Review: Oehler, M: The Underground House Book

Mike Oehler is an autodidact, and a man - he admits it, nay, proclaims it - of strong and idiosyncratic opinions. He has a recipe for building small dwellings cheaply in Pacific Northwest USA - which is to say it's as wet as western Scotland, warmer in summer and considerably colder in winter. He designs houses that I could afford to build using materials which are - with the exception of the polyethylene membranes which are key to his system - considerably more ecologically sound than most modern building materials. He makes substantial use of roundwood poles - which I have in abundance for the cost of cutting and seasoning them.

All these are reasons I should take him seriously. And yet, I'm wary. He's built - or claims to have built - remarkably few dwellings (two, as far as I can see, although people using his method have built many more). He doesn't seem to use any moisture barriers in his floors - in fact, he extols the virtues of earth floors. I simply don't see that working in Scottish conditions (In fact in the 'Update' section at the end of the book, Oehler now has a membrane under the floor of his house - which is now carpeted).

The other thing is that I strongly suspect that if you showed one of his houses to any self respecting British Building Control Officer you'd get something between a hearty guffaw and a shriek of horror. Indeed, Oehler's own response to building standards is clearly expressed on page 100 of his book: 'will a home built with the PSP system pass the code? The answer is, sadly, no... you may move to an area which has no codes...'

Well, you may. But I want to build my home on my land in my home valley, so I can't. I could adopt Oehler's alternative suggestion, of evasion... but the less said about that the better.

Finally, a note of caution about the title. Oehler's quoted prices relate to the 1970s; and even then I think a certain amount of creative (or merely forgetful) accounting was involved.

Nevertheless Oehler's book is both thoughtful and thought provoking. I'm glad I read it, and will continue to mull over it.

To cast or not to cast

To cast concrete or not to cast concrete, that is the question. 'Tis undoubtedly nobler not to. Cast concrete requires a huge amount of energy, and so inevitably has a high carbon cost. On the other hand, provided it's done right, it will stand and be useful for hundreds of years, so that energy cost is ammortised - potentially - over a very long time. But here's the rub. I don't need a dwelling that will stand for a very long time. I need a dwelling which will be reliably warm and weathertight for thirty years. After that, it's someone else's problem, and someone else may not choose to live underground.

The wood/epoxy alternative is probably but not certainly good for thirty years. If it starts to fail in twenty years, when I'm in my mid seventies and probably pretty broke, that's going to be bad news. I don't think it would, but it might. Also, the cast concrete structure is remarkably cheaper, and remarkably easier to insulate, than the wooden one. Given how tight I am for money, that's a very significant consideration.

Casting on-site is definitely out. I can't get a readimix truck to site, and I can't quality-control the concrete I can mix for myself on site. Also, the shuttering cost of casting on site is high because it would be necessary to cast a whole dome in one go. I had ruled out my original idea of casting off-site because I had thought that I could not afford the heavy equipment to move stuff on site. But Boy Alex's Unimog can do exactly that. Casting off-site is once again an option.

If anyone thinks that, like Hamlet, I'm labouring this decision, well, I am. This is almost certainly the biggest decision of the rest of my life.

Structure Review

OK, I'm getting very close to the point where I have to commit to a structure for my new home. I have to apply for planning consent, and I have to do it soon. If - improbably - I get consent quickly, then I can build this summer. And that would solve a lot of problems.

Of course, I can't actually afford, now, to build the full structure I want for the long term, so it has to be modular: I have to be able to build some 'now' and some 'later'. So let's again review the arguments and the options.

Conception

The original conception was for an underground structure sunk into a south-facing slope, comprising four hexagonal domes each 4.8 meters in diameter: one for services, one for kitchen, one for day, one for night - where the 'service' dome held bathroom, store and spare bedroom. The roofs were domed mainly because, in concrete, that's a good self supporting shape, and form followed function. They were 4.8 metres in diameter mainly because they would be cast over fundamentally plywood forms, and plywood comes in 2.4 metre sheets.

Underground is important both for insulation, for landscape considerations, and, most importantly on the very windy site, gets down out of the wind. The alternative of, for example, a timber framed straw-bale building would be both very intrusive in the landscape and very exposed to wind.

The south slope is important because it allows a fundamentally underground dwelling to have passive solar gain through south facing windows. In any case I've deliberately bought a south-facing slope for exactly this reason. An underground dwelling on a fundamentally flattish site in Galloway would have more significant problems with drainage and with daylight. I could get a more conventional house out of the wind by sheltering it behind my wood, but then it would lose the south aspect and consequently the passive solar gain.

The case for a hexagonal grid is a bit less compelling. Mass produced furniture is designed for rectangular spaces. Deliberately choosing a non-rectangular space means that much more of the interior furniture must be custom designed, which pushes the cost, either in money or time, up. However the human eye is very good at finding linear features in a landscape. Straight lines are very obvious, very noticable; and a structure with a rectangular grid exposes longer and more obviously related straight lines. It becomes more noticable in the landscape. However, my choice of a hexagonal grid is primarily aesthetic rather than rational.

Realisation

However, I've now doubtful about cast concrete. I don't think I can guarantee the engineering qualities of concrete I can make on site. I could as I originally intended cast concrete units in the void and hire Alex's Unimog to move them to site, so that is still a real possibility, but these are heavy units.

Against it, concrete has very high embodied energy, and I really would have to hire an engineer to check my structures.

For it, concrete is extremely durable - there aren't any doubts that it would stay up for my lifetime.

I've considered a wood epoxy composite structure. The problem with that is that if the epoxy encapsulation is breached it will rot, and lose structural integrity; and it's hard to imagine that it can support the overburden required for good soil insulation, so insulation would need to built into the structure. Which could be done. For the roof sections, the 'well it might rot' problem is to some extent mitigated by the fact it can't be buried deep - if a module rots, it can be unburied and repaired or replaced.

However, one of the important considerations is that this is a dwelling to grow old in. As I get older, my ability to do repairs myself reduces, and my ability to pay others to do repairs also reduces. If the structure has ongoing maintenance problems it will become unsustainable.

If I'm dealing with a structure which cannot sustain a heavy overburden, paradoxically larger modules become easier to achieve. Instead of four 4.8 metre domes, I could have fewer, bigger ones. But actually the small domes have two significant advantages. Firstly, I can build them one at a time, as I can afford them. A single 4.8 metre dome would be a small but tolerable living space for next winter. Two 4.8 metre domes - the service and the kitchen dome - would make a perfectly acceptable space. And realistically that is almost certainly as much as I can afford for just now.

