum wage etc . It is just about in reach of two people on the national average wage, which obviously means the large amounts of anyone thats less than average would be discounted.

Obviously the deposit would discount larger groups of people too.

This sort of housing is fine in my opinion if its affordable to 2 adults on basic wages as a "no fuss/starter/bare basics house"

Its not okay that the average person would struggle to afford it, and definately struggle to use it as just a starter home

It’s fine, my friend lives in what looks like an identical house with his husband and son. Its nice and much bigger than the flat I lived in with my son and a housemate until I could afford something bigger.

I think partially the issue is that people compare these houses to the first flats they bought, that were affordable on an average starting wage, that you only lived in for a few years, look back on with nostalgia and moved out of for bigger things. That weren't designed for longer term living , you weren't planning on raising a family long term in etc

Some of the lower prices people gave would allow for that comparison, if its affordable then its a perfect starter home.

If it needs you to have saved 25k, be in a job that earns over 50k and costs over a thousand a month then the comparison doesn't work because most people will never be able to step up from them, and will end up raising families etc in what people around them are comparing to their first flat

I live near an estate built in the 80s which is mostly starter homes. They might be smaller than this cos the second bedroom is a box room and the stairs are in the living room. Its very popular with young families but come up for sale often as the families outgrow the box room.

I guess the location and the security of living in a nice family focused estate is the appeal.

You are right though OP. The builder should give more consideration to practicalities of life like storage. I bet most people would choose a utility room or storage over that downstairs loo.

@SimonJT

It’s fine, my friend lives in what looks like an identical house with his husband and son. Its nice and much bigger than the flat I lived in with my son and a housemate until I could afford something bigger.

@SimonJT have you read the full thread? The OP's concerns are about more than size - and rightly so in my opinion. As below, it makes me sad that so many people are rushing to say this is okay.

I think that probably comes from a well meant place of wanting to support people living in similar houses. But as stated by @PegasusReturns above, this is not a value judgement about the occupants, but the companies making obscene profits fleecing their customers.

It's a social justice issue - as @XPuppetry just said, at these prices people are likely to get stuck in these houses as their families grow. Living in cramped conditions is stressful and harmful to wellbeing.

The objections made toward people pointing this out are therefore misplaced. The anger needs to be directed at these companies, not the people pointing out their wrongdoings.

And as I said below, I do not come from a place of privilege saying this. My house is worth less than £200k, and my 'garden' is a paved area the size of a postage stamp. I'm in my early 40s, and like many people who bought their first home in the last 5-10 years, will struggle to progress very far up the housing ladder.

I agree with the comments about the builders being at fault and greedy.
One of the houses I lived in had a third bedroom that was a tiny room not fit for purpose. Probably meant they could build an extra house along the street as most if the houses were the same and get the extra money.

Their should be laws against it.

It's a 2 bed family home. My flat is probably about the same size (ds and I live here but downstairs is 2ads and a teen).

It's not that small. Downstairs is all open and bedrooms are big enough size with built in wardrobes.

My flat is worth £220k in my area. Would be half that up north!

It also has a decent outside space.

What are people expecting. It's a house designed for 3 maybe 4 people.

The only thing I don't like is the loo off the kitchen but I guess you could change it to a utility if you wanted?

What are people expecting. It's a house designed for 3 maybe 4 people.

You think 4 people could live in there?

I agree with everything @XPuppetry said. This is a starter home. It should be affordable to people at the very beginning.

There should be regulations, as there are in many other countries, governing the minimum size of housing and houses like this should be affordable.

We viewed one of there 3 bed town houses and it had 3 nice size double rooms , but the downstairs was tiny.
2 seater sofa and a chair and tv was about all you would get in living room and kitchen had small 4 seater table but no room in small fitted kitchen for dishwasher or tumble dryer and even table chairs would of got in your way and worktop was limited of you had kettle, toaster and microwave.
I mentioned to agent about how small downstairs was and she said well its a case of deciding if bedrooms are more important, I said well it would be nice if 4 of us could actually all sit on front room.
It had large toilet between frontroom and kitchen and could of incorporated a washing machine with a little thinking or , the use of space would of been better with a small wc at front of house and open plan lounge/ diner
All the other new build 3 beds have a stupidly small 3rd bedroom

You can't choose to loose downstairs loo's i don't think they are a requirement
Im not priviledged I live in a council house but even us un privileged people can see the size of some of these new builds are silly and nit practical and yes where I am in se that home would be about £200000 ish

I suspect that’s why the laughable ‘dining room’ is this named - because it’s actually not legal to have a toilet opening directly off a kitchen...n.
Not sure if thats true as my parents had one and as long as had an extractor or something was ok, they lived in house 20 years and my dad said rules on loos of kitchens changed several times and they sold it a couple years ago no issues
My mil removed a downstairs loo and was then told she had to reinstate it by building inspector and was practically in the kitchen with a bi fold door that was only 5 years ago ish so think this rule changes and can vary