Red Kite

Well lots is happening on site:- we started with demolition and asbestos removal which was a super easy and quick, services were a nightmare (especially the electricity supply), and finally we have drainage signed off and planning conditions and building regs submitted etc. Finally ready to go!!!!! So three weeks ago our groundworkers started on site, and It is an ongoing epic against a backdrop of rain and a sea of wet clay and the proportions are epic! The foundations for the two houses are combined and built off a common RC (Reinforced Concrete) slab and behind a common U shaped RC wall - all cut into the slope. That, plus a new driveway and some interesting levels and drainage means a monster digout. There is over 600m3, to be dug out, and if that doesn't mean much to you watch the videos and you will begin to appreciate that kind of volume of wet clay looks like. For the technical - not sure if the 600m3 is ‘in the ground’ or ‘as dug’ (clay bulks up when you dig it) but either way its pretty huge! So rather than use lots of words we thought Time Lapse Video might tell the tale better - watch the week by week video instalments as the project progresses. Ask questions and we will try and clarify but there is a lot going on - blink and you might miss it. So see https://www.dropbox.com/sh/th9f6e3cel5dm1q/AAAfsWdAH184J75bCNUUtzVra?dl=0 for the gory details! We will attempt to add new weekly instalments over each weekend so look back periodically to see progress (unless we forget; in which case it’s only a temporary time lapse). Some notes on progress to date:- Week 1 – This opens with a clear site post demolition and is taken from the rear of the site, The two houses will sit to the left and right of the site and the one of the right (Plot 1) will be split level into the site and the one on the left (Plot 2) will have a full basement - in ground to the rear and out of the ground at the front. The video shows site prep, making the new entrance at the front that will be our new drive and is really neat for loading muck away lorries (try to count them!) and bringing in materials (later a lot of concrete, steel, timber frame etc). Also over on the far side you can see a new manhole being constructed. In the foreground you can see the stormwater attenuation crates going in and being backfilled. Week 2 – shows more drainage going in over on the far side and some muck away. Also some sheet piling went in but the camera failed to catch it. Over on the far side of the site is a shared driveway and we wanted to make sure this didn’t fall into the hole and that our neighbours had good access. Also, and most important, our contractors need a safe place to work and not have several meters of wet clay fall on them! Week 3 –this is where the real fun ‘big dig’ starts and you begin to get a feel for the scope of the project. You can see some more sheet piling going in to stabilise the edge and corner which was a bit unstable. Progress over the week is a finely balanced mixture of digging and muck away – getting enough out of the ground to keep the lorries loaded and flowing, while maintaining enough room for the digger to work. You can start to see the U-shape of where the RC wall will go as they cut out both sides around the site of the two new houses. The contractors are doing a great job and hardly seem fazed by the weather – though they have needed to pump out a bit from time to time! Technical note - using a Brinno BCC 200 Pro camera and experimenting with fps and time delay and timer variables so hopefully it will get better! At the moment the camera seems to chew batteries but hopefully this is now solved - Week 2 was truncated because the batteries died in under a week ? Enjoy and watch this space

Demolition and Asbestos Very early on we had an asbestos survey done (which makes a real mess if you live in the house) and there were some nasties in the garage ceiling that were H&SE notifiable (i.e. not DIY!!!) and some rain goods that were pretty benign. So we decided to get one contractor to do both asbestos removal and demolition. Having the services disconnected first we then started and luckily we had a fantastic contractor: recycled 90% of the building, soft stripped and source separated on site, was neat, tidy and safety conscious and did a quick job. So quick in fact that we almost missed the final ‘push over’ and arrived on site just in time to see the final gable go over. We were fretting about site clearance and the jungle of a garden – amazing what a big digger can do! We arrived at 9:00 on the first day to find most of the vegetation stripped to ground level and loaded into a truck – perfect! Notice where the solar panels were – removed and carefully stored to go back on the new build . Having bought the bungalow with the intention of rebuild there were no regrets to see it as a pile of rubble – just relief that finally we were going ahead with no return path – a wonderful feeling. Having removed the bungalow the site looked huge – but the reality is that when it comes to building it is really tight with little room to manoeuvre.

OK now I am really confused - there is only one copy of the Services post - so it looks like it sorted itself out - but there were 5 copies honest - and I have only had one small beer!

Trying to be good and catch up on long overdue Blog update and the gremlins hit. A small problem with my latest Blog Post: Services - seems like it posted the same content 5 times! No idea why, or how to remove the duplicate posts. Any help here welcomed! No need to read it 5 time!

