"Grand Designs" on Netflix - holy spendypants!

[zolotiyeruki]

Anyone else watch this show?  I don't know how I missed it when it first came out, but it's on Netflix at the moment, and I'm enjoying it quite a lot.  What astounds me, though, is 1) the insane cost of land, even a terrible lot in a rural area, and 2) the sheer antimustachianism on display in the designs/budgets of the homes.  The most recent episode I watched ("Brixton") showed a pair of DINKs building a rather nice, modern, minimalist home.  Their original budget was 300GBP ($450k) plus the cost of the lot, and by the time they were done, it was north of 500GBP ($660k)! And one of them is an architect who should know better!

I'm also a tiny bit horrified at how deep some of the homeowners on the show are willing to bury themselves financially for their house.  Given the consistency with which they seem to do so, I have to wonder if part of the audition process for the show includes the question "is this build likely to bankrupt you?" Or, alternatively, do they tell the people on the show to act as if they're investing their life savings into the home?  I've seen people borrowing from family after exhausting all their own money, people moving into their parents' (already cozy) homes, people cashing out their pensions, having to ask the bank for a larger loan after the fact, etc.  It's insane.  Particularly egregious are the windows. I've watched maybe ten episodes so far, and I don't think I've seen a single person select anything other than highly-customized (and super duper expensive) glass.

I *do* appreciate some of the designs*, especially with regards to efficiency of layout, energy efficiency, and innovative building methods.  But the finance side of things is just out of control on so many of the projects, it's ridiculous.

* I think so far, County Down is my favorite--on schedule, under budget, well-built, well-designed.

[chemistk]

I watched most of them! The show is a great backdrop to other activities or just something light and easy to watch. If you like it, you'll also enjoy "Worlds Most Extraordinary Homes" - basically the same thing but without any of the in-process stuff (aka you're just seeing finished homes).

It's mostly fantasy, and I think the average viewer has to get that after watching a few episodes. A lot of homeowners/architects featured on either show are just plain nuts. Many of the homes are so wild that you almost can't even live in them when they're complete, much less furnish them in any way other than was originally intended.

My absolute favorite is "Herefordshire" (well, really the followup - the last episode available on Netflix). I won't spoil it for you, but I was in awe watching the process of the build.

Really, what I get out of it, is being able to see such cinematic views of the land that people build on as well as a look at the actual process of construction. I'd never want to be in the shoes of most (if not all) of the owners, but to watch it knowing I'll never pay a cent into something like this gives me a smug smile and makes for an effortless watch.

[keepingfocus]

Grand Designs is a long running institution over here - it even has its own drinking game :)
https://carina.org.uk/granddesigns.shtml

If the Brixton house episode is the one I think it is (2012/13) it won a bunch of awards and was last up for sale for £1.5 million+ (no idea what it actually sold for though)

[zolotiyeruki]

I watched most of them! The show is a great backdrop to other activities or just something light and easy to watch. If you like it, you'll also enjoy "Worlds Most Extraordinary Homes" - basically the same thing but without any of the in-process stuff (aka you're just seeing finished homes).

It's mostly fantasy, and I think the average viewer has to get that after watching a few episodes. A lot of homeowners/architects featured on either show are just plain nuts. Many of the homes are so wild that you almost can't even live in them when they're complete, much less furnish them in any way other than was originally intended.

My absolute favorite is "Herefordshire" (well, really the followup - the last episode available on Netflix). I won't spoil it for you, but I was in awe watching the process of the build.
...

Eh, I actually enjoy more of the structural design and in-process content, and I don't care a whole lot about the last 15 minutes of each episode.  The final touches/decoration/paint/finishes are so taste-specific that I find little interest in them.  I usually skip the last 4-5 minutes where Kevin waxes poetic.

I have mixed feelings about the Herefordshire episode.  It was hard to watch because the house was so slow in building, but enjoyed the fact that the owner was doing everything right, that they weren't going into debt, and that they were building the house to be lived in rather than shown off.

So many of the homes on the show would be dramatically less expensive if they weren't an architect's vanity project.  You can get the same energy efficiency at waaaay lower prices with more traditional materials and methods.

[Just Joe]

Love the show. You've already said what we feel about some of the houses.

DW and I drink coffee and watch a home show or two on Sunday mornings while the house is quiet.

We're a bit frustrated with PBS right now because they pulled the a season of TOH before we finished it.

[Travis]

We found the show a couple months ago on Netflix. Probably watched the same ten episodes as you. The show has been on for YEARS, but according to some online reviews the last few seasons seem to have had the audition prereq of "has more money than sense."  I absolutely hated that "minimalist" episode simply because they kept dropping that term every five minutes. She wasn't a minimalist, she just didn't want all her stuff to be seen.  I was amazed at several episodes how they managed to fit full sized homes in these little corner lots all over London.  In the US, what we call an alley, the UK seems to consider prime real estate.

