Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AliG last won the day on October 20 2023

AliG had the most liked content!


Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

AliG's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (5/5)



  1. I'm not sure about where you are but in Scotland it is Scottish Water who approve surface water run off, not BC. They prefer a soakaway over a watercourse. To use a watercourse instead you have to prove that a soakaway is not viable. So first you have to show a soakaway won't work - soil report on clay soil. If the watercourse is prone to bursting its banks then they would want attenuation to slow the water down. If you don't want to do this you probably have to prove that attenuation is not viable. You would have to show that there is nowhere to build attenuation except in the area that floods anyway. I would suggest getting come pictures in the current wet weather if it is already flooded. However they do often like a nice expensive report. Normally a SE would do this, not the architect.
  2. That looks a lot more like the semis and I think would be more acceptable. It really reduces the bulk of the front wall. It also makes the house look better and less boxy. I actually don't think the original house is a good design. There is a white bungalow across the road. But it looked to me like all the houses on that side are totally made out of brick (Sorry, actually I had another look and the bungalow you are knocking down is white with some brick highlights, it is hard to see behind the bushes). If the planning officer continues to not like it I’d be asking if adding brick would help. Maybe half brick half render as the semis were, or the front gable in brick instead of dark render. You could also consider a red roof which is more similar to the bungalows. I have added in pictures of the houses either side to give people an idea of what you are working with.
  3. I pulled up the previous plans and the new plans and had a look at the street on line. I couldn't figure out why the new house looked larger to me, even though it isn't. Looking at the previously approved plans for the semis. The windows are cut into the roof line at the front. This gives an eaves height of 4986mm. The new plans show and eaves height of 5050mm, but this is to the sides. The front eaves height seems to be around 5350mm, so a substantial 400mm taller. front wall, hence it looks more imposing on the street. The new proposal is in white render with a small area of darker render. I assumed that the bungalows next door were also white as that is how they look in the drawings. However, looking on Streetview, every single house on that side of the street is built from dark coloured bricks (grey or red), both the older bungalows and the newer two storey 80s houses. I am not clear why the architect has gone for this colour scheme which would stick out like a sore thumb. Similarly the older houses seem to have red clay roof tiles and the more modern house dark concrete tiles. A slate roof also seems out of place. Is there room for some discussion with the case officer to make the house look more like the previously approved application and fit in better than the current plans? It looks to me as if you could have a similar roof and eaves design to the previously approved semis for a final loss of upstairs space. I always feel like planners like a bit of compromise.
  4. It is dangerous to let planning permission expire, because much as it is likely it can be reinstated, it is not guaranteed. I would resubmit the previously approved plan as that is the easier argument. If there have been no changes to policy then they will find it hard to argue that they shouldn't reapprove it. This is the first and likely cheapest option, although I am guessing the drawings were made by another architect. Although your new application is for one house, the architect has not done you any favours. The two semis are quite obviously two houses and further broken up by the variation in colour between the ground and first floors. The new house is much more monolithic and all one colour, so it would appear larger and more out of place in the street. This is further exacerbated by the massive window on the front. TBH I don't think most people would approve it, it looks very out of place. The second option would be to apply for a less imposing single house, but I would look to have a more traditional front to it and a lower roofline for it to fit in better. But I would start by the easy route of reapplying first. If you get permission back in place for two semis, it might then be easier to apply for a single large house of similar scale.
  5. I agree with the first point, if you wanted to claim your own labour then you would have to report it as Income which would carry a higher rate of tax than CGT. On the second point you are not intending to be in the business of property development, so I would expect it to be CGT and not income tax, although HMRC can always disagree.
  6. Welcome, I am probably one of the few people with a similar sized house on the forum. I think this is quite a general discussion and if you want advice on anything specific such as ICF then it is probably best to create a specific post referencing that. This kind of intro post is likely to become quite rambling. To some extent you are really building three houses which makes things more manageable, but I would not underestimate the costs and time require to maintain such a large building. I would maybe try and decide this within the family before going ahead. There is always something breaking, not working as expected, needing replaced etc. it takes up a lot of time and money. Think of the maintenance on 10 standard three bed houses. How will it be owned, costs apportioned etc. My house is around 1000sq metres including the integral garage. It cost around £2m to build 8-6 years ago. We just finished a smaller house for my parents last year and it cost around twice as much per square metre. I would be quite concerned that your budget is low and already seems tight. In my experience I got constant questions from the architect and builder over the course of construction. The questions always went along the lines of we can do A that costs X or B that costs 2X. 9/10 B was the right decision. It would get very stressful if the budget was tight.