Services As the existing bungalow already had services (phone, electricity, gas, water, main drainage) we expected that it should be easy to sort out the services for the new build. Well some were harder than others! Gas – to demolish we needed to first have the gas meter removed which was really easy. Then we needed the gas disconnected – it wasn’t too tricky but they were not too sure where it was on the verge. They looked carefully at the tarmac patches in the road and decided which one looked like theirs! And dug up the verge – bingo got it first time, and just to check they clamped the pipe and turned on the gas by the (non-existent) meter and nothing came out – really scientific that one. We are debating if we reconnect either of the new houses as we don’t expect to use much energy and the reconnection charge and standing charge, plus new boilers and periodic servicing make it hard to get a payback. Water – disconnection was simple: our demolition contractor dug down near the meter and pulled out the pipe, cut it and fitted a tap – job done! And a temporary supply into the bargain. Adding a new supply for the extra house looks reasonably painless (apart from the complex forms) and we will get both houses onto 32mm feeds. Fingers crossed. Phone – well we just cancelled the service and disconnected the overhead back to the pole – probably not squeaky clean but it worked. We have tried to register the site with BT but for some reason they don’t seem to respond. More effort is required on our side, and probably large amounts of money. We will see, but for now we don’t need phone or broadband on site. Electricity - We have an overhead supply that went to the bungalow gable so before we could demolish it had to go, and based on horror stories we decided to start early. In January we had a surveyor who said we could put up a temporary pole in the back garden and they would run the existing cable to it and down to a temporary meter cabinet. As long as we kept the existing cable length it was going to be simple! We had the quote and after we moved out of the bungalow we (foolishly) asked what sort of pole we needed to install prior to them moving the cable – this was met with ‘you cant do that – we have to install the pole’. So new surveyor and lots of head scratching and working out the best option for the final layout of the two houses they decided they would install a new pole for us (cue an extra £1000) and we duly paid the bill and thought it would be simple! Well after 4 attempts ( a long and boring story) the great pole day arrived and so did 5 vans and lots of electricity men. Lots of tea later they still hadn’t got the JCB and auger. Finally he arrives having driven 20 miles (the previous day he drove at 22mph 105 miles each way to a job so this was local for him). Then a few more calls and the pole arrived – so it was looking good (now seven vehicles on site!). Auger in place and poised to start they suddenly decided they needed a ‘services plan’, and because they didn’t have one they would all have to go away and come back another day! They called their boss and asked him to come out and supervise the job as they had an irate customer, to which he said “I’d rather not”. We were not irate but if throwing the toys out of the pram was what was needed then we would start screaming loudly. Well luck prevailed and no toys were thrown because the previous crew in the last failed attempt did have a ‘services plan’ (though not the right digger) so it was duly emailed and paperwork was dealt with and drilling commenced. From then on work was smooth and efficient and skilful, hole dug, pole in, old cable disconnected, new cable run down the new pole. They had some trainee linespersons who did the cable work and they were great. They even put my post in their hole and then screwed my cabinet to this and ran the cable in and terminated it to their fuse. Next step was a different crew to come and move the meter on another day. This was pretty smooth and they changed the meter to a digital but dumb meter which fitted better in the box than the old clockwork one. Finally our electrician came and put in the meter tails and we had temporary power on site, and a permanent pole for ever more – phew!!! Well actually not over yet because helpful folks on the forum advised on the vat side and it is impossible to claim this back so we are trying to get them to re-issue the invoice without the vat and give is a vat refund directly. They say this is in process but it may yet take a toy throwing session to achieve it! And we also need to switch to a low standing charge tariff for the duration of the build and prepare for the fun of getting two permanent supplies in place – we cant wait!!!! Main Drainage – this has been a real problem with the site – a main 150mm shared sewer runs down one side of the plot and then diagonally across it. We have had to design the entire layout around this and give a 6m exclusion zone around the route. The alternative is to re-route it and as its pretty deep our pockets would also need to be. So we will leave it where it is and add a new manhole and life should be easy – again fingers crossed. Our SE advised us to have a cctv survey of the existing sewer so we have evidence of the existing state and can’t be blamed for any pre-existing damage. In conclusion, as everyone says, services are a costly, lengthy and bureaucratic nightmare. Having an already serviced plot should make it easy, but I pity anyone with a Greenfield site as ours was a, still ongoing, nightmare. Advice is plan early and expect it to take ages and cost lots and you wont be far wrong

