Hi all,

I have just moved to Sheffield and am living in Hillsborough in a rented house for 6 months as I am still in the process of selling my flat in London.

I am single and will probably get a mortgage about £100000. I work in Young Street in S1 near the roundabout at the junction of Ecclesal Road, Charter Row and Hanover Way.

I am looking for a 1 or 2 bedroom flat or house, garage is a plus. If it is more bedrooms so much the better.

The first idea I have is living as close as possible to work, but in a cheap area. Can anyone recommend an area within 20 minutes walk of where I work in the city centre, but where I can get something between £50000 and £100000?
I don't care if the area has pretty basic facilities, but I am concerned about crime. So nowhere with lots of muggings and burglaries. I realise this may not exist on this budget.

Alternatively can anyone recommend a commuting town within 20 minutes drive or even better accessible by rail again which is OK crimewise? What do people think of Chesterfield, Barnsley, Rotherham or Doncaster?

Thanks

On that budget your going to be hard pushed to find much with your requirements - possibly highfields/lowfields or maybe heely though even ex council places in the middle of pretty undesirable estates are going for 50K and upwards. For 100K you MAY just about get a one room apartment in one of the new complexes going up/recently gone up in town.

I don't really know the outlying towns so I'll leave someone else to answer that :)

I suggest you look at one of the estate agents sites and search within your price range. If the surrounding neighbourhood either isn't mentioned or is a little vague in the text, it is quite often because there is little of merit to say about it. You will be hard pushed to find more than a one bedroomed. compact apartment in the city centre. Woodseats might offer a good compromise, there are often older properties come on the market that may need a liitle work. Well served by buses and local ammenities.

I commuted between Doncaster and Sheffield for two years, with no real problems. Doncaster isn't bad, like most cities it has its dodgy areas but Town Moor (where I lived) is lovely, and close to the town centre.

I live in the Headford Gardens area, which is very close to where you will be working, and you might just get a 2 bed flat for less than £100k, but definately a 1 bed place.

There has been quite a lot of discussion about the area in other posts on this forum already in terms of crime and burglary, but i have been here for 6 months and had ony minor problems (eg peple parking in my parking space who shouldn't!). It's so easy to get into town, but it's quiet and has some nice views as well.

I am a private landlord and yesterday I went to look at a new development called Jet Centro on St Mary's gate. A smartpad on the 4th floor is 99,000 and I was quite impressed. It had a bedroom area that was virtually separate ( and could easily be completely separate), a spacious living area, a partially separated kitchen and a very nice shower room. Also included is car parking in the basement.

I,m not sure about the area but I believe it is 'up and coming'.

I've lived in Sheffield centre, Doncaster, Glasgow, Peterborough, and now Woodhouse.

I think if you've lived in London, you'll find Doncaster or Rotherham a little claustraphobic (?).

We chose Woodhouse because it is cheaper than town, Gardens are bigger (so we have a driveway), we are near a train station (10 mins to town, 20mins to meadowhall - handy for avoididng the parking problem at christmas).

We are 10 mins from M1, 20 mins from yorkshire outlet (doncaster lakeside), 5 mins from Crystal Peaks, on the doorstep is Rother valley country park.

Edit: You probably won't want to be near the 'badger estate' though, if you look at woodhouse

Originally posted by jogenn

Alternatively can anyone recommend a commuting town within 20 minutes drive or even better accessible by rail again which is OK crimewise? What do people think of Chesterfield, Barnsley, Rotherham or Doncaster?

Thanks

You'd need a helicopter to commute from any of these in twenty minutes :D

I'd stick to walking...the traffic in Sheffield can only get worse and public transport less reliable. Get a map and a comapss and draw a circle about a mile and a half around Young St., - this should give you some idea of what areas are within walking distance. A place close to a regular bus service would be handy for those really windy and wet days :)

Originally posted by Greybeard
You'd need a helicopter to commute from any of these in twenty minutes :D

I'd stick to walking...the traffic in Sheffield can only get worse and public transport less reliable. Get a map and a comapss and draw a circle about a mile and a half around Young St., - this should give you some idea of what areas are within walking distance. A place close to a regular bus service would be handy for those really windy and wet days :)

or maybe on the tramline as an alternative.

you could plot the tramline on the map, 20 mins would take you as far as hillsborough, or maybe nearly to crystal peaks.

If you want to drive then don't go for anything further up the parkway than handsworth as that's 20 mins alone in rushhour traffic, you'll be able to get further going out of town in other directions, but not much futher than say grenoside or crookes.

Search for S6 postcode. In Lower Walkley or Hillsborough there are lots of 2 or 3 bed terraces for less than 100K. On-street parking though - no garage. 5-10 minute tram ride then 5 minute walk to your workplace.

