Tag: cohousing

HPH335 : Designing an intentional community – with Anne Thorne
Anne Thorne talks through the architectural design process of Cannock Mill Cohousing community.

Interview with Anne Thorne

We first featured Cannock Mill Cohousing in a podcast with Phil McGeevor, the Chair of the group, who explained how the group formed and the process they followed. Another key member of that group, Anne Thorne, is not only the architect who designed the scheme but also a resident of their cohousing community. Anne became an architect at a time when only 5% in that profession were female, and felt that as well as a lack of representation in the studio, there was generally a lack of consultation with women in the design process. She emphasises the importance of consultation, really listening to and understanding people’s ideas and designing in an environmentally conscious way.

Cohousing is an intentional community

It is a community where people come to live together, but in their own independent homes. There is a common house where residents can meet, cook, watch TV together, party etc. It also has bedrooms where guests can stay. By sharing lots of facilities, the intention is that residents can have a smaller home of their own.

Beyond the common house, they also grow produce together and have a travel club for car and lift-sharing.

Discreet spaces are as important as shared ones

Each house or flat owner has their own outdoor space, whether that’s a balcony or a small terraced garden. Discreet spaces have also been designed into the community areas, with seating in parts of the garden if people are looking for privacy.

10 years of looking for a site will see people pull out!

Searching for a suitable and mutually agreeable site can be a lengthy process, but the point at which they selected the site (10 years on) was actually the point at which several people decided to pull out. Reasons included location, risk and budget.

“And in fact, eight of us bought the site, eight households that is, which cost 1.2 million. That was a really big step for everybody to put up that money. People got mortgages on their houses, did all sorts of things in order to make that happen, which was a fantastic leap of faith really, and one that lots of people couldn’t make.”

A particular risk at that time was that only eight households paid for the site: a site which had planning for 23 homes, and would need to be developed with 23 homes.

A series of sub-groups report to the main board

These sub-groups included legal, finance and building. They would all report to the main board which was responsible for decision-making.

Once Anne Thorne Architects had been appointed, Anne distanced herself entirely from the committees and groups that dealt with finance or decision-making around anything that might affect her tenure as the architect. Luckily for her, many people on the building sub-group, which acted as the client, had experience of being clients in big organisations and understood what her role was and the complexities of keeping that separate from her involvement as a member of the community. Both she and the building group for example, were very clear that she wouldn’t be involved in any of the voting around building matters.

The building group were also insistent that if anyone wanted changes making to their houses, that they raise it with the group and Anne directly, rather than the builders on site. It would have been easy for a member to tell a builder that they didn’t like the flooring, and the builder then to assume that meant the flooring was changing for everyone!

Developers will be competing to buy the same site

One of the reasons that the search was protracted, was that as soon as they found a suitably flat and workable site, it would be snapped up by a developer. What held them back as a group was they couldn’t move fast enough with their finances. They also lost out on sites because developers and housing associations already had links with the local authorities.

They didn’t want an isolated site

The group’s main criteria for a site was that it should:
- have planning for between 15 and 30 dwellings
- be located within an hour and a half from London
- be well located for local facilities without needing a car
After 10 years of searching, they found the Cannock Mill site on Right Move. They knew it would have its challenges (it was steep and fairly waterlogged), but it also housed a lovely mill, was a 20 minute walk into Colchester, with countryside walks, village shops and a bus stop at the doorstep.

The houses were designed to Lifetime Home Standards

With the original eight households needing to decide what size and layout future members might want, they decided to design the houses to Lifetime Home Standards, and the minimum housing sizes of the Greater London Authority standards.

This meant that they were more generously sized than developer homes, but perhaps not as generous as if a private client might build for themselves.

Accessibility was a key consideration and all the three-storey houses have space for a lift to be installed. Bathrooms are large enough to be accessible, with the adaptability of being able to install a hoist if necessary in the future.

Standardised finishes were used across all the houses

This meant they all had bamboo flooring, were painted white, and had the same baths/showers, taps and basins. By all agreeing to have the same finishes, they understood it would be a lot cheaper and more sustainable. Members would be free to redecorate if they wanted to afterwards.

Prices exceeded the contingency sum by 1%

With such a long time between concept and delivery of the scheme, budgets inevitably changed considerably. Prices on site also went up, not least because building work overran by a year.

There was also a very steep learning curve with builders and sub-contractors having never worked on a Passivhaus scheme before. In hindsight for example, Anne says that they should have insisted on the suppliers of the triple-glazed windows and doors doing the installation.

The scheme is on piled foundations

With spring water and a pond on the site, a lot of work has been undertaken to direct the water. Being so wet and with variable ground conditions, the scheme uses piled foundations over 25 metres deep in places. A concrete slab, insulation and screed sit on top of the foundations.

The timber frame is faced on both sides with either wood fibre board or plywood. The inner face has an airtight layer of smart ply with newspaper insulation blown through. It is finished with a wood fibre panel and coloured render. With a colour palette to choose from, residents had to negotiate with their neighbour to make sure they didn’t have the same colour!

The roof construction is designed to absorb almost as much water as the site did before the houses were built. This also means that they have a reduction in their water bills because no water goes into the surface drains from the houses.

Upside-down living takes advantage of the daylight

With a steep north-facing slope, everyone had concerns that the living rooms wouldn’t have enough daylight. So, the houses were designed with open plan kitchen / living rooms on the top floor. They all face the communal house too.

Listed status on the mill prevented it from being a Passivhaus retrofit

The conservation officer wouldn’t allow any changes of the windows. Instead, they’ve used secondary glazing. The larch timber boarding was removed and insulation fitted between the studs. An airtightness layer was added to allow the structure to breathe, before insulated board was put on top and the cladding returned. The wood burning stove they fitted has been largely redundant, because it’s so well insulated.

People have invested in the community, not just the scheme

Because people have been involved from the beginning, they have also been invested in their faith and understanding of each other. They have got to know and trust one another. They have had to develop ways of working together. Although Anne acknowledges, being such a consolidated community can make it slightly harder for newcomers.

Find out more

Visit the website of Anne Thorne Architects

Get information about cohousing from the UK Cohousing Network

One to check out from our archives: Can a straw bale house reach Passivhaus standard? – with Fran Bradshaw from Anne Thorne Architects

Transcript

Download a transcript of the interview with Anne Thorne

Other podcasts about cohousing

The benefits of joining a cohousing development (Marmalade Lane Cohousing)

How to make a cohousing scheme a reality (Cannock Mill Cohousing)

Setting up a cohousing scheme (Marmalade Lane Cohousing)

Low impact living affordable community (LILAC)

How cohousing helps build a community (Lancaster Cohousing)

Please connect with us

Subscribe, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts

Like our Facebook page

Follow us on Twitter
September 27, 2023
HPH248 : The benefits of joining a cohousing development – with Jan Chadwick

Resident of Marmalade Lane cohousing, Jan Chadwick, explains why living in a multi-generational community is so important to her.

Interview with Jan Chadwick

Jan Chadwick and her husband became interested in cohousing after reading a newspaper article in 2013 about the benefits of community as you get older.