Equally, if I'm not designing in a heavy material with a significant overburden, the dome is no longer form following function: it serves no functional purpose at all. It becomes, in fact, a sculptural conceit - and one which does not come for free. It makes the whole structure taller - and thus harder to bury - than flat ceilings. Like the hexagonal grid it becomes simply an aesthetic conceit. Yet it remains one that appeals to me. I believe it will make a graceful space. Furthermore, actually, a wooden dome lined with birch plywood becomes an even more graceful space than a concrete one.

So the compromise solution - concrete walls and wood/epoxy roof - seems the most attractive at present. I think. I'm almost decided.

The Fool on the Hill

I've sold my house and am buying, in effect, a field. And a bit of wood and a share in a common, but basically a field. This is foolish. There is no planning permission on the field, and I'm unlikely to get any. Also, it's still possible that the deal to buy the field will fall through, but my house is sold. This is even more foolish. The field is five hundred feet above sea level, at the top of a very windy ridge. This is getting idiotic. Because I thought I would have more money than I've ended up with, I'm buying more land than I strictly need; and the consequence of that is that even if I get planning permission, I don't have much money left to build with. This is mad. Oh, and speaking of madness, I'm recovering from a bout of mental illness. At least, I think I'm recovering. So, this really is insane... Oh, and I don't have any income. At all. I could claim benefit - my doctor would certify I'm not fit to work (and he's more or less right) - but I've chosen not to. This is crazy.

But. But not that insane, I'd like to argue. Not wholly irrational. There are reasons. I'm not certain that they're good reasons, but...

I will have enough land to be self sufficient, which if I'd been more prudent I wouldn't have. The land, despite its altitude, is actually good; it's well drained, faces south west, and grew a barley crop last year. It's even soil-association certified as organic. I could live on what it can produce. I probably have enough wood to be sustainably self-sufficient in firewood.

Also, my breakdown over the last two years - which got quite bad - was at least partly because of the stresses of a failed relationship, and of working eighty-five miles from home. I couldn't sustain either of those things. I certainly couldn't sustain both together. I've no income because I lost my job, and I lost it because I could no longer do it. I'd planned to keep working until I could afford to buy my ex-partner out of my house, but I clearly can't do that. So I've sold my house in order to separate from my ex-partner. I couldn't have bought any house in my home valley on the money I thought I would realise from doing that, let alone for the money I actually did realise.

So the field is not necessarily a bad thing. Obviously, if I can't get planning permission I can't legally build a house on it. But there are workarounds. A couple of weeks ago - on two of the wildest nights of the winter - I slept in a yurt. It was a good, comfortable, pleasant, warm space. I could live in one (although I'd have to give away a lot of stuff). As it's a tent, it doesn't need planning permission. Of course, you're not supposed to live in a tent, but, on my own land and hidden by my own wood, who is actually going to stop me? And, importantly, I can actually afford a yurt - even a good one.

Of course that isn't the plan. The plan is to get planning permission to build something comfortable and interesting. But it is a fallback if that should prove impossible. And, in the meantime, I have to be living in my field in ten weeks from now - because I've borrowed a bothy for ten weeks, which keeps me warm through the rag-end of winter. But in ten weeks time it has other tennants, and I must be gone.

So this essay introduces a series of other essays which I'll post from time to time as the project develops, using as title my new persona:

The Fool on the Hill.

On Yurts

The last two nights I have mostly been sleeping in a yurt. No, scratch that. The last two nights I have entirely been sleeping in a yurt - it is much too cold to leave a foot stuck out for the sake of a meme.

Outside, that is. Inside the yurt it is quite startlingly warm - certainly much warmer than I would be at home. A small centrally located woodstove heats the space exceedingly effectively. My second night in the yurt was, coincidentally but rather fortunately, the windiest night for a year - and one of the wettest. In the depths of this cold, wet, violently windy night in early February, the yurt was cool. But not colder than I should have been at home, not draughty, and (apart from a slight anxiety about a tree actually falling on it) not insecure.

This yurt is from Yurts Direct, and is, I believe. authentically imported from Mongolia. It's about 6 metres in diameter - frankly spacious and generously propeortioned; it is in itself a work of art. The curtain which lines the wall has a damask weave with a crysanthemum pattern, in fabric somewhere between ivory and gold. The poles of the roof - some eighty-one of them - together with the roof crown and the two posts which support it, are of a burnt orange colour apparently individually hand painted, and yet with a regular repeating pattern, as are the doors. The doors comprise two inner doors and a single outer door, all housed in a substantial and rigid wooden frame, with windows in the inner doors and on either side of the door opening.

A curious thing is that while there is a cord to tie the outer door open, there appears to be no mechanism for latching them shut, short of leaning something heavy against them. And this matters, since it's been extremely windy both nights. Which raises another issue - there's remarkably little sound insulation. While only occasional gusts rattle the crown cover, the noise of the wind in nearby trees is loud.

At the eaves the roof is certainly less than 1500mm from the floor; at the crown ring, about 2300, and at the top of the crown perhaps 2500. What this means in practice is that I can't stand upright within one metre of the wall, but in practice this doesn't matter since the space against the wall is naturally used for seating and storage, leaving the main area of the floor free.

Although the only fenstration is the (small) glass panels in the door and the transparent sections of the crown cover, they let in a surprising amount of light in daylight - and from my bed at night I could see stars.

The floor of this yurt is made of (apparently) chipboard flooring panels, which are supported off the ground on sturdy wooden joists laid on pillars of concrete breeze blocks. The floor is not part of the package you get from Yurts Direct, but is something you have to construct for yourself.

This yurt cost £4,000, and similar yurts are available now for £4,495 (Yurts Direct describe it as a 'size 5'). Quality yurts made in Britain by (e.g.) Woodland Yurts cost about the same or slightly more. That isn't an unreasonable price - there's quite a lot of work, and a fair bit of material, in one of these.

As low cost housing for rural Scotland, how does it stack? This yurt is, I think, generous and elegant living space for one, and adequate but a bit tight for two. Indeed, a single person would get away with a smaller one. It doesn't, of course, have anything like a bathroom, which would horrify the planners. It is adequately warm with the burner lit, and clearly adequately wateerproof - this yurt, which has been up all winter, shows no signs of water staining anywhere, despite the relatively low pitch of the roof.

Most of the materials could be sourced locally in rural Scotland. The frame is wooden. The insulation is wool felt - and let's face it, we're not short of wool. The outer covering is canvas, which could be flax (in this case it isn't, but it could be). In terms of durability, the frame, with reasonable maintenance, is likely to be good indefinitely - certainly for a lifetime. Also, individual components of the frame can be individually replaced with little impact on the surrounding structure.