It wasn't difficult to take note of how stressful these projects seemed to be on the couples and if they didn't quickly flip them for a profit, they were signing up for decades of work to pay them off.  Being that its technically a reality show, I have to wonder how much of the drama is teased up.  My favorites were the ones that had real engineering problems to solve and did so on a budget.  The concept of a television show that by design (pun intended) has to span several years for a single episode is interesting on its own.

[Moonwaves]

One of the most-remembered episodes from the early years is Ben Law's woodlands house. Found a link on vimeo showing a revisit a few years later as well. It also shows parts of the original episode. The original episode was from 2002, which is making me feel very old now.

[GuitarStv]

What I learned from watching that show is that the budget for a self build is typically 30-40% of the amount finally spent.  It's fun to watch someone's dreams come alive, but has thoroughly convinced me that home building is something best left to others.

[Freedomin5]

They have a Grand Designs Australia too. I just watched an episode on YouTube.

[partgypsy]

That Grand designs drink game is hilarious.

[bigblock440]

The price of land is always amazing.  I also leaned that it seams Europeans really like their puzzle piece houses.  The water tower one was pretty neat, though I thought it would have been better without the addition.  Certainly a lot less expensive.

[sherr]

The price of land is always amazing.  I also leaned that it seams Europeans really like their puzzle piece houses.  The water tower one was pretty neat, though I thought it would have been better without the addition.  Certainly a lot less expensive.

The addition was where all their actually-livable space was though. The water tower itself was too narrow / too many floors to actually be very usable. I hated that episode for that reason. It wasn't a water tower house, it was a very modern house with a weird water tower appendage.

[Cranky]

It was very entertaining, and the houses did all turn out to be beautiful though not exactly relevant for ordinary people.

I really liked the guy who spent 10 years building a hobbit-y kind of house. That one was interesting.

[PDXTabs]

Grand Designs is a long running institution over here - it even has its own drinking game :)
https://carina.org.uk/granddesigns.shtml

What's wrong with living in a caravan? That seems mustachian.

[bigblock440]

The price of land is always amazing.  I also leaned that it seams Europeans really like their puzzle piece houses.  The water tower one was pretty neat, though I thought it would have been better without the addition.  Certainly a lot less expensive.

The addition was where all their actually-livable space was though. The water tower itself was too narrow / too many floors to actually be very usable. I hated that episode for that reason. It wasn't a water tower house, it was a very modern house with a weird water tower appendage.

I disagree, they had a lot of extra and unnecessary rooms there, the whole thing is 4,500 sq. ft. of living space.  Sure it's impractical to have every room on a different floor, but the actual tower itself is where they had the bedrooms, home gym, walk-in "closets", etc.  I'd have to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure every one of the rooms in my 2,400 sq ft house would fit in the tower itself. 

[Kierun]

Decided to give this a gander because of this thread and the first 30 seconds of the first episode (S15, Malvern) gave me a bit of pause as I bought a house unseen from halfway around the world. Guess I'm either foolish or fearless. My bet's on foolish. Similar to Zolotiyeruki, I'm interested in the design, engineering and execution aspects of the show.

[Imma]

Funny, I've seen about 10 million episodes of this show over the past decades, but I had never even noticed the cost of land. Prices are roughly the same in my country. Of course the houses on the show are insane, because no one wants to see someone build a 2-up 2-down, but my irl friends build homes much in the same way: they spend a fortune on a piece of land, start building, they always go over budget, end up moving in with their parents or live in a caravan on the property for a while, beg, borrow or steal the last 50k they need to finish it. Yes, it's desperate and they are digging a big hole for themselves but in many places renting is even more expensive.

[zolotiyeruki]

Funny, I've seen about 10 million episodes of this show over the past decades, but I had never even noticed the cost of land. Prices are roughly the same in my country. Of course the houses on the show are insane, because no one wants to see someone build a 2-up 2-down, but my irl friends build homes much in the same way: they spend a fortune on a piece of land, start building, they always go over budget, end up moving in with their parents or live in a caravan on the property for a while, beg, borrow or steal the last 50k they need to finish it. Yes, it's desperate and they are digging a big hole for themselves but in many places renting is even more expensive.

Yeah, land in the US is waaaay cheaper than in the EU.  In our area, at the peak of the housing bubble, it hit $100k/acre, but that was insanely inflated.  Nowadays, it's about $20k for undeveloped (farm) land right next to built-up neighborhoods.

[SpreadsheetMan]

Funny, I've seen about 10 million episodes of this show over the past decades, but I had never even noticed the cost of land. Prices are roughly the same in my country. Of course the houses on the show are insane, because no one wants to see someone build a 2-up 2-down, but my irl friends build homes much in the same way: they spend a fortune on a piece of land, start building, they always go over budget, end up moving in with their parents or live in a caravan on the property for a while, beg, borrow or steal the last 50k they need to finish it. Yes, it's desperate and they are digging a big hole for themselves but in many places renting is even more expensive.

Yeah, land in the US is waaaay cheaper than in the EU.  In our area, at the peak of the housing bubble, it hit $100k/acre, but that was insanely inflated.  Nowadays, it's about $20k for undeveloped (farm) land right next to built-up neighborhoods.