  7. Is there a reason the stairs start at the back? Turn them around and you can use the space behind them on the ground floor. You can still get light from a window upstairs and the double height area. As @ProDave says move the lounge door round to face the kitchen door. Don’t put it in a little alcove. Shower room behind the stairs with a window and then more room for utility and plant room and larger lounge. Upstairs move en-suite onto landing then move dressing room back allowing larger master bedroom with direct access.
  8. These arguments generally just prove that energy is too cheap. At least it is too cheap for people to naturally reduce usage in the way that gets us to zero carbon. Clearly many people struggle to pay for it. Running the numbers indeed suggests that on a purely financial basis extra insulation rarely pays for itself. Cheap glass wool that you can put in the loft and stopping air leaks probably has the best return. Cars are a funny one. Depreciation is such a large expense that other running costs are almost irrelevant for many people. I have an electric car mainly because they are much nicer to drive and I like never having to go to the petrol station. It won’t be long before they cost the same as ice cars and the market will quickly move over. A quite high percentage of luxury cars are already EVs as there is less of a price premium (think Taycan vs Panamera) so people seem happy to make the switch once prices are similar. To the original post about using your EV as a battery. This has a cost to the owner in battery degradation and perhaps inconvenience hence they are offering you free electricity in exchange. I’d happily do that if it made financial sense. At the moment I’d save £200 in car charging a year and have to buy a £4000 box for the privilege. Actually as I couldn’t use IO I’d have increased electricity bills so a non starter. But for some people this could make sense
  9. Well looks like I was wrong. I was assuming that as some cars offering V2L also offered V2G that they were using the onboard charger/inverter for both. I eventually found this article https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140803_2024-kia-ev9-bidirectional-charging-here-s-how-it-will-work This agrees with what you have said, the V2G functionality allows the separate charger/inverter to bypass the onboard charger and connect direct to the battery using DC then converts this to AC. The article suggests that this Qasar 2 might cost around $6000 because of this. It is not clear to me why it should be so expensive when solar inverters cost less than £1000. I was hoping they would be able to use the car’s inverter to keep the cost down as this is already being used to convert DC to AC for the V2L capability. As you say this would still need management to meet the DNO specs and maybe they have decided it is easier to separate it totally from the car due to the multitude of utilities it could be connected to around the world.
  10. That’s not what I said. I said that these cars claim to have V2G capability. If you have V2G capability then the equipment necessary to provide that can probably be used to provide their V2L capability.
  11. The EV9 and I think the new Volvo EX90/Polestar 3 say they have V2G technology included. I assume this means that they have a DC inverter which can take energy from the battery and send it back to the grid. They then use this to provide V2L, I was being overly brief in what I was typing. However, things are all a bit vague at the moment so there is no information yet on what other equipment will or will not be needed to get this up and running. For example will it be compatible in all countries. Hence why I am in wait and see mode re getting a new wall charger. However, if I lost IO then it would not be worth it and so it was not in any way a reason for buying the car.
  12. The original Nissan Leaf had no battery thermal management ad is well known to have many issues. It is not comparable at all to a newer EV. It was introduced in 2010, the same year as the iPhone 4. We literally just bought a Kia EV9 to replace my Model X, but I am seriously considering keeping the X as it is in excellent shape. The X is a 2017 75D with 39,000 miles on it and last time I looked showed 4% battery degradation. Other parts will give out long before the battery.
  13. Fair question. Most cars do not currently support V2G so the warranty doesn't mention. The warranty is generally 70-80% of capacity up to 8yrs/100,000 miles or something similar. If someone sells a car boasting V2G it will be pretty embarrassing to then exclude it from the warranty.
  14. The Qasar looks to be single phase as it is a 7.4kW charger. The Qasar 2 is 11kW but mentions 48A which is the US single phase way of getting 11kW so still may not be 3 phase. It may not be necessary to be 3 phase as the phases are netted off against each other for billing purposes. 3 phase would simply increase the amount you could import and export to the grid at any one time. As the amounts of energy being talked about are quite small 3 phase probably wouldn't be necessary. It may be that this kind of box would be unnecessary if the car includes V2L technology. My new car can supply 3.6kW so might not need this expensive box. My Tesla charger broke and I am waiting to see if all of this means I should get a different kind of charger. In the meantime I am using the granny charger and bought a cheap used Tesla Wall charger as I could easily switch it over myself. But really when you are talking about saving £2-300 a year versus Intelligent Octopus, this is a non starter if it requires a multi thousand pound charger. You'd be as well buying a Powerwall or other battery system which wouldn't cost much more, would be permanently available and could be used to time shift on IO providing a much better return.
  • Create New...