Following its 2019 first visit to Graven Hill, Grand Designs is once more sharing the self build adventures of some of those people building at the UK’s largest self-build and custom-build site, starting on Wednesday 13 April at 9.00pm.
This second series of Channel 4’s Grand Designs: The Streets (available on catch up) sees presenter Kevin McCloud tracking the builds of a cross section of residents as they work to create their very own, tailor-made homes at the site at Graven Hill, as well as other multi-plot sites elsewhere in the country.
Series two differs in format slightly from the first series, which tracked the first ten pioneer residents who broke ground at Graven Hill. This series aims to capture the spirit of community of those building on the self-build streets, and represents a real opportunity for the custom and self build sector to sell this model to the public.
Graven Hill is the brainchild of Cherwell District Council, which took on a former Ministry of Defence site in Bicester to create a 188-hectare development with a range of opportunities to give people more choice in the type of home they want to live in.
Grand Designs: The Streets showcases the opportunities at Graven Hill, where residents from a range of background create their ideal home, whether that be sleek angular constructions or modern interpretations of classic house types.
Kevin McCloud, presenter of Grand Designs: The Streets, said: “Building your own home takes imagination and endeavour, as well as boundless perseverance. Here at Graven Hill, ambition and creativity has resulted in these wondrous homes enjoyed by all who live in them.”
Karen Curtin, managing director of Graven Hill said: “We are so excited to welcome Kevin and Channel 4 back to Graven Hill. Grand Designs: The Streets is the perfect opportunity to show just how far the development has come since the initial experiment with the ten pioneer plots.
“In the first series, we were lucky enough to celebrate a milestone for the UK house building industry by promoting self-build at scale, and this time we are able to showcase more self-build journeys and the development at 400 occupations.
“We have learned a lot over the last few years, diversified our product range and are proud of the community that has evolved. The show provides a platform for us to show exactly what is possible at Graven Hill and highlight that people from all walks of life can build or create the house of their dreams.”
Stellco Homes has announced a new site in Cambridge, with a choice of five detached plots for custom builders in the village of Haslingfield.
Having operated as a housebuilder for over 20 years, Stellco Homes has diversified into custom build, with customers buying a plot at Haslingfield able to design their own home prior to Stellco obtaining planning permission.
Once achieved, Stellco will then go on to build your home for you – to your specification, removing much of the stress from the process.
The five plots come with preliminary designs (one shown above) that make the most of each plot’s size and orientation. Customers then discuss options with Stellco, configuring internal layouts, external features and fixtures and fittings. Initial designs for the homes run from around 1,957 to 2,850 sq ft. To find out more email Stellco or call 07976 210 875.
Angelo Baccarella of Stellco Homes said, “Most people don’t understand the difference between self-build and custom build and are not aware that they can have all the benefits of self-build and more by opting for custom build. I believe we are amongst the few companies offering this service for people who aspire to build their own home but lack the time and skill to do so and find a suitable plot.”
We’re following the story of Anne, mother of six boys who is building a home for her family and one for the grandparents on the same site. They used the Right to Build to help them escape the private rental sector, acting as pioneers for the legislation, which even the council was unsure about at the time.
A quick recap:
We had secured a meeting with the Bishop to pitch the idea of a community housing scheme on the combined council and church site and developed a prospectus with an idea about what affordability might look like (blog 9).
The long awaited meeting seemed to hold in balance the future of the site. It turned out the Bishop of Edmonton was also a trustee of the church’s Housing Justice group.
The gathering also included the Archdeacon of Hampstead (Archdeacons tend to be the person on the clerical side who make decisions about property matters), our vicar Father Edd and also the property Development Manager, who I’d not met face to face before.
Peter presented our pitch, which had at its core the idea of the church not selling the land (see Blog 8 & Blog 9). This naturally led to a debate about needs and priorities, as helping middle income families is a harder ‘sell’ than helping the homeless.
We argued that quite a lot of support from both state and charity sectors are targeted at those in more obvious need. But beyond this there are many ordinary families who fall outside the remit of state support and who are priced out of their own local communities by the housing market.
During the chat there was an acknowledgement of this need and the loss of local families, but the point was stressed that the Church does have programmes to help the most obviously needy.
This led Father Edd to mention Almshouses, something we knew little about but they do make an interesting example. Since Medieval times, certain philanthropic individuals who had made good in the city would endow a few cottages for ‘poore widowes’ of their parish.
Here in Barnet there are several examples, such as Ravenscroft and Wilbraham, and in 1931 Sir Thomas Lipton, the tea magnate, left his 60 acre estate as a hostel for retired nurses.