After carrying out some research and staying with a cohousing group in Stroud for an immersion weekend, they decided that their current lifestyle and location wouldn’t provide them with enough of a sense of community as they moved into older age.

It’s about being neighbourly, not about providing care

For Jan, it wasn’t about living in a community that would provide care as they got older, but one that would provide neighbourliness. With plenty of research showing that people who are engaged with a community can stay ‘younger’ for longer, as they are more active mentally and physically, Jan and her husband knew this was the way they wanted to live.

They were happy to relocate to find the right project

With the K1 Cambridgeshire project they were encouraged that the land had already been purchased and there seemed an active way forward to making the idea a reality.

Our podcast with Chris Wilson of the K1 cohousing group explains how the scheme was set up.

“We’ve broken a lot of moulds – and the design guidance!”

The site has a belt of mature trees that they and the planners wanted to retain, so this was an element of the design layout that didn’t change. The rest of the design went through a long process of changes at various stages until they reached the final layout which enhances community, the environment and offers the southern open aspect that they wanted for energy performance.

A multi-agency project

There have been lots of different groups involved in bringing the scheme to fruition. Initially there was a relationship between the cohousing group, Cambridgeshire Cohousing Limited, and the City Council, with the City Council helping to get the project started, and initially providing the payment for their project manager.

They then applied for money from the Homes and Communities Agency to work out their client brief, which they did over a number of workshops with Jim Ross and his team at Cambridge Architectural Research.

With their 60 page brief they were able to work again with the council to develop a tender for a developer. The group were heavily involved in the tender process, ensuring they would get the quality they wanted for the building of the houses and environment.

Their chosen developer, TOWN, created a consortium with Trivselhus, a large Swedish housebuilder. They worked with Mole Architects to develop the design and tick the boxes required by South Cambridgeshire District Planning Authority.

The transport links make it an ideal location for the residents

The site is well located for public transport, with the new North Cambridge railway station just a bike ride away. It is also on the guided bus route which leads into the centre of Cambridge, and is right next to the A14.

Each property has one parking space, and a quarter share of a visitor parking space. And, being Cambridge, they also have 146 bike spaces!

It is a multi-generational cohousing development

Creating a multi-generational development was a key requirement of the group, and as such, they have properties sized from one to five bedrooms. It was also important for enabling residents to have the opportunity to upsize or downsize within the development later on.

The original members were able to configure the design for their particular property, with the remaining unsold properties being configured by Mole Architects.

With 42 properties on the site, there will likely be over 100 people on site when fully sold, so it was important that the facilities will accommodate the growing numbers.

They wanted a garden they could use as productive land, a wild space for growing, a common house where they could interact with the community and quiet rooms for retreat.

There are also three bedrooms in the common house that can be used by guests.

Many of the properties are future-proofed

The properties are built to a standard developed by Trivselhus, which is to around 70% of Passivhaus, and Jan says that they hardly ever have the heating on in her apartment. Hers was built using Cross Laminated Timber, delivered from Europe.

As a group they decided that they didn’t want gas. They chose to go electric so they could use renewables in the future, and all the houses have air source heat pumps.

The apartments are Lifetime Homes compliant, as are the larger houses, with some having wet rooms. They are wheelchair accessible and are able to put in hoists if required. Their particular building also has lift access.

They are designed to be a modern take on a typical Cambridge terrace

Jan describes the lane and houses as looking like a fairly typical terrace, in keeping with the older terraces of Cambridge while also not looking out of place if it were in the Netherlands, due to the large windows.

Planning conditions meant that the building on the south west corner had to be designed as a landmark building. It houses two apartments and a gym and workshop underneath.

The common house has a square design. It has a woodburning stove, which has only been used once as it hasn’t been needed, and like all the houses it has underfloor heating and plenty of natural light.

Moving in was in two phases

Moving in was coordinated so that some people moved in just before Christmas 2018, and some just after.

When setting up the common areas they agreed that what people didn’t want in their own homes but thought could be used elsewhere, they could donate. As part of a quarterly community work day they had a selection process where they decided whether they could use those donated items and in which areas.

They have a budget for furnishing the common house and any other bits and pieces they still needed were purchased from that fund.

Living there has exceeded expectations

Now four months in, Jan says living there has exceeded all her expectations, both from a community point of view, and also with how happy they are with the construction of their homes, their quality and the energy efficiency.

Find out more

Visit the website of Marmalade Lane

Find out more about the K1 community

Follow Cambridge Cohousing on Twitter

Transcript

Download a transcript of the interview with Jan Chadwick.

Please connect with me

Subscribe, rate and review the podcast in iTunes

Rate and review the podcast on Stitcher

Like our Facebook page

Follow us on Twitter

May 1, 2019
HPH242 : How to make a cohousing scheme a reality – with Phil McGeevor from Cannock Mill Cohousing

Phil McGeevor, Chair of Cannock Mill Cohousing, describes the 12-year journey it’s taken to realise their cohousing community for older adults.

Interview with Phil McGeevor

In 2007, a small group who used to go on holiday together, discussed the idea of developing a cohousing scheme together. Phil McGeevor and his wife were amongst the first wave of people to join.

Although Phil was unfamiliar with the concept, he soon became very enthusiastic and keen to take it forward.

“I loved the idea of being able to build not just a house but a community. I liked the design ideas of our architect and we agreed right from the start it would be to Passivhaus standards, if that was at all possible.

I liked some of the eco aspects of being able to share, not having twenty-three lawnmowers and the rest. It seemed a very sensible thing. And I liked the combination of the privacy of your own house but the connection to the common house, the mill in our case, and to your neighbours. And through making decisions together, I thought that was just a good way to live. “

The scheme has largely been self financed

This has mostly been through a variety of pensions and savings within the group, with the ability to use a developer’s loan of up to £4.5 million from Homes England. This was the first cohousing group they had helped, with a loan that is designed for developers to be able to buy a plot of land that might otherwise be uneconomical and not able to raise private finance on.

There was a broad search area for a site

Finding any suitable building plot can be a drawn out affair, but with cohousing it invariably takes considerably longer. The biggest challenge is usually in trying to compete with more conventional developers, so often the options that remain tend to be more challenging sites.

What worked in their favour was having a good skill-set among the group, with Anne Thorne providing experience as their architect. And with many members of the group looking towards retirement and being flexible about location, they had a broad geographic search area encompassing everywhere that was within 90 minutes from London.

It was 8 years before they bid on a plot

Choosing the site was a balance of the factual side of things, such as the size, constraints, planning permissions, price and what could be built there, together with the emotional aspect of how they felt about it. Viewing the site on a wet and muddy day in November, they were still able to visualise how it could be beautiful.

While they had spent some money carrying out due diligence on other plots, this was the first they had bid on. Taking a year to make the purchase, it had been around 9 years to get to the stage of owning their plot of land.

In committing to the site in Colchester, Essex, and having to part with large sums of money, they invariably had a few members drop out at this stage, but still had enough to take it forward.

The group demographic impacted on design

At just over two acres, the focal point of the site is a 15th Century, three storey Victorian mill, with mill pond behind.

