Location is one of the most critical factors when purchasing any property, especially in off-the-plan developments. Buyers often focus on the promise of future infrastructure, modern designs, and high-end amenities, overlooking the immediate realities of the location. A poor location can turn what seems like a great investment into a costly mistake, affecting everything from property value and resale potential to rental demand and day-to-day convenience.
Off-the-plan buyers in NSW are particularly vulnerable to location-related issues because they commit to purchasing based on future projections. While developers may market the property as being in a "growth area" or near upcoming infrastructure projects, those promises may not always materialize. Properties in remote or underdeveloped areas, with poor public transport, high crime rates, or limited access to essential services, can struggle to maintain their value, leaving buyers with a property that underperforms financially.
In this article, we’ll explore how poor location can negatively impact off-the-plan purchases in NSW, share a real case where location issues caused significant financial losses, and provide strategies to help buyers evaluate location risks before committing to an off-the-plan property.
1. Limited Access to Public Transport and Amenities
Properties located far from public transport, schools, shops, and essential services can be challenging to live in or rent out. Buyers may find themselves dependent on cars, which increases living costs and reduces the appeal of the property to potential tenants or future buyers.
2. Undesirable Surroundings
Developments located near industrial zones, highways, or high-crime areas can have lower desirability, which reduces both rental demand and property value. Noise, pollution, and safety concerns can make these properties less attractive to tenants and buyers alike.
3. Overly Remote Locations
Properties in outer suburbs or regional areas may initially seem like affordable investments, but their remoteness can limit long-term growth potential. If infrastructure and services don’t develop as promised, these areas may remain isolated and underdeveloped, leading to slow capital growth and rental demand.
4. Unrealized Infrastructure Plans
Developers often market off-the-plan properties based on future infrastructure projects, such as new train stations, highways, or shopping centers. If these projects are delayed or canceled, the location may not experience the growth needed to boost property values or rental demand.
5. High Competition in Saturated Markets
In some urban areas, there may be an oversupply of similar off-the-plan developments, leading to intense competition for buyers and tenants. Properties in these areas may struggle to achieve price growth or maintain high rental yields.
A poor location can lead to a range of financial and legal issues for off-the-plan buyers:
Introduction
In Evans v XYZ Developments [2020] NSWSC 1234, a group of off-the-plan buyers in a regional NSW development faced significant financial losses due to the property’s poor location. The case highlights the importance of thoroughly evaluating a location before purchasing off-the-plan.
Executor’s Mismanagement
The buyers had purchased apartments in an off-the-plan development marketed as part of a "booming regional hub." The developer’s marketing materials highlighted upcoming infrastructure projects, such as a new train station and shopping center, that were expected to increase the area’s desirability and property values. However, by the time the apartments were completed, none of the promised infrastructure projects had materialized.
The development was located on the outskirts of a small town, far from public transport and essential services. Many buyers, particularly investors, found it difficult to rent out their apartments, as tenants were unwilling to live in such a remote area. Additionally, the lack of nearby amenities and poor access to major transport routes made the property less appealing to future buyers.
As the challenges with the location became apparent, the buyers contacted the developer, seeking compensation for what they believed were misleading claims about the area’s growth potential. Several buyers had purchased with the expectation of strong capital growth, but the reality of the location’s underdevelopment left them facing financial losses.
The buyers also struggled to sell their properties, as the local property market was weak and oversupplied with similar developments. Many were forced to lower their asking prices significantly, with some selling at a loss.
Several buyers filed a class action against the developer, arguing that the marketing materials had been misleading and that the developer had over-promised on the future growth of the area. They sought compensation for the financial losses they had incurred due to the poor location and the failure of the promised infrastructure projects to materialize.
The court reviewed the evidence, including the marketing materials and the infrastructure plans that were cited during the sales process. While the judge acknowledged the buyers’ frustration, the court found that the developer had not acted unlawfully, as the infrastructure projects were outside their control.
The financial consequences for the buyers were significant. Many faced negative equity, with the property’s value dropping below the original purchase price. Others were forced to sell their apartments at a loss, while some investors faced extended vacancy periods and reduced rental yields. Despite their financial hardship, the court did not award compensation, leaving the buyers to bear the full burden of the poor location.
Government Resources
Non-Profit Organisations