This month I've been working to figure out the form factor of the house I will build. The options were:
-
2 storey
-
1.5 storey with dormers
-
1.5 storey with Veluxes
-
1.5 storey with mezzanine
-
1 storey with vaulted ceiling
-
1 storey with flat ceiling
Local planning vernacular is for 1.5 storey with dormers, which I really don't want to build. The dormers are expensive to construct, feel pokey inside and are tricky to detail for airtightness and heat loss. They will also cause issues with solar panel layout and shading. Looking at the topographic survey, it is clear that I am never going to get permission to build a 2 storey building. The massing is just too great on an elevated plot like mine. I played around for quite a while with the 1.5 storey + Veluxes option, but I think if I am completely honest even that is going to stretch me too far financially. Ultimately I have settled on a single storey with vaulted ceiling. I've seen a lot of examples of this which I have found myself really drawn to. They feel spacious inside and should solve a lot of the issues (such as ceiling height) which I was trying to solve with other styles of building.
Advantages of single storey
I can have a 2 or 3 bedroom house instead of feeling forced into a 4 bed by the ground floor footprint. As I want a downstairs bedroom and bathroom for 'future proofing', the floorplan inevitably leads to 3 beds upstairs - far more than I need at my time of life.
There is more roof on single a storey building. Whist this means poorer form factor for passive qualities and more roof material it is balanced by more solar being possible.
No upper floor to pay for - saves on ceiling boards and flooring, posijoists, staircase etc.
Less glazing to pay for.
Less scaffolding - it should be easier to construct a building with a lower ridge height.
More even heat throughout from UFH.
Less bathrooms and one or two less bedrooms all saves money. Less plumbing cost, less electric costs, less MHRV ducting costs, less doors, skirting, walls etc.
Less visual impact with a lower ridgeline.
I can get a spacious, airy house without needing a lot of wall height in the ground floor - this should save on materials.
It might be easier to tailor the roof angle to optimise for solar gain.
I can argue for planning that this building is better for future-proofing as I get older.
A smaller, more modest house suits the ethos of 'just enough'. I don't need a McMansion and I can't afford to saddle myself with something I can't afford to live in. I would rather have more disposable income every month to enjoy life with. My finances are very tight and I need to be realistic that costs will inevitably rise during construction.
The best example of a single storey, 'just enough' house that I have found is Old Holloway in Herefordshire. It is passive certified, 3 bed, 99sqm internal footprint and built with straw-filled panels. It cost £135k (after VAT refund) to construct in 2017/18.
Using Old Holloway as a starting point for the design shows that passive can be attained using this form-factor. The Old Holloway blog contains a wealth of data regarding solar generation, heating, cooling, and heat demand which will take a lot of the guesswork out. I don't want to build that exact house, but it's a good place to start from.
I feel pretty good about this decision. It's taken a lot of the financial stress away that was nagging away in the back of my mind. Just please don't ever call my cool, funky house a bungalow - it won't be - bungalows have flat ceilings.
1
Recommended Comments