The flats are connected to The Mill and follow an L shape around the pond. There are a further three blocks of terrace housing that also follow the line around the pond.

Key to the design was making sure the units would be energy efficient and beautiful to live in.

They have six one-and two-bedroom flats, a series of two-bedroom houses and some three-bedroom houses. Phil says that in retrospect, for the group’s demographic, that two-bedroom units would probably be ideal.

They are built on piled foundations, with timber frames and a rendered exterior. They have living green roofs and face across the mill pond to The Mill itself.

There are balconies at the rear which, because of the slope of the site, are on a similar level with the shared gardens. There is also a walkway between the balconies which adds to the sense of community.

Extensive groundworks increased costs

They used a tender process to select their contractor, carrying out due diligence on them before making their decision. Although they hadn’t built Passivhaus houses before, they had completed a Passivhaus school and seemed to have strengths that the other bidders didn’t have.

The first contract they signed with them was for the groundworks. With water being a feature of the site, there was a serious amount of engineering in the background, behind the attractive aesthetic!

“You have to find compromises. It’s been an absolute lesson in life”

A member of the group spent time visiting and staying at many other cohousing schemes, to learn from them and advise the group as to what worked well and what they had difficulties with.

“Every group thinks it’s invented the wheel and the right way of doing it, but you can pick and mix from the different groups, what you like and what you think will work for you. Because every group is slightly different. “

Although the members formed different committee groups, such as for finding the land, overseeing the building work etc, the different groups would come together as an executive and decisions made as a whole.

Phil explains that very rarely have they had to resort to voting to make a decision. Generally they are able to work through issues until they reach a consensus.

“So, the trust in the group is essential and it’s something you do everything you can to preserve and develop because you know it’s going to be really important for the long-term success of how you live there. And I’m just amazed that a group of people who mostly didn’t know each other until they got involved with this, can develop such a high-level trust. And of course, it’s an incredibly efficient mechanism, trust, compared to trying to tie each other up in contracts or red tape. And it’s worked very well for us.”

As time has gone on they’ve found that making decisions together has become easier. Often it’s because they know more about the expertise of the individual group members and who they should be listening to on which subjects.

Groups have different responsibilities

Originally many of the members of the group were from the London area but now the site has been purchased some have sold their properties and are renting closer by. They have also had new members join from the local area.

Early on they would hold meetings in London but as the project has progressed they have moved to The Mill on the site, village halls, or wherever the particular group that is meeting chooses is convenient.

Group committees have included building, finance, legal, communications and membership.

As the project moved forward they had to establish a new series of groups to cover different aspects of living in The Mill. So now there is a gardening group, and also a group for each floor of The Mill, including a kitchen and utilities room group who look at the equipment they need to buy, cost it up and present it back to the board.

Be realistic about finances

With moving in just a few months away, Phil is conscious of just how much work still needs to be done.

“I want us to be in there. I want that to be well-planned and go as smoothly as it can. I know there will be difficulties and obstacles to get through. But I’m confident from our past experience of how we’ve tackled those, that we will get through them.”

Phil is keen to point out to any other cohousing groups that are planning their own scheme, to be realistic about the finances.

“I think I would be rather robust in telling them that a tooth fairy isn’t going to come down and do it for them. Nobody is going to say, ‘I’d love to finance this for you, and it will be terribly cheap for you and it will all be wonderful.’
You have control of it yourself, but you have to do it. You have to raise that money. It is a pretty hard-headed commercial thing, in the end. It wouldn’t get built otherwise. A contractor is going to look very seriously at you to see that you have the means to do it, certainly the finance, but also the skills. You need to get those things lined up.”

Regen Media

Here at Regen Media we produce videos for the construction industry, and ideally ecological construction. So if there’s a project you think we might be able to help on, do please get in touch.

Find out more

Visit the website of Cannock Mill Cohousing

Follow Cannock Mill Cohousing on Twitter

Find out more about Anne Thorne Architects

Transcript

Download a transcript of the interview with Phil McGeevor

Please connect with me

Subscribe, rate and review the podcast in iTunes

Rate and review the podcast on Stitcher

Like our Facebook page

Follow us on Twitter

February 20, 2019
HPH192 : How ‘Right to Build’ can help custom and self-builders find land – with Michael Holmes from NaCSBA
Michael Holmes from NaCSBA explains the Right to Build initiative and how it will impact on the future of custom and self-builds.

Interview with Michael Holmes

Michael Holmes’ work in the housing sector began in 1990 when he was responsible for the PR and marketing campaign for the first ever Self-build Home Show. He is now Chairman of The National Custom and Self-build Association (NaCSBA), has presented television property shows and is a director of Centaur Media, responsible for property magazines (Homebuilding & Renovating and others) as well as the Plotfinder website and the Homebuilding & Renovating Shows.

“It is utterly empowering, building your own home”

Having completed his own self-builds and renovation projects, Michael fully advocates self-building. The best people to design a house are the ones who will live in it and a bespoke property can even save money. Yet the UK has fewer than average self-builds despite the clear advantages.

Only 8% of UK homes are commissioned by the owners, compared with about 39% across the rest of the developed world. Michael thinks this is partly because people underestimate their abilities, but the main problem is limited land ownership – 90% of the land in the UK is owned by 10% of the people.

Owner-commissioned housing leads to individuality and variety

Popular home ownership is a relatively new concept in this country, although a century or two ago, almost every house was built by the owners. Over time we lost owner-commissioned housing and Michael thinks we may have lost a lot more besides.

Many of our towns and villages were built on an individual basis, which he says led to “that variety that makes up the character of our towns and villages that we so value, rather than the characterless homogenous housing that is mass-built at the moment.”

Custom and self-builds can help solve our housing crisis

Our house-building culture has evolved in response to historic needs. Large-scale public house building started by the state after WW1 was gradually taken over by the private sector.

Today, it remains easier for local authorities to meet housing demand by granting planning permission for the development of large, strategic sites, than on thousands of individual plots. However this approach hasn’t solved the UK’s housing crisis.

Michael comments, “It’s quite remarkable that as one of the wealthiest and most advanced countries in the world, we can’t build enough houses to meet demand.” He believes custom and self-builds are part of the solution and wants aspiring self-builders to know how the Right to Build initiative can help.

Right to Build obliges local authorities to meet demand for plots

The Right to Build, which was launched on 1^st April 2016, is a legal duty on every local authority in England to maintain a register of people who are looking for a serviced plot to build their own home and to grant sufficient development permissions to meet that demand within three years.

Michael says the scheme is aimed at a broad spectrum, not just one-off “Grand Designs” houses. Group self-builders, community-led housing, and people looking to rent or share ownership could all benefit.

Though authorities will have to match demand, it doesn’t mean permission will be granted on a plot that perfectly suits your particular needs.

Serviced plots can help meet the demand for self-build

Between the 80s and the early noughties, 15-17,000 self-builds, mostly in-fill sites and replacement dwellings, were constructed each year in the UK. Following the credit crunch, that number dropped to about 10-11,000. But the self-build market is now growing, at just over 6% per year, and the government aims to double the sector by 2020. This looks unachievable if the houses are built on individual plots.

