v4169sgr

Thanks Crofter, think I've finally cracked it (or got cracked ) @Onoff save me! I'm in danger of understanding what I am doing!

According to a geological survey of the site, the underlying is sand / gravel on chalk. So no issues there ...

From the appeal decision document: It is intended to remove 4 self-set trees from the site, however, I note that the Council’s tree consultant has no objection to their removal and nothing I have seen in submissions or on site would lead me to a different conclusion. The rest of the trees are to remain and a new hedgerow is to be planted to the front of the site to replace the existing hedge which is in a poor condition. Consequently, the proposal would not affect the wooded character of the site. [...] The only point at which the proposed dwelling would be visible is from the access, other than glimpses through the trees. Moreover, the proposal is an outline application and consequently, I am satisfied that a scheme could be designed that would not detract from the rural wooded character and appearance of the area. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would not undermine the key visual features of the landscape type. This seems quite restrictive. Removing trees on the west side of the site may affect views from a property well set back from the road to the SW, though there is another belt of trees.

I think there is an unadvertised image size limit. How do I deal with that? I am 'inserting image from URL' from Google Photos, and don't want the faff of having to resize etc. Once I know that, I can finish editing this post lol

Indeed. Just getting the hang of Google Photos ... View over the center of the site, looking south: And to the western edge Derelict shed: Small spoil heap Site from the road. Parts of the two TPO beeches are shown to the edges of this photo

Thanks again for everyone's replies on this topic. It's been a busy bank holiday ! I've actually been up and had a look around the site. Lovely spot. Good location. Not too much road noise: to be expected for a through road of its type. Really nice people thereabouts, quite happy to spare the time to talk. The site is in amongst the trees by the side of the road. Four trees have been cleared from the center of the site. The two protected beech trees by the road are nice specimens though in need of crown lifting. There are various other deciduous (beech, hawthorn ...) trees around the edge of the site, inside the boundary. There's quite a bit of overhang from the larger trees. Right at the back of the site just in front of the west boundary there's a small brick and flint spoil heap, and a vaguely linear trench / ramp on which a few of the trees have grown. Just to the left of that there's a really decrepit small wooden shed. There are records showing a small cottage near or on the site from about 1850 to 1950. Barbed wire and post fencing, west and south, in poor condition. A fairly solid looking panel fence to the north, separating the site from a nearby property. Center of the site has a summer's growth of nettle & sloe: looks undisturbed. Ground not level but reasonably flat with undulations +/- 0.5m. Sight line to the right of a proposed entrance between the two beech trees doesn't look all that great due to a tall hedge right up against the road to the south. Alright to the left. For a single story dwelling plus room for parking etc to be placed on site, there wouldn't be a lot of room to spare. It would be quite tight round the sides. In my view, likely not a practical proposition without adding land to the site. The site had been the subject of a previous planning application, first for a two storey dwelling, then for a single storey house. Both were refused, and the two storey application was appealed and won. The following condition has been attached to the appeal decision schedule of conditions: Before development takes place, a Tree Protection Plan, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement which shall take account of all development which is being undertaken within the RPA of the retained trees, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. So just wondering in addition how much flexibility there would be to site any house further back from the road, even if land were later added to the site (to the west). Some of those retained trees would have to go - and be replaced by new specimens elsewhere. The other thing that is quite apparent is how shaded any building would be if built in the position on the OPP. Although there is a clear space of about 15 * 15 m in the center, at least some of any house would be overhung by the existing mature trees.

Thanks a lot for the additional feedback. @recoveringacademic: Thanks for the encouragement. Indeed discovering the right questions to ask and then deciding how to analyse the answers is half the battle. Time waits for no man though: wait too long and the opportunity will be gone anyway. It's just a question of whether I'd be glad to see it go, or not I've decided to see if there may be an opportunity to acquire some additional land to one side of the plot, as right now things seem to be rather constrained, and architect contacts get cold feet rather quickly when they try to square away what I am looking for versus the constraints of the site as it stands now. This will depend on the outcome of a planning appeal on that land becoming known, however. @JSHarris Thanks for the additional comments. I didn't really want to turn this thread into a rehash of the relative merits of GHSP vs ASHP, and am not strongly tied to one solution or other, but would like to maximise independence from utilities, if it seems practical to do so without sacrificing the opportunity to build the house in the first place. One thing I am deeply conscious of any future dwelling is that it should be a very low noise environment inside, and by that I mean eliminating buzzes, hums, etc as far as possible. I have a family member who can hear and is bothered by the noise of low energy bulbs (not LEDs!). So, doesn't your ASHP make a noise like an extractor fan? And what about icing up in winter / COP suffering in cold weather? A key benefit of a borehole GSHP is access to a year round near constant source or sink of thermal energy. That having been said, 0.5 - 1 kWh is a high cost indeed for pumping water up a borehole! How long would one have to run that monster motor per day to satisfy the needs of a typical household's clean water needs (excluding flushes, irrigation etc)? @Onoff Yes, I did say "dark skies" Thanks for the photos: nice plinth! How do you drive your mount? Where's the OTA? And is that a thermal gap you've got there, or am I seeing things ?