We are doing something similar and have quotes from a few suppliers. Not decided but Zakuna seemed competitive and flexible. Also talked to The Metal Staircase Company (or something like that) at Excel last weekend and will get them to quote Cost depends a lot on materials, glass, balustrades etc. Hope that helps - we should decide in the next month or so but wont see stairs until we are nearly finished.

thanks , will look into that

Hi Has anyone found a Zero or low tariff electricity provider recently. we have demolished but still have the new supply live on site but not really being used so it would make sense to change if there is anything out there thanks

It may even be worse than that! It seems that if HMRC decide that you are a developer and you are building and selling the house as a business then you become liable for Income Tax at your marginal rate on the profit. In most cases this will result in a higher tax bill than CGT since there is no exemption to offset. Its not clear to me exactly how they decide but it seems to be based on your 'intention' - so if you set out to build the additional house with the 'intention' of selling it for a profit then it is most likely deemed Income Tax and not CGT. You should talk to an accountant to be sure!

Just got the acknowledgement of the CIL Commencement so we are all set to start on site with site clearance, asbestos and demolition - can't wait. We are knocking down an existing bungalow and replacing it with two new build houses (detached) and we came across an interesting 'quirk' of the CIL 'rules' that might be of interest to others (or maybe its common knowledge already). When calculating CIL for New Build you deduct the Existing floorspace from the New Build i.e. you should only pay CIL on the increased floorspace - seems reasonable. Question is if you are building Two how do you apportion the Existing to the two new houses? Our LPA said we could apportion it All to Plot 1, All to Plot 2, or 50/50 between the two - our choice. Now this may not seem a big deal but if, say, you plan to live in one and sell the other then you will claim Self Build exemption for the one you live in, and have to actually pay CIL on the one you sell (its not Self Build so you can't claim exemption). So it really makes sense to offset the maximum against the one you sell and minimise the amount of CIL you actually pay. Certainly worth some thought before you fill in all the tedious forms. You LPA may have different views, but our CIL Team have been really helpful and responsive and actually gave us the option. I am sure that some LPA's may look at it as an opportunity to maximise the amount you actually pay! Not sure what the actual 'rules' say but if you are in the same position its worth arguing the case. For us, our son is Self Building the other house so he also gets Self Build exemption so the total CIL bill is zero - but there is a slight chance that he might need to move/sell within the 3 years 'clawback period' (we plan to stay for ever) so it makes sense to offset all of the Existing bungalow against his house just in case. Note that if you sell any-time in the 3 year period it seems you become liable for ALL the CIL - its not tapered in any way. Our total CIL valuation is over £30k so it is a big deal! Happily we now have it all agreed ? and have approval to Commence on site - Yipppeeee!!!!!!

Ferdinand, thanks for the comments - I would have loved the RO80's - a fantastic car and way ahead of its time - once Mazda worked their magic on the engine it was fine - if a little thirsty (but 265bhp from my 1300cc engine is phenomenal). My RX7's have deteriorated by being kept outside so looking fwd to a nice warm dry garage - and as you can see the design is literally built on the garage requirement. The gap between the houses is not as narrow as it seems on the colour site plan since they have oversail roof detail with a wide overhang - so at the ground about 2.5m - less than we would have liked but another of those compromises you make to fit it all in. Access to the roof is interesting since the Architect is saying that if we do that then we need to comply with lots of H&S stuff and fit safety harness mounts etc. But it does make sense to access the roof from inside as there will be solar panels out there. Access is not a real issue as our son rigs lights for festivals so is used to being a long way off the ground in a rigging harness - me I dont really fancy being on the roof at all! The lift is a 'design in now' then 'fit it if we have the cash' item since we dont need it yet - not that decrepit yet. But with three a three story design it makes sense long term - and moving furniture is a great idea. It is sized for a wheelchair so a useful size but not enormous. I was tempted to measure the angle of the stairs but it is what it is - no easy way to change it now! We are hoping to be able to afford some form of open glass stairs so the light from the skylight above flows down which should be spectacular enough to counteract any steepness ? We did look at the basement WC but actually it ends up being the best compromise possible in the space available. Plus there is a lot of complication (separate MVHR systems with different pressures etc) with an internal pool in an airtight building - keeping the WC in there actually helps a little. So thanks again for the detailed comments - will try and keep up on the posts

Services were sorted today and demolition starts on Monday ?

