MaxComfort Cohousing project
From The Star And Shadow Cinema Wiki
1. How we got started
In 2000, David Michael successfully negotiated to buy 2 acres of land close to the centre of Stroud and on a steep, south-facing slope. He put down £150,000 returnable deposit from his own funds and began to spread the word about the project. By the Autumn of 2000 he had attracted some ten households, all of whom purchased 5,000 £1 shares in the Company intending to buy the land and chose which house type they were going to purchase. The choice was 5, 4 or 3 bed houses, and 1 and 2 bed flats. At the last minute the vendors asked us to go to sealed bids and we ended up paying £550,000 for the site. We exchanged contracts but David negotiated a long period to completion, which gave us time to gather the funds for the site purchase.
The legal structure of Springhill Co-housing is simple and based on a well-established model. On purchasing their 5,000 shares, each household nominated one of their number to be a Director of the freehold-owning Company – the Cohousing Company Limited. Houses and flats are owned by individual households on a leasehold basis – with 999 year leases. In this way we are able to balance the needs of the freeholder and the leaseholders.
2. Working with Professionals
We instructed Architype and Pat Borer – architects – to help us draw up plans for the site. A Quantity Surveyor – DRA in Bristol – was appointed, together with Structural Engineers and Environmental Consultants. As a group we worked with the architects through a series of meetings and eventually came up with an agreed layout for the site. One of the key issues was the position of the Common House relative to the entrance and the houses and flats; we decided we wanted it to be in the centre of the community. In this way, since it was to be on three stories and have a lift, it would also serve as a way of getting from the bottom of the site to the top. At this time we were able to purchase a row of garages next to the site which meant fewer cars actually on the site. We also decided to introduce a new element: studio flats. These would be built above the car ports on the periphery of the site.
3. Paying for the Site
Meanwhile David had worked out a system of “plot” purