Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

Original poster

Wise mumsnetters, please help with my property dilemma!

52 replies

LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 10:10

Have had an offer on a house accepted which is going through slowly as the vendor is being sluggish about getting quotes for the work that the survey threw up. Have now seen another house and have lost a bit of perspective on the whole thing. I have a DD of 6 months, and these are the relative points of the houses in question. Would be interested in your gut reactions:

House 1

Three bedroomed, 200 yr old terrace within walking distance of station in small, attractive Cotswold town. Said station is the mainline into London, which is important to me as I still have a flat there and most of my friends! Disadvantages are that it has no garden or outside space (though a little park is two mins walk and the green areas of the Cotswolds are all around, plenty of walks) AND is on the main road through the town (which isn't busy, except when a train is due, but still).

House needs a lot of work.

House 2

Four bedroomed terrace in a village, with a reasonable sized ramshackle back garden, with two bathrooms. Village is three miles from little town above. Also needs a lot of work, perhaps even more than house above. Also on a mainish road. Perhaps less attractive on outside than above house.

What would you do? Both similar price.

OP posts:
kitsmummy · 12/05/2009 10:44

House with garden, for me that would be a no-brainer. Can't you drive to the train station? Or buy neither house and wait til a closer house comes onto the market with garden?

PortoPandemico · 12/05/2009 10:48

With a small child I would ALWAYS go for the garden! We lived in an apartment for 2 years, with a park/swings right behind. But it involved "going out" to visit it IFYSWIM. We now have a small garden and it is so much better - dd can just run in and out and play as she wants.

jeanjeannie · 12/05/2009 10:49

I'd always plump for the garden! Even if a park is two mins away, it's just so nice to have instant access - it's like another room, plus gives you a break - make a cuppa and watch them from the window! I've found now I've got two DC under 3 that a trip to our park (visible from the window) is an expedition. We're now in the middle of a major garden makeover and I'm so excited...it'll be fab as they can be straight out of the patio doors and playing. I'm also thinking of the potty training benefits [winks]

Three miles from a town that gave me an access/link back to London would be enough for me.

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 10:51

Ah, well I can't drive and even if I could we won't be getting two cars (and DP needs the one we have got for work), and we need to buy a house soon as we are living in a very small flat and it is driving us nuts and could do with a bedroom for DD! Ideally we would like a three bedroom house with a garden in the town where the station is, but can't afford it...

I have never had a garden as lived in London flats for aeons so in a sense I wouldn't miss one. I am thinking DD could do without one until she is about 3 or 4, but I am worried about the resale potential of a house without the garden (though so near the station into London might mitigate this). We've got one now (a shared one) but, as I say, the flat is tiny!

OP posts:
Bramshott · 12/05/2009 10:51

I'd go for garden and more space. You can always drive / cycle / get a taxi to the station.

Bramshott · 12/05/2009 10:53

Hmm, if you will have no car in the week, you might feel isolated in a village. Is there really nothing available in the town that has a garden? It sounds to me as though neither of those houses is really right for you (sorry!).

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 10:58

Yes, I live in a village now and do feel isolated, which is why I wanted the first house despite no garden. But there are no three bedroom houses with a garden in my price range in the town and I don't really want to buy a two bedroom place or a bungalow.

On the other hand, the second house has a bus stop two seconds away, with hourly buses to the town.

OP posts:
LaDiDaDi · 12/05/2009 11:12

House 2 for me.

LaDiDaDi · 12/05/2009 11:15

How small is the village? What amenities does it have?

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 11:17

Village has one shop and one pub only (standard in the villages around here). Oh, and bizarrely, a beauty salon!

OP posts:
bran · 12/05/2009 11:19

I would always rather be in a town than a village, especially if I didn't have access to a car. It is a bit tricky to not have any outside space at all, but the convenience of being in a town would outweigh that IMO.

LaDiDaDi · 12/05/2009 11:20

What are the demographics like? Are there other young families are is it mainly older folk? I can see that you might feel a bit isolated if you can't easily walk to places/meet people.

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 11:29

Yes, Bran, that is my thinking. But I am worried about the resale thing of not having a garden more than I am bothered about not having a garden, never really having had the luxury of one myself (the one now is, as I said, shared).

The town which the first house is in is popular, attractive and well thought of. Not only is the station within walking distance, but the doctor is too and there are three gorgeous pubs and a further one which is so so. There is a nice little range of local shops and the house itself is Grade II listed. I had been really excited about the town itself, which is so nice.

The village in which House 2 is in is small, perhaps with older people. Less of a community feel as it straddles a main road (that's just my assumption, however).

If we bought House 1 we would be thinking about moving on after 3 or 4 years to buy somewhere with a garden. We would stay in House 2 longer.

OP posts:
JimmyMcNulty · 12/05/2009 12:06

If you are not averse to moving again in 3 or 4 years anyway I would rent for a while instead if you can; you can try out an area and see what it is really like living there. And you'll be more likely to be able to afford what you actually want in a year or two's time.

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 12:09

Renting wouldn't make financial sense for us, I don't think...

OP posts:
Bramshott · 12/05/2009 12:26

Surely renting makes admirable financial sense in a falling market?

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 12:29

Rental say of £1000 per month for a year is £12k, which we will never see again. It's gambling on whether something would be more than £12k cheaper in a year, and I have my doubts.

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 12/05/2009 12:41

House 2.

Bramshott · 12/05/2009 12:41

Yes, but surely most of what you pay on a mortgage is interest (which you will never see again) and only a small part is repaying the capital?

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 12:42

I'm a cash buyer, so no.

OP posts:
Bramshott · 12/05/2009 12:45

Ah, I see, that does make sense then!

Lizzylou · 12/05/2009 12:45

Cotswolds

House 2, take some driving lessons and a cheap runabout car if you feel stranded.
Garden every time, I'm afraid. Just being able to open your back door and chuck em outside is a godsend.

Original poster
LadyThompson · 12/05/2009 12:52

Ok, I think that is 8 votes for House 2 and 1 vote for House 1! My heart says House 1. My head says House 2.

OP posts:
QueentessentialShadow · 12/05/2009 12:56

House 2, it has a garden.Babies have use of a garden (supervised) from they are 1.

PestoBlusteryMonster · 12/05/2009 12:58

I would also choose the house with a garden.