In the UK farm land is relatively cheap, but it is extremely difficult to get permission to build on it (planning permission). If that permission is present the land value increases by a couple of orders of magnitude at least. Only developers with deep pockets for legal representation and heavy political clout can get planning on substantial sites these days.

[zolotiyeruki]

Funny, I've seen about 10 million episodes of this show over the past decades, but I had never even noticed the cost of land. Prices are roughly the same in my country. Of course the houses on the show are insane, because no one wants to see someone build a 2-up 2-down, but my irl friends build homes much in the same way: they spend a fortune on a piece of land, start building, they always go over budget, end up moving in with their parents or live in a caravan on the property for a while, beg, borrow or steal the last 50k they need to finish it. Yes, it's desperate and they are digging a big hole for themselves but in many places renting is even more expensive.

Yeah, land in the US is waaaay cheaper than in the EU.  In our area, at the peak of the housing bubble, it hit $100k/acre, but that was insanely inflated.  Nowadays, it's about $20k for undeveloped (farm) land right next to built-up neighborhoods.

In the UK farm land is relatively cheap, but it is extremely difficult to get permission to build on it (planning permission). If that permission is present the land value increases by a couple of orders of magnitude at least. Only developers with deep pockets for legal representation and heavy political clout can get planning on substantial sites these days.

Sounds a lot like Australia--the government is artificially restricting supply, and that's driving prices up.

[SwordGuy]

Funny, I've seen about 10 million episodes of this show over the past decades, but I had never even noticed the cost of land. Prices are roughly the same in my country. Of course the houses on the show are insane, because no one wants to see someone build a 2-up 2-down, but my irl friends build homes much in the same way: they spend a fortune on a piece of land, start building, they always go over budget, end up moving in with their parents or live in a caravan on the property for a while, beg, borrow or steal the last 50k they need to finish it. Yes, it's desperate and they are digging a big hole for themselves but in many places renting is even more expensive.

Yeah, land in the US is waaaay cheaper than in the EU.  In our area, at the peak of the housing bubble, it hit $100k/acre, but that was insanely inflated.  Nowadays, it's about $20k for undeveloped (farm) land right next to built-up neighborhoods.

In the UK farm land is relatively cheap, but it is extremely difficult to get permission to build on it (planning permission). If that permission is present the land value increases by a couple of orders of magnitude at least. Only developers with deep pockets for legal representation and heavy political clout can get planning on substantial sites these days.

Sounds a lot like Australia--the government is artificially restricting supply, and that's driving prices up.

Or maybe they want to make sure that they have enough farmland to feed the population.   Britain went thru 2 lengthy wars where submarines cut off supplies.    And nobody overseas wants to depend on the US anymore.

[Imma]

Funny, I've seen about 10 million episodes of this show over the past decades, but I had never even noticed the cost of land. Prices are roughly the same in my country. Of course the houses on the show are insane, because no one wants to see someone build a 2-up 2-down, but my irl friends build homes much in the same way: they spend a fortune on a piece of land, start building, they always go over budget, end up moving in with their parents or live in a caravan on the property for a while, beg, borrow or steal the last 50k they need to finish it. Yes, it's desperate and they are digging a big hole for themselves but in many places renting is even more expensive.

Yeah, land in the US is waaaay cheaper than in the EU.  In our area, at the peak of the housing bubble, it hit $100k/acre, but that was insanely inflated.  Nowadays, it's about $20k for undeveloped (farm) land right next to built-up neighborhoods.

In the UK farm land is relatively cheap, but it is extremely difficult to get permission to build on it (planning permission). If that permission is present the land value increases by a couple of orders of magnitude at least. Only developers with deep pockets for legal representation and heavy political clout can get planning on substantial sites these days.

Sounds a lot like Australia--the government is artificially restricting supply, and that's driving prices up.

Or maybe they want to make sure that they have enough farmland to feed the population.   Britain went thru 2 lengthy wars where submarines cut off supplies.    And nobody overseas wants to depend on the US anymore.

In my country it's the same and I'm actually glad about it. Our neighbours in Belgium didn't really plan ahead and now their whole country is endless urban sprawl and blocks of houses in the middle of the rural countryside. I'm glad that in my country we still have protected rural landscapes, enough land available for farming away from urban areas, and green spaces around every city.

Yes, it drives land prices up, but it protects the landscape and the infrastructure of our country. It's true that makes it difficult for small-scale investors to come up with a building plan, local authorities often work together with large property developers on large, good quality projects. A housing association will build some affordable homes, a developer will build some more expensive homes, local authorities make sure there's a plan to connect the development to local infrastructure and designate a few plots for people who want to build their own houses. This takes a lot of time, which is why we have a housing shortage, but it means neighbourhoods are well thought out and offer a high quality of living and the country is not a mess.

[zolotiyeruki]

Or maybe they want to make sure that they have enough farmland to feed the population.   Britain went thru 2 lengthy wars where submarines cut off supplies.    And nobody overseas wants to depend on the US anymore.

Oh, I'm not arguing for or against the motives, simply pointing out the actions.