Originally all hospitals were almshouses, so the unification of health and social care is not a new idea! They were also a branch of the church and some had chapels to pray for the soul of the benefactor, and so got hoovered up by Henry VIII under the dissolution of the monasteries.
But many are still going strong, and there are now 2,600 almshouse charities housing 36,000 people in need. A maintenance contribution is charged well below market rent – often less than 50% – and ‘poor’ is now translated as ‘eligible for housing benefit’. Therefore, two thirds of the residents have the rent fully- or part- funded by the state.
To return to our case, we argued that the challenge was to build sustainable mixed communities where families would not be driven away from their local roots by inflated house prices.
This could include professions such as teachers, nurses or artists, who may not be otherwise ‘needy’ but, conversely, may have a lot to give to the local community and parish.
This was a question of economic justice that the Archbishop recognised in his campaign ‘Reimagining Britain’ [Blog 8].
Our proposed affordability model was explored seriously. Concerns were raised over the nature of long term land leases, particularly in light of the government’s intention to ban them.
This had been rumbling since 2017 and the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 2021-22 is at report stage now (Jan 24th 2022), which restricts ground rents to a peppercorn for newly created long lease houses and flats. However, Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are exempt.
There were other concerns. The development manager expressed caution for the scale of the task of trying to build a new legal prototype alongside a small developmental project.
The questions kept on coming: Who would manage such a project – would we take this on? (Yes) Who would live there? What would be the governance model? What happens when tenants want to move – how can they pass on the house? Does it delay them getting ‘a foot on the ladder’?
This led to the issue of whether it would be more of a headache for the church than just the simple transaction of selling off the land now and using the money for mission purposes, fixing church roofs, insulating old vicarages, etc.
This was the current Diocesan policy to maximise income from property to fund mission and could be as simple as paying clergy’s stipends in deprived areas.
This was a bit of a lightbulb moment. Any piece of land or territory – from a nation down to a single dwelling – must be governed, and difficult decisions made about who gets to live there. Government and land go together and maybe land reformers overlook how thorny this can be.
Even Almshouses have that challenge. Often those in housing need have additional needs requiring specialist help. So finding eligible ‘poor’ may not be easy so there is the risk it descends to those who are not as poor as intended or friends of the warden. Another example is that Almshouses allowing younger people – that are typically meant to be for shorter term help – can find difficulties moving them on once they are settled.
These charities need help to ‘navigate all the legislation’ according to the Almshouse Association another charity set up for that purpose and itself supported by AgeUK and the Elderly Accommodation Council – more charities.
For the same sorts of reasons 50 acres of Lipton’s estate were sold to fund modifications to the house to suit it for the nurses in 1935 and the remaining house and estate sold in 2015 by its trustee Friends of the Elderly. It is now a luxury private development by Yogo Group.
The discussion was sincere, intelligent and lengthy. We had not quite got our pitch ‘over the line’ but it was positive. There was an acknowledgement of a need to shift Diocesan policy and understand housing as primary mission material in and of itself.
In terms of the practical application for this piece of land the time was not right. There were too many unanswered questions and the land in question had already been allocated to be sold to fund mission.
The conclusion was that we were offered two possibilities:
We left the meeting a little crestfallen. We had failed to persuade the church to look at an idea of affordable housing on the site and how could we finance the purchase?
However, a new dawn shed a new perspective on the offers. There was potential in both the offers and, although challenging, maybe we could rise to meet them.
We would have to speak with investors if we were to develop both sites and, although they may be more profit-motivated which might erode our affordability and community-building aims, there might be a way to preserve them in some form.
We resolved to say yes to this offer. As for the second offer we doubted our capacity to explore these issues alongside our temporal duties however it was a challenge and full of potential so we resolved to say yes to this too.
Read the other parts of the Self Build Family Build Blog.
Part One: Deciding to Self Build, the Turning Point
Part Two: Looking for Land in London
Part Three: The Land Value Idea
Part Four: A Small Matter of Access
Part Five: The Mystery of the Road Unravelled
Part Seven: Best Consideration Pursuing our Community Building Idea
Part Eight: Calling on Higher Parts
Part Nine: The Affordability Question
Photo: printed with permission of Fiona Hanson 2020©
Roads and services have gone in in the innovative 12 home custom build Pound Lane site in Laindon, Essex, with plots available to buy now.
Located near to Basildon, the site is in a wooded setting, with links to Fenchurch St Station in London taking just 35 minutes, making it a fantastic choice for commuters. The homes come with private gardens and a communal garden, with an optional on-plot garage.