Serviced plots, popular abroad, could offer new opportunities, not only for self-build but for custom build projects where people are willing to pay for a bespoke home but don’t have the time to self-build. They are also less risky and easier to access for the majority of people, as two difficult elements of any self-build – foundations and services – have been dealt with.

The market already exists for serviced plots

One-off plots with amazing views are appealing but will always be expensive, whereas serviced plots can facilitate bespoke homes at affordable prices.

Evidence suggests that many self-builders would like to be part of a community and would happily live alongside other house builders or “spec built houses” on a multi-plot site.

Graven Hill at Cherwell aims to provide 1,900 serviced custom and self-build plots. Describing it as a “fantastic, ambitious project”, Michael admires their objective of building a custom and self-build community.

Demand for self-build opportunities is growing

In 2016 there was a 24% increase in planning applications for individual new dwellings. And 18,000 people signed up to the Right to Build scheme in the seven months following its launch. NaCSBA’s Right to Build Portal links to every local authority’s demand register so you can see the demand for each of those authorities. Michael is seeing a response to demand with an increasing number of plots coming to market.

Registering interest does not commit you to anything

Local authorities have the right to charge for entry on the register although Michael discourages this, believing it will impact on the numbers of people signing up.

Other than paying a fee, you’re not actually making any commitment. You’re just signing up to be counted in the local authority’s demand assessment.

Your data is not available in the public domain and you can ask for your name to be removed from the register at any time.

Local authorities have to take your interest into account

Each local authority decides the particulars of their register. One part, open to everybody in the EU, assesses the demand. A second part can ask further questions such as a financial affordability test or a local connection test that may grant priority.

Michael stresses that neither of these prevents you going on part one of the register and having your demand counted.

Registering is a win-win situation

If local authorities fail to meet a demonstrated demand within three years, Michael thinks planning permission could be granted on pieces of land that might not ordinarily have received it, such as plots just outside settlement boundaries.

Although it remains to be seen how inspectors interpret the Self-Build and Custom House Building Act, Michael says, “We expect it to have weight in those planning decisions.”

Local authorities are being given support to meet demand

Michael says there’s a great deal of understanding and interest in custom and self-builds on the part of local authorities, but what they lack is expertise.

The Right to Build Taskforce will play an important role through the Right to Build Toolkit, sharing ideas and policies that will help individual authorities bring forward land. Solutions include working with developers or housing associations to make custom and self-build part of their housing mix or even local authorities creating serviced plots themselves.

NaCSBA are working to ensure serviced plots, builders, custom build providers and finance products are all in place. In addition, Michael explains they are working with the UK government and those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to boost house building.

“It’s about democratising house building,” says Michael. “It’s about putting people in charge of house building to meet their own needs.”

Find out more

Visit the website of NaCSBA

Visit the Right To Build portal

Follow NaCSBA on Twitter

Transcript

Download a transcript of the interview with Michael Holmes

Please connect with me
- Subscribe, rate and review the podcast in iTunes
- Rate and review the podcast on Stitcher
- Like our Facebook page
- Follow us on Twitter
September 29, 2017
HPH129 : Setting up a cohousing scheme – with Chris Wilson from K1
Chris Wilson explains what has been involved in setting up the K1 cohousing scheme in Cambridge.

Interview with Chris Wilson

Chris first became aware of the potential cohousing scheme in 2012 after seeing information on the Cambridge City Council website.

He had worked for a consensus based non-profit company and knew of people who happily resided in another cohousing group, and so after attending the initial meeting he decided to get involved. Being part of a wider community and having a safe environment in which his kids could grow up were among the key benefits.

Chris has since been elected Chair of the group and is also a director of the Limited Company that has been set up to oversee the financial matters.

©Town

The land is owned by Cambridge City Council

The land allocated for the K1 scheme is part of the Orchard Park development in Cambridge and is owned by Cambridge City Council. Originally the site had been allocated to a developer, but when they pulled out, consultants who were working with the council encouraged them to use the site for a cohousing project instead.

They agreed that instead of using the marketing budget they’d had for selling the land to a commercial developer, they would use it to facilitate the formation of a cohousing group, and to find a developer to buy the land and build the houses on it.

The planning application has been approved for 42 houses on the site.

Consultants have been providing valuable support

Chris says they were lucky to have the council marketing budget to help get them started, together with the support of the two consultants who were working with the council.

In 2012 the consultants organised a series of workshops to help the group get to know each other and identify what they wanted to do. Together they produced a client brief setting out what the group wanted to use the site for, roughly how many houses there would be, what shared facilities they wanted and the layout of the site.

The design is almost complete

Cambridge Architectural Research created the first draft site layout which incorporated 37 houses, a common house and some shared parking and gardens.

After appointing TOWNhus as their developer and Mole as their architect, the designs were gradually honed through workshops and a consultation process.

The external appearance is fixed by the planning permission, and the internals are going through a detailed design process for the next 15 weeks. When that has been completed the order will be sent to Sweden for the structural panels to be made.

The client brief had wanted the houses to be built to the Passivhaus standard, however the TOWNhus system couldn’t provide Passivhaus at an affordable level to make it feasible. Instead they will be using their standard climate shield system which has high levels of insulation and energy efficiency at 75-80% better than building regulations.

They plan to have no gas on site but use renewable energy for heating, hot water and power. Food will also be grown in the gardens and a car club will be set up.

©Town

Ongoing maintenance costs are an important part of the budget

Lawyers are currently working on the lease and contract between the City Council, the developer and the cohousing group.

While the group is refining the budget for the build they are also considering the ongoing maintenance of the project and all its shared areas. This includes costs for consultancy, professional support, equipment for the common house and common areas, gardening and management.

Members are still being recruited

A Limited Company has been set up to manage the financial matters, for which any of the members can stand to be a director.

Members are encouraged to join at least one of the working groups which have delegated authority to make decisions and plan various aspects of the project. The working groups include Legal, Community, Membership and Publicity.

With 42 houses due to be on the site, the group currently have 25 members who have reserved places, and 21 members who are still considering it. The group are still actively recruiting to try and get as many of the 42 as they can.

Each of the members have invested a £250 non-refundable membership fee, and a refundable investment fee of between £1,000 and £5,000 into their company (CCL) which is used to pay for professional services. They anticipate the total amount all members will need to invest by the end will be between £2,500 and £5,000.

25 of the members have also paid a reservation fee of £1,000 to the developer. They expect to exchange contracts and pay a deposit of 10% later this year, which will be in the region of £25,000 and £40,000 depending on the house.

The slow pace of the project has led to some members pulling out

The group have worked hard to maintain a variety of unit types and prices and they hope to attract people with a range of skills and abilities. Attracting members has been challenging and the lengthy timescales of the project have meant that valued members of the community have dropped out because they needed a house sooner than the scheme could provide.

Chris explains that people are the most important resource. A cohousing project needs people who are enthusiastic, committed, flexible and motivated. There will be challenging times and difficult decisions to make, particularly when it comes to financial matters, but it is ultimately a very rewarding experience.

