Gimp

Glad you agree that AutoCAD has an awful user interface I can't believe that it has maintained market dominance for so long with such a problem which I see as down to their allowing students to use it for free & gaining a monopoly position in the marketplace. It should be a case that it was Industry Standard as its well over thirty years old now but because so many refuse to move on it somewhat still is sometimes in tandem with Revit. I guess there is Vectorworks, now that it has developed to Revit like capabilities and perhaps beyond as another BIM capable program. Seems that perpetual licenses are still available but its costly, particularly if OP is just doing a one off or occasional build. I think the only advantage of Autodesk going for 'rental' licenses is that they are quite probably messing up the market dominance they have gained and their competitors will be able to exploit those that don't want to rent or move to renting from their last perceptual licence they have with Rivet, AutoCAD, etc. I personally can't stand it when companies go for rental licenses it just smacks of greed and arrogance that they believe we should be all held to random on their products. I still use my old student version of photoshop which is perpetual rather than use an updated rental version. I think that in terms of workload you are somewhat right, I love all that fluff that taking on Revit rarely equates to laying off staff as might be initially thought as there is often other stuff to do. I do think though it can avoid taking more staff on, feeling overworked, awkward process and having attention on other matter diverted as can happen with AutoCAD. Staff morale also seems better with Revit type of programs as its smoother to work with and takes away a lot of their daily problems they have to deal with with AutoCAD. I'm personally a big fan of Rhino, its got some great add ons and with Autodesk risking their market dominance I can see it coming back into favour more as it was say five years or so ago. Plus the new version 6 when it comes out could deliver good stuff if it improves upon Rhino like version 5 did.

Yep, Revit was what I meant. Well you can get Revit LT now for £45 a month on subscription (LT suite £65 a month). Think just one month should be enough, maybe two with learning (although you can get a free trial), but OP would have to ensure it's all done & printed out, preferably dwg files taken as back up before subscription runs out or it would be paying for another £45 at a later date. It is a shame though that they seem to have gotten rid of their perpetual licenses would put more people off and look for alternatives I think. Sketchup, yes that is what I meant to say, its user interface is not really geared to detailing which is what I meant by accuracy. I've come across house builders that still use AutoCAD, its a pain, I generally try to avoid working for practices that use this software now and have removed any reference to it on my CV to avoid being contacted by those seeking AutoCAD skills, it's just so dire to work with, awkward user interface, not smooth, oddities and really is the height of tedium. I much prefer to work in Rhino in 2D, far better user interface, smoother, quicker & a reasonable priced perpetual license for ever more I just see the architecture & house-building industry lack of will to move on as a major detriment, just like how we lost out in are automobile industry back in the day by not keeping at the cutting edge of technology. Up to date CAD programs can really improve work efficiency and hence save on many costs. I mean AutoCAD goes back to the early eighties, its crazy its still being used. Just looked up AutoCAD also now only on license it looks, shockingly £180 a month for full version, £48 for LT version, even more than Revit! Get Rhino, can do the same as AutoCAD, cheaper & better.