The canvas covering is likely to have to be periodically replaced, perhaps every ten years. The layers of felt will also need periodic replacement. Apparently it is a good thing to dismantle and overhaul a yurt at least annually, and I can clearly see the sense in this.

The major problem with a yurt in Scotland is of course damp. If the stove is not regularly lit, moulds and mildew attack the canvas and felt. This shouldn't be a problem in a yurt that's permanently inhabited, provided there is a reasonable supply of firewood. There's obviously a risk of fire; a yurt which I have seen which caught fire burned to little more than a ring of ashes. In a yurt made predominently of natural materials there should not be a great problem with toxic fumes, and, being all one space, there isn't a complicated route to find to the exit. So whether the risk to life of fire in a yurt is greater or less than the risk in a conventional structure I couldn't say. However, it's certain that in the event of a fire very little of what is in the yurt could be saved.

I don't know what happens to wool felt in the long term. People I've spoken to talk about infestations of mites or insects - probably something like the chitin-eating silverfish - and this sounds somewhat unpleasant. But inorganic felts - fibreglass, for example - also present problems, not least long term environmental problems in disposal.

The stove in the yurt I stayed in is a locally made one, not of very high quality, but it stayed in both nights even with my inept management. Good stoves suitable to use in a yurt are, obviously, available.

In summary, I was sleeping in the yurt to test-drive it - to get a feel for whether it would be a temporary dwelling I could survive in until I get planning permission for my permanent dwelling. And the answer, simply, is that it is. But - and it's a big but - it's not cheap. The combined cost of the yurt and the platform it sits on and a suitable stove add up to a fair proportion of my available building budget. On the other hand if you turn the equation on its head and say the yurt is the permanent structure - and it is comfortable enough that one could do that - then suddenly it does not look expensive at all, but on the contrary very cheap.

The Hide

The modular sousterran idea is all very well but I have to survive somewhere until I have planning permission to build it. I can't afford to rent, so I'm pretty much going to have to live – while I'm at home, at any rate – on my land. This design exercise is to see what is the cheapest and least conspicuous living space I think I can cope with through two winters. Cheap obviously means small, but surviving through winter means reasonably well insulated.

This design is fundamentally based on my present bed, which is an IKEA loft bed with a desk and bookshelves underneath – a quite cosy and comfortable working space. I started from there and thought, 'OK, how much more do I actually need'. A design constraint is the spacing of trees in my wood. They've mostly been planted at pretty exact two metre intervals, although the rows don't precisely align. I can, of course, cut trees down – it's my wood, and, furthermore, it needs to be thinned – but in the interests of hiding the hide I don't want to cut too many down. It won't be good for the planners to know I'm living on site while I'm applying for permission to do so.

The plan is a hexagon of side 1200mm – basically, that's the biggest hexagon I can fit onto two sheets of plywood. I could get a bit more space by using a 2400mm cuboid, but cuboids are ugly and that's 25% more wall. Also, it's easier to fit the hexagon into the wood than the cuboid, which would definitely need trees cut down.

It's beneficial to have the cabin off the ground to avoid damp. Having it head-height off the ground means you can use the area under it as sheltered storage. There should be no need to kill the trees that support it, two poles lashed crosswise to four living trees should be fine.

The downside of the hexagonal plan is the bed ends up an odd shape – it is 2400mm long on its long side, but only 1040mm wide and only 1200mm long on its short side. It's big enough, I think, provided any concubine is friendly!

The hide as designed has a wood stove for heating and basic cooking, but there is no lavatory, bathroom or laundry – those facilities will be available in the Void. A stove is quite expensive, of course, but I think it's essential.

Construction

My idea is to construct the hide as two modules and six roof panels off site, under cover, transport those modules to site without their insulation and final outer cladding, erect them, insulate and clad them. The module structure will be primarily WBP plywood with softwood framing, assembled using the wood epoxy saturation technique, so pretty durable. Insulation will probably be 100mm fibreglass felt, although if I can find something more ecological that I can afford I will. All panels, including the floor, will be insulated.

The rear module will contain the built-in desk, bookshelves, cupboards and  bed. The front module will be considerably simpler, containing the bunk ladder and wall cupboards. The modules will bolt together – the reason for applying cladding on site is that the cladding will cover the bolts. Also, of course, the unclad modules will be lighter and easier to manhandle.

The cladding will be tongue and groove softwood weatherboard painted with an olive drab exterior preservative paint, but nevertheless is not expected to have the same life expectancy as the core structure – it can be replaced if needed. In order to prevent nailing the cladding on from breaching the encapsulation of the epoxy-protected core structure, sacrificial 25x50mm strips will be bonded on for the cladding to be nailed to.

It would be much simpler and cheaper to make a lower, hexagonal roof. Making the roof conical is an architectural conceit. The roof will almost certainly have to be cut on site to make room for the trunks of the supporting trees. It is built as six panels each having a flat sheet of plywood as its inner surface, a flat plywood soffit board, and an outer surface planked with tapered softwood planks. Between the inner and outer surface will be insulation as on all other panels. Some arrangement for ventilation will be made at the eaves. One of the panels will have an aperture designed for the stove pipe to pass through. After the hide has been erected the roof will be covered with tarred felt, and the final top cone, probably of stainless steel sheet, will be fitted.

Living

The hide described in this paper really is small, and in cold wet weather is bound to be claustrophobic. Nevertheless with a small wood stove in a small and well insulated space it should be cosy, even in very bad weather, provided the door fits well! In better weather, and to entertain anyone, it needs to be extended, and this can most simply be done by providing an awning. An awning to provide a 5 metre square sheltered outdoor space would mean felling four trees.

It's probably not possible to provide a cludgie in the wood as the drainage ditches all connect back to the Standingstone burn and are sufficiently closely spaced I doubt you could get the requisite distance from running water. I'll check this, because some sort of loo would be a good thing.

A stove of the sort used in yurts would provide adequate basic cooking; in practice except for baking bread I don't often use an oven. For more elaborate cooking we will probably eventually have a cooker in the Void.

I'm not sure about electricity – some form of light is going to be necessary in winter, otherwise it's going to be a little grim; and it would be nice to be able to use my little laptop without having to go up to the Void every day to recharge it. But solar panels are not going to work in the wood, and mains is not on for all sorts of reasons. Even a small wind generator would attract attention.

There's obviously nowhere near enough storage space in this for all the clothes I use regularly, or all my tools, computers, books and things. This is minimalistic, temporary living, and most of my gear will have to be stored in the Void.