Originally posted by vision
I am a private landlord and yesterday I went to look at a new development called Jet Centro on St Mary's gate. A smartpad on the 4th floor is 99,000 and I was quite impressed. It had a bedroom area that was virtually separate ( and could easily be completely separate), a spacious living area, a partially separated kitchen and a very nice shower room. Also included is car parking in the basement.

I,m not sure about the area but I believe it is 'up and coming'.

I live just up the road from there, you could probably get a 2/3 bedroom terraced house near that development (or the other side of the road) for a lot less than £99,000. It depends what you want.

BTW when you say the bedroom area is "virtually separate" am I right in thinking this is what used to be called a bedsit ?

Originally posted by nick2

BTW when you say the bedroom area is "virtually separate" am I right in thinking this is what used to be called a bedsit ?

Bit like West One... the Uqubes are 'apartments' but I can see my kitchen if I lean out of bed far enough... its a bedsit with its own bathoom :bigsmile:

"BTW when you say the bedroom area is "virtually separate" am I right in thinking this is what used to be called a bedsit ? "




Maybe, but it is a lot nicer than any 'bedsit' i've ever seen. The point I am making is that it is modern, clean, with a fairly good spec and parking included. I was acting on the info 'no more than 20 mins walk from town.

The 'bedroom' area was separate apart from a door which would be very easy to put in. Then it would be a 1 bed flat for virtually no outlay. Whether people like it or not, city living is with us in a very big way and many people who have tried it, love it.

I own a flat in west One and it is very popular. I could rent it out 10 times over! Wish I'd bought a few more...

That's it vision keep ramping it up.... remember prices never go down do they......? If you pay six figures for a "quasi" bedsit in Sheffield thats probably worth 40K you deserve negative equity and the misery that brings!
It is coming.... when not if....

I am being completely realistic bott. We have been hearing for months that a crash is imminent and all we've had is a slight adjustment. Now the papers are saying perhaps they were wrong and house prices have merely steadied

How am I ramping it up? I'm only telling it as it is. And who are you to say its only worth 40k! Rather vitriolic! Sounds to me like a bit of the green eye...

Will you two stop bickering?

The boom/bust cycle of flat dwelling is far longer than that, so as long as you get out in about three to five years, Vision, you'll make on the deal.

we'll see, the "phoney war" phase is just ending...
Oh btw, no green eye, I welcome everybody owning their own home, I just think that opportunity should be available to ALL. Sorry about the vitriol...but it is doing my head in somewhat!
Bott

I'm intrigued by your reply bott. Why is opportunity not open to all?

Because buy to let is pricing first time buyers out of the market.

Originally posted by eddies32
Because buy to let is pricing first time buyers out of the market.

To the point where estate agents are saying that they especially want to hear from "buyers" not "investors" in some adverts.

Originally posted by nick2
To the point where estate agents are saying that they especially want to hear from "buyers" not "investors" in some adverts.

i doubt that estate agents really give a stuff, as long as they get their commission it's all the same to them.

Originally posted by eddies32
Because buy to let is pricing first time buyers out of the market.


Not true. Buy to let is still a very small proportion of the property market.
Blame market forces, the crash of the stock market etc. the very low interest rates of 2/3 years ago and the ease of getting too high mortgages - these resulted in the sudden hike in prices.
People who rent are very grateful for decent properties.
More 'ordinary' people have bought rented properties and this has resulted in there being better accommodation available as opposed to that offered by professional landlords.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i doubt that estate agents really give a stuff, as long as they get their commission it's all the same to them.

I know, but I think they realise that people wan't to move into a block with at least a few permanent neighbours, if all the flats are rented out, or sat empty until they gain enought value to sell, it's a bit offputting for people. I wouldn't want to be the only tennant on a floor.

Originally posted by vision
Not true. Buy to let is still a very small proportion of the property market.
Blame market forces, the crash of the stock market etc. the very low interest rates of 2/3 years ago and the ease of getting too high mortgages - these resulted in the sudden hike in prices.
People who rent are very grateful for decent properties.
More 'ordinary' people have bought rented properties and this has resulted in there being better accommodation available as opposed to that offered by professional landlords.

Not true either. Where I live over half the apartments are buy to let. An apartment block near me had only been completed about a week when there were around 10 "To Let" signs up, there were only 16 apartments in it. I don't call 63% a small proportion do you?

Originally posted by eddies32
Not true either. Where I live over half the apartments are buy to let. An apartment block near me had only been completed about a week when there were around 10 "To Let" signs up, there were only 16 apartments in it. I don't call 63% a small proportion do you?

hardly a representative sample of the housing market though.