Well lets say it has evolved and been shaped by the titanic forces of nature and the planning process. Its not quite what we initially wanted and has been compromised and compromised over its various iterations and has sadly lost some of our ‘must have’ features. But it is kinda cute, and we do really like it! The site is about 1/3rd of an acre slopping up from the road and has a shared driveway to our neighbours at the rear. In the middle of the plot is a 3 bed 1960’s bungalow which has seen better days – habitable but not great (and don’t mention the asbestos). The site may look big and easy but it is actually quite constrained – with a shared driveway down one side and a shared sewer running across the plot. Together with the slope and trying to keep the ridge height down to appease the Planners (even though the houses on either side are all 2 or 3 story) it is a tricky site. We wanted lots of light and a feeling of space and openness – so that cliché of lots of glass and open plan. We also wanted an Endless Pool and garaging for a collection of RX7 sports cars. We also wanted a crisp contemporary exterior and don’t like wood cladding much. We also wanted low energy – but not hung up on achieving Passive Haus per-se. Oh and it has to be low maintenance and a lifetime house. We initially used a designer who was really great and had an amazing ability to use space in a really efficient way. However for the final design shown here we used a real Architect (with a capital A). There are those who would argue its an unnecessary expense but firstly he came up with a very creative design in a very constrained environment. And secondly the quality of his work probably helped with Planning. We get on very well and he is doing a fab (but not cheap) job. As we are downsizing we would actually like a smaller garden than 1/3rd acre, so that and the economics, has led us to two houses on the site. We have had a few different arrangements of this over time but have come to two side by side. They are different sizes and layouts but they distinctly read as a pair. Height dictates a flat roof – much hated by our neighbours – and supported by the Officer. Our house is bigger and is cut into the slope with the front out of the ground and the back completely in. It has the entrance hall, garaging, plant and an Endless Pool in the partial basement. The 1st floor is mainly open plan dining, kitchen, living areas, with the Sitting Room opening out to the rear garden at the back. Top floor is 4 beds and bathrooms and is topped by a flat roof. The eagle eyed among you may have spotted the Lift - not needed at the moment but designed in and will be fitted if and when we have the cash. It seemed like a good idea with a 3 story house and us not getting any younger! The other house is smaller and split level. Again cut into the slope but only by half a floor. So entrance hall and kitchen dinning hall are level with the front garden and parking area. Up half a floor to the rear living which opens out onto the rear garden. Then up another half floor to the front two bedrooms at the front, and then up half a floor again to the rear master bedroom. All topped by a similar, but split, flat roof. It is just so neat we almost wish it was ours! The overall design responds well to the site and makes the most of it, and the Architect has done his best to make the front façade broken and not monolithic, but simple (and cheap) it aint! It will be mainly off-white silicon type render with some Rockpanel grey cladding panels and grey windows and EPDM roofing – so sharp and contemporary but not the classic white sugar cube. You may be reading this and thinking its not what I would have gone for and its not my taste - our neighbours probably thought the same. Our answer is that if you feel strongly then go find your own land and build exactly what you want - just put your money where your mouth is (and keep it shut unless you do). Though in the true spirit of BuildHub constructive criticism is always welcome! We have spent a lot of time refining the design and hopefully we make the most of the space but as we all know its always a compromise! So having got this through and arrived at something we really want to build its now time to start - more to come in future posts.