Sousterrain revisited: there is a plan B

Having considered my earlier note on the design of a sousterrain for a month, I'm now going to rip it up and start again.

Reasons for not building in concrete

The first reason for not building in concrete is obvious. The embodied energy is huge. To present a largely-concrete sousterran as an energy efficient or 'green' building is hard to justify to me, to the planning authorities, or to anyone else. However, there are two other, pragmatically more compelling, reasons not to use concrete.

The first is that I have limited experience of using concrete, and that, once constructed, a concrete structure is very hard to modify.

The second is that to have any guarantees of the integrity of a concrete structure, the material has to be of a consistent mix and individual modules have to be poured and cured essentially in one operation – if part of a module is part-cured before another part is poured, you will have lines of weakness. That's not a problem if you use readimix. However, my proposed site is quite a long way from any road that a readymix truck could comfortably use, and I have no plans to construct such a road (nor can I afford to). And, even if I had such a road, it passes under electricity lines which do not in my opinion have safe clearance for something as high as a readymix truck.

Reasons for building in timber

Timber is in principle a sustainable resource. Its processing does not embody very high energy inputs. It locks up atmospheric carbon for the lifetime of the structure. As a building material, it's as green as it gets. Furthermore, it has other advantages. It is (relatively) light, strong, and easy to work. If you want to modify a wooden structure, it is generally easy to do so. Its disadvantage is a corollary of its advantages: it is bio-degradable. In the long run, it rots, losing structural integrity and releasing the captured carbon back to the atmosphere.

However, there is are ways of working around the rot problem. One with which I'm very familiar is epoxy encapsulation Done right, provided the encapsulation is not breeched and the epoxy is not exposed to sunlight, it prevents rot indefinitely. Of course epoxy is (at least at present) synthesised from fossil hydrocarbon. Furthermore it's at least conventional to use glass fibre as a reinforcing material in some parts of wood/epoxy structures, and in the case of the sousterran a layer of glass fibre cloth laid over the dome sections would help to prevent localised pressure points causing an encapsulation breech, while a tensile belt of glass fibre tape would prevent the dome spreading. However, the embodied energy represented by the epoxy and glass in a wood/epoxy composite structure is orders of magnitude less than that in concrete.

My original primary reason for not choosing timber is that if a structure is built underground and starts to rot, it seemed to me that it would be very hard to repair. But the truth is that this isn't going to be very far underground – a metre at most. In the event of problems, uncovering the problem area in order to repair it is not in fact a very big issue.

Lightweight structure

The original plan for the concrete structure was that it would be cast in components off site and then moved on-site for erection. In concrete this was somewhat implausible – individual components would weigh in tons, and would require specialist equipment to move. Boy Alex has such equipment, but even so it would require a substantial input of his time and equipment. But building in wood, it becomes much more practical. No component should weight more than at most 200Kg, meaning that it can be managed by a team of men and simple hoists. Building components off-site in the Void means that they can be built out of the weather, and consequently the encapsulated timber stays very dry.

Overburden

The problem with building a lightweight timber sousterran is that actually you can't. If burying to an average depth of 1 metre, the overburden is about 1.7 tons per square metre, or 42 tons per dome. I'm finding it hard to believe that I can engineer a structure which can handle that amount of mass. So while a turf roof certainly is possible, and an overall finished shape that looks natural probably is possible.

Temporary structures

One of the driving issues behind this note is this: before I have planning permission to build my permanent structure, I need to have somewhere to live. Furthermore, I'm now going to have very limited money – far too little to enable me to build my whole structure in one phase. I need a warm and weatherproof structure before next winter. I have considered buying a second-hand mobile home, or buying (or making) a yurt, or building a temporary cabin. Each of these would make a very considerable dent in my available funds. Why spend money on an essentially disposable structure, when I could spend it on part of my permanent structure?

The alternative is to build one dome of my permanent structure, and to add to it as funds become available. The problem is that it's going to take some time to get planning permission, that for a structure as radical as this anything which upsets the planners is going to make permission even harder to get, and that pre-empting planning permission is one well-known way to get planners' backs up.

However, if the structure is modular, and built of a (relatively) light material, it does not have to be initially erected in its final place. It could (with permission from my co-conspirators) even be erected temporarily inside the high-slat shed. Furthermore, building one dome early allows it to be treated as a prototype. In the process of building it, other, alternative ways of doing it better are bound to be learned.

A further advantage of having a prototype dome is that there is something physical to show to the planners and building regulations people, who are bound to be at least sceptical about the structure. Also, if they do insist on changes, only one dome needs to be changed.

Hybrid structure

Both this note and the previous one have essentially presented the concrete structure and the wooden structure as alternatives. It isn't necessarily so. Some degree of concrete foundation is likely to be necessary – even if it is only piles under the bases of the pillars. A pile-and-slab concrete foundation is also plausible.

Casting the pillars in concrete is relatively unproblematic – certainly very much easier than the flying buttresses or the domes. Building the walls in concrete blockwork is trivial (although it's easier to route services inside a wooden wall than inside a concrete one). Even the lintels joining the pillars are relatively simple to cast in concrete, whether they are cast in place or cast off-site.

So it would be entirely plausible to have a structure which was concrete with wooden domes, or concrete with wooden lintels and domes.

The flying buttresses in the original design then become an issue. With wooden domes having a tensile band, they aren't strictly necessary – the tensile band makes the dome self-supporting. But, sculpturally, I like them. They could be built in epoxy encapsulated timber; or they could be solid oak (which would be nice – a little expensive, but not dreadfully). Or they could be concrete. It's not a decision which needs to be made in a hurry.

Note that the hybrid structure doesn't work well with the idea with the idea of erecting the prototype dome off-site, and, for that reason, doesn't work well with the idea of getting a prototype dome up quickly to live in in the short term. However, if the pillars and walls of the prototype had to be sacrificed that is not necessarily a huge loss.

Plan B

So, plan B is as follows.

1. Start immediately (in March) to build one experimental dome in epoxy encapsulated timber with an intention to have it habitable by May
2. Erect that in a suitable place 'off site' (and not earth sheltered) until planning permission has been obtained.
3. When planning permission has been obtained, dig out the platform (the entire platform large enough for all four planned domes).
4. Lay suitable foundations for one dome.
5. Disassemble the prototype dome and re-erect it on-site.
6. Back-fill over that dome only, leaving the remainder of the platform clear.
7. Occupy that one dome, at least for winter 2011-2012; build other domes in a similar fashion at funds allow.

