About to go to planning

[MDC]

Hello,

 

I'm new to this forum. 

 

I've designed a four bed house which I've been discussing with Scandia-Hus, who are local to me. During the process, I've realised their thermal performance isn't as I'd hoped, so I'm now considering MBC, but I've no experience of them.

 

We watched a Scandia-Hus being built near us a few years ago, and it seems to be a well built house. Another has recently gone up, a variation on one of their catalogue houses. Again, it's been a fast efficient build.

 

I'm here in the first instance to find out any comments / experience other members have of Scandia-Hus and MBC thermal efficiency.

 

As I can't see a straight line, we'll be opting for a main contractor option. 

 

Thank you.

[Iceverge]

Welcome to the forum. Masonry build here. TF with pumped cellulose would be my preference time over again. 

 

MBC is the best detailed system I know of, not the cheapest though. Looking at Scandi-Hus they use Actis Hybrid and 100mm floor insulation. 

 

Probably the best Vs the worst TF specs I've seen. 

 

PS. If you stick up some plans you'll get a world of knowledge and experience if you want it. I wish we had. 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Iceverge

[ToughButterCup]

Hello, welcome.

The title of your post leads me to caution : are you sure you're going to get Planning Permission? I ask because it would be horrible to put a lot of effort into the details of the build , only to be refused permission.

[Jilly]

Might be worth trying to get a pre planning discussion with your local council before you go further? They are only concerned with the external appearance of the build. Detail comes later with Building Control. 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Jilly

[MDC]

I'm not sure I'll get planning permission, though I'm replacing an inefficient 1950's chalet-bungalow, so maybe, maybe. 

 

There seems to be a lot of hanging around waiting, so I like to have a think about things is all.

[Gone West]

33 minutes ago, MDC said:

I'm not sure I'll get planning permission, though I'm replacing an inefficient 1950's chalet-bungalow, so maybe, maybe.

Welcome to the forum. Unless you are in a special area, replacement dwellings are usually given permission. It's just getting the size and type that you want that can be the tricky part. Took us three years for final approval.

[joe90]

46 minutes ago, MDC said:

I'm replacing an inefficient 1950's chalet-bungalow,

 

10 minutes ago, Gone West said:

replacement dwellings are usually given permission.

However, I planned a 3 bed “cottage” to replace a chalet type bungalow and was refused 4 applications, but went to appeal and won hands down on what I wanted originally. Yes you really need to know what would be allowed but don’t give in if refused. Be careful with pre planning advise as ours was “yes” but still refused on application. I can only advise plan what you want, submit and see what they say and what compromises they require and consider what you are prepared to concede. I found going to appeal easier than applying for planning (and I did it myself). Keep us informed. On build type I went brick and block over timber frame but this can be decided after you know what you will be allowed to build.

[Temp]

We spent over a year in pre application advice getting no, no, no etc then hired a planning consultant who it turned out had previous involvement with our site. He had a letter from the planners to the previous owner that was very helpful. When I showed that to the planning officer they rolled over and approved more or less what we originally wanted.

 

Three years later when I needed planning for an out building the planning officer came to so a site visit, said he liked the house and said he thought "we" (meaning the planning department) had done a good job. Sometimes you have to bite your tongue to avoid getting arrested for punching them in the face 🙂

 

 

[Thorfun]

I had a quote from Scandia-Haus and MBC. Scandia were stupidly expensive for the turnkey package. the quote was comprehensive so I could've dissected it and worked out just the TF etc but, as has been mentioned above, they use Actis insulation and my researched warned me against it (although at least one member on here has used it and are happy with it). MBC are expensive when compared to other TF companies but they do a twin wall pumped cellulose solution which, like @Iceverge, if I had my time over again I would go that route. 

 

but, as has been said above, take care putting too much emotional effort and money in to anything before you actually have planning permission! take a chill pill and do a lot more research on the options out there as there are many.

[MDC]

18 hours ago, Thorfun said:

I had a quote from Scandia-Haus and MBC. Scandia were stupidly expensive for the turnkey package. the quote was comprehensive so I could've dissected it and worked out just the TF etc but, as has been mentioned above, they use Actis insulation and my researched warned me against it (although at least one member on here has used it and are happy with it). MBC are expensive when compared to other TF companies but they do a twin wall pumped cellulose solution which, like @Iceverge, if I had my time over again I would go that route. 

 

but, as has been said above, take care putting too much emotional effort and money in to anything before you actually have planning permission! take a chill pill and do a lot more research on the options out there as there are many.

Yes, it's the Actis insulation that's a concern. We're considering the main contractor option, and Scandia-Hus do say we can use any insulation we choose. Given their chat up lines, you'd think Scandia-Hus would have improved air permeability above 3.5, but then perhaps this depends who is actually doing the building. 

 

They say it's going to take 6 months to get planning [assuming a success], so I've plenty of time to weigh it all up.

 

Many people have said cellulose is the way forward.

 

Thank you for your input.

[Thorfun]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Yes, it's the Actis insulation that's a concern. We're considering the main contractor option, and Scandia-Hus do say we can use any insulation we choose. Given their chat up lines, you'd think Scandia-Hus would have improved air permeability above 3.5, but then perhaps this depends who is actually doing the building. 

 

They say it's going to take 6 months to get planning [assuming a success], so I've plenty of time to weigh it all up.

 

Many people have said cellulose is the way forward.

 

Thank you for your input.

MBC offer a guaranteed air tightness score of 0.6ACH with their passive twin wall iirc. If Airtightness is your thing then it should be a serious consideration. They even guarantee maximum 2ACH with a standard TF. I didn’t find many companies offering that. 
 

