Andrew May wrote
John Rumm wrote

The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing
stock that does not have this equipment fitted though...

Do you have any evidence that it works that way. I would have thought that
existing stock would be priced to compete with new build, not the other
way around.

It doesn't really work either way. You can get quite significant
variations in the ratio between new build and existing stock
prices, essentially depending on how tight the housing market is.

Can be very dramatic indeed in very unusual situations like
the current US market where there is a great raft of unsellable
occupied property that has seen hordes default on their
mortgages and who have been kicked out because they have.

That can even see places deliberately demolished at times,
essentially because they can become crack houses etc.

If fact, much as I think that sprinklers it sounds like a silly idea I am
not convinced that it will add to the final cost of the house.

Corse it has to when it costs more than not having sprinklers.

That money has to come from somewhere.

What someone is prepared to pay is pretty much dependent on what they can
afford.

That's not really true either. When the cost of the house
is higher, you will in fact see some not able to borrow
to buy even the lowest priced house and the price of
the lowest priced house will have to be higher because
of the cost of the sprinklers.

So, if you put the cost of construction up and the builder maintains their
profit margin the only thing that can give is the cost of the land.

That's not right either. You will in fact just see some no
longer able to borrow to buy the lowest priced houses.

Builders will simply be prepared to pay less

They don't get any say on the price of land.

and since the new regs apply to all builders no-one will be prepared to
pay any more and the seller will sell for less since there is no
alternative use that will give a greater return.

Real markets don't work like that.