The joys of data transfer

OK, so, at this stage the main thing this blog is for is to find out how to import existing blog posts into Blogger. Brief summary: my existing blog uses a blogging engine I wrote myself back in 2000; it's quite a good blogging engine but it's not used by very many people because I didn't promote it enough back in the day, and so it's time to end-of-life it and migrate the existing users to something else.

Blogger has a mechanism for exporting and importing blogs. So, I thought, it ought to be possible to generate  the export format, which is documented here, from my existing data and then import that. From the documentation it was clear that the format was slightly bizarre - a well formed XML wrapper around data which is actually XML and presumably also well formed but is represented as text. However, I generated stuff that looked right to me according to the documentation, and it failed to import.

Worse, the error message given was terse to the point of unusability, and there's apparently no documentation of the error codes available on the web.

So the next thing to do was to export this blog from Blogger, and see whether the export file format looked anything like the documentation. And, guess what, it sort of doesn't. Which is to say that while the file format shown in the documentation is a very small subset of what's actually generated, it is such a noddy example that it doesn't even nearly represent what one needs to generate.

And, of course, there's no guarantee that even if I did succeeded in generating all the cruft that's in the format as generated by Blogger, I'd get my data to reimport - since the format includes magic identifiers which may represent objects in Google's persistent data space.

So it may be time to think of other ways to work around this.

End of eating dogfood

I wrote the Press Release System (PRES) back in 2000, and have kept my own blog on it since 2004. It wasn't a bad blogging engine. But I didn't promote it nearly enough, and very few people use it. So it no longer makes sense to maintain it - it's time to move to a more mainstream engine.

I can't help being slightly sad.

Site specific low cost housing for a windy site

Part of the issue of building housing on the site we're considering is the wind speed, which is high. I imagine we're all going to want homes which don't take a lot of energy to heat, and the wind-chill effect on exposed walls is going to be considerable. The parts of the site which are most exposed to the wind are also the sunniest – the southern and western slopes. Of course, one can insulate, and straw bales are worth considering.

However the alternative, given that we have reasonably steep slopes, is to get down out of the wind. And if you do that you also lessen the landscape impact of the dwelling dramatically.

We all need structures which are low cost and simple to erect (since we're likely to be using mostly our own labour).

My suggested response to this set of problems is to dig into the hillside, build structure, and backfill over it. The modules I'm suggesting are hexagonal, simply because I like the shapes sculpturally – cross vaults might be more practical, because you'd get a rectangular floor plan, but you'd also end up with straight lines on the hillside which would be more visually intrusive. One advantage of the hexagonal module is that you can put the modules together to follow the contour in a more flexible way. The approximate size of the module is 2.4 metres per side, or 4.8 metres diameter. This gives a floor area of 15 square metres (about 150 square feet) per module.

Note that I'm guessing that this structure would be low cost – I haven't had it costed by anyone remotely qualified to do so.

Sustainable?

This proposal is mainly concrete. I would have preferred timber but am not confident I can design in timber in a way that would be durable and maintainable under ground. As such there's a substantial energy cost in making the cement. There's also embodied energy in vermiculite used as filler. Overall, though, it isn't hugely much concrete – probably not as much per living unit as in a conventional block of flats. Because there's no wind exposure, and all the exposed sides are oriented towards the sun, it should have adequate passive heating even in winter; any supplementary space heating needed, water heating and cooking can be provided by a stove burning fuelwood grown on site. Large opening windows allow for cooling in summer.

Visual impact

One of the main objectives of this design is to minimise visual impact on the landscape. Because the terrace retaining wall is half the height of exposed sides of the structure, and because the slope above the structure matches the slope below the structure, from upslope or downslope there will be very little to see until you're very close.

From further away there will be a horizontal visible feature in the slope, but because all the curves are organic it shouldn't look too visually intrusive or artificial.

Elements

The building is constructed of four different concrete elements, as follows:

Dome segment

Obviously, six dome segments are needed for each dome. These will be the heaviest elements, and most difficult to move; it would be preferable to cast them in place, by erecting the pillars first and then erecting the former where the dome segment is to be located. Even if the segments are cast in place, however, they probably need to be separate segments rather than a single monolithic dome because of expansion issues. The cross section of the dome is probably a catenary, rather than an arc.

Pillar

One pillar at each corner of each dome, obviously. Hollow pillars – even if they do not contain drains – will be lighter and easier to install without being substantially weaker, so the core of the pillar element might be a spun concrete pipe section. The pillars need only be two metres tall because the natural shape of the edge of the dome will in any case form a slight arch.

Flying Buttress

Domes have thrust: they want to fall down, and in doing so they push out radially at their base. This thrust has to be resolved. In the unexposed edges of the dome (which, when building into the hillside, is most of them) that thrust is resolved simply by backfilling the soil. On the exposed edges – which we want, because we want light an air into the dwelling – the nature of hexagonal cells is that some corners are convex, and some are concave. How many of which you have depends on the shape of the site. On each convex corner you need something to take the thrust of the dome, and my choice it to have a flying buttress. This would span a terrace in front of the building and transfer load to its retaining wall.

Eve

The eve element is essentially just cosmetic; it joins adjacent flying buttress or eve elements into a continuous organic curve, again helping to reduce straight lines in the landscape. The eve units are designed so that although they show a fair curve on the outside they have a horizontal on the inside, so that ordinary standard patio door double glazed units can be used in all the exposed sides.

Building method

Again, this needs to be run past people with more experience than I have. Preventing damp ingress into the dwelling needs to be thought about carefully.

Dig back into the hillside

Strip off the turf and retain it. With a mechanical digger, dig back into the hillside; obviously, choose a site with contours which minimise the amount of digging that needs to be done. Reserve the soil removed, we'll need it later. Reserve topsoil separately from subsoil. The rock on site is part of the Kirkcudbright Shales and is probably soft enough to break up with a digger, is actual rock needs to be removed.

Lay drains

Lay drains under the site from uphill to downhill; these will later be joined to lateral collectors on the uphill side to reduce water pressure uphill. Rainwater drains can simply discharge downslope – they're only carrying water which would naturally drain down the slope anyway. A separate soil drain needs to lead to some suitable treatment.

Level platform

Level roughly with hardcore; finish with sand.

Pour slab

Taking one hexagonal module at a time, lay a waterproof membrane on the sand with at least 2.5 metres overlap on the uphill side, shutter the hexagon, and pour a self-levelling concrete. I need advice on the thickness of the slab. It almost certainly needs to be thicker under the pillars.

Erect pillars

It's possible that the pillars should be hollow with a drain down the centre of each one, linked into the under-slab drains, to move water from over the structure to under it. However, there's an issue about how to achieve a watertight seal at the top of these, so unless someone else can solve it that isn't part of the plan. In any case Pete suggests that the pillars should be founded on concrete piles going down to bedrock.

