Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

The House That £100K Built - BBC Two


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 DavidFrancis

DavidFrancis

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • LocationSouth-west Lancashire

Posted 05 August 2015 - 07:27 AM

In last night's programme the roof was an metal-faced insulated panel that looked similar in profile to Trisomet, but I think the voiceover said that it only had one metal face. Regardless, does anyone know of any houses built mostly or entirely with this type of panel?

Do they need a VCL or breather membrane? I think you can add battens and your choice of cladding to the Kingspan version so looks like an easy way to build a house. Or am I being naive?

#22 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 05 August 2015 - 08:07 AM

Anyone else cringe when they saw the vent next to the stove? :o

I guess £85k doesn't run to a room sealed stove!

Good on them though.

Edited by gravelld, 05 August 2015 - 08:08 AM.


#23 declan52

declan52

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • LocationCo. armagh

Posted 05 August 2015 - 08:39 AM

The whole program was billed as the guys building a house with no costs to run heating or electric but apart from a few mins at the start and end there was very little detail about it. They spent more of the show painting pallets.
Think it still looked very dark inside with the bare blocks not really a look most would go for, including me. I'd have painted them white if I had no money to plaster the walls.

#24 DeeJunFan

DeeJunFan

    Regular Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • LocationNewry, Co. Down

Posted 05 August 2015 - 08:42 AM

All sounds a bit of a gimmick!

Sure who wants bare blocks. Id say they had them painted 5 minutes after the cameras were away.

#25 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 11 August 2015 - 08:13 PM

Just watched tonight's program. Interesting as it was described as "12 miles from Inverness" so not far from me at all. Looking at the scenery I would say somewhere along the Moray coast, looking over the Moray Firth towards the Black Isle.

Just a few random observations.

If you are on a budget, why get the walls plastered? Taping and jointing is a lot cheaper.

The wood burner they had in their living room looked vastly over sized for a small house, even if just built to ordinary current standards.

Piers Taylor was filmed arriving at Inverness airport. He then went to the site. 5 minutes later he says "let me show you something I have in the car" that was clearly far too big to have come with him on the plane :P

They missed an opportunity here. Why re build it as a semi detached? I would have detached it from their parents house next door.

I knew, right from the start, the bonkers idea of using chandlery rope (from Calley Marine) as the "banister" would not meet building regulations, looks like the only way it did was to fit a clear plastic sheet there to cover the gap.

Total bill at the end over £100K, and including land over £160K, which is quite possibly more than a simple 3 bed semi detached is actually worth up here. So much for this being the only way they can afford it?

#26 daiking

daiking

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • LocationSouth Manchester

Posted 12 August 2015 - 08:13 PM

Beejesus, was grinding the floor flat the best option?

Ooh, £100 for a conventional bannister but he makes them spend £300+ fixing a stupid non-compliant design?

Thank you very little.

And acrylic worktop? Scratcharama.

Edited by daiking, 12 August 2015 - 08:15 PM.


#27 sketch3d

sketch3d

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • LocationMilton Keynes

Posted 12 August 2015 - 08:57 PM

View Postdaiking, on 12 August 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

Beejesus, was grinding the floor flat the best option?

Ooh, £100 for a conventional bannister but he makes them spend £300+ fixing a stupid non-compliant design?

Thank you very little.

And acrylic worktop? Scratcharama.

Funny enough my wife and I were having the same conversation. 5 minutes with kids toys and acrylic, you end up wish some very unique interior finishes.

#28 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 13 August 2015 - 04:06 PM

I've just caught up with an older one i had recorded, the couple on a chicken farm.

This was a very good example of the "portable building" that has been much talked about on here.

It was clear from the size (right on the absolute limit for a "mobile home") the fact it stood just on some brick piers, and the fact they mentioned it being removeable that they only had planning permission for a "caravan".

So they were replacing their conventional wheeled static caravan with a decently built portable building that stretched the limits of "mobile home" right to the limits and showed what a pretty good building you could make within that limit.

These programs never go into details. It's a shame they didn't actually mention that by building it as a mobile home it would have been exempt from building control, except for the drainage system that it was connected to.

I think however the builders were pushing their luck somewhat as seeing the roof structure they ended up with, I can't see how it could ever be split in two for transportation without the use of a chain saw.

#29 Crofter

Crofter

    Regular Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPip
  • 592 posts

Posted 13 August 2015 - 07:04 PM

My reading of the portable building definition is that it needn't split into sections unless it is above the size limit.

After all, a 'shop bought' caravan doesn't come in two bits, does it?

#30 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 13 August 2015 - 07:29 PM

Here's the link to the horses mouth (at least as far as the Highlands is concerned) http://www.highland....nd_mobile_homes

The pertinent bit is "shown to be capable of being disassembled into no more than 2 sections"

That's open to debate I guess. One section is definitely "no more than 2" so I guess if you are able to pick it up and move it as one section then it qualifies.

But that then leaves you satisfying "capable of being moved from one place to another by being towed or being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer in one or 2 sections" If you can show a trailer large enough to take it in one load then that's fine. You don't have to demonstrate that travelling on a road, so road traffic regulations don't apply.

I have always though having it as two long thin sections is the safe option.

As an aside, I know a company up here that make them in smaller sections and typically a whole house under the portable building rule will come from them in 4 modules. Strictly that breaks this definition.

As a further aside the document I linked to is the Scottish interpretation of the law. I believe the English caravan act was amended and the Scottish one not, so in England you can have a larger "caravan" than we can.

Edited by ProDave, 13 August 2015 - 07:30 PM.


#31 daiking

daiking

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • LocationSouth Manchester

Posted 18 August 2015 - 07:58 PM

Did they really say that it cost £10,000-15,000 to prop up the cantilever?

#32 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 18 August 2015 - 08:01 PM

That's what they said.

Sounds to me like the original SE that signed off the original design made somewhat of an error. Now where's their professional indemnity insurance?

#33 daiking

daiking

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • LocationSouth Manchester

Posted 18 August 2015 - 08:03 PM

I'll freely admit I know @!## all but we saw 2 lumps of concrete and a few bits of steel?

Where did the money go?

(asks someone who had 2 beams put in today)

#34 tennentslager

tennentslager

    Regular Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPip
  • 685 posts
  • LocationGlasgow

Posted 18 August 2015 - 08:58 PM

View PostProDave, on 13 August 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

Here's the link to the horses mouth (at least as far as the Highlands is concerned) http://www.highland....nd_mobile_homes

The pertinent bit is "shown to be capable of being disassembled into no more than 2 sections"

That's open to debate I guess. One section is definitely "no more than 2" so I guess if you are able to pick it up and move it as one section then it qualifies.

But that then leaves you satisfying "capable of being moved from one place to another by being towed or being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer in one or 2 sections" If you can show a trailer large enough to take it in one load then that's fine. You don't have to demonstrate that travelling on a road, so road traffic regulations don't apply.

I have always though having it as two long thin sections is the safe option.

As an aside, I know a company up here that make them in smaller sections and typically a whole house under the portable building rule will come from them in 4 modules. Strictly that breaks this definition.

As a further aside the document I linked to is the Scottish interpretation of the law. I believe the English caravan act was amended and the Scottish one not, so in England you can have a larger "caravan" than we can.
They moved this on wheeled trailer...

Attached Files



#35 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 18 August 2015 - 09:16 PM

That looks like "the boat the front fell off"