©Town

Transcript

Download the transcript of the interview with Chris Wilson.

Find out more

Visit the website of K1

Follow K1 on Twitter

Other links

UK Cohousing Network

The Hub update

This week we have produced a video walk-through to show you what The Hub is all about. You can check it out at houseplanninghelp.com/join

Please connect with me
- Subscribe, rate and review the podcast in iTunes
- Rate and review the podcast on Stitcher
- Like our Facebook page
- Follow us on Twitter
May 18, 2016
HPH086 : How to Visualise a New House – with Dylan Lamar from Green Hammer
Dylan Lamar from Green Hammer explains how design ideas are communicated in various different ways, from sketches drawn by hand to sophisticated computer models. He also shares the design process at Green Hammer, and how and why house plans evolve.

Interview with Dylan Lamar

Architect Dylan Lamar is one of the most experienced Passivhaus consultants in the United States. Whilst a grad student at the University of Illinois in 2003 he was taught for a term by Katrin Klingenberg, who is now the Director of the Passive House Institute US. It was at this point that he began to use the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) and he never looked back.

Dylan says: “I was really eager for something that was a good synthesis of sustainably oriented technical work with the design work of an architect and it was and has continued to be a perfect marriage for me in terms of my ambitions.”

The First Step of the Design Process is Establishing the Client’s Goals

The designers will work to find a middle ground between the client’s objectives, such as aesthetics and sustainability goals, and more general goals that are typical of a house, such as good daylight, comfort etc, to create a starting point in the design process. This would be done usually with a couple of interviews and a site visit, and result in some preliminary hand-sketched ideas.

An illustration of Ankeny Row Cohousing scheme

SketchUp is a Design Tool That Can be Used by Professionals and Non-Professionals Alike

SketchUp is free software that, if the client has an aptitude for geometry and 3D visualisation, can be a useful tool to enable them to create floor plans and basic 3D models. Because it is not one of the more sophisticated rendering software, it lends itself more to the novice user than other more advanced software like the Revit or ArchiCAD BIM (Building Information Modelling) platforms. BIM is an advanced and expensive software that gives a data point on every point of a building, which enables an experienced user to model it and produce it in a quantifiable schedule.

Ankeny Row was modelled in SketchUp

designPH has the Ability to Export Data from SketchUp into PHPP

Once the mass and detail of the building are modelled in SketchUp, a new plugin called designPH can be run to create a simplified version of the PHPP (Passive House Planning Package) analysis. This will give fairly basic results, however the information can be imported to populate the PHPP with the SketchUp data.

A Dream Client Will Have Clarity on What’s Important to Them

If the client has a strong idea of what they’re looking for and is honest about the budget they have, the project is likely to be a success.

Although in the first round of the design the costings will usually come out higher than the budget, discussions then can focus on whether the client wants to add more money or cut back the programme in order to design a Passivhaus that will fit the budget. One way simple way of bringing things back on track is to reduce the floor area of the project a little.

Creating the Final Design is an Iterative Process

Step 1: Often this begins with preliminary hand drawn floor plans that are intuitive for the designer and approachable for the client.

Step 2: These floor plans can then be created in SketchUp to render elevations and create massing models. Budget depending, interior modelling can also be done, but usually it’s just the exterior.

Step 3: A basic idea of the energy performance for the design can already be sensed, so when the client is happy with the design, designPH is run within SketchUp to give a basic energy analysis.

Step 4: The data is exported to PHPP where a detailed report of the energy analysis is generated.

Step 5: The clients will see a simplified version of the report, after which recommendations for improvements, perhaps window size or orientation, can be made.

Step 6: The steps might be repeated a couple of times following design changes and updating the energy model.

Step 7: A detailed cost analysis will be generated to show how much it is going to cost to build and this will be discussed at a review meeting with the client. At this stage if it is coming in over budget recommendations will be put forward to the client for ways of reducing costs without compromising on the quality of the house.

[Tweet “Dylan Lamar: “It can often be, with a talented designer, they can do more with less.””]

Goodspeed-Phillips exterior renovation

There are Multiple Reasons Why Plans Will Change Once On-Site

In a traditional process where the architects and builders are separate entities, there is an onerous process of legal documentation that needs to be provided for any changes.

For a design-build company the process is more fluid. At each stage the construction manager has been involved and lending valuable input so already has full knowledge of the building.

Changes to the design might be because a client changes their mind on something, a sub-contractor comes on board and with their specialist knowledge might suggest an alternative way of doing it, or there might be unexpected issues once digging on the site commences.

Find Out More

Green Hammer

Follow Green Hammer on Twitter

Transcript

Download a transcript of the interview with Dylan Lamar.

Please Connect With Me
- Subscribe, rate and review the podcast in iTunes
- Rate and review the podcast on Stitcher
- Like our Facebook page
- Follow us on Twitter
March 24, 2015
HPH057 : Low Impact Living Affordable Community (LILAC) – with Joe Atkinson

Joe Atkinson explains how the LILAC cohousing community came together and why their project is affordable for everyone.

Interview with Joe Atkinson

Around 2005, Joe got quite interested in fuel depletion and climate change. At the time, Joe had a nice job in IT and was getting paid well but felt that his life wasn’t very fulfilling. He was looking to get involved in something that would provide this fulfillment, and be in line with his ethics.

Eco-building Can be Really Simple

Joe did a Masters in Architecture at the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales, at Machynlleth which he found absolutely fascinating. Being a bit of a techie, he really liked the technical side of the course and the physics behind how buildings work. This got him really interested in eco-building and he feels that a lot of it is actually really simple and backed by common sense. Instead of constructing thermally leaky buildings, we should be building sensibly.

How Joe Got Involved in LILAC

Joe went to an event where some of the members of LILAC (it was previously known as Leeds Eco Village) had a stall and were trying to recruit new members. Joe was at a point in his life where he was looking for somewhere to live. LILAC appealed to him as it was community of people who were building eco-houses that he would be able to afford. It was a no-brainer for him from that perspective and he got involved.

Being on the Board

When Joe joined, the group was really keen to recruit people on to the board. As Joe is the kind of person who commits totally to something new that he gets excited about, he decided to join the board.

Being on the board meant taking legal and financial responsibility for the project collectively with the other board members. Once Joe joined, he found his own little niche as the person who is a good team-builder. The board at the time was populated by lots of people who were really dynamic and making stuff happen, and his supportive role on the board really helped things along and played to his strengths.

Making Community Decisions

The board needed to think about how the whole community functioned and to avoid a two tier decision making system between the board and non-board members of the community. To address this concern they had an away weekend where an external facilitator came in and they did a whole community visioning and strategic planning exercise. They discussed the whole community’s goals and looked at different options for how to get there. Smaller task teams were set up to look at particular aspects of the project such as their relationship with the existing community, recruiting members, publicity and so on.

Joe joined the group that was to liaise with the professional team- the quantity surveyor, the project manager and the main contractor. The group went through a tender process to appoint a contractor.