[cerat0n1a]

Yeah, land in the US is waaaay cheaper than in the EU.  In our area, at the peak of the housing bubble, it hit $100k/acre, but that was insanely inflated.  Nowadays, it's about $20k for undeveloped (farm) land right next to built-up neighborhoods.

The EU is a big place, just like the US. I assume land prices in Manhattan are a little higher than rural Idaho? A farmhouse in central France could be well 10% the price of a similar house in the south east of England, and France is still more expensive than parts of Eastern Europe. British viewers watching old series of Grand Designs might have a wry smile at how cheap the houses on the programme were 2/5/10/20 years ago. Imma's explanation of how the planning system works in the Netherlands is pretty much the same for the UK - unfortunately it's meant that we haven't built anything like enough houses to cope with the substantial rise in the population of England in the past decade or two.

Doing a "grand designs" style build is a pretty common dream here - this programme was one of Channel 4's highest rated shows pretty much every year since 2000.

Or maybe they want to make sure that they have enough farmland to feed the population.   Britain went thru 2 lengthy wars where submarines cut off supplies.    And nobody overseas wants to depend on the US anymore.

The UK currently imports very little food from the US. US food/ farming standards don't generally comply with EU regulations in terms of animal welfare, use of GM, use of additives etc. Maybe that will change with Brexit. Our biggest agricultural import from the US currently (by value) is wine from California.

[zolotiyeruki]

...Imma's explanation of how the planning system works in the Netherlands is pretty much the same for the UK - unfortunately it's meant that we haven't built anything like enough houses to cope with the substantial rise in the population of England in the past decade or two.

So where does everyone live, then?  If there's a housing shortage, does that simply mean more people are sharing homes, i.e. more roommates or multi-generational families occupying a dwelling?

[cerat0n1a]

So where does everyone live, then?  If there's a housing shortage, does that simply mean more people are sharing homes, i.e. more roommates or multi-generational families occupying a dwelling?

Pretty much, yes. Not really so different from Silicon Valley, NYC etc.

I guess another difference is the perception of old houses. The most expensive houses where I live are the ones which are a few hundred years old, in the village centre, not necessarily the largest or most convenient to live in. People aspire to have the house with the most "character", not a bigger McMansion. Personally, I'm happy to look out of my window at a cottage with curvy walls and a thatched roof and not have to be the one to bump my head on the low ceilings, or to maintain it, using only materials and craftsmen approved by the local council.

[Imma]

...Imma's explanation of how the planning system works in the Netherlands is pretty much the same for the UK - unfortunately it's meant that we haven't built anything like enough houses to cope with the substantial rise in the population of England in the past decade or two.

So where does everyone live, then?  If there's a housing shortage, does that simply mean more people are sharing homes, i.e. more roommates or multi-generational families occupying a dwelling?

People get creative to avoid ending up on the street. Like they do in tons of places around the world.

- A lot of students commute to university rather than move out (commuting 1,5 hours or more each way is not unusual at all)
- Young working adults live with their parents for longer and longer, sometimes couples move in with parents of one of them
- Especially in the big cities a lot of adults live in shared houses
- We're early 30s, we only know a handful of people our age still living in a shared house, but a lot are in a studio or one bedroom and can't afford to move on from there, so they start families in tiny tiny flats.
- Some people are just homeless people - especially hidden homelessness is a big problem. Lots of people drift from temp accommodation to temp accommodation for years before they settle down.

[zolotiyeruki]

That's an interesting tradeoff--a lower standard of living* in return for maintaining more green space and a particular look to the scenery, not to mention the property values of existing homeowners/landlord.  Is there much of a movement to shift that type of policy, or is it accepted as "just the way things are"?

* This is all just my opinion--forcing people into uncomfortably small accommodations, or into homelessness, or into paying a huge percentage of their income for housing, doesn't seem worth it.

[cerat0n1a]

It's a political issue at the moment, certainly, often framed in terms of inter-generational fairness. Older people bought houses when they were cheap. Younger people can't afford to buy or can't afford to live in the place where they grew up. Current UK government is pretty keen to remove those planning restrictions and get lots of houses built on farmland, but it's a policy that is mostly opposed by the supporters of their own party. Everyone is happy for more houses to be built somewhere else, just not where they live :-)

It's also the case that people here are far, far more likely to have property as an investment than stocks or shares. I know plenty of people that own one or two houses that they rent out. Many people's plan for retirement is essentially to move to a cheaper house. So anything which cuts house prices (e.g. allowing some more to be built) is viewed by some people in the same way as a government plan to reduce the value of stock market indices might be in the US.

[Imma]

In the Netherlands it's mostly the same as in the UK, except that we have much less open space left in the country so many people attach great value to it, not just the "eco" types. It's not like in the US or Australia where you have endless open space available and a few more houses here and there won't matter that much. Our whole country is Manhattan and we don't want to sacrifice Central Park.

Plus, yes, especially in the Netherlands everyone cares a LOT about orderly public spaces. We don't want random buildings and ugly homes. In many places you can't even paint your front door or your mailbox in the "wrong" colour. And most people prefer that.