Erect uphill walls

Between each pair of pillars on sides which will be backfilled, erect a breeze block wall.

Erect terrace retaining wall

In front of the structure along edges that are to be exposed, erect a dry-stane dyke about a metre high and about two to three metres away from the structure, with footings in the right places for the flying buttresses. The exact width of the terrace at any point should be chosen so that when the structure is complete and backfilled, the slope above the building should continue as a fair curve in the slope below the building.

Part-backfill the uphill side

Bring the excess waterproof membrane laid down when pouring the slab up the sides of the newly erected uphill walls. Backfill, installing lateral drains as you go. At this stage, backfill to about 50cm below the tops of the walls.

Erect flying buttresses, eves and (possibly) lintel arches

In order to resolve the thrust on the domes, the flying buttresses and eves must be in place before the domes are cast – otherwise they'll just fall down as soon as the armature is removed. However, not all the pillars are supported against thrust in all the necessary directions until all the domes are up – to some extent, once completed the domes will support one another. One solution to this would be to cast lintels between each pair of adjacent pillars. If this solution is chosen, they must be installed at this stage. Alternative solutions are

• Embed a tensile steel reinforcing belt as low as possible in each dome;
• Construct separate armatures for each dome and leave them in place until all domes are cast and cured.

Erect domes

For each dome that is erected, a wooden armature needs to be erected to support the segments until all are in place. This armature needs to be supported on wedges so that when the dome is complete, the wedges can be driven out and the armature disassembled and moved to the next dome. Before the armature is removed, the flying buttress and eve elements which support the exposed edges of the structure must be installed.

Because of the steepness of the lower slopes of the dome, some though is needed on how to prevent the concrete from slumping before it is cured. Some upper surface shuttering may be required, and thought needs to be given to how to secure this. Also, it will probably be necessary to erect some sort of gantry or scaffold in order to apply and smooth concrete over the centres of the dome – because certainly that will be out of reach from the edges while the concrete is not set.

Fit chimney outer

Cut hole(s) for the chimney(s) in the appropriate place(s) in the domes (or, preferably, leave them when casting). Install vertical concrete pipe over the hole to the final ground level.

Fill valleys between the domes

On a settled, dry day, or better still on the first day of a run of settled dry days, fill the valleys between the domes with a lightweight inorganic filler material such as vermiculite. The object of this exercise is simply so that from every point on the structure, when the upper membrane is in place water will naturally drain to one edge and will not pool; the valleys do not have to be completely filled by any means. This doesn't need to be done if a watertight means of joining the upper membrane to drains running down internal pillars can be found.

Lay upper membrane

Lay a waterproof membrane over the whole structure, overlapping the uphill sides by half a metre. Fold this overlap down over the overlap of the lower membrane. Sealing around the chimney and any internal pillar drains is an issue I haven't solved, but I imagine suitable mastics may be available.

Backfill

Backfill over the whole structure, first with subsoil, then with topsoil. Contour the backfill to form a natural slope. Turf over. Similarly backfill against the retaining wall on the downslope side.

Install glazing

Ordinary standard double glazed 'patio door' units are installed into the exposed sides.

Fit out interior

To taste.

Rough costings

The following costings are preliminary, and are based on concrete costs only, with no allowance for levelling the platform, fitting drains, services, labour and so on; it's mainly to cost the bits of the structure I don't have a good feel for. This looks startlingly low – as if I've got something wrong by a factor of ten. I hope not!

Sousterran: quantities and mass
Concrete option							Cladding
Constants		Unit					Item			Unit	Price	per sq m
Mass of 1 cubic metre of concrete	2400	Kg					Bituthene 3000			20 metre roll	£163	£9.03
Mass of 1 cubic metre of soil	1700	Kg					Styrodur 3035CS, 30mm			14 sheets at 1250x600mm	£70	£6.67
Price of 1 cubic metre of concrete	100	Pounds sterling					Styrodur 3035CS, 60mm			7 sheets at 1250x600mm	£70	£13.33
Price of 1 8x4 sheet 15mm exterior ply	40	Pounds sterling					Total, with 30mm					£15.69
Price of 1 sq metre concrete blockwork	10	Pounds sterling					Total, with 60mm					£22.36
Dome radius (long axis)	2.4	metres
Area of dome floor	14.98	square metres
Area of dome surface	36.19	square metres
Number of wall panels	11	at	4.8	sq metres
Elements	Area sq m	Thickness m	Volume cu m	Mass tons	Concrete Cost	Cladding cost	Number of	Total cost	Total mass	Shuttering sheets	Shuttering cost
Floor	104.83	0.1	10.48	25.16	£1,048	£399	1	£1,448	25.16	1	£40
Dome	36.19	0.1	3.62	8.69	£362	£809	4	£4,685	34.74	42	£1,680
Dome segment	6.03	0.1	0.6	1.45	£60		24		34.74	7
Pillar			0.5	1.2	£50		17	£850	20.4	6	£240
Eve			1	2.4	£100		5	£500	12	4	£160
Flying buttress			2	4.8	£200		4	£800	19.2	6	£240
Wall	4.8	0.1	0.48	1.15	£48	£75	11	£1,357	12.67	0
Overburden	104.83	0.2	20.97	35.64	£0		1	£0	35.64	0	£0
Subtotals							50	£9,639	194.56		£2,360
Total, cost											£11,999

Practicalities of 'affordable' housing

This document attempts to address how in practice we would implement an affordable housing policy if we choose to do so.

The company – that is to say us together as a corporate entity – will buy the farm and resell the land to each of us; in reselling the land it can add a burden. But that would be a burden on the land, not on the dwellings, and I don't think that's what we want. We could probably sell the land with a condition of sale that any dwellings built on it would be subject to the burden, but I'm not certain exactly how we're do this – we need to check with a lawyer.

Rural housing burden

A particular form of burden that is available to us is the 'rural housing burden', established in section 43 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003¹. To use this we'd have either to apply for the company to be registered as a 'rural housing body' or to work with an organisation already designated as a 'rural housing body'. It would be better if at all possible if we were registered.

The rural housing burden gives the 'rural housing body' – that is, the Standing Stone company – a right of pre-emption; which means, as I understand it, that the company has 42 days from the day you decide to sell to decide whether it will buy. Remember that the company is essentially just ourselves, taking decisions on a one member one vote basis; we could give the company in its constitution (memorandum and articles) a clause which says that a decision to buy a dwelling requires a general meeting, not just a decision by directors.

