Want to build a new house in my back garden


The Natural

Except in summer when the heat, which you have paid for, is totally unwanted.

kettle'
2%?? Where did dyou get that from? My oh my.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Philosopher wrote:

Yes, the extra energy used does cut the amount needed for heating ... but only if you are heating the place. On a hot day like today the fridge is working harder and making the house less comfortable.

More like 10%. Doubtful economics on a small modern flat perhaps.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural

More like 20-25% in many cases, and 40% better when replacing an old cast iron effort.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some good stuff there. Just one thing though, the walls are the best solar collectors (for space heating) due to the angle of the sun in winter. So you'd have small windows on the south side too but the walls would be built using glass on the outside (or maybe polycarbonate), and a black collector surface behind. The heat that builds up here would (by convection) be collected in another cavity behind the first wall which contains drums of water as a thermal store.
This article on solar closets explains it better than I can:
http://www.ece.vill.edu/~nick /
Nick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7 Jun 2004 00:17:48 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@bt.com (NickW) wrote:

A pretty good case for Legionnaires's Disease, if you ask me. Er, how long does the water remain tepid?
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(NickW) wrote:

The drums are sealed and the water does not come into contact with people. Read the web site.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
latitude.
in
if
filled
makes
from
(the
to
a
the
the
enough
this
and
3 or

enough
made.
water
spec.
etc,
loss,
people
A full south facing roof as a solar collector, angled correctly is as good, and the walls are not impeded by glass. The house can then look pretty much how you like it. The roof can be angled to the optimum angle on the south side and at a shallower angle on the north side, which allows cold north winds to blow over the house more easily.

I am not that enthused, although I'm sure it works. It is an air system, nothing wrong with that, operating by gravity. This restricts the house design. You need an expensive strong structure to hold all that tonnage of water in the loft. That ramps up build prices. So straight away two problems.
Solar air heaters get very hot and scorch marks occur at the top of them which makes them unsightly. Storing the thermal mass (water in large cylinders) at ground level is cheap in structure costs, and using a large full roof solar collector means you have house design freedom. No large glass areas on the walls.
Storing the heat in a thermal store and then pumping it into a "very low temperature" UFH system means you have far more control of the comfort conditions. No far too hot or far too too cold situations. You can also use a conventional boiler to heat the UFH directly (do not store its heat in a large thermal store) when the thermal store is exhausted of heat after a week of cold cloudy conditions.
The problem with passive solar designs is that you live inside the heat generator itself, so it can get a little too hot inside the house at times. With my spec you don't even need to us passive solar as long as superinsulation is used, as the heat is stored and used as you dictate. But using passive solar is a great bonus as should be used. Shades can go some way to preventing unwanted heat entering the house. Although this situation would be very rare as the roof overhangs would take care of unwanted sun in summer. It has been said that all house are solar houses as all have the sun on some part of them. It is a matter of harnessing that sun. This could be via a solar attic in some houses that do not have a south facing elevation.
The spec I have outlined is cost effective and easy to build using materials that are cheap and readily available with ready available skills that can also work with them. It is a matter of getting the "design" right, which is not expensive at all, and can be zero cost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so far are:

Probably not of much relevance unless you can get the principal of development agreed. Take a look at the local plan on the Mid Suffolk DC website at
http://www.mid-suffolk-dc.gov.uk
I wish my local authority would do a similar thing on their site!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Two chances really: slim and none. Current planning guidance from central government is that there should be no new development outside the development limits or in open country. Go and take a look at the local plan for details that is available at your local council offices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good advice. And also don't forget Capital Gains Tax. If you build this additional house and sell one of them you'll have to pay 40% of the proceeds to IR.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

central
plan
proceeds to

40% maximum, there are ways of reducing that
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Please explain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

local
this
There are a few web site around explaining it (the IR may have it on theirs) If you have occupied the house for x number of years the rate goes down, etc, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