In my city instead of building in green spaces, they are focused on clearing out "cluttered" spaces and put apartment blocks there. Around the corner,  an old shop with warehouse that had been in need of TLC for a few decades was recently replaced with a block of 25 apartments. And they're building 6 new houses on a very narrow strip of wasteland. They're trying to build several thousands of extra homes that way.

[dashuk]

Or maybe they want to make sure that they have enough farmland to feed the population.   Britain went thru 2 lengthy wars where submarines cut off supplies.    And nobody overseas wants to depend on the US anymore.

The UK imports about 80% of it's food by raw ingredients. ~6% of land is housing plus residential gardens. ~63% is agricultural.

Studies have shown UK could be more or less self sufficient in food, but not on current animal-heavy diets - 41% of agricultural land is pasture, a big chunk of the rest is animal fodder. Building a few houses in the countryside doesn't even figure in this question.

Yes, it drives land prices up, but it protects the landscape and the infrastructure of our country. It's true that makes it difficult for small-scale investors to come up with a building plan, local authorities often work together with large property developers on large, good quality projects. A housing association will build some affordable homes, a developer will build some more expensive homes, local authorities make sure there's a plan to connect the development to local infrastructure and designate a few plots for people who want to build their own houses. This takes a lot of time, which is why we have a housing shortage, but it means neighbourhoods are well thought out and offer a high quality of living and the country is not a mess.

I think this does hold true in the Netherlands, but in the UK it's very much theory rather than practice.

Most housing here is built by one of half a dozen massive developers, while local authorities have been systematically starved of funding, particularly over the last decade. They are obligated to increase the supply of housing, but barely have the staff to verify afterwards that developers have actually built in line with the planning application, not to get involved in shaping new developments up front.

The developer will decide everything about the internal layout of the development (on the basis of maximal profit). They make a token financial contribution to the LA to allow for infrastructure improvements. There is no allocation of plots for self build. They routinely backtrack on the amount of 'affordable' housing that actually gets built. But the LA basically has to nod it through anyway.

The reason urban Grand Designs houses are all creatively wedged into odd leftover spaces is because that's about the only land that is available and relatively easy to get planning.

The reason most rural Grand Designs houses are ridiculous megamansions is because if you have the resources for the cost, time and risk of trying to get planning on rural land or to pay the premium on land with planning, then you're probably rich enough to desire a big house. Or at least you're constrained by resale value - the market for a modest house on a big plot is pretty small.

[cerat0n1a]

The reason urban Grand Designs houses are all creatively wedged into odd leftover spaces is because that's about the only land that is available and relatively easy to get planning.

The reason most rural Grand Designs houses are ridiculous megamansions is because if you have the resources for the cost, time and risk of trying to get planning on rural land or to pay the premium on land with planning, then you're probably rich enough to desire a big house. Or at least you're constrained by resale value - the market for a modest house on a big plot is pretty small.

Very much depends on the area. There's parts of the country where self-build is still relatively affordable. Rightmove is currently showing no self-build plots within 10 miles of my house. Small developers routinely buy up bungalows, knock them down and build a couple of houses on the same site. My brother-in-law owns a property in Lincolnshire, so maybe ~100 miles further North. He has planning permission for two self-build houses carving of a chunk of his garden, but no takers at £30k for a decent sized plot.

Spot on with the stuff about developers and local councils though. For whatever reasons, the housing market in the UK is heavily distorted by government policy. The same is true in the US I suppose (Federally backed mortgage companies, tax relief on mortgage interest and so on).

[dashuk]

Here's a fun one... £85k for the right to build a small house in the middle of a row of ugly concrete garages.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-72891585.html

[zolotiyeruki]

Most housing here is built by one of half a dozen massive developers, while local authorities have been systematically starved of funding, particularly over the last decade. They are obligated to increase the supply of housing, but barely have the staff to verify afterwards that developers have actually built in line with the planning application, not to get involved in shaping new developments up front.

The developer will decide everything about the internal layout of the development (on the basis of maximal profit). They make a token financial contribution to the LA to allow for infrastructure improvements. There is no allocation of plots for self build. They routinely backtrack on the amount of 'affordable' housing that actually gets built. But the LA basically has to nod it through anyway.

The reason urban Grand Designs houses are all creatively wedged into odd leftover spaces is because that's about the only land that is available and relatively easy to get planning.

The reason most rural Grand Designs houses are ridiculous megamansions is because if you have the resources for the cost, time and risk of trying to get planning on rural land or to pay the premium on land with planning, then you're probably rich enough to desire a big house. Or at least you're constrained by resale value - the market for a modest house on a big plot is pretty small.

So the big developers have an easier job of getting through planning, while individuals have a much tougher time?  I'm hesitant to extrapolate Grand Designs to the whole country, but it seems like a lot of these projects are held up for several years by Planning.  I'm curious--why are local councils so starved for cash?  At least in my area, the cost of a building permit covers the cost of the plans review and the various inspections.

My brother-in-law owns a property in Lincolnshire, so maybe ~100 miles further North. He has planning permission for two self-build houses carving of a chunk of his garden, but no takers at £30k for a decent sized plot.