I still didn’t use them though. 😂

[Bramco]

Our architect said that pre-planning gives them a chance to have their say -  but pre-planning enquiries like all planning like all planning applications depend on the authority and also the officer.  Both our pre-planning applications (outline and full) were both a waste of time.  The one on the full application caused us major grief by asking us to make one part of the plan shorter front to back which made the layout we wanted impossible - I think if we'd just put the application in, it might have gone through. The outline reply was a joke - we ended up going to appeal and won hands down.

 

We used MBC - at the time we were getting quotes, most of the companies we approached were comparable price wise.  The great thing about MBC is that they take responsibility for the insulated slab as well as the frame. In our opinion, they were taking on too many contracts when they took ours which resulted in the using contractors for the actual erection - our mob were cowboys. They sacked the company off soon after our build.  So I'd ask for a clause in the contract that the erectors are MBC employees - that way you're more likely to get the Irish team who know what they are doing.

 

There's lots of issues with our build under the skin that we know about but now we're living here it's a great house.  Airtightness result was 0.7, so just above the PassivHaus standard and that was with the standard TF, not the double skinned PH system they do.  I understood btw that any double skinned TF is inherently difficult to get square with flat walls - if the timbers in the frame twist warp, the skin which is osb can't really fight against this, so the standard system is probably more stable in that respect.

 

Would I use MBC again - probably yes BUT I'd employ a project manager for the erection with experience of TF builds and have them on-site full time for the 5 or 6 weeks it takes to finish the build.  Just to make sure everything is done to plan - it would have saved us a lot of effort rectifying issues caused by the subcontractor that did the erection.

 

Simon

 

[Gone West]

1 hour ago, Thorfun said:

MBC offer a guaranteed air tightness score of 0.6ACH with their passive twin wall iirc.

As long as their airtightness is achieved in a way that is long lasting, and not bodged to just get through the test, there shouldn't be a problem.

[MDC]

1 hour ago, Thorfun said:

MBC offer a guaranteed air tightness score of 0.6ACH with their passive twin wall iirc. If Airtightness is your thing then it should be a serious consideration. They even guarantee maximum 2ACH with a standard TF. I didn’t find many companies offering that. 
 

I still didn’t use them though. 😂

Who did you use?

[MDC]

42 minutes ago, Bramco said:

Our architect said that pre-planning gives them a chance to have their say -  but pre-planning enquiries like all planning like all planning applications depend on the authority and also the officer.  Both our pre-planning applications (outline and full) were both a waste of time.  The one on the full application caused us major grief by asking us to make one part of the plan shorter front to back which made the layout we wanted impossible - I think if we'd just put the application in, it might have gone through. The outline reply was a joke - we ended up going to appeal and won hands down.

 

We used MBC - at the time we were getting quotes, most of the companies we approached were comparable price wise.  The great thing about MBC is that they take responsibility for the insulated slab as well as the frame. In our opinion, they were taking on too many contracts when they took ours which resulted in the using contractors for the actual erection - our mob were cowboys. They sacked the company off soon after our build.  So I'd ask for a clause in the contract that the erectors are MBC employees - that way you're more likely to get the Irish team who know what they are doing.

 

There's lots of issues with our build under the skin that we know about but now we're living here it's a great house.  Airtightness result was 0.7, so just above the PassivHaus standard and that was with the standard TF, not the double skinned PH system they do.  I understood btw that any double skinned TF is inherently difficult to get square with flat walls - if the timbers in the frame twist warp, the skin which is osb can't really fight against this, so the standard system is probably more stable in that respect.

 

Would I use MBC again - probably yes BUT I'd employ a project manager for the erection with experience of TF builds and have them on-site full time for the 5 or 6 weeks it takes to finish the build.  Just to make sure everything is done to plan - it would have saved us a lot of effort rectifying issues caused by the subcontractor that did the erection.

 

Simon

 

Thanks for this useful information. 

 

I'm a least said soonest mended person, so we'll just put in the application and see how it goes. I hope its not contentious. I've read many planning officer reports on local applications, and have a picture in my mind of their point of view - so ours in non-contentious [I think]. I agree it's the luck of the draw with planning officers, and hope ours will have a more contemporary than traditional bias. 

[Bramco]

48 minutes ago, Gone West said:

As long as their airtightness is achieved in a way that is long lasting, and not bodged to just get through the test, there shouldn't be a problem.

Nope - by the time it got to that part we were on top of things. All and any minor tears, tiny holes all taped up and the proper MBC guys did the final taping up around windows doors etc.   Plus we've got a fantastic guy from the main contractor on site who is a perfectionist.

 

Simon

[Thorfun]

47 minutes ago, MDC said:

Who did you use?

Flight Timber, who have now gone in to liquidation. which is a shame and someone on here has lost a lot of money and doesn't have a TF. 😞 

[Bramco]

38 minutes ago, MDC said:

Thanks for this useful information. 

 

I'm a least said soonest mended person, so we'll just put in the application and see how it goes. I hope its not contentious. I've read many planning officer reports on local applications, and have a picture in my mind of their point of view - so ours in non-contentious [I think]. I agree it's the luck of the draw with planning officers, and hope ours will have a more contemporary than traditional bias. 

 

Funnily enough after all the idiocy of the pre-planning on the full application, when we did submit, the 'real' officer came out to see the site and said it's actually great to have something more contemporary (we have a 2 storey block clad in black corrugated metal, the roofs are all black corrugated metal. And there's a one storey block and garage clad in larch and render.)

 

Mind you, it's a bit marmite in the village - traditionalists are 'eugh!'  the majority though are 'brilliant! - when's Kevin coming?' 

 

Simon

 

PS Good luck with the application, sounds like you've done your homework by reading up on what the planners envelope of acceptable is.