SimonD

Does what you have read here on the forum, and any other self-builder experiences you've collected, mirror that? Does the design of a house not require the upfront solving of a host of problems (particularly related to a self-builder) that are not necessarily required to gain planning approval? Are you going to require that your client has a minimum amount of PM experience so they don't take up your time with questions and revision?

I wonder how many of those were self-PM'd, probably not a lot of them.

From what you've just said @CharlieKLP, I don't think you understand your target market and the problems they face at all. That's where you need to start. What you've illustrated is probably one of the areas where I and people I know have a problem with many in the architecture field and that is the architect approaching the problem from their perspective and position, and not that of their client.

Hmmm, as I see it, the overall discussion on drawing format highlights the various problems in building a house that while attributed to technology here, aren't fundamental technological by nature. Rather they are down to process and human relationship. You can get into multiple problems with paper/fixed issued drawings with version control and distribution as you can with CAD files, although based upon my own experience in the industry, electronic files, if distributed to the wrong entity, can allow for more errors to emerge simply through user ignorance. Self-builders (whatever that actually means or might actually be a pretty much meaningless term anyway) are a breed that ranges from those who have absolutely no technical understanding and struggle to use MS Word to those in the engineering field who are totally comfortable working with CAD files and are well versed in proper version control, distribution, managing comment/amendment input, signing off and redistributing the newly issued versions (although I've known and met plenty of engineers and some architects who are equally sh1t at this and are thus the root cause of building errors - my architect hated me because I used to reject his drawings when they weren't versioned/issued correctly). I do suspect that an architect issuing pdf files does overall reduce risk for a general client and, providing the pdf is exported properly from the design software, can actually be imported into another cad without too much problem (usually). I know that my structural engineers did this even with my architect's hand drawn designs to create the general arrangements and then subsituted their own details as a separate document. While CAD is an amazing tool and an essential requirement for some, I wonder whether your average self-builder* (see note above) who doesn't want to pay more than £5k for the design of their house, will cough up the necessary license fees for the CAD software in the first place. If they don't and instead download some freeware/cheapo design software that says it's compatible with all file formats, the bets have got to be off that something doesn't go wrong with the original raw cad files. I tried numerous cheapo versions before we started our build and experienced problems with just importing and exporting dwg/dxf files, let alone then working on them. I'm pretty literate technically with these things but chose, due to expediency, to leave it all to the professionals I'd engaged to do the work. The only thing I used was a 3d cad package to create and render a basic arrangement for the house in order to do my own bill of materials in order to minimise wastage. I definitely understand why someone would want the cad files from the architect, but it does strike me that if this is demanded this may be driven by a lack of trust and self-protectionism. If that's the case, there's something fundamentally wrong with the relationship in the first place. If the relationship is right, then it should be possible to reach an amicable arrangement that works for all involved. As for the OP, @CharlieKLP, what do you actually mean by 'self-builder' as your target market because I suspect that your target client may not actually be as wishy-washy and generic as this, but rather more specific. I may also have got the wrong sense of it, but it also feels to me like the proposition is a bit akin to providing clients with a product, which is a bit production line based and transactional whereas my sense of an architectural service is to develop a client relationship that in turn yields a home of value - I think these things sit in stark contrast, but again depends on what you want to produce and with whom you want to work.

I do think this is where confusion lies in that CAD files are not 'just' drawings and there's no way in a million years it's appropriate to distribute raw CAD files directly to clients, especially self-builders who are probably more likely to want to take it upon themselves to tinker with them. ? Then you've also got issues with file format, software and the associated costs of software licensing. When I got my first job in engineering it was in document management within one of the world's largest engineering consultancies and I learned quickly how poor documentation, revision, distribution and control can cause immense problems on even the smallest of projects. Providing additional information such as dimensions is a different matter and I do believe that properly detailed construction drawing should be dimensioned and made available to the client/builder as even at 1:10 it's easy to make critical mistakes. What I do think is problematic is when the various professionals can't share files to incorporate their piece of the work and therefore costs the client extra - we had that problem due to incompatibility with the architect/structural engineer and then the steel fabrication company used their own 3d modelling software - lots of circles of drawing creation/commenting and modification that could have been done more efficiently. At least our topograhical survey company provided the raw cad files when I asked them to, which was helpful for the initial designs.