Spot on with the stuff about developers and local councils though. For whatever reasons, the housing market in the UK is heavily distorted by government policy. The same is true in the US I suppose (Federally backed mortgage companies, tax relief on mortgage interest and so on).

Why do you think there's been no interest in the two plots for a self-build?

In the US, yeah, we have the government-backed mortgage lenders and mortgage interest deduction, and of course the federal lands where nobody can build, but everything else is regulated on a very local level.  In the UK, other than the general difficulty in getting permission to build a home on undeveloped land, and getting the design approved, what other regulations (besides building code-type stuff) do you have to deal with?  What are typical mortgage interest rates like?  And why does it seem to take *years* to get permission to build something?

[dashuk]

I'm curious--why are local councils so starved for cash?

A decade of government focused on austerity and centralisation of power.

Local authorities have very little of their own tax revenue here - and the national government regulates how much they can increase that. I pay something like 10x as much to national government as to the local, even before you consider VAT (sales tax), a high-earner would have a much higher ratio.

So councils have always been dependent on central government funding, but that's been repeatedly slashed. Most councils naturally prioritise education and social care over a well-staffed planning department.

Even if there was notional parity between the cost of a planning application and the cost of properly scrutinising it, in a council on the verge of bankruptcy, the money will be spent somewhere else.

(They also don't really have any capital budget any more. Instead they have to compete against other cities for funding for capital projects. Want to build some cycle tracks? Spend a year going through the bidding process for this fund. Corollary of that - they can only do capital spending the government has created a pot for. Government likes road building, then they'll be building roads.)

[cerat0n1a]

Why do you think there's been no interest in the two plots for a self-build?

Location - there's no jobs in the area and so the most likely buyers are either people wanting to build a holiday cottage, or someone building  a retirement dream home. I expect a small-time local housebuilder will pick them up eventually.

In the UK, other than the general difficulty in getting permission to build a home on undeveloped land, and getting the design approved, what other regulations (besides building code-type stuff) do you have to deal with?  What are typical mortgage interest rates like?  And why does it seem to take *years* to get permission to build something?

It is pretty much all done at a local level here too - which means local councillors are often looking for reasons to say no - to keep house prices up in their area and to preserve the beautiful countryside in their area. A cynic might suggest that big corporations are more easily able to influence local planning decisions. For example, it's not unheard of for councillors to be invited on fact-finding trips to visit housing developments in attractive locations overseas. As dashuk says, councils probably (rightly) prioritise other areas to spend their limited budgets.

Central government has got fed up of the delays and imposed targets in the south east of the country. Where I live, each village has been told to find potential locations for several hundred houses each, which means every rural landowner is submitting plans for building on their land (without planning permission - worth £12k per acre, with planning permission, over £1m per acre, so you can see why there are opportunities for small scale corruption). This then gets combined into an over-arching local plan that says where houses are going to be built for the next 20 years or so, which in theory informs decisions about roads and public transport, schools and so on.

[Chuck Ditallin]

Having had dealings with 3 planning departments (adjacent counties) I have found, from my n=3 sample size, that they're staffed entirely by obstructive small-minded idiots with no knowledge of basic architecture.

From pointless rules like 'any extension must be set back from the original property on the front elevation' (Why? It's permissible to knock the original house down and rebuild further out on the original building line, but you can't do this with an extension.) to making our neighbours who own a (plant) nursery live in caravans for seven years to demonstrate an agricultural need for a permanent dwelling (when all five of their neighbours would like them to build a house), planners are hidebound, intransigent, stubborn, power-crazed and bitter small people*

I have more, but I can feel my blood pressure creeping up...


*You may know some entirely lovely and reasonable ones; I've not met them yet.

[cerat0n1a]

making our neighbours who own a (plant) nursery live in caravans for seven years to demonstrate an agricultural need for a permanent dwelling (when all five of their neighbours would like them to build a house)

They are sticklers on anything that smacks of turning agricultural land into residential (and then turning your £10k per acre smallholding into a £1m per acre housing estate). I can think of a couple of instances locally where people are living in caravans and running a loss-making small business specifically so they can build a house on the land some years down the line.  Another common approach is (was) horsiculture. Carve some small paddocks out of your land near existing houses. Put up some temporary buildings, rent it all out to local horse owners, add a water and electricity supply, jumps or whatever. Wait enough years and then apply to for permission to build.

Friends of mine own a beautiful 16th house on our village high street. Its elderly owner had not been able to do much upkeep, so when they bought it, there was a fair amount to do. They're required to use original recipe lime mortar rendering and traditional paint recipes, rebuild brick and flint walls and so on - which all seems good to me. However, the planning authorities also tried to make them keep a leaky fifty-year old lean-to structure at the back of the house, on the basis that it was a rare surviving example of 1970s vernacular architecture.