Depends what you have in mind. If its speed you need than Revit will be the way to go - it models components such as walls, floors, furniture, etc automatically so will save you loads off time over using 2D and even modelling these components up yourself in 3D modeling packages. I have come across many Architects that have been way too slow in moving with the times and technology and still working with AutoCAD to their detriment. One office I've come across was always playing 'catch up' as they had so much work on and were struggling to keep up as they were essentially doing everything manually on AutoCAD (very labour intensive, their idea was to keep recruiting more staff trained in AutoCAD ) they never had the time to learn & move across to Revit. They had bought the Revit package which essentially automates within it many of the repetitive tasks of 2D CAD such as AutoCAD (ok you can use AutoCAD as a 3D modeler but few people do as there are better 3D modeler programs out there). They never really understood that the Revit software package would take away their pile of work problems and make life easier by updating the plans and sections as changes were made and eliminating a lot of problems associated with working in 2D in CAD. Another practice I cam into contact with had also bought Revit but I could tell were stuck on AutoCAD by tradition and were very unlikely to change over (they needed it as many commercial & government contracts now demand the use of BIM (Building Information Modelling) enabled software such as Revit so engineers etc can all work on the same model & edit as required). So they could show these contractors/clients they had it (but did not use it) to gain the contract, after they gained it? who knows. They were so ingrained in the workflow that they had been used to with AutoCAD over the years, which was tedious at best, but they seemed to be so engrossed in the tedium that they had become brainwashed into thinking there was really any better way. The were all clocking on to their fifties, but I have seen people their age & older more accepting of software development and as in the first case ones younger that were ignorant of it also. In this case they failed to realize that much of the fault occurrence/finding that happens especially in 2D CAD (also but less so with 3D CAD modelers) doesn't happens so much with Revit, i.e doors misplaced in one set of drawings to another, hatching wrong or accidentally left out. All of these minor flaws that tend to occur over the course of a project as the design changes all add up to a lot of time to rectify. The point being is that if you are new to CAD (or fairly new) then I would highly recommend Revit, there are plenty of online tutorials on you tube & lynda.com and elsewhere but its pretty straight forward once you learn the basics and it will stop you from making errors & produce drawings that are in most cases instantly suitable for sending to planning. You won't be inadvertently making lots of little mistakes that might prove costly on site, Revit tends to flag up or even stop you from continuing these errors. Revit will also produce a specification & quantity list without you having to do this separately and remove margin for error a lot here - another time consuming process it automates, wave goodbye to Excel Revit is by no means perfect, it could do a lot more and user interface though mostly good could be made smoother still, but its the best for those new to CAD without much technical training in construction & its good for those with a heavy workload (or expecting one). It would be my choice if I was designing a lot for clients where I was just looking at the profit made per effort input and the time saving efficiencies - some clients want the work done ASAP or specify a short tender period. That said, if I was designing a very bespoke building, as I have just done for myself I would use Rhino 3D all the way, it's great for planning out in 2D then extruding the 2D plans to 3D which help show how the design works or does not, any c*ck ups with walls being where you should have put an opening, etc. Its also great for producing a more 'designed' building as opposed to a generic building you nearly always get in Revit - a box, modern or pitched roof is fine if that is all you want and I don't mean that in the derogatory sense, its practical and often makes sense. If you want something a bit more original then Rhino is the way to go, but I think that design training/knowledge is essential here otherwise you are wasting your efforts and would be better of with a generic design produced in Revit. Rhino will take you longer than Rivet, much longer, but is still quicker than AutoCAD depending on the amount of detail you wish to go into. Sure a basic floor plan & elevation can be drawn up in AutoCAD, but the same can be done in Rhino from Plan view and Rhino has a much smoother user interface I think that aids accuracy. So there we have it, other alternatives are available - 3D Studio Max is much like Rhino if you prefer it. Catia I know some use but tends to be more engineering types, Sketchup tends to lack accuracy, its more basic modelling but some still use it and I think some improvements have been made to it. AutoCAD I would personally stay clear off its day is done even if many Architects don't realize it/accept it. ArchiCAD is very similar to Revit, but I think Revit has a more direct user interface so preferable. Other modelling programs exist but to be honest are more for other industries such as product design & engineering so would stay clear, i.e Solidworks or basic modellers such as Blender unless you take a preference to them for some quirky reason and other less well known software aimed at architecture exists, but is not wide spread in use in the architecture industry. So if I were you I would go with Revit, otherwise if just doing basic plans odds are you'll end up paying for someone else to do further work on them.

So your saying you use rainwater harvesting to cut down a lot on your bill? As otherwise I would assume all that water use would cost you a lot more.

Sounds interesting, possibly might work in a compact location as mine, think it might be a bit more than I would want to deal with during the build though. Perhaps see if there is any space I can keep free just in case and look into it I think.

Yes, runs right in front of the plot on the road, so this is looking my best bet as the alternatives I do not have the room for but worth exploring just in case. The Rainwater harvesting still looks a goer to me, thinking of perhaps using a UV filter for bathing & shower water to make it more worthwhile. Just have the kitchen sink & bathroom basins as water from the water company as its drinking water so has to be to standard.

Unfortunately, will have nowhere near the room for a packaged treatment plant/effluent drain field. A septic tank I might have room for as looks just a bit bigger than a rain harvesting tank depending on chosen size. Does the septic tank deal with it all internally? I would have thought it would get filled up quick.

Is that just the septic tank itself you need, or is there a big system attached to it? I think I vaguely recall they use them in France a lot in the countryside but it comes with a bit of a field type of system to purify it or something.

Thanks Peter, it certainly gives me something to look into doing, save the water bill from rising too steeply, many thanks.

Thanks, Peter that sounds like a good idea, funny I was just looking at the previous outline planning permission granted on my plot, design & access statement and that what one of the proposals was there for a 2700 litre underground rainwater harvesting tank. It looks far the preferable option. I've looked on a site and it looks like you can get filters for them, do you think this would be a good idea, not necessarily for drinking but for doing washing up, washing machine, etc so there by decreasing the amount of water company water used? Assuming here that its a meter you use rather than the set fee?