A very very long and difficult history to our self-build that we will compact into as short a space as possible to save readers much of the grief we have been through. We have always lived in (and renovated) old, cold, draughty and character-full houses, and our last house (a Victorian vicarage) had lots of glass and double aspect rooms and was full of light. We wanted to downsize but couldn’t find anything with similar light and space, and some of the new build ones we looked at were really poor quality. So we decided to self-build and started to look for land – and as some of you already know it’s not an easy task. Then we came across a tired 60’s bungalow on a 1/3rd acre plot about 2 miles from where we were living – perfect location. All the other bungalows on our side of the street had been developed to reasonably dense new build developments with a real mix of styles and sizes, and outside the conservation area – perfect for knock down and rebuild. Piece of cake we thought – how hard could it be to get Planning (little did we know!!!! and if only we had known then what we know now ....). So after a small round of bidding, that was won; not on the highest bid, but with our throw away line ‘offer not subject to anything’. We won the day, we were the proud owners of a somewhat tired bungalow, and then the fun started! First problem was selling the Victorian vicarage in a downturning market which took about 3 years. So finally sold, and knowing how much cash we had, we moved in and started on the long winding road to PP and self-build nirvana. We started with the German kit houses – fantastic quality and build process, and after a few trips to Germany we decided we really liked the modern sharp style that typifies much of new European houses today (or, rather, doesn’t in the UK). As a tip if you want to see literally dozens of show homes visit one (or more) of the (19) Fertighauswelt (think this translates approximately to “ready built house world”) sites in Germany (https://www.fertighauswelt.de/ ) – the best 5 Euros you can spend if you want to look for design ideas. Sadly over time and a Pound sinking against the Euro the German kit house was never going to work. And also working with the site and the budget it really started to make sense to build two houses and sell one to subsidise the one we wanted to live in. Unknowingly we had just created the perfect anti-PP scenario:- cutting edge modern design in a street of pastiche estate type houses; being greedy enough to want to want to build two; and being the last bungalow standing and surrounded by FD&H NIMBY neighbours. Rather than taking you through the gruesome blow by blow story here are the statistics:- Total time from first App to final Appeal decision:- 4yrs and 10months 1 Pre-App – which was a total waste of time and money 7 Planning Applications (inc 3 CofL/ PD apps) - 2 Approved 6 (or perhaps 7) different Planning Officers 3 Committee decisions:- 2 Refuse & 1 Approve, all with prior Officer Approval 2 Appeals:- 1 Refuse & 1 Approve (sadly we didn’t win costs) 105 letters of objection & 1 of support (from a London Architect who loved the design – bless him for that ray of sunshine It was a dreadful process and the main reason for the time and grief we suffered seems to be that we are surrounded by vile neighbours who have friends in high places. The public comments generally had very little planning relevance but included phrases like ‘peeping toms’, ‘covert surveillance’ and even likening our design to ‘Grenfell Tower’. We were stoic and kept turning the other cheek but we sent this last one back to the Chief Planning Officer as ‘offensive and defamatory’ – he said it was perfectly acceptable (to quote Joe Walsh ‘You Can’t Argue with a Sick Mind’)! If we thought the public comments (sometimes called ‘solicited hate mail’) phase was bad then let’s say the Committee phase was much worse. Firstly it seems that the decision is made before you even walk into the room, and that nothing you say will make any difference, or even be listened to. Then the Committee infringed our copyright, accused us of greed and telling lies, and told us that they didn’t care at all that we were planning to build low energy houses. If we had any faith in local democracy and politics we have much less than none now. We are certain that the only reason we got one through the Committee is that one of the esteemed Councillors really upset/insulted the Chair (we decided we really shouldn’t print the exact comment); at which point the discussion divided on party lines and incidentally we won! As mentioned the Pre App Advice was a complete waste of time and money (for us). We offered the Officer 3 options and he agreed what he thought the ‘best’. He also gave us a lot of ‘advice’ which we incorporated to the letter in the Application. He then proceeded to keep changing his mind and we did 3 major re-designs over 12 months until he ‘approved’. It finally went to Committee and was refused. The subsequent Appeal which we lost was true goldmine as it contained real data on what was acceptable and what wasn’t. We then built the subsequent Apps on this and the Officer(s) really couldn’t disagree with the previous Appeal comments. Also in the second Appeal we seriously questioned some of the proposed Conditions and the Appeal Officer took out most of them. A real win and we saved our Planning Consultants fee in having a really onerous Design and Methods condition removed. Certainly worth a shot if you ever go to Appeal. If any of you have been through this sort of process then you will know how personally depressing and demoralising it can be – and we have heard worse war stories! We had great and very patient designers and a superb planning consultant and some amazingly supportive friends and family. Also after the initial setbacks we did have a very focused plan on how to get to where we wanted to be in incremental steps, with a workable Plan B. However our advice would be: only ever buy a plot that has PP for something you want to build (unless you have lots of time, very deep pockets and skin much much thicker than a rhino). So finally we won at Appeal, and we are staring to build two really interesting low energy houses – more in future posts. We will try and keep up a Blog as best we can, and having got that backstory out of the way everything should be easy from now on!!!!!!

Hi, just setting up moving existing electric supply from existing bungalow to a temporary building supply, prior to demolition. SSE Networks are less than helpful about what I need to provide in terms of a cabinet. Supply will come down from a (new) pole and cabinet will be close by. I was looking at https://www.meterboxesdirect.co.uk/electric-ip-43-rated-kiosk-500-750-300-mm.html So questions are :- Is this big enough? too big? Currently have one of the old rotating meter (no smart meter!!!) Is IP 43 OK? What does it need to be fixed to? And how close to the pole (pole hole is not yet dug) Can I attach it to the SSE pole? Will I need a 'hockey stick'? I may be able to use this as the permanent supply for one of the two houses I am building and then have another supply to the other at a later date - is it still big enough? Or is there a spec for this kind of installation? Many thanks

I liked the sink unit- can you share where it comes from? How does the waste work? I would want a splash back to above the taps as I think you will need it.