Developing a Relationship with Leeds City Council and the Existing Community

The group had been in discussions with the Asset Management Team at Leeds City Council about various sites around the city and looked at two that were very suitable. It took the group a while to develop a relationship with the Council because when they first approached them, they probably came across as a bit of a rag-tag bunch of optimistic, well-meaning do-gooders who wanted to build some eco-topia. It wasn’t until they came back to them with a project manager and a serious business plan that the Council started to really take them seriously as a credible group who they could sell the land to.

They ended up choosing the site in Bramley, where they did a community consultation with the local residents. The community really liked the idea of what they were trying to do which gave the group a really good feeling about choosing that site.

LILAC- (L)ow (I)mpact (L)iving, (A)ffordable, (C)ommunity

LILAC is an acronym and stands for three main elements- Low Impact Living, Affordable and Community. The Low Impact Living element comprises of buildings built using the fabric first approach, an airtight construction with mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and the use of renewable materials such as timber, straw bale, lime render and lime plaster and triple-glazed windows. There is solar PV on the roof and solar thermal for the houses but not for the flats. They have used the Passivhaus approach, and are not far off from it, but haven’t spent the extra money to get the accreditation. They also have fewer car parking spaces- there is half a car parking space per home and two secure bike parking spaces. They have also set up community agreements for lots of other different aspects like sub-letting agreements, the car policy and the installation of electric car charging points.

The LILAC Mutual Home Ownership Society

Joe explains how the affordability model of LILAC is achieved through their legal and financial structure which is called The Mutual Home Ownership Society. It is essentially a housing co-operative and it uses a new financing model unique to Britain, as each member is effectively buying shares in LILAC Mutual Home Ownership Society Limited.

The total project cost is divided proportionally between each of the twenty homes, with each home representing the notional build cost for each unit, e.g. where the four bedroom units are more expensive to build than the three, two and one bedroom units. The amount that people pay to live there is related to their earnings. So all the members pay thirty five percent of their net income and the amount that relates to determines the exact size of their home size.

Once the debt associated with your flat or house has been paid off, you drop down to just paying ten percent of your net income. At that point you’re just paying a small amount as a service charge or ground rent. If you had a normal leasehold, you’d always be paying a small amount for things like insurance and management fees, etc.

The group is decoupling the value of the homes from the housing market, and that’s intended to keep these homes affordable in perpetuity. So they will always have the same ratio to earnings. Living at LILAC isn’t about investing in property; it’s about creating affordable housing as a legacy of the project and about buying the service of a home. It’s about homes as shelter, not as a nest egg or an investment.

LILAC is about Creating Good Quality Affordable Housing

According to Joe the process has worked so far and they are keen to support other groups who are interested in this model. At LILAC, they are not creating social housing, but affordable good quality housing. Joe can’t imagine anywhere else where you can get to live in an eco-house with all this amazing community and it’s affordable and you get to own it. This is potentially a model for anyone who is excluded from home ownership for whatever reason.

They have an active waiting list and they are receiving new applications all the time. This gives the current members an added level of security. If a member were to lose their job and couldn’t afford to live there anymore, there’s a whole process that takes place before they have to move out. And if at the end of that process they still have to move out, there is a waiting list of people that already want to buy your shares and move in.

Membership by Consensus

Everyone who lives at LILAC- apart from a couple of the very early founders – has had to apply to join. Because the group operates a consensus decision making model, everyone in LILAC has the right to veto someone applying. When Joe’s partner moved in, she had to write an application too and there was a period when somebody could’ve voted against her moving in. She sailed through with flying colours, recounts Joe happily.

Living in Cohousing Comes with its Own Challenges

Joe feels that it has been quite interesting going through a process where you have to prove that you can afford to live at LILAC because the affordability model relies on everyone declaring their financial situation. Although they now have a finance task team who look at all the finances, previously applicants had to submit their application with their financial information to their future neighbours which could be quite uncomfortable.

Living in an intensive cohousing community requires you to adapt and change the way you think. It can be really nice and sociable, but at times overwhelming. One of the real strengths of the cohousing design is that you have got your own place and you can retreat to it if you need to. But when you’re ready to come out, you’ve got a whole community there waiting.

Everyone at LILAC has been very supportive and open minded and have a real willingness to learn about living in a community and to learn about themselves as well. Living in cohousing challenges you in ways that you might not expect- it is a bit different to living in a traditional street in Britain. Joe admits that there have been a lot of challenges so far and there are likely to be more in the future, but they look forward to them.

Find Out More

LILAC’s website

Transcript

Download a transcript of the interview with Joe Atkinson.

Please connect with us

Subscribe, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts

Follow Ben Adam-Smith on LinkedIn

Follow Ben Adam-Smith on Bluesky

June 11, 2014
Google+ Hangout Schedule for 2014
Our debate sessions are back for 2014 and we want YOU to be part of them.

We experimented with Google+ Hangouts last year and it turned out to be a great way to discuss some of the issues surrounding building a house or renovating an existing property. It was also an opportunity to see how approaches vary around the world and to share the best information.

Here’s an example of what it looks like (in case you’re not familiar with the concept of Google+ Hangouts):

Topics for 2014

1. What makes an aesthetically beautiful house? (Saturday, February 22 at 12.30pm GMT)

2. Why are more people not retrofitting (or weatherizing) their homes? (Friday, March 14 at 8.00pm GMT)

3. Getting value for money when buying land (Wednesday, April 2 at 8.00pm GMT+1)

4. Should my house be off-grid? (Saturday, April 26 at 5.00pm GMT+1)

5. Passivhaus principles or Passivhaus standard? (Friday, May 23 at 8.00pm GMT+1)

6. Getting a house through planning (Monday, June 30 at 8.00pm GMT+1)

7. Is the cohousing movement significant to self-builders? (Saturday, July 26 at 1.00pm GMT+1)

8. How is the internet changing house building? (Wednesday, August 20 at 8.00pm GMT+1)

9. How can you stick to your budget? (Sunday, September 28 at 7.00pm GMT+1)

10. Uniting the team on your build (Monday, October 20 at 8.30pm GMT+1)

11. Do I need renewables on my project? (Saturday, November 15 at 12.30pm GMT)

12. Self build advice from those that have been there done it (Friday, December 5 at 8.00pm GMT)

Although we’re booking some of the guests for each Google+ Hangout, we will leave the other half open to any of the House Planning Help community. On the whole we’ll also aim to have an even mix of a couple of self-builders and a couple of construction industry professionals.

You Need
- A computer with a webcam and access to the internet (preferably a high speed or fibre connection).
- To have a Google+ account (but this only takes a few minutes to set up if you don’t have one).
- Opinions! You don’t have to be an expert but you do have to be passionate about building a house (even if you are just beginning your journey).
Ideally you will also have an external mic to plug into your computer so the sound quality is as good as possible. We recommend the ATR2100 but the price does really vary according to which country you’re in.

Get Involved

If you would like to take part, please email us stating which event you would like to attend.

While we can’t guarantee that we can include you on a specific hangout, hopefully we can accommodate you in a future event.
February 6, 2014
Can You Retrofit Cohousing into an Existing Neighbourhood?

