buying a "house for removal" and placing on IP site

Hi

I have an IP in Ipswich. Property is over 1000sqm. available to dual oc as well as sub divide. house is currently rented out.

I read an article ( but can't find it) in Australian property investor about people who purchased houses that were adveritsed as " house available for removal" ( essentially free) and transported them to their IP sites in order to double their rental yield.

Essentially I would like to create a dual oc on the cheap. Council has no problem with the dual oc app - should cost all up 10k with town planner incl.

Would like to hear from people who have done this type of IP improvement - any advice. whats the down side? :eek:
 
Have never done this, but did look at this option as opposed to a new build in the back yard.

At the time we checked it out, our architect friend told us that apart from the cost of transporting, re-attaching two sides of the house, renovating (new kitchen and bathroom) we would have to pay to have the old house meet current building codes. He was talking about tie down rods etc.

At the time (about four years ago) his opinion was that it was easier to just build a new place. With prices to build now much higher than back then, I don't know if this would hold true.

The other thing he told us was that whilst the front house is fine "as is" if we raised it to legal head height, we then had to make sure it met the current building code, which meant more money than just the raising plus associated costs.

Curious to know if this is true? And whether people who have done it feel the costs outweigh the saving by buying a house for removal?

I am sure BoatBoy has done this. Maybe do a search on his name and PM him.
 
Have never done this, but did look at this option as opposed to a new build in the back yard.

At the time we checked it out, our architect friend told us that apart from the cost of transporting, re-attaching two sides of the house, renovating (new kitchen and bathroom) we would have to pay to have the old house meet current building codes. He was talking about tie down rods etc.

At the time (about four years ago) his opinion was that it was easier to just build a new place. With prices to build now much higher than back then, I don't know if this would hold true.

The other thing he told us was that whilst the front house is fine "as is" if we raised it to legal head height, we then had to make sure it met the current building code, which meant more money than just the raising plus associated costs.

Curious to know if this is true? And whether people who have done it feel the costs outweigh the saving by buying a house for removal?

I am sure BoatBoy has done this. Maybe do a search on his name and PM him.

I raised the old Beach House to legal height to build underneath. Yes there were council codes to abide by...and that was really a piece of cake, but that wasn't my biggest problem. When you have an old house, every vertical and horizontal line is not perpendicular to the other. So you end up with tiles along one wall that are an inch wider than the other end, and so everything you build inside the house has to be custom made and adjusted to fit. The other issue is that the entire house had to be rewired, and that was not cheap. It is nevertheless, a very rewarding experience.

My builder warned me before I started that it would be cheaper to knock the place down and start again. But I wanted to keep the character of the old house there somewhere...and this has been achieved.
 
I agree Sailor. We did extensive renovations to the house we live in. We didn't raise it, but instead excavated (into rock :eek:). If we had our time again, we would probably pull it down and start again, but we are in a character area, so getting approval to remove the house was not a straightforward option.

I hear you with the straight walls thing. Plenty of bathrooms we have had to fiddle with the AC sheeting to make a wall straight enough to tile.
 
I agree Sailor. We did extensive renovations to the house we live in. We didn't raise it, but instead excavated (into rock :eek:). If we had our time again, we would probably pull it down and start again, but we are in a character area, so getting approval to remove the house was not a straightforward option.

I hear you with the straight walls thing. Plenty of bathrooms we have had to fiddle with the AC sheeting to make a wall straight enough to tile.

And I definately second that! It would have cost Mr Natmarie half as much to pull down the queenslander and build new, but we are also in a character area and the council doesn't allow it. I don't think there is a single straight wall in the whole house, and it is definately not square which has caused all sorts of issues with kitchen and bathroom installations.

I would be definately heading to do a new build unless you couldn't due to council restrictions - it is much cheaper.
 
I've given this idea passing thought as I have an IP with a lot of empty space on the block and we'll probably put a second house there in a year or two, but honestly I'd lean towards either a transportable delivered (cheaper than an on-site build), or the slightly cheaper again but virtually identical option of buying an ex-display transportable. The transportable companies sell them off from time to time, I don't know exactly what is involved with it all though. You're a bit more likely to get square and asbestos free with that option :)
 
Top