Hi can you give some details about what the products are? Thanks

It depends if you are just trying to saisfy Planning or find out if a particular vehicle will be able to turn in the available space? If its Planning then you use the generic radiii as shown. If its say a van then there will be manufacturers data about turning circle. Decide if you are between curbs or walls I.e. have you got room for overhang for the bumpers. Take half the turning circle and use that as the outer radius for the swept path. For the inner between curbs subtract the width of the van from the outer and use that as an approx inner radius. Not sure how to do inner path for between walls since there is not usually data for that but err on the side of caution! Inner path is usually not the issue. Also you can usually get a tighter turn in reverse but best to only consider the forwards one. Hope that helps I am no expert! And I think some of the drawing packages will do this automatically I.e. your Architect may be able to draw this up really easily, ours did for our campervan.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. The MBC Open Panel does include blown cellulose in the roof so thats a bonus. With the walls its a complex cost/benefit debate and my gut feel is that for the house we plan to live in the the PH Walls would be preferable. It is also a debate that this house has a basement and that the levels of insulation below ground need to be similar to those above ground - so how much insulation (and airtighness) is achievable for both areas. And having been in an MCH house with the PH walls (thx Vivien) the level of calm and solidity was palpable - regardless of the insulation / airtightness it just 'felt' right. In terms of implementation I talked to my Planning Consultant (who has been brilliant BTW - PM me if you want her details) and her advice was: First talk to Wessex Water and see if they would be happy and then talk to the Planning Officer and see what they think. If that seems OK. Then apply for a Variance of Conditions to change the passed plans - likely to a bigger change than the scope of non-material amendments and better than a new Full App which would open the door to a complete reconsideration - and lots of contention. Will keep you posted - all I can say is that 'its complicated!'

Hi, we were just about to push the button on an MBC TF and because of the site constraints we were going to go with their Open Panel frame with extra insulation with an external wall of about 320 mm. Comprises of 140mm Knauf Eathwool and 80mm PIR. This has a U=0.11 and air tightness of 3 AC/hr - not bad but given the choice we might have gone with their Passive wall at about 430mm U=0.12 and air tightness of 0.6 AC/hr - but it just wouldn't fit on site. Obviously we could have reduced the internal size to accommodate but the internal layout was pretty tight and we didn't want to give up the internal space so the Open Panel was a pretty reasonable compromise, and cheaper. Also we would not want to go for PH certification, and its pretty unlikely we would get it if we tried. Well it would seem that we MAY be able to ease the site constraints and get the PH walls in on the site by growing the external footprint a little and keeping internals the same :- we have a shared sewer and when we started (over 4 years ago) the water co was very tight on 'thou shalt not build closer than 3m without our permission'. It now seems that the rules have relaxed and we could get to between 2m and 0.5m from the sewer as long as our foundations are below the sewer invert invert, which they will easily be. There might need to be some discussion but it looks like the water co. would agree. We might also need to talk to the Planners because the footprint will expand slightly, and given the rough and long ride we have had to get PP its not something I want to re-open without good reason. So now the question - do we stick with the Open Panel or go to Passive? The extra cost of Passive TF is about 17% (another £12k). Not an insignificant sum but in the scheme of the entire build not a lot - given that we had already planned for 3G windows MVHR etc so no other obvious up-spec items. Or could I down-spec anything going for Passive walls? Anyone any thoughts about this? What would be 'good enough' and is it worth the pain and expense of the thicker and more expensive walls (which as they are cellulose have a better decrement delay - which thanks to this forum I have learnt is a 'good thing'). And any thoughts on the 'payback' for the better air tightness? Thx. P.S. anyone know why a 320mm wall has a U=0.11 is seen as 'worse' and cheaper and a Passive Wall of 430mm wall has U=0.12 and is 'better' and more expensive?

Try the StairBox design tool on their website - an interactive tool that lets you play with rise, going etc. Brilliant! And.even has a headroom checker!