Would you like a stronger sense of community where you live?

How could you embrace the cohousing model and retrofit an existing neighbourhood?

This article is a case study of N Street Cohousing in Davis, California, where they did exactly this. Kevin Wolf, the co-founder shares some of the lessons they have learned.

N Street Cohousing Came Together Over a Number of Years

Initially Kevin Wolf lived in a co-op house. As such he would share dinners with the other housemates, share chores and do all the things that a family would do (as opposed to five separate people all living separate lives). They had clear rules of how they wanted to live together and Kevin says that it worked really well. After 4 or 5 years Kevin got married, and he and his wife decided to buy the property next door!

At that point they tore down the fences and two houses ended up being better than one. Soon one of the other neighbours wanted to join in and so the community grew. This type of growth continued for the next 15 years!

N Street Cohousing currently consists of about 21 houses on the block.

Houses Were Acquired on a Win Win Basis

The growth of N Street Cohousing was very natural but there was a certain amount of planning. They made it clear to neighbouring homeowners in the area that should they want to sell their houses, someone from N Street Cohousing would be interested in buying. Not only would this cut out a lot of the work around selling a house but it could also avoid engaging the services of a real estate agent and thus the savings from not having the 6% commission would be split between both parties.

Other Houses Were Leased

N Street Cohousing was in a neighbourhood where lots of absentee landlords owned properties. So where possible they also took over leases of neighbouring houses.

Absentee landlords were quick to figure out that they made very good tenants, who looked after the properties. As the cohousing community had the skills they eventually ended up managing a number of these houses, benefitting both landlords and tenants.

New Community Members Often Rent a Room First

One interesting aspect of N Street Cohousing is that there’s a flow between houses! Kevin Wolf explains: “Most people come into the community because people are renting rooms in their houses and they come into that house, but it ends up being that they have a partner, and then with the partner they end up having kids and then they want to move into their own house or buy their own house.”

For example, someone who has been part of N Street Cohousing for 10 years might have lived in three or four different houses.

So it provides an opportunity for those on lower incomes to be part of the community and gradually work their way towards renting or buying a house (as required).

You Can Retrofit a Cohousing Community Almost Anywhere But . . .

While a cohousing community could be retrofitted anywhere there are some factors that will make it work better. The right area ideally includes:

1. Houses where the kitchens or living rooms face the back yard

This goes back to standard cohousing design because people are more likely to interact in these rooms if they see other neighbours walking by. Having bedrooms at the back of the house would not be so good. So if you can have this element of design, whereby the key rooms such as the kitchen back onto a common space then this is preferable.

2. Good schools nearby

A lack of good schools nearby will deter people with families from moving in. They always want the best for their children and while they may be prepared to take poor housing, education is very important to them.

3. Low income rental properties

Choosing somewhere that is rundown and has lower income rental houses has benefits. In a high income area, people do not move very often and there are also fewer rental opportunities. A lower income area where there are more properties to rent means that the community can grow more quickly. Plus the houses can be fixed up and improved over time (getting the landlord on board). This also allows you to bring in people who are more idealistic but don’t have the money for expensive houses.

While renters may not live there very long, Kevin says they often make wonderful community members. Many graduate students from UC Davis have been part of N Street Cohousing.

The Common House Must Serve the Needs of the Growing Community

The common house is again a key component of cohousing design but, as with the rest of the community, it can grow at the same time. At N Street initially they ate round at each others’ houses, before taking over a garage for a couple of years and then finally adapting a larger house to suit their needs.

N Street Cohousing’s common house

Houses do Not Have to be Contiguous

The term ‘retrofit cohousing’ may not be a broad enough description of what is going on as it perhaps implies that all houses eventually need to be side by side. However, this does not always have to be the case and certainly won’t be that way while the community is growing. So the houses can be spread out across the street or even a block or two away.

Kevin says: “It can be a long time before you take over a block. It can be 10 to 20 years before you have all the houses on the block all together so in the meantime you might have houses that are non contiguous or they may be in the neighbourhood but they eventually maybe have one common house, that they have the shared tools in, they have shared meals in, they have their guest bedrooms in but it doesn’t have to be contiguous to everybody else’s house in the neighbourhood so it broadens the vision of what we’re really talking about.”

It’s almost neighbourhood cohousing.

Retrofitting Cohousing has Advantages over a Built Cohousing Community

Creating a built cohousing community where land is developed or where an old building is bought and retrofitted from scratch can be costly and difficult. Not only is it a time-consuming, multi-year process but in many desirable locations finding land is difficult and expensive.

So retrofitting a community can be less stressful and can just be about seizing the opportunities as they arise.

You Can’t Please Everyone

While it might seem like a cohousing community arrives one day and begins to take over an area, the reality is that there may be an influx of people who want to make that area better!

Kevin says how they were quick to become part of the Neighbourhood Association and help out in a variety of ways.

However, there will always be people who don’t want to get involved as Kevin explains: “In our community we have a neighbour who has lived there since the houses were built in the 1950s. She’s in her late 70s, 80s. She thinks we’re a bunch of hippies! She doesn’t want to take her fence down but we’re good neighbours to her. We talk to her. We’re one of the people that she talks to the most in the neighbourhood.”

We must say a big thank you to our friends at the UK Cohousing Network. Kevin was recently speaking at one of their events and caught up with us afterwards.

December 13, 2013
HPH028 : How Cohousing Helps Build a Community – with Mark Westcombe from Lancaster Cohousing
Mark Westcombe, one of the founding members of Lancaster Cohousing, explains the cohousing concept and why creating an intentional community like this has many benefits.

Interview with Mark Westcombe

Mark Westcombe is one of the founders of Lancaster Cohousing, an intergenerational cohousing community where all the houses are build to Passivhaus standard. It started out as a group of friends who wanted to live together. As they made plans for how they could best live together a builder, who they had called in for advice, thought they were creating a cohousing project! Serendipity led to them to learn much more about the concept.

Everyone Has a Private Home But Also Benefits From Some Shared Facilities

Mark describes cohousing as a form of communal living. It is different from communes in that everyone has their own home – with a kitchen, living room, bathroom and bedrooms – but there are shared facilities on top of that. In the case of Lancaster Cohousing this includes things like a small village hall, guest rooms, a laundry facility, a children’s room and shared outdoor space.

Sharing Makes Sense and Saves Money

Having communal guest rooms, for example, means that the houses can be smaller, with smaller mortgages too. It is a much more efficient use of space.

The Design Facilitates Spontaneous Interaction Between Residents

The concept originated from Denmark in the 1960s. It optimises the design of the housing to encourage interaction while respecting those times when we desire privacy. For example, the Danes understood that when people were sitting in their living rooms they are less willing to converse than when they were in their kitchens. Therefore the kitchens abut the main pedestrianised street whereas the living rooms are located at the back of the houses. There are many other facets of the design that integrate opportunities for incidental interaction.

The Cul De Sac is a Safe Place for Kids to Play

There are no cars on site and the street really is given over to pedestrians and children. This creates a safe place, which is almost an outdoor room and somewhere that people can feel relaxed to chat. People can interact as much or as little as they choose.