from
the
local
build this

the
This is all from memory and so the figures are probably wrong - the principle is OK though:-
For starters you don't pay CGT on the proceeds, you pay CGT on the profit, so you can deduct the cost of the land, the cost of getting planning permission, the cost of building the house and the cost of selling it.
Any assets owned before April 1998 (I think) are subject to indexation relief which reduces the chargable gain.
After April 1998 you get taper relief which reduces the chargable gain.
You get a CGT allowance of IIRC 7500, which is also lopped off the chargable gain. If you are married you can double this by giving half to your spouse before the sale.
CGT is charged at your marginal rate, so unless you are a higher-rate tax payer you will be charged up to the 40% band at 20% and 40%.
So unless you are an unmarried higher-rate tax payer who already has at least 7500 capital gains this year, you will pay less than 40% on the profit.
Even then, you can sell your principal private residence tax free, so you could build the new house and sell the old one without having to pay any CGT at all.
Or, build the new house, move in to it for a while and nominate it as your PPR. Then sell it and move back into your old one (a bit dodgy this, so you might have to show there was a valid reason why you moved out of and back into your old house, such as letting it to generate some income).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I certainly hope you are correct on that!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why? What is wrong with demolishing ugly farm buildings and building a state-of-the-art eco house? The whole country should be spattered with eco house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

eco
It makes for the slums of the future for those who are unfortunate enough to live by them quite often.
Its happened round my area in several places. When it was only one in a "back garden" it want noticable, ( well it was actually , but no one said anything) but then the precident was set and several others started doing it and suddenly it was slum land.
More than that the liberty takers arrived and started buying houses with large gardens and then building two or three on the sites ( one was little more than a lay by!). These were not sold as affordable homes, so the locals were still homeless and priced out of the market. And yes, I have seen the eco builders even bigger pounds in pockets when they sell - and no one in the locality benefits , and in a few years all the "eco" has been planned out and changed with "alterations" to the house.
I think planning committes need to be more careful and vigilent on this - I hope they are being.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On what do you base this ridiculous assertion?

How many eco houses around you then?

Eco houses in all your back gardens?

What you have is a big chip. You want affordable housing in your area. Stopping people from building houses will not achieve that. In fact the reverse will happen.

The OP has a 2 acre plot. hardly cramming in the back gardens. The solution is allow people to build on the unused subsidised fields. We have a land surplus. You are looking at the matter from the wrong direction. Stopping people from building on subsidised fields, from our taxes, will prevent over development in existing built up areas?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And it will sonn be a half acre plot with what - four more houses on the other one and a half acres?
Will that be in keeping with the area? Does the area have the infrastructure ( health services, roads, employment, etc.) to support it? I doubt it.
Planning rules are there for a reason. if his two acres are currently outside the loacal plan devolpment area , its no doubt for a good reason and it should remain so. Trying "tricks" - like eco building etc. to have that changed is underhand and does no one good in the log run ( except the developer maybe, who no doubt will sell up and run - no doubt a long way from the mess he creates).
But he isnt in my back yard , so I dont really care. I have just stated my observations in my own area.
Ive just bought another field ( 5 acres) in an attempt to keep any of that happening near me in my lifetime at least. But I guess I am a greedy b*stard of another kind. I like to see wildlife and plants and trees.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1/2 acre is a large plot for a house.

Don't know.

employment,
Don't know.

Yes to keep very large landowners very, very wealthy. 1% of the population own 70% of the land. Only 7.2% of the land is built on, rural and urban.

The reason is to create an artificial land shortage to ramp up land prices. 2/3 of the value of the average home is the land value.

I thought so. A NIMBY!!!

But lack understanding of the issue and don't see the big picture.

So it cost you 15K approx. If the local plan in the future covers your field, then it will be worth millions. Let's see your NIMBYism then.

So don't we all. We don't see it crammed into urban areas while field lay there empty for mile after mile after mile.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.