Okay, so next stage done now with 2 coats of the basecoat. I've some mistakes in that I used the basecoat to fill joints and countersunk screw holes and I used the microcement mesh across all the corners. This meant that I used a bit too much basecoat and ran a bit short on the second coat! I also used the mirocement mesh on both internal and external corners, which was not great. Next time I'll use normal scrim tape on any corners. Having never done this before I may have applied the first coat slightly too thick too. Anyway, not too much of a disaster. All that has happened is the small wall area within the built in shelf will need to be tiled at the back and sides. Applying the basecoat is really quite similar to applying thin coat render on external wall insulation, but it's a lot thinner, with each layer being only approx. 1mm. I'm going to allow this cement to set overnight and tomorrow, first sand down this layer and then apply two more layers of a slightly different cement layer with what looks like a finer aggregate, but is still trowelled on like the basecoat. Overall, I'm quite happy with how it's turning out.

Around us it's usual for architects to charge between about 8-12k to planning. Eventually we found a very experienced architect who charged by the hour and got us through planning, including committee for around the 5k mark. He had the vision and imagination for great design, which was our priority until after planning when our next priority became good detailed design. This is where he let us down, while pretending he was good at it. If you're not going to offer the technical design/detailing, then one suggestion I have is to ensure you have someone in your black book you can pass the detailing work along to and who you can work with to ensure it all works in harmony with your design. But also make sure you communicate this clearly with your clients. One of the worst things we experienced was the RIBA stages of work, which were meaningless to us as clients, but also, having had plenty of experience in project and programme management, both my wife and I found it one of those useless project outline documents which delivers zero added value and following it probably ends up costing the client dearly. My other bugbear, which I'd add to @Iceverge's great list is to forget designing to win awards (unless specifically required by the client). We spoke to 6 architets in total and had them all submit tenders. One withdrew and all the others highlighted how they'd design us an award winning house - but this is obviously for the benefit of the architect rather than the client. And finally, listen -really listen - to the client.

Cemher

Day 2 of the ensuite now with step 2, 3 and 4 of microcement preparation. Step 2 was to sand down the basecoat used to fill the countersunk screws and joints, but I have to say this was a pain. Next time, I think I'll use the Knauf Aquapanel skim and/or filler as the microcement basecoat has aggregate in it so it's impossible to feather out the edges and it's really hard so destroys the sanding pads on the orbital sander. Took ages to only get a moderately good finish here. I'm hope the minor blemishes will be filled when coating. Step 3 just to apply the primer to the boards. Step 4 to add the reinforcing mesh which basically gets stuck to the primer (kind of - it just holds it in place for the microcement basecoat. Next step is to apply two coats of the basecoat, one uncoloured, the other coloured. Pictures attached of the stages completed today.

Oh no, that's awful! Sorry to hear that. I think I have slipped into self-builder overkill mode again.

I know some people will shudder and say don't do it in a bathroom, but I'm using birch plywood for my floor in this ensuite and the guest bathroom. It's finished with Rubio Monocoat and waiting to go down as soon as I've got the microcementing done. You can use microcement on the floor too.

I've just started with microcementing a shower now. Decided to use an ensuite for the experiment so if it goes wrong, nobody's really going to notice Here are photos of 1st stage - boarded with Aquapanel Outdoor as the base because I had 3 panels knocking around, but you can use plaster and skim, plasterboard, and even plywood as the base. At this point I've just filled the countersunk screw wholes, joints and gaps with the microcement base coat. Nothing out of the ordinary just recording the steps for anyone interested. Tomorrow will be sanding it all down and then hopefully applying basecoat and mesh.

I don't blame you. I'd have thrown all my toys out of the pram with them by now. It's simply not on.

I couldn't agree more. That's where the value comes from in terms of an architect. Ours certainly had his failings but he also made a lot of comments about what to specify and what not to specify that have born out to be absolutely spot on. Many of these comments were also based on his experience that once a customer actually sees the space, then they want and need the flexibility to change the designs and if you've detailed everything too tightly, it'll cost ya. What I do think needs to be detailed very well are the structural scheme and the building envelope.