Hi, we are looking at a basement into a slope in clay soil - front out of the ground. I am trying to decide how to build it and seem to have a choice of ICF versus RC (Reinforced Concrete) - anyone any thoughts about Pro's and Con's? Here I am only considering external tanking and waterproof concrete - to my mind an internal membrane and sump is admitting defeat! I like RC because you can see the concrete and any defects when you take the shuttering away - and my GW does basements like this all the time and is prepared to guarantee waterproofing for 10 yrs (not sure if that is really worth much!). However I am hearing that ICF may be cheaper / quicker - and as I need to insulate anyway seems like a neat way to go. Would I need external tanking to an ICF basement? I am looking at an insulated raft slab under the basement and TF above - and also having the discussion of a concrete 'top' to the basement (cast in situ / hollow core beams etc) versus an 'open box' with a posijoist type roof - again any sage advice would be welcome. It would seem there is no 'best way' and the SE's I have talked to say the reinforcing / concrete for the walls is much the same for ICF and RC Any thoughts?

Adam, I am not sure these comments will apply but might be of use to others - and are just my experience with Wessex Water who may have different rules. I have a plot with a shared 150mm sewer and Wessex Water required me to have a build over license if I went closer than 3m to the sewer. Early designs had the sewer diverted which was expensive as its pretty deep (over 3m in places). The reasons I was given (I have no idea if this is correct) for the 3m exclusion were two-fold: firstly if you are closer then there is potential for the foundation load to transfer to the sewer - so if you go closer then you need to have the foundations below the invert level (in my case over 3m) and Wessex wanted to have a say in the foundation design. Secondly they wanted to be able to maintain their sewer and get a digger in if needed - 3m makes their life easy! So by avoiding the 3m exclusion and a build-over license I can pretty much do what I want which makes life simple. The design we have PP for is outside the 3m exclusion (just) and leaves the sewer alone and doesn't divert it - it does constrain the design but it should work. If you really do have an 850mm sewer I am amazed they will let you get that close - but I would go with that and not argue! You may have some leeway / discussion about the depth of the foundations if you can go below invert level but Wessex went a bit wobbly when I mentioned piles as they were very nervous about the vibration of any form of driven pile. Also with that size of sewer I cant see diversion being an option - probably cost more than your build budget! Another fundamental tip is to make sure the sewer actually runs where everyone thinks it does (not as daft as it seems) - Wessex were unable to tell me where their sewer was so I had to have it surveyed with a sonde :- a radio probe down the sewer and then sort of dowsing above to detect where it was! This gave me a pretty reasonable clue but I have a feeling I will need to do a cctv survey before I am done which will be more cost. I used a civils consultancy not specifically an SE for a drainage design for PP - turns out they didn't want my SE work - its their bread and butter (so to speak) so they knew all the ins and outs of Wessex policy. I used PFA Consulting based in Swindon - they are consultants so surprise surprise they are not cheap but did enough to get me PP which was worth it! The other extra I got out of Wessex was an agreement to put a reduced flow of storm water (1l/s) into their sewer - not normal but if you dont ask you wont get - makes my storm water solution possible as soakaways in my clay soil dont work at all. Hope that helps - but my experience is that dealing with sewers is a pretty sh*** job!