Well, looks like I will be with Welsh Water that are about the third most expensive in the country even though they are run by a not for profit company. Guess I could always have borehole supply non-drinking water and then just buy in bottles of mineral water in big bottles, good idea?

Apparently its a clay/sand mix of soil, will have to verify this soon though with a dig to confirm. No idea on water table level yet. Looked on the British Geological Survey website and they seem to indicate a moderate yield of water from aquifer possible, but some contamination from coal mining possible (though no coal mining directly under my site. So yeah a project needing more in depth study at the time I think.

Yeah, that's seriously more Science than I would wish for, lol. I think this sounds like a project in its own right, perhaps if you're a science guy less so, but for me I think would be too much to deal with along with the build so better to leave that as a possible project for afterwards and just connect up to the mains in the interim and see how happy I am with that. From a brief skim read of the link you gave it sounds like I could just end up paying a lot and risk pumping up a load of sludge. So best taking my time over that one and investigating what it may yield first I think when/if I get to it. Sewage was never really an option for me, as I won't really have the space for a septic tank and will not be worth the hassle even if I found space I think. There's a sewer too that runs along the front of the property with the water pipes so happy to use that I think. PV Solar panels is definitely an option and will probably not be too difficult for me. There are some trees fairly near by but I think the height of the building will be enough to make any shading effect from them negligible. In Wales on a hillside here so longer term may consider small wind turbine. I'm thinking the trees, other buildings & slope of the hill will probably not be too bad in terms of wind turbulence if I get it high enough on the roof, but will have to check at the time I think.

Thanks for that ProDave, my internet messed up, but ok now I think. Yeah think I'm going to have to check up on the comparative costs.

So primarily thinking off stuff like water & electricity. Would I be better off getting a borehole installed & say a lot of solar paneling. Would I save money over using the utilities? The site I am on it will be easy to get hooked up with water as the pipe runs along the length of the property, but would it be cheaper in the long run to get a bore hole in. I am looking to hold onto the property once complete. The site is up on a hillside but just up from a stream in reasonably close proximity (say 2-300 Meters) so I am guessing hitting water is very likely. Just wondered what thoughts may be on this as the way to go?

Oh, I see that wouldn't work for me, should have learn't but never did. Something I don't have to build in though.

I think sometimes there is a degree of luck involved. However, good site analysis can help when choosing plots. My plot came up with a few issues during purchase but it all turned out surprisingly smoothly so far. A lot of the areas where big problems could have arisen turned out to be of little consequence, even ended up as probable plus points. Your statements make me wonder what sort of house your building. If its a Grand Designs style build then your not setting out giving yourself the easiest time in the first place. Most builds can have something individual about them without pushing real far out. Many of the guys you sign up, Architects, SE's, Contractors, etc will likely think from a 'providing service' mentality rather than a 'real involvement' mentality so will go for off the peg solutions that are a given answer for them rather than their own individual thinking. It's not how many of them are trained up I think to think individually, more a use the accepted respected given method and they don't look real deep into whether/how it fits - its how they passed the college education system. That's my thoughts anyway.

How come your installing a lift? Won't it cost a bit to install & run? Wouldn't stairs be just as fine?

I would suggest that ok unless the extremes were encountered from either end, either a ridiculously phoney traditional build that looks like its come straight out of disney land or a gut wrenching modernist box of the utmost vulgarity. The community shouldn't really have to put up with someone's all too apparent design faux pas. In generally now I think its better that planning are a bit more looser than say 20 years ago when then went into ridiculous detail from what I hear. I haven't seen any of your builds so I can't really say if your modern designs are ok or otherwise. Take Grand Designs for example some of the modern designs they have had on their have been truly awful. Sometimes out and about you see work done by builders where design is lacking, i.e extensions that have just been slapped on without tying up to the original build, out of alignment and it is apparent someone without much training or aesthetic thought has come up with the design build. Other times it can be the clients that are quite clueless and something odd appears. I'm just saying that if everyone stuck up something without the proper thought going into it the places around us would look an unsightly mess.

Which I would generally go along with but I still think the build should be somewhat sympathetic to the original build rather than a stark contrast offered up which clashes so horribly with the existing build just to be in no doubt that the new part is distinct. So a distinctly modern style say but using some of the materials of the original build and trying to make it work with the original build rather than an awkward looking add on. Just my thoughts. Possibly some areas may need to be on a case by case basis of what is best.