The Village Hall is a Central Meeting Point

Residents come together to manage the community and the common room provides the perfect space for this. At Lancaster Cohousing, there are four shared meals a week. Mark says that he is on duty in the kitchen once a month.

Lancaster Cohousing Came To Fruition Over 7 Years

Mark tells the story of how he and four friends had been moving towards cohousing without even realising it. After reading more on the topic he considered how fractured society was becoming and that, living some distance from his own family, he had very little in the way of a support network. Amongst a cohousing community he could mix with both young and old, and gradually build up this social capital.

A Cohousing Development can be Funded in a Variety of Ways

Lancaster Cohousing is a privately funded development but it is possible to have mixed tenure. The Threshold Centre in Dorset not only has privately funded homes but shared ownership houses (financed by Synergy housing association) and some fully rented accommodation. LILAC in Leeds have mutual home ownership, which means that the community owns all the property and you buy into the company that owns the property.

Housing Associations Are Becoming Increasingly Interested in Cohousing

Mark says that housing associations such as Hanover are working on mixed tenure projects and that recent UK government funding via Community Right to Build has meant that about £35,000 per community is available for supporting the business plan, doing some initial site design and getting to a point where a group could option a piece of land.

Financing Lancaster Cohousing Required Others to Buy into the Idea

Once committed, Mark and four others worked solidly for 6 months as a project team and put together a business plan and proposal. The land alone cost £600,000 and even with their combined resources, they needed other people to join them. So, they sold the concept to further households in order to pay the fees for architects, lawyers, accountants, etc. An entrepreneurial spirit was essential.

Careful Cash Flow Got Them to a Point Where a Bank Agreed on a Loan

After raising funds themselves they were able to finish some houses and then sell them to get money for the next phase of development. It also got to a point where a bank was willing to lend them £3 million.

The Early Adopters Take on More of the Risk

The cohousing community grows over time. Clearly the early joiners are the risk-takers but then the risks diminish as each phase is completed. Selling finished buildings is a much easier proposition than just the ideas. Mark had his life’s savings tied up in this project and he says that they came close to buying a £1 million plot just as the world economy collapsed. Luckily they were able to pull back with two weeks to go! If they had bought it, constructing the houses may not have been financially viable.

The Plot was an Opportunity

Lancaster Cohousing is located on the River Lune. The plot was up for redevelopment into 60 houses and a multi storey car park, but the company intending to carry out the work went bankrupt. So, the Lancaster Cohousing group quickly put in an offer for the 5-acre pencil thin site, which also had fantastic solar access to The South.

About 12 Architectural Practices Were Invited to Tender

After exploring a number of architectural practices that were either doing something ecological or social, they then invited a dozen to tender. From this, they made a shortlist of four architects and interviewed each of these architects for half a day. Mark says Eco Arc stood out a mile, because of their skills and experience. They also had won many awards for their work, they were very interested in cohousing and had lived in Findhorn Eco Village. Mark describes it as a ‘match made in heaven.’

Design Workshops Helped Make This a Collaborative Process

Eco Arc ran workshops with the group of 40 adults, suggesting ideas and listening to feedback. They would then return a couple of weeks later with new or revised designs and the group would have to come to a consensus. Although there are 41 houses, there are essentially four designs with no individualisation.

Building Small Houses is Best for the Environment

One of the easiest ways to lessen one’s impact on the environment is to keep homes down to a sensible size. Mark’s house with three bedrooms has a total floor area of 78m². It’s open plan and has very little wasted space such as corridors. Built to the Passivhaus standard there is only a need for one radiator in the house and this makes the rooms far more flexible (a bed can go up against any wall, for example).

Some of the Benefits of Living in a Passivhaus Include Having a Warm Bathroom at Night!

Mark describes the North West of England as being very damp and so having laundry that dries in 4 hours is ‘just incredible’. There’s also never any condensation on the windows of the house. He says it’s a delight to get up in the middle of the night and go into a warm bathroom! As the mechanical ventilation with heat recovery filters the air, he has noticed that his breathing is better and that he’s more sensitive to the smell of food and wine!

There’s No Vetting Process For Potential New Residents

If people want to buy a property they must go through an integration process, which gives them a clearer understanding of what they might be letting themselves in for! Mark says that there is no formal vetting process but if they really felt they needed to they could choose not to sell someone a house (but this has not happened yet).

People Have Relocated From Faraway to be Part of the Community

While some people have been drawn to the project because of the cohousing side of things, there are also those who have been attracted to it because they want to live in a Passivhaus. Quite a few people have moved big distances – from the north of Scotland and the south coast of England, for instance – to live like this.

Investing in Social Capital is Mark’s Pension Plan

Instead of investing in financial savings Mark is investing in social capital – getting to know people. The community helps each other and this positive power allows residents to live for longer independently. In isolated circumstances there might be one thing that trips you up and means you have to go into a care home. Research in Denmark and the United States has shown that the people who live in cohousing delay that process. So the average time that cohousers spend in nursing homes is two weeks of their lives!

Support Comes in Various Guises

Mark explains that when he was ill one of his neighbours noticed that he was not around and came to offer help. Kids can go to school together, chaperoned by only one parent. Communal meals provide welcome respite for busy workers and so on and so forth.

Cohousing is Awesome and Awful!

Mark laughs to himself as he says: “The best thing about cohousing is the people and the worst thing about cohousing is the people!” On the downside, Mark believes decision-making can be a bit of a challenge. There was also a lot of work involved in realising the £8 million project and managing it all in spare time. This took its toll on some people during the process.

The Cohousing Community is like a Family

Mark compares cohousing to having a baby. It might be hard to conceive. There’s a long pregnancy. There’s giving birth. There are the terrible twos and there’s teenage years. However, through all this you wouldn’t want to be without your family.

Cohousing has Grown Steadily in Denmark Since its Conception

Recently 10% of new build in Denmark was cohousing. That means that 2% of the population in Denmark now live in cohousing. Research carried out by the UK Cohousing Network indicates that about 50% of the population are interested in living in a context that is similar to cohousing, so there are definitely strong signs of growth.

The UK Needs More Developers Who Specialise in Cohousing

Mark says you need to be super-human to manage the process. The UK needs to follow countries like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and the US in having commercial developers and housing associations that understand cohousing.

Watch a Video on the Award-Winning Lancaster Cohousing

Ask Your Questions or Share Your Feedback
- Email feedback@houseplanninghelp.com
Thank You to Tanisha Raffiuddin for Letting us Use Her Photos

Follow Tanisha on Twitter

Transcript

Download a transcript of the interview with Mark Westcombe.

Ben’s eBook – the End of Year 1

Ben has now completed one year of research on what houses we should be building in the 21st century and wants to write an eBook about what he has learnt so far. Please help him research this project by answering 4 simple questions. Thank you.

This Week’s Question for the Show Notes

Can you imagine yourself living in a cohousing community? What would be the main draw for you?

Please Connect With Me
- Subscribe, rate and review the podcast in iTunes
- Like our Facebook page
- Follow us on Twitter
July 31, 2013