Under section 84 of the act, if the company does not decide to buy within 42 days, the 'rural housing burden' is automatically extinguished, and you can sell your dwelling on the open market.

I'm not clear from my reading of the act whether the company would have the right to pre-empt at a particular price (the 'just price' or 'affordable price' as discussed in my previous document); we might need an additional legal agreement to assert this – if that's what we want to do.

To what should the burden apply?

We've discussed in meetings the undesirability of people building a dwelling on a holding, then selling the dwelling and land separately, allowing someone to build a new dwelling on the remainder of the land, and so on, until we have a housing estate.

There are clearly two options:

1. The burden could apply to the dwelling and curtilage only
2. The burden could apply to the holding

But we need to be aware that people may want to sell parcels of land rather than their whole holding, and, within the context of company, we almost certainly want to allow that. If we don't apply the burden to the whole holding, we can't prevent people selling parcels of land to surrounding landowners, and we might want strongly not to allow that!

I'm not clear from the act whether a 'rural housing burden' can apply to a whole croft, or only to the dwelling; that's another thing we need to clarify.

Can we use other burdens?

The whole purpose of the 2003 act seems to be to limit the burdens that can be placed on housing. Very few are allowed. There is a form of burden called a 'community burden', but its purpose seems to be limited to the appointment of a managing agent, for example for a block of flats. A community burden does not appear to give the right to pre-empt a sale. So it seems to me that the rural housing burden is the only burden we can use.

Alternative price cap models

I can envisage four mechanisms for establishing a price at which the company can pre-empt a sale.

Land

It does not seem to me that it makes sense to apply a cap to the price of the land part of the holding. All land is to some extent subject to speculative pricing, and in particular the price of agricultural land is artificially inflated by public subsidies to farming, but there's little we can do about that: land has a commercial value, and an incoming holder can in principal try to make a commercial return on it – if they choose. So it seems sensible simply for the company to have the land valued as commercial agricultural land, and then pay that amount for the land element of the holding.

The existing farmhouse

It isn't reasonable to apply any price cap formula with the possible exception the 'just price' to the existing farmhouse. Ruth and Gav will have to pay the open market rate for the house (unless we jointly decide to subsidise her, which is possible but hasn't been discussed); having paid the open marked rate, it isn't fair to expect her to resell at a capped rate.

If we were to bring Ruth and Gav into the capped rate scheme, we would have to lower the price they pay for the farmhouse to £105,000 – which means that the ten other holdings would each have to put £3,500 into subsidising Ruth and Gav. That isn't impossible and would make things feel fairer in the long run, since everyone would then be subject to the same cap – but it adds complexity and is yet another thing to discuss and get right, and we have limited time.

The remainder of this discussion applies to the dwelling part of the holding, for new build dwellings.

Match price

The first model would be that the seller seeks a buyer on the open market and agrees a price; the company then has the right to match that price. I can see no advantage to the company in this; it would effectively mean allowing the price to rip with the speculative rise in house prices generally, and the company would in effect only be able to purchase properties if it could attract wealthy new members. I don't believe this is what we want.

'Affordable' price

The affordable price model uses a function simply based on local average wages to establish the price of a dwelling, without taking into account the actual amount of effort that has gone into that dwelling, or how well designed, spacious or well built it is. Of course, the 'affordable price' would be literally a ceiling, but in practice I think it would be very hard for the company to offer less than the ceiling price to a member wishing to sell.

This means that a member who had worked very hard to create a really nice house would get exactly the same price as someone who had done the minimum to get past building warrant, which seems a little unfair; but it's worth bearing in mind that the 'affordable' price is still likely to be higher than the 'just' price, since we're none of us very rich and therefore the 'just' price is likely in almost all cases to end up below the affordable price.

'Just' price

As I outlined in my previous document, the 'just' price seeks to represent what has actually been invested – including sweat equity, investment of your own labour – with an adjustment for inflation, so you can always get out the inflation-adjusted amount you put in. This is my preferred model, because it seems to me fairer – but it has a number of problems, and, essentially, it's only fairer if we're all honest. If a person claims a lot more 'sweat equity' hours than he or she has actually put in, the 'just' price is inflated. Also, keeping an accounting of what has been truly been invested in bought materials is also an issue, and could be manipulated.

'Reasonable cost' price

The 'reasonable cost' price is the price I described in 'just price revisited' in my previous document. It uses a formula based on the floor area of the dwelling in square metres, multiplied by an arbitrary assumed cost per square metre for which a dwelling could be built. This means that if you use marble staircases and solid gold taps, the 'reasonable cost' price will be lower than the 'just' price, and you may not recover your costs.

But, provided we agree a reasonable assumed cost – £1,200 seems a commonly cited value – then the 'reasonable cost' price will for most of us be about the same as or higher than the 'just' price.

Hybrid schemes

Note, of course, that to get the political support I believe we need in order to get planning permission, it will be greatly to our advantage to be able to talk about 'affordable price'. To do this, we could simply accept the 'affordable' price – which is likely to allow us all to make a significant profit. Or we could chose to use a hybrid scheme which said, for example, that the company will buy at either the 'affordable' price of the 'reasonable cost' price, whichever is the lower.

The 42 day rule

The 42 day rule is in the legislation and we can't vary it. Given that if the company fails to agree to buy within 42 days of being notified that the holding is for sale the burden ceases, we need to make an effort to ensure the company can buy – which means, we need to keep a register of people who are seriously interested in becoming members (and whom we would welcome as members).

What should never happen – and we should write a clause into the memorandum and articles to prevent this happening – is that the company buy someone's holding at the capped value and then sell it at the open market value. The company must resell for the amount for which it bought, with some allowance for fees. Obviously, in most cases it will probably be best for the company to allow the seller to sell to the new member directly, but at the price at which the company could pre-empt.

1http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/9/section/43

A Just Price for housing

Standing Stone: reasons for adopting a 'just price' for housing

We live in a late capitalist society in which democratic politicians have deliberately stoked a speculative bubble in housing prices, because most voters are property owners and spiralling house prices mean that those who are already on the housing ladder feel richer. The consequence of this is that, over the country as a whole, house prices are already beyond the reach of many folk on ordinary wages. Along the Solway coast, the pretty villages have a price premium because they are attractive and pleasant places to live, but local wages are depressed. This means that folk working in the local economy cannot buy houses locally – unless they have inherited wealth.

