QLD Demolish house at Coorparoo, Brisbane?

Hello, I hope this is an appropriate place to ask this question.

I am new to the process of selling a property, and am hoping to get some advice for my in-laws. They have an 850 sq metre flat block opposite a park and about a ten minute walk to Coorparoo train station. They are looking to downsize and wonder if they would likely achieve a better sale price if they demolish the house and just sell the land. Its a 4 bed house about 40 years old, with only minor improvements. They have noticed that larger blocks of land seem to be in high demand close to the city.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

 

I appreciate the quick response! I don't want to call agents quite yet - as it is they drop pamphlets all the time and its quite annoying for them. I guess the house does have renovation potential for someone who wanted to take the time, they could almost double the size and still have a big yard.

 

We have recently been through this in Sydney and are about to go through it again.

The good advice we received was to renovate and stage the house - even if we were confident that it would be a development block.

We were also advised not to get DAs or the like.

The idea was to sell the dream - you are never sure who will buy it. Some developers may pay extra because they envisage something you don’t, some will need to rent the house out while they get organised and sometimes it will be a family looking for a big block with future options.

A renovated place will appeal to them all - unrenovated may be a problem or indicate a desperate seller.

 

The number one danger of demolishing it to sell as vacant land is that I'm pretty sure they will lose their CGT exemption as it would no longer be their PPOR it would be vacant land.

Give it a small freshen up. Any body that wants to knock down and build will be fine with that and people that want to live in it for awhile or rent out will be happy too.

 

If its a splitter block and they don't want to develop it, I'd probably sell it as is but get subdivision approval which doesn't cost much. It will attract the small developers and they may get a small premium for the approval in place. Of course this is assuming it's a good splitter site. Impossible to know without seeing it.

 

Thanks for your advice. I don't know if it would be any good as a split block, its a uniform shape but narrow - about 55 x 15 I think. I personally think they should rent it out because I assume a big block close to city will only go up in value, but they seem intent on selling.

 

Can't be split then. Dam.

 

I think a second house at the back would mean shifting the house, or demolishing. There is no room for a driveway to the back currently.

 

Agree @wylie, I'd definitely be assessing all my options for the land so I know it's real value before marketing.

 

True. Anyway, from what I have seen advertised recently I think they will make enough to downsize and have plenty leftover, which is what they want.

 

But why leave money on the table if you can take more off? Not saying there is more money on the table, but worth to be certain imo.

 

Yes, definitely. They were thrilled to see the latest BCC valuation of about $750k value, but I'm sure its worth a good deal more to the right person.

 

pm me the address and I will have a look at it for you

 

Knockdown rebuilds on big blocks are selling for high prices in coorparoo. It takes around 12 months in planning and approvals so keeping the house on there would give the buyer a rental property in the interim - and open up more buyers as their borrowing capacity would be greater when factoring in potential rental income.
I've started putting the word out to sell my coorparoo blocks and there isn't much in the way of vacant land for sale around there. And nothing of your parents' size at all.

 

Agreed - from a developer's POV, keeping the house means cash flow during the DA process so that's a positive. If the house presents any heritage value, a developer will want a clear site to avoid any headaches down the track.

That said, any large trees that are obviously within a potential developer's building envelope is recommended to be removed as it will become infinitely more valuable to the developer (council's are usually tougher on developers when it comes to tree removal applications)

 

It occurred to me recently that a second level would probably have city views. Lots of options to consider. (why city views are so prized has always been a bit lost on me..)