I think this counts for quite a lot of building physics, much of which is still being investigated and not fully understood - just look at research into hygrothermal performance of building envelopes, for example. Basically, you just have to proceed on the basis of best current knowledge but be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff with good quality research and studies because as I've found, there's still a lot of myth and misunderstanding out there which is assumed to be evidence based truth. I was in your very situation 5 years ago where I thought I understood much more than I did, only to have found recently many of my assumptions were based on a lack of knowledge and understanding. I now tend to go straight to the research and horse's mouth so to speak as it often takes years for this info to filter out into the world, let alone be accepted and used. What specifically have you found out that's troubled you?

Don't count your chickens yet - you know the old maxim that if you don't ask you don't get ? If you have such considerable equity and your history is impeccable, discussions with the underwriter, even through what appear to be intransigent lenders can pay off sometimes. I know, because I've negotiated mortgage lending for myself from a lender who wouldn't normally touch self-build with a barge-pole. Are you also dismissing the idea of exploring an equitable charge? I suspect the problem you might always come back to is point 2 of your OP as any mortgage based lending will need to pass those tests - ridiculous as many of them might be! I quite like @Ferdinand suggestion of getting PP in the garden ? (I'll run away now too!)

I don't fully understand the legal ins and outs of it and it was a few years ago, but as a general overview it was first about approaching the restrictive lender to obtain a consensual agreement on the basis that there was significant equity in the property and also a bit of leaning on the argument that the restrictive clause may be unfair and unenforceable in any case. However, this situation may very well have changed due to current accepted practise and case law, which might be why equitable charges have grown in use. Sorry I can't be more helpful on this point.

Have you taken legal advice on this? I know someone who was able to put a 2nd charge on a property regardless of the first charge having a clause in the agreement not to allow this. I think there is also now something called an equitable charge which doesn't provide the 2nd charge with the ability to force a sale of the property.

Thankfully Protek do cover caravan contents as part of their self-build policy. The additional premium is actually not too much money in relation to the whole policy cost. As for seperate garage contents, I've also found it a difficult process. I used to have it included within a normal house building and contents policy through a more specialist broker as many standard policies don't cover separate garage contents particularly well. However, that doesn't cover us any more due to the house not existing as it did so policy lapsed.

Our architect did everything with paper and pencil, but these were young'uns brought up on newfangled tech called CAD.

It's good you found some people to help you. I ended up having to learn all about it myself and modify the designs myself to take this kind of thing into consideration. I've come across so many examples now of registered architects not being up to speed on technical detailing required beyong building regs for energy efficiency, which is one area where I remain highly critical of my architect and several others I've met. One architect with whom I discussed efficient wall buildup systems said to me that the industry moved so quickly with these things, they simply don't have the available time to keep up with it - shocking.

That's definitely the common wisdom of this and a rule I used to follow. However, surprising as it might seem, I've broken almost all of these rules with our current temporary site electrics. Different ring mains, 2 breakers and many, sometimes multiple extension leads. Surprisingly my TP-link mains extenders work amazingly across my whole site, and seamlessly too. I have no idea how it's all worked so well. The only rule I haven't been able to break is the surge protector.

I was in a similar situation just before the first COVID lockdown. I boarded and covered the roof with temporary membrane and then wrapped the timber frame in tarpaulins as I had months to wait for some materials. However my frame got very wet before I got a roof cover on and that's just expected. The effort you go to will depend on the work schedule and the tf wall buildup - i.e. is it a standard wall with sheathing on the outside or reversed with sheathing on the inside.

That's not a paint, it's a lubricant. I'd hazard a guess it's used on the calipers and maybe between the disk and hub on disk installation (to prevent the disk from rusting to the hub).

Nope, you definitely don't want paint anywhere near your brake disks ? Brake caliper paint only goes to 300-500 C. I don't quite understand why you'd want to paint internal parts of a stove but you can get lots of types of stove paint. Not sure how well they work, mind you. Have you measured the actual temperature?