So begins a process of clearance which is just as socially corrosive as the clearances of the eighteenth century, when the landowners enclosed land which had traditionally been common. The reaction, then, here in Galloway, was of a violent revolt by the country folk, throwing down the walls of the new enclosures and burning barns. Now, here in Auchencairn, I think the Caldows and Helen Sankey are the only people born in the village who still live on the main street (Geordie Milligan lives on Spout Row). Every other house is owned by incomers, and the native population has been effectively cleared across the burn into the bantustan of social housing. We have a very nearly complete ethnic segregation, with those who live in the old village now overwhelmingly rich and English, and the Crescent overwhelmingly poor and Scots.

It wasn't always like this. The three houses across the street for me, when last sold in the 1950s, were bought for less than two hundred and fifty pounds for all three. When I bought my first flat in the village, I paid four thousand pounds. Now, the only property for sale in the village under a hundred thousand pounds is Monty's flat – which is tiny.

Unless ordinary people without inherited wealth are able to afford to own houses in this area on wages earned in this area, the social dislocation and, effectively, ethnic cleansing is only going to get worse. Ultimately, that must lead to unrest.

Applying this to Standing Stone

None of this is the fault of anyone in the Standing Stone project. It is a consequence of political and economic forces which are far bigger than us.

However, if we do get planning permission to build new dwellings on the Standing Stone site, the market value of those dwellings when they are complete will be very much greater than what they cost to build. If we don't cap the resale price, then we are effectively giving one another a speculators' charter, and we risk the site rapidly developing into yet another rich incomers' enclave. We risk this both because the speculative opportunity will suck in spivs, and because your actual people – the sort of folk we would choose to live among, that we think in developing the idea that we are choosing to live among – simply won't be able to afford to buy into it.

People have objected – very reasonably – that they need to be able to get their investment out again. And it is true that if the housing market continues to spiral madly out of control, then if we put a cap on resale prices of dwellings at Standing Stone then people may not be able to leave, because the capped price will not realise enough money to buy a replacement property on the open market. These are real and reasonable issues.

The just price

Clearly if we are to derive a formula for a 'just price' for a dwelling, that formula needs to represent the investment which has been put in – including investment as 'sweat equity', our own labour which we've expended in creating the dwelling.

Furthermore, we need to notionally detach the value of the land from the value of the dwelling. The 'croft' part of the holding – without planning permission – has a value as agricultural land. So the capped value of a holding, if we choose to adopt a 'just price' cap, is the market value of the agricultural land plus the capped value of the dwelling, and (irrespective of what DGSHT's policy says) clearly the 'just price' cannot be less than the total amount reasonably invested. If Ruth has invested a sum in the farmhouse, then she must be able to realise at least that sum if at some time in the future she needs to sell. To expect her to accept less is just unreasonable.

But at the other end of the scale I'm expecting to spend less than £40,000 cash (and a lot of work) on structure. My dwelling, at the end of that, will have one bedroom, rather than the three or four that the farmhouse has, but as a modern designer structure with a nice view it's open market value isn't going to be a lot less. If I'm spending £55,000 on ten acres of land, then the pro-rata cost of the half-acre of that which forms the curtilage of the dwelling is about £2,500. For simplicity say I spend £7,500 on design fees and contractors, and value six months of my full-time equivalent labour at £10,000, then the investment cost of my dwelling is

Land:	£2,500
Fees and contractors	£7,500
Sweat equity	£10,000
Structure	£40,000
Total	£60,000

Should I be allowed to sell this dwelling which has cost me £60,000 for £120,000? Why? What justifies me making such a speculative profit?

The affordable price

The average annual wage in Dumfries and Galloway is around £20,000. This means that the cost price of my one bedroom dwelling is three times the income of a single wage earner – a multiplier which is certainly acceptable to mortgage lenders. Actually, DGSCHT consider a multiplier of 3.5 times average annual wage to be reasonable. And on a two bedroom dwelling, that's 3.5 times not the income of one wage earner, but the income of 1.5 wage earners – a household with one person working full time and one person working part time. So the affordable price of my one-bedroom dwelling would be £75,000, and the affordable price of a two or three bedroom dwelling would be £105,000.

Now, OK, in aiming for a £40,000 structure cost I'm aiming to build a structure which is affordable to me, so it has to be 'affordable' – I'm too old to take on new debt. But a cost of £1,200 per square metre seems a commonly quoted value these days, so (allowing the same figures for land value of the curtilage and for fees as in my example) you have £95,000 to spend on structure of two to three bedrooms (including sweat equity), which builds you 80 square metres of reasonable quality structure, which is equivalent to six rooms each 12 foot by 12 foot.

Thus it seems to me that it is possible to build new dwellings on the site such that the cost is lower than the 'affordable price'. Furthermore, knowing what I do of the group, all of us are going to have to build dwellings which cost less than the 'affordable price', simply because none of us are rich.

The just price revisited

This doesn't solve the Ruth conundrum, of course, because she's having to buy at full market rate and cannot be expected to take a hit to sell at an 'affordable price'.

So we need a formula which I think is something like this:

value of the land part of the holding

plus reasonable investment cost of dwelling

plus 2% per annum compound interest on the reasonable investment cost of the dwelling

where:

value of the land is the agricultural value of the land as assessed by a qualified surveyor appointed by the Company

reasonable investment cost is for new builds and for the byre units an agreed multiple on the internal area of the dwelling in square metres, I'd suggest £1,200; for the existing dwelling, the price actually paid (including essential renovations).

This gives us a 'just price' which for all new units is likely to be lower than or equal to the 'affordable price' as seen by DGSCHT.

Non-idealistic argument for a just price formula

The arguments I advanced at the head of this document for a just price for housing are idealistic; they represent a rejection of the market in favour of enhancing social cohesion and abstract 'fairness'. I believe that most of us do have a degree of idealism, but I acknowledge that the exact degree varies.

However, bear in mind that getting planning permission for ten new dwellings on this site is a very big ask. It is precisely the 'sporadic development in the countryside' that the council has policy to prevent. We're going to have to do a lot of special pleading and special argument. If we fail to get planning permission, we're most of us going to have had a significant share of all our capital tied up for at least two years in land, with nowhere to live. And although it's probable that if it all goes pear shaped we can resell the land for the money invested, that isn't guaranteed.

So we need all the help we can get. We can get a certain amount of political if we're able to play the 'green' card, the 'low impact' card (but I'm not certain I can achieve low impact in my budget, and I suspect other people may be the same; concrete is cheap stuff). One card that we know we can play, though, is 'affordable housing'. And, we already know that if we play the affordable housing card, we will get not insignificant help from DGSCHT.

In summary, if we cap resale at an 'affordable' value, we will be able to recover the investment made in dwellings (provided we're don't built using solid gold taps and marble staircases), and we will get significant support which will significantly lower the risk involved in the project. That seems to me a substantial win for very little actual cost.