Buyers can choose the layout, size and fit out of their home, working to one of the three pre-designed home types, as specified in the planning permission. Each design is linked to one of the plots in the planning permission (see colour coding on plan below), so buying early ensures you have the widest choice of optoins. There are two house sizes on offer, and prices start from £445,000.
For example, Plot 6 with its S6 House design costs £235,000 for the 5,931 sqft plot, and the build price should be between £210,000 to £350,000 depending on your route and specification.
Buyers can choose two routes to ownership –
A la Carte Design – with this route you work with a Customer Coach to go through a series of choices based on a palette of materials and layouts, which are already costed out to make the process transparent when working with budgets.
DIY Design – this gives you far more freedom when it comes to designing the layout and specification, with only the position of the stairwells and utility risers being fixed. Buyers buy the weather-proof shell and can then take the house through to completion. The Customer Coach is available to support people through this process.
The project is unusual in that it is a collaboration between a team of companies, including architects, AOC, Mae and Pitman Tozer and custom build enabler Unboxed Homes
Unboxed Homes has recently completed a terrace of custom build homes in Peckham, London, Blenheim Grove, and is working on a group custom build scheme in London.
We’re following the story of Anne, mother of six boys who is building a home for her family and one for the grandparents on the same site. They used the Right to Build to help them escape the private rental sector, acting as pioneers for the legislation, which even the council was unsure about at the time.
A quick recap:
Edged out by a new discourse between church and state, we tried to counter the market intentions of the Church’s property dept with community ideas, which secured an appointment to make a pitch to the Bishop of Edmonton. Meanwhile, we tried to reach someone in the council who might share a similar vision for Community Housing.
Having secured a meeting with the Bishop it seemed pragmatic to try and get support from Enfield Council so that any proposal using the combined church and council land would carry more weight.
While looking for supportive policy we stumbled across a document “Custom & Self Build in Enfield” (now removed, but see this meeting), which put forward a strategy for delivering custom and self build homes on small-scale council-owned sites. Based on a leasehold model, it reduced upfront costs for purchasers in return for long- term ground rental income for the council.
It seemed perfect – the ideas were very much in tune with parts of what we had been proposing (See Part Three: The Land Value Idea) but much more developed in terms of implementation. The report hoped its pioneering lead might encourage other public landowners to follow.
The report was by the Regeneration department at Enfield Council and its leader was Peter George, who in the words of ‘Naked House’ (Blog 7) was a forward thinking man, looking at innovative ways to solve the housing crisis. The Naked House idea put forward a plan as an alternative custom building service provider trying genuinely to provide affordable homes on a not-for-profit basis.
We thought we could position ourselves as the ‘self build’ service provider with a similar offering. Unfortunately getting to meet or even speak to Mr George was a challenge that even my persistent efforts failed to achieve. I was passed from one department to another until I ended up back to square one at the door of the property disposals manager!
We reconnected with Naked House and found we both had two major challenges:
We based our workings on the following:
Worked out in this way, the land proposition would be a good deal for the local Treasury, as it promised to recover the sale value of the land in a roughly 20 year period, and then would continue to deliver non-tax revenue to the local authority for the long term.
However, it is no longer affordable for the families if, on top of the mortgage, they have to pay 5% of £150k = £7,500 per year (or £625 month). We felt that this additional cost meant that 5% was clearly too high.
There is a similar scheme in Canberra, Australia, which was founded on Garden City principles. There the government land rent scheme was 4% with a discounted rate of 2% for families on low to middle incomes. The Government land rent is calculated on the unimproved value of land and lessees are required to construct a house on the land within two years of the lease being granted. So 2% is probably the level that Naked House would need and they subsequently were looking at that sort of level in the interest of affordability.
We hoped we could deliver affordable housing at 75% market price. 80% market price was the magic number picked by the Coalition government as a definition of ‘affordable housing’, although this still unaffordable to many families.
This would be achieved in three ways:
Our prospectus was coming together! We were ready to offer the church a ‘fresh revolution in housing’, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury had called for, one that was values led and offered a vision of better affordability.
Read the other parts of the Self Build Family Build Blog.
Part One: Deciding to Self Build, the Turning Point
Part Two: Looking for Land in London
Part Three: The Land Value Idea
Part Four: A Small Matter of Access
Part Five: The Mystery of the Road Unravelled
Part Seven: Best Consideration Pursuing our Community Building Idea
Part Eight: Calling on Higher Parts
Photo: printed with permission of Fiona Hanson 2020©