[Chuck Ditallin]

making our neighbours who own a (plant) nursery live in caravans for seven years to demonstrate an agricultural need for a permanent dwelling (when all five of their neighbours would like them to build a house)

They are sticklers on anything that smacks of turning agricultural land into residential (and then turning your £10k per acre smallholding into a £1m per acre housing estate). I can think of a couple of instances locally where people are living in caravans and running a loss-making small business specifically so they can build a house on the land some years down the line.  Another common approach is (was) horsiculture. Carve some small paddocks out of your land near existing houses. Put up some temporary buildings, rent it all out to local horse owners, add a water and electricity supply, jumps or whatever. Wait enough years and then apply to for permission to build.

Friends of mine own a beautiful 16th house on our village high street. Its elderly owner had not been able to do much upkeep, so when they bought it, there was a fair amount to do. They're required to use original recipe lime mortar rendering and traditional paint recipes, rebuild brick and flint walls and so on - which all seems good to me. However, the planning authorities also tried to make them keep a leaky fifty-year old lean-to structure at the back of the house, on the basis that it was a rare surviving example of 1970s vernacular architecture.

Sticklers indeed, though with absolutely no common sense or flexibility. There's no chance of this site being developed for anything but a single dwelling with an agricultural tie; access is awful and the site stood derelict for several years before our neighbours bought it as a new site to expand their existing business. If they make a profit out of selling in old age, good luck to them.

Meanwhile the council are rolling over about the broiler sheds built on the flood plain, with awful HGV access, which breach the local Development Plan and will be to the detriment of several other local businesses... same council...

The lean to story doesn't surprise me at all; there really needs to be a 'knock it down, it's shit' rule, whether something is a good example or not...

[zolotiyeruki]

Meanwhile the council are rolling over about the broiler sheds built on the flood plain, with awful HGV access, which breach the local Development Plan and will be to the detriment of several other local businesses... same council...

The lean to story doesn't surprise me at all; there really needs to be a 'knock it down, it's shit' rule, whether something is a good example or not...

Being a suburban-dwelling USian, I was unfamiliar with the terms "HGV access" and "broiler shed", so for the benefit of any other USians here.
HGV access - roads sturdy enough to handle trucks over about 3.5 tons
broiler shed - large featureless buildings used to house large quantities of chickens raised for meat.

[Fresh Bread]

I know the conversation has changed but came here to say I LOVE Grand Designs, and check out the New Zealand one. It's brilliant due to the New Zealand attitude. The Australian one is good too but the Kiwi is my fave.

I think trying to make sense of the builds on the show in terms of value for money is the wrong tack. It's like commissioning a really expensive artwork just for the beauty or meaning of it. It's grand designs not sensible designs.

Having said that, our architect doesn't like it, thinks a lot of the people and designs are daft and unliveable. My own personal grand designs bingo includes "who's going to wash those windows" and "you'll never heat that space". We built a mini grand design of our own that cost double the original budget when we set out and more than double what we could have done it for but didn't really go over the builder quote. However it's beautiful and has some novel sustainable features. If we'd done what most people do I wouldn't want to gaze at it.

[zolotiyeruki]

So....I've seen a meme on facebook, portraying a couple on one of those House Hunting shows, where they have two toothpicks and a gum wrapper to their name, but are looking at $1.2 million homes.

And it reminds me of the Grand Designs episode I just watched, featuring a couple of artists who work occasionally in the film industry, hoping to build their home for 300k (GBP, plus another 400kGBP for the lot), and ending up spending about a million.  It's one of those "what are you THINKING!?" feelings.  It drives me nuts that some of the people on the show are so concerned about money, yet they're willing to spend $15k on a hammock-shaped carbon fiber bathtub, or some ridiculous sum on a two-story black polished plaster wall.

[Just Joe]

So besides the Netflix seasons - where can US residents see more of this show?

This show plus Escape to the Country are favorites of DW and I. There are other American shows we like too.

[former player]

Meanwhile the council are rolling over about the broiler sheds built on the flood plain, with awful HGV access, which breach the local Development Plan and will be to the detriment of several other local businesses... same council...

The lean to story doesn't surprise me at all; there really needs to be a 'knock it down, it's shit' rule, whether something is a good example or not...

Being a suburban-dwelling USian, I was unfamiliar with the terms "HGV access" and "broiler shed", so for the benefit of any other USians here.
HGV access - roads sturdy enough to handle trucks over about 3.5 tons
broiler shed - large featureless buildings used to house large quantities of chickens raised for meat.