Thank you all for your wonderful replies - I feel quite humbled. And 100% my fault for being so terse I generated a few misunderstandings - sorry ! @JSHarris I've been talking to Onyx Solar [ http://www.onyxsolar.com/ ] . They supply world-wide, and were happy to talk to me in the context of domestic / residential, even though the majority of their work is much larger scale. Unlike quite a lot of the 'near market' stuff we hear about, they've got an extensive back catalogue of finished installations. Attraction for me is they could supply BIPV windows, roof tiles (made to look like red clay pan tiles) and opaque BIPV glass for ventilated facades (note @Tennentslager ). My handle is astro-related, not vehicular. Enterprising detectives might use this route to un-mask me ! @Triassic You are right. I don't have much of a network here (read above for socially inept ) but am confident that new circumstances and activities will bring their own rewards, via astronomy, agro-forestry and social action interests, providing only that I make a go of it. @ProDave I agree with you: I am not likely to save money on a custom build. @recoveringacademic is exactly right and understands me well. Within reason, I am exchanging higher initial capital costs for lower outgoings in the future, coupled with as much independence from utilities as possible as a hedge against future instability. Even to the extent of not paying particular attention to payback periods, ROI calculations etc. It's the evidence-based case that bothers me at the moment. No point in wishing on the moon if I am not likely to be in a position to achieve it. And I have significant responsibilities I must continue to fulfill (two older teenagers needing a base, father who is not getting any younger, etc) @gravelld: I've actually had initial feedback from one firm of architects that three significant trees just to the S of the plot, in combination with a single storey build, might make PH unachievable, if built on the existing OPP footprint, elongated N-S. However from what I understand, cooling PHs is more of a challenge than heating them. DHW could be immersion during high insolation months and HFC CHP during the winter. @Nickfromwales and @Ferdinand: My apologies for misleading you. The granny annexe could also serve as a short term self-catering holiday let of one double bed self-contained accommodation within the single building unit. Relatively easy entry into this market: a fire inspection (recommended anyway!) and some understanding of customer service and market research, coupled with a willingness to hire and pay well a cleaner on a changeover day. I'm looking at Green Tourism accreditation as a way in. The plot is right next door to an established mid sized country hotel, though, which could make life interesting! I would definitely not be in the long term rentals market, and nor do I have the slightest interest in resale value. This is an extremely long term commitment for me. And shared facilities is definitely the way to go: one MVHR & one heating + cooling + water system for both main and annexe. @JSHarris and @reddal Thank you kindly for your testimonials about GSHP. Per the above, ROI is not what I am looking for. I thought though that GSHPs didn't involve refrigerated coolants, and were water: water. I am looking at open loop systems such as http://www.synergyboreholes.co.uk/geothermal_boreholes/index/open-loop/ and http://www.soloheatinginstallations.co.uk/ground_source_heat_pump.htm . How much would you pay for filters in the heat pump primary? Would this be of the same order of magnitude as filters I understand the MVHR would need? Open question: the local sewer mains is 150 mm piping which according to local residents has already blocked twice in a year, but Anglia Water say it's just fine to add another 35 houses to (! ). But the site is on the boundary between groundwater protection zones 2 and 3. Service connection to main sewer, or sewage treatment plant, like http://biorock.co.uk/ ? I'm sure I must have missed loads, but it's late, and there's plenty other chances!

Hello all and what a wonderful bunch of peeps you are ! Long time lurker taking first unsteady steps. And also complete cack-handed airy fairy impractical nincompoop with nary a chance of getting any DIY right. To give you an idea, re-hanging a door took three attempts to get it almost slightly better than it was originally. Common sense: reading empty. People skills: flatlining. A right idiot in need of education. But! I am cursed with ideas! So, here goes. Looking at a PH single storey construction, common envelope with two living units, wrap around BIPV solar glass (opaque walls as ventilated facade, solar tiles etc), salt water batteries with hydrogen as back up, GSHP vertical borehole supplying heating cooling and potable water. Live in one unit (3 bed), granny annexe or self catering let in the other (1 bed). A bit of savings in the bank, and taking a long look at a specific plot in East Anglia. Edge of village location, just less than 1/4 acre. Good road frontage, easy access, services available if desired, dark skies ( ), OPP for something completely different won on appeal. Lots of opposition rightly so to opportunistic developers proposing massive housing estates, lots of pressure on local services (run off & foul water, doctors etc). Would be a big ask, a huge risk, and would clean me out. Looking at selling up here, moving up & renting, and using proceeds to finance the build, starting Q4 2018 or Q1 2019. Trying to decide if this is a good opportunity to get started now and sort out the detailed PP, or walk away and look for something closer to the time. Primary motivation: financial in the long term, to reduce outgoings. I suppose at the end of the day only I will know how much of an utter idiot I am being