Hi, we have just obtained Planning Permission for 2 houses and were looking to build both simultaneously and sell one and live in the other. As this is somewhat unusual we thought others might like to know what we discovered when we did some research and we talked in general terms to our accountant. Obviously it depends on individual circumstances and the following does not constitute any form of advice - and there may be other ways to look at it and we are no experts and we haven't investigated the details fully yet. CIL - if you self build and live in the house for 3 years you can (if you get the paperwork right) be treated as exempt from CIL. If you build two then you are a developer and CIL is payable. If you are demolishing then you can subtract the GIA of the old building from the total new build GIA to reduce the bill. You MAY be able to negotiate which new build house gets its CIL gets reduced. VAT - if you self build then you are exempt (either at point of purchase or in a retrospective reclaim) from much of the VAT. If you build 2 or more no such rules apply so you would need to be VAT registered to reclaim the VAT. VAT is likely the largest single tax hit you will take so its important to get this one right. There may be some cashflow benefits from getting vat back during the build rather than waiting to do a reclaim - but offset is the 'pain' of vat registration. Not sure but you may be able to reclaim the vat paid on 'services' etc. which you can't as a self builder. CGT / IT - this is where it gets tricky - if you self build one house and live in it for an (unspecified) period of time as you primary residence then when you sell you are usually exempt from CGT on any gain. If you build 2 or more then you are a developer and its very likely that any profit you make will be subject to Income Tax at your marginal rate. It seems rules have changed here as CGT might have applied to this case its not often true any more. It seems that much of the interpretation of this depends on your 'intent' - is your plan to build 2 and sell 1 as a developer? If so this is viewed as your occupation and profits are taxed as income not capital gains. There 'may' be some scope to develop the first house, live in it, establish it as your primary residence, then build the 2nd, sell the 1st, and move into the 2nd as your primary residence i.e. two sequential self builds. However you need to be very careful that your 'intent' was not to act as a developer! In our case the fact that our PP is for two houses from the start is a bit of a giveaway - you 'might' get PP for the first house alone and then subsequently (after living in the first house) realise that there is scope for a second house on the plot and subsequently build something more suited to your needs. There may be some scope (say you own the entire plot) to sell a portion of the plot to a development 'vehicle' run by you - perhaps as maybe sole trader, LLP or limited company. You would need to sell the land at 'market value' as this is an obvious area for scrutiny. You 'should' (not actually testing this theory yet so beware) be able to retain the land and build the house you plan to live in as an individual 'self build' exempt from CIL and VAT etc. exactly as any single self build does. You 'should' also be able to develop the 2nd house within the development vehicle as a separate entity and be taxed on that separately for VAT (you would VAT register the vehicle) and IT, Corporation Tax etc. You do have some scope and flexibility to pay yourself as a director / shareholder of the 'vehicle' but this is getting pretty complex pretty fast! For any shared costs you need to be very careful that they are apportioned on a 'fair' basis and not as a deliberate means to reduce the 'profit' on the resale unit. SDLT - if a development 'vehicle' buys the land then it will need to pay Stamp Duty on this but the rate is less than an individual will pay - need to check this. Also be careful about second home SDLT if you are an individual - again not looked at in detail but there are some rules about reclaiming 2nd home SDLT (if you own one home buy a plot you pay 2nd home SDLT. If you sell the first home within a period of time you can reclaim the 2nd home SDLT) that may fall apart in the 2 house picture. Funding You also need to give some serious thought to your funding if you build two. Self build (regulated) mortgages do not seem to work for this scenario and you need to start looking at (unregulated) developer finance and this is not a cheap source on money - start thinking 1% per month interest! plus a 2% setup fee! Now you may be able to offset these costs against any profit but its still expensive. It seems that if you can get to 'wind and watertight' before taking on any developer borrowing then the rate drops to only say 0.5% per month (plus setup etc) with 'refurbishment' loans. Construction Industry Scheme & Health and Safety - if you are deemed a developer and building more than one house (and are paying subcontractors) it seems you need to register for CIS and comply with H&S as a developer. Both of these appear pretty onerous and costly. CIS seems to be another of those schemes where you act as an unpaid tax collector and have to submit quarterly returns. Not exactly sure what is involved but it would need some research to make sure you are compliant. Well that's what we discovered - bottom line is that building two is tricky and we would recommend you take professional advice early on from a tax accountant who understands this stuff (not all accountants will!). You will need to be very CAREFUL in what you do and it seems that some poor decisions early on may bite you later on so BEWARE! And the last caveat - as with all taxation the landscape can change overnight - so even if you have it all mapped out the taxation rules could change and you could be much worse off. There may be others out there who have done something similar and know much more than we do, so we would love to hear sage advice and hard won experience. Though there is a school of thought that you are daft to even consider one self build - you must be totally insane to even think about two! Hope that helps!!!! We will let you know how this pans out as we learn more.

Wow, much much more complex than I thought possible for such a 'simple' thing as a house! Many thanks for the info on decrement delay etc - my head is spinning! It would seem that the SE possibly doesn't understand it either but at least I am consciously incompetent! I guess that the other part of this is that the real thing about a passive house is that it is ideally just that - passive i.e. no heating and no cooling and it is just immune to external weather conditions. However if in the real world you have a house that does at times need some heating or cooling you need to provide that and control it. At that point you need a heating and cooling system that works best with the thermal time constant of the building in terms of delivery method - for example heating with UFH (long time constant) or say MVHR air heating (short time constant). It seems that the characteristics of a heating and cooling system dont want to be the same since the need for cooling comes from fairly rapid solar gain whereas heating comes from much slower overall weather conditions. So it would seem that as well as considering the time constant / thermal decrement / insulation properties of the house you need also to design heating and cooling that complements that. Or rather makes up for the inadequacies of the building. Also since we are talking low energy etc then the costs of these systems (capital and running costs) need to be taken into account - which is where PH started from I think i.e. very comfortable buildings with low running costs! If our goal is overall comfort and very little changes of internal temperature then the delivery and control of heating and cooling become a consideration so does anyone have any ideas on that - other than design the building so it hardly matters!