Your USian experiences have misled you on the problems of HGV access.  It's rarely about the sturdiness of the road and usually about the road being narrow with sharp bends that an artic ("articulated lorry") would get stuck on and a blind entrance onto a bigger road.  For example -

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.coventrytelegraph.net%2Fincoming%2Farticle16860973.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs615b%2F0_reverse-gere-ph-405335.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.birminghammail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Fdramatic-moment-lorry-gets-stuck-16860969&tbnid=G1cZ8RSPrCC7CM&vet=12ahUKEwjhgsW9_5jtAhUKUlMKHcvUB0MQMygGegQIARA1..i&docid=o9w3FREYSMvMGM&w=615&h=461&q=st%20agnes%20lorry%20stuck&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwjhgsW9_5jtAhUKUlMKHcvUB0MQMygGegQIARA1

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle22393857.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs615b%2F0_Mullion-lorry.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Florry-stuck-narrow-cornish-street-22393793&tbnid=JPZmCozZZwKoJM&vet=12ahUKEwjhgsW9_5jtAhUKUlMKHcvUB0MQMygHegQIARA3..i&docid=TwSLdjW1uBpI3M&w=615&h=409&q=st%20agnes%20lorry%20stuck&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwjhgsW9_5jtAhUKUlMKHcvUB0MQMygHegQIARA3

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.cornwalllive.com%2Fincoming%2Farticle4431783.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs1200b%2F0_OV_DCM_170820mennaLorry_01.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cornwalllive.com%2Fnews%2Fcornwall-news%2Fpranksters-blamed-after-lorry-gets-4431772&tbnid=WvDsUYDWgda2oM&vet=12ahUKEwjhgsW9_5jtAhUKUlMKHcvUB0MQMygIegQIARA5..i&docid=h-LxlXEHIDAmQM&w=1200&h=900&q=st%20agnes%20lorry%20stuck&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwjhgsW9_5jtAhUKUlMKHcvUB0MQMygIegQIARA5

https://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/lorry-stuck-on-norwich-city-centre-street-1-6162120

[zolotiyeruki]

So besides the Netflix seasons - where can US residents see more of this show?

This show plus Escape to the Country are favorites of DW and I. There are other American shows we like too.

There are a couple seasons (10 and 15, IIRC) on Amazon Prime. I've watched those as well.

Meanwhile the council are rolling over about the broiler sheds built on the flood plain, with awful HGV access, which breach the local Development Plan and will be to the detriment of several other local businesses... same council...

The lean to story doesn't surprise me at all; there really needs to be a 'knock it down, it's shit' rule, whether something is a good example or not...

Being a suburban-dwelling USian, I was unfamiliar with the terms "HGV access" and "broiler shed", so for the benefit of any other USians here.
HGV access - roads sturdy enough to handle trucks over about 3.5 tons
broiler shed - large featureless buildings used to house large quantities of chickens raised for meat.

Your USian experiences have misled you on the problems of HGV access.  It's rarely about the sturdiness of the road and usually about the road being narrow with sharp bends that an artic ("articulated lorry") would get stuck on and a blind entrance onto a bigger road.  For example -

Ah, thanks for the correction!

[Dicey]

Here's a fun one... £85k for the right to build a small house in the middle of a row of ugly concrete garages.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-72891585.html

At least "Christina Park" sounds pretty.

Can you translate this, please? "A rare opportunity to acquire a site in Totnes with planning permission to construct a three bedroom, two bathroom eco-home with car port. To be sold by informal tender with time and date to be announced, unless sold stc previously."

And how do you pronounce "Totnes"?

[former player]

Here's a fun one... £85k for the right to build a small house in the middle of a row of ugly concrete garages.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-72891585.html

At least "Christina Park" sounds pretty.

Can you translate this, please? "A rare opportunity to acquire a site in Totnes with planning permission to construct a three bedroom, two bathroom eco-home with car port. To be sold by informal tender with time and date to be announced, unless sold stc previously."

And how do you pronounce "Totnes"?

1.  "Rare opportunity": Totnes is a pretty, historic town in a beautiful part of the country, near the sea and with great sailing opportunities near by.  Building on greenfield land will be practically impossible and plots to build individual houses rare and expensive - "Eco" is a label put on a lot of planning applications to help get permission where it is otherwise difficult. This plot is on a suburb outside the old part of the town, and the garages will be for the domestic use of the houses opposite.  There's a decent chance that if this plot sells well enough other houses will be built along that row, but being the first is a bit of a risk.  Also, it looks as though the road in front of the garages is not maintained by the highway authority so I'd have questions about that.

2. "Informal tender": the agents will ask for best and final written offers by a date to be set but aren't committing themselves to accept any of them.

3. "stc": subject to contract.  A binding agreement to sell and buy land has to be in writing, which in practice means a formal contract exchanged between lawyers.  An agreement to sell stc means that a buyer has come up with an acceptable verbal offer and the property will be taken off the market while they get the legal ducks lined up, which usually takes several weeks.  Until contracts are exchanged either party can withdraw.  And yes, buyers do get "gazumped" during this period (seller accepts a higher offer from someone else) and sellers get "gazundered" (buyer reduces offer at last minute before contract exchange).

4.  "Tot" and "ness".  Small, historic, used to be very hippy and still is a bit but getting expensive.

[cerat0n1a]

And how do you pronounce "Totnes"?

I used to live near there. It's a lovely town in a very beautiful part of England. If you think this is expensive, have a look at property in Salcombe, a few miles further South.

Totnes is the kind of place where I browsed the adverts people had put up in the post office window and found two different people offering didgeridoo lessons and three shamanic healers. There are three different shops selling crystals on the main street through the town. I'm not sure whether the concept of Twin Towns translates to the US, but it's often said that Totnes is twinned with Narnia.