I appreciate the reply Sensus. I know I think in some cases people get ideas that are ridiculously out of their time perhaps even culture, like some rich guys who do mock Georgian manor houses. Though by the same token if its an estate of mock Georgian houses then it some how doesn't look too bad as the odd one or two in an area of other house styles. The village area where I have my plot there are the odd new build mock Victorian/Tudor/Georgian house around and they stick out from the regualr terraces in not too good a way I think. There's no real reason for them to be there other than the clients choice and the oddity of it is apparent. The question I guess comes with how to handle new build in say an area of quaint village thatch cottages. Sure there is a phoney element to recreating in an age where there is no rationale for doing so (other than heritage deference to the past) but I think some sort of a 'fitting in' is needed even if the house style is fundamentally different. Some modernist designs seem so much of a visual distortion of what's already there it kind of ruins the feel of the place as a whole. Possibly there is no easy answer to this and its a toss up between going with phoney or distortion and I guess everyone has a preference. I've seen places where the phoneyness is too much to stomach but equally places where the distortion of a modernist box amongst curvy quaint cottages is just a gut wrenching eye sore. I guess my tendency is towards the phoney end a bit of traditional and just take in the pleasing aesthetics however needless. It is interesting to know where the modernist drive comes from in developing in this area though so thank you for your input.

Hmmn well, I can see why some people might take joy out of people that are overly uptight, or have a certain style of building they prefer. I have never really got why some planners seem overjoyed with granting permission to a modernist box in the middle of a quaint village or the like. Perhaps they are modernists that wish to advance their tastes and cross the professional line of bringing their tastes/values into the planning process. To me it doesn't make sense to be out of context with an area to the extreme. Things move on and some difference will crop up compared to what's around in most locations but those defined for a particular set of buildings you would think they would want to hold onto that otherwise it would spoil the aesthetic view of the area. Perhaps a clash of aesthetics doesn't register with some people and their visual awareness, if they have one, I don't know. Myself I wouldn't dream of going too far out of context of the surrounding build - not necessarily keeping to the same style, but usually at least including similar materials. I think the only reason I would deviate if there was a pleasing visual impact from a counterpoint between two different styles. I think too many times style contrasts are immediately thought of as desirable these days when they are often more than otherwise. Just my thoughts on it though others may differ. I can see why some are NIMBY I think many of us probably reach a point where we want to safeguard our interests it natural to do so. I know some in our local area that have taken it too far, one person sent flyers around trying to whip up support against someone's conversion of their garage into a room. Stuff like that doesn't interest me, some of the development around the neighbouring houses where my parental home is, is not particularly well done but sometimes comes with benefits of blocking out other unsightly scenes. For me I think my development shouldn't raise too high a profile on the NIMBY alert senses but you never know I guess, I will try to put it in the best light possible when I submit the design & access statement while trying to be objective I think and hope it goes down ok. Generally its a modern house with some nice traditional features which I think will fit in with the rendered terraces that are neighbouring it. Should be interesting at least.

LOL Yeah, or the neighbours, glad you mentioned this or I could have made myself look like a right tit!

Cheers Sensus, looks like you're right, didn't realise that, its just crazy. It goes all the way through the UK parliament yet it just applies to England. Creates more confusion & mess I think. Things were more straight forward when we just had one parliament, another thing we can blame Tony Blair for, lol. Will, just have to push through as is I think then, I think I will have a pretty sound application but will be better if I can get the neighbours on side I think.

These are very important points, thank you Jack, I'm most appreciative of this input. Yeah, you're right I should hold back on the detail, I'm not really looking for their input anyway as I'm pretty certain of what I want and it would mess with my plan/vision for the site. It's not going to be that close to them anyway and I'm avoiding putting windows that look directly onto their houses since I don't wish to see them, just the open countryside around the site and the village it overlooks as the plot is up on a hillside . I think the most objections I am likely to get are from the two neighbouring properties either side, their are no properties directly in front or behind and I think the site is not in such a prominent position so as to cause a local scandal. That said of course you never know where objections may come out of the woodwork from those further along the road or elsewhere in the village that are just objectionable type to anything. I think in general though from what I recall it usually just the immediate neighbours that are notified of the proposed plans. I think you're right though, keep it light, simple & brief conversation on the development as going more into it in detail in order to make them aware of all instances will probably be likely to wind many a person up more than reassure them. The development I have in mind is going to be reasonably sensible I think anyway (for sure they may not see it that way) but I try not to impose anything that is out of keeping too much with the buildings in the surrounding area while also trying to do something decent looking and unique, it is a self build after all so I don't see the point doing anything too mundane (not too far out either I hope). I think while keeping it simple I'll try and not mislead them on anything as I know this can get on peoples goat a bit if something is way of the mark that was put across to them. So yes in the initial instance I will just try and be as friendly as I can mention the build but not focus too much on it. Many thanks Jack