The past five years have seen a soaring number of individuals investing in houses and flats which they then rent to third parties.
Almost one in 25 mortgages in the UK are currently for this purpose, statistics from research group Datamonitor suggest.

From April 2006, investors will be able to buy residential property, such as holiday homes and buy-to-lets, with a personal pension. The property would therefore be free from tax on rental income and capital gains. You will be able to put both new and existing properties in a pension.

Ros Altmann, an independent adviser to Downing Street, said: “This is the biggest tax giveaway for higher earners that I have ever seen. Frankly, I find the proposals astonishing from a Labour government.”

**************

so 4%, still a fraction of the market.

You have to look at what that fraction is though. First time buyers and 'buy to let' people are often up against each other due to the type of housing that both segments want. As they say "there are lies, damn lies and.... statistics".

Originally posted by eddies32
You have to look at what that fraction is though. First time buyers and 'buy to let' people are often up against each other due to the type of housing that both segments want. As they say "there are lies, damn lies and.... statistics".


But there is only a small number of properties that investors and BTL will both want. In sheffield with students and lots of professionals it is/was ideal for investors. Move a little out of the centre and there will not be many investors interested.

When we bought our first house BTL was not as popular as now - our problem was that there was a huge boom in the market and anything we went to see was already promised.
In the end to have any chance of buying we had to move out to High Green and we only just got that! My point is different reasons, same solution.

Vision, I am intrigued by your reply... do you deny that the opportunity to buy one's own home is not open to all? Excuse the many negatives in that question!

Originally posted by bott
Vision, I am intrigued by your reply... do you deny that the opportunity to buy one's own home is not open to all? Excuse the many negatives in that question!

I don't know about vision, but I was saying that buy to let is a very small part of the reason for some people not being able to reach the first rung of the housing ladder.

The CML recognises that since 1999 the increase in buy-to-let activity has coincided with a fall in first-time buyers. The percentage of first-time buyers has shrunk from 46% in 1999 to 27% in 2003. In contrast buy-to-let borrowers have increased from 2% to 9% of the market, implying some displacement.
It is also worth pointing out that we would expect to see a fall off in first-time buyer numbers at this point of the housing market cycle. At or near the peak of a housing market cycle house
prices inevitably increase out of reach of some potential first-time buyers. This causes a fall off in demand at the lower end of the market and applies a natural brake to the market. And while
buy-to-let will have been one of a number of factors driving the recent strength in house prices, it will have only had a muted impact compared with the other primary drivers, such as low interest rates.

There is limited information about the types of property purchased under buy-to-let, but the; available data suggests they tend to be smaller properties at the modest end of the price spectrum with a good match to rental demand.

Council of Mortgage Lenders

Originally posted by eddies32
Because buy to let is pricing first time buyers out of the market.

you just defeated your own argument then. Buy to let is a minor influence as your quote says, and has had a limited displacement factor (7% increase doesn't account for all 19% decrease).
Other factors are the major influence on first time buyers being unable to afford a house.

No it doesn't account for all of the drop but it does account for 37% of it, the stats you chose to quote say that.
Add that to the fact that first time buyers tend to be after smaller properties at the modest end of the price spectrum, now what where the buy to letters after again?

Originally posted by eddies32
The CML recognises that since 1999 the increase in buy-to-let activity has coincided with a fall in first-time buyers. The percentage of first-time buyers has shrunk from 46% in 1999 to 27% in 2003. In contrast buy-to-let borrowers have increased from 2% to 9% of the market, implying some displacement.
It is also worth pointing out that we would expect to see a fall off in first-time buyer numbers at this point of the housing market cycle. At or near the peak of a housing market cycle house
prices inevitably increase out of reach of some potential first-time buyers. This causes a fall off in demand at the lower end of the market and applies a natural brake to the market. And while
buy-to-let will have been one of a number of factors driving the recent strength in house prices, it will have only had a muted impact compared with the other primary drivers, such as low interest rates.

There is limited information about the types of property purchased under buy-to-let, but the; available data suggests they tend to be smaller properties at the modest end of the price spectrum with a good match to rental demand.

Council of Mortgage Lenders

read it again, you posted this quote, and it clearly states that buy-to-let will have had only a muted impact compared to other primary drivers.
I also don't know where you got 37% from.
The btl as a % of all morgages increase from 2 to 9, the first time buyer however fell by not 7% but by 19%. So even if all of the btl were displacing first time buyers (which probably isn't the case) they would still only account for just over one third of the total drop in first time buyers.

Near Broomhill/Crookes if u dont mind students

Originally posted by neil_tuck2
Near Broomhill/Crookes if u dont mind students

now that is an area where buy-to-let has driven up prices. Could you have chosen a more expensive area for someone?