Buying an unconventional passive house

mbugsy18

Thanks all for your comments, it’s not overlooked and inner city views can be improved.

ProDave

I am a little surprised that it's a certified Passivehause, but only has an EPC rating of B, I would have expected that to be well up into A territory?

but it looks conventional enough so should not put off future buyers and you shouldhave cheap heating bills.

Section62

mbugsy18 said:

Thanks all for your comments, it’s not overlooked and inner city views can be improved.

I think you had it right in your first post.  There is nothing particularly wrong with the house, but the setting could be so much better. In a rural location, or even just a larger plot, it would be so much better.  As it is it feels like they have been crammed onto a small plot, without much regard to the neighbourhood.  That could be Ok in Camden or Islington, but I'm not sure it works in Ilford.

Another possible factor is whether the market for a passive house at the moment leans more towards people who take sustainability very seriously.  There are aspects of the design that don't look so sustainable to me, and personally I'd see the garden as the biggest issue.

If I took sustainability to the level where I paid a significant premium for a passive house then I would already be committed to other areas of sustainability such as growing my own fruit and vegetables.  The garden of this property doesn't look very large and appears very sterile (city centre-like.)  It would be Ok for growing a few tomatoes and lettuces, but personally I wouldn't see it as having the potential for a holistic sustainable lifestyle.

I wouldn't suggest that everyone buying a passive house is looking to emulate The Good Life, but the developers have possibly restricted their potential market by creating a passive house that won't appeal to a significant segment.  What impact that might have on the value and difficulty of future resale is hard to quantify.

It goes back to what you were saying about a rural location being better.

Section62

Alan2020 said:

Cast concrete with un galvanised rebar is the standard in many countries and literally withstand a bomb strike, however these countries get little rainfall. Build this in England and the house will crumble before your eyes. 

Unlikely and unlikely.

Reinforced concrete framing is standard in many countries where there is an earthquake risk and people are able to afford it.  Correctly specified and constructed RC is better able to withstand earthquake forces and less likely to disproportionately collapse than conventional masonry construction.  If it fails, it should do so 'gracefully' - either giving the occupants time to evacuate, or else remain standing long enough for them to walk (or climb) out after the event.  A bomb could easily flatten the same building. The forces involved are completely different in nature and scale.

Rebar is not galvanised in most places in the world, including the UK.  If the RC member has been correctly designed the concrete cover to the steel is sufficient to protect it from corrosion without the need for any other coating.

So long as the design and supervision was adequate, nobody buying a modern construction house in the UK should be concerned about it crumbling before their eyes.  And if the design and supervision was inadequate, then specifying galvanised rebar is unlikely to help them.

jimbo6977

We currently live in a "passive house" (as opposed to a "Passivhaus"). The EPC thing in this thread struck me because our house has a covenant restricting/forbidding the application of solar panels to the property, which make no sense whatsoever. 

The biggest difficulty we had was finding anyone with knowledge or experience of the ventilation system to work on it when it developed a fault. Ours is (or rather "was" because in the end it got replaced) a Dutch system that's seemingly little heard of in the UK. So I would check out whether you can find someone local who's competent and confident in working on all the enviro-gadgetry. 

mbugsy18

Jimbo6977- thanks for the advice. how much do you spend on utility bills?
I was told the MVHR system would need filters changed which the owner can do. And a 4 yearly maintenance of the system by the manufacturer. 

eve824

AdrianC said:

eve824 said:

Something doesn't add up to me. Passivhaus certified yet an EPC rating of 84?? I know EPC has its limitations but really?

Full EPC for it...
https://find-energy-certificate.digital.communities.gov.uk/energy-certificate/8381-7537-6120-5347-5922

Looks like the tickboxes that are dragging it down are...
Main heating - Room heaters, electric - Very poor
Hot water - Gas boiler/circulator - Average

Recommendations to take it to 92/A - solar HW and solar PV. Well, yep. Does seem a surprise there isn't some form of solar.

Now you know and I know that a proper passivhaus shouldn't need much heating, especially in a city... But did anybody tell the software?

I do know that the software can cope with highly energy efficient homes if the right inputs are entered, as the house we are building (in design stages) has had a prelim assessment at 95. I have heard of homes over 100 EPC which I believe are called PassivHaus Plus. I think if an EPC is done properly it is very useful. I have had a play on the software in the past and it's incredibly complex, so I imagine the EPC's for 'for sale' houses are done on a simplified version. I know to get our final rating for BC sign off it will cost several hundred pounds for the full assessment.

Probably in this case, a combination of a lazy EPC assessor and the vendor not caring. 

Section62

eve824 said:

Probably in this case, a combination of a lazy EPC assessor and the vendor not caring. 

The (named) EPC assessor appears to be linked with a small consultancy specialising in zero carbon and energy efficiency projects.

It would be unusual to go to the trouble of getting a notable architect involved in the design and yet not employ someone to produce the most favourable EPC possible.

macman

If I was the vendor, I'd have spent a few hundred tidying up the front aspect. Pic 2 in particular is about as dreary a view as you could have, it really puts me off. Similarly with the back garden, it's utterly without any character.
Other negative points: central Ilford is not without its problems. Yes, it's 5 mins from the Crossrail station (if it ever opens), but it's also very near both the North Circular, with it's attendant noise and pollution, and the permanently gridlocked Romford Rd. The shopping centre has suffered badly since Westfield opened at Stratford and is not likely to ever be fully occupied under present conditions.
Yes, Wanstead is overpriced, but it has the Central line, and the cachet of an E11 postcode, rather than an Essex one. It also has a lot of green spaces, and independent shops, which is more likely to appeal to the kind of buyer who goes for a eco-friendly property.
The other thing which the photos are clearly trying to obscure is that it's semi-detached along the long wall to the north-east, and I'm unclear as to how  an energy-efficient structure has been grafted onto what is presumably an old Edwardian or Victorian semi with which it shares a party wall?

JGB1955

Perhaps it's just me.. or perhaps I've missed something (wouldn't be the first time) but... you have offered £5K under asking price?  I would have started at 10% under asking price and then walked at 5% below.  You must REALLY love this house!