Hello from someone considering demolishing and rebuilding

[Norbert]

Thanks for the input everyone. It has certainly caused me to reconsider my options. However having done that I come to the conclusion that my only options for practical, aesthetic and planning reason is to do nothing, or demolish and rebuild on the same footprint.

 

While the site is large half of it is lower and closer to the river, so forget that. Other parts are higher but closer to the road, noisier and aesthetically horrible. In a dense urban setting splitting the the plot, building a new house and keeping/selling the old might be an option, but in a National Park planning would be difficult/impossible. If I built alongside somehow and demolished the old house then my garden would feature a huge concrete slab. Breaking that up, removing it and landscaping may be possible but at a great expense no doubt.

 

While moving out for 6/9/12? months is a PITA, any other plan severely compromises the quality of the final result IMHP.

[scottishjohn]

6 hours ago, Norbert said:

Thanks for the input everyone. It has certainly caused me to reconsider my options. However having done that I come to the conclusion that my only options for practical, aesthetic and planning reason is to do nothing, or demolish and rebuild on the same footprint.

 

While the site is large half of it is lower and closer to the river, so forget that. Other parts are higher but closer to the road, noisier and aesthetically horrible. In a dense urban setting splitting the the plot, building a new house and keeping/selling the old might be an option, but in a National Park planning would be difficult/impossible. If I built alongside somehow and demolished the old house then my garden would feature a huge concrete slab. Breaking that up, removing it and landscaping may be possible but at a great expense no doubt.

 

While moving out for 6/9/12? months is a PITA, any other plan severely compromises the quality of the final result IMHP.

which is why isuggested builng around your hous first if doing it yourself could save months of rental costs ue 

ONLY WHEN THAT IS DONE DEMOLISH OLD ONE INSIDE 

[bmj1]

18 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

which is why isuggested builng around your hous first if doing it yourself could save months of rental costs ue 

ONLY WHEN THAT IS DONE DEMOLISH OLD ONE INSIDE 

This is a very clever idea. Would need the planning conditions worded right.

 

The only thing I don't like is it might complicate the demolition (do you really want a 23 tonne digger anywhere near your brand new foundations?)

[scottishjohn]

4 minutes ago, bmj1 said:

This is a very clever idea. Would need the planning conditions worded right.

 

The only thing I don't like is it might complicate the demolition (do you really want a 23 tonne digger anywhere near your brand new foundations?)

If i could use a 4.5 ton inside my old house -then should not be a problem 

and if he is going to riase it up -- leave internal founds and lay another over it  as load will all be taken on new founds around outside of house

 also means you can connect to all services in old found ,.

if its built like most houses a big hammer to knock walls don to inside will soon sort it - and maybe get away with a 2 ton digger to load the dumper

 piccie of my clearing of inside and that had 3ft deep in old walls and plaster etc etc and we dug down to 300 below new floor level 

 icould not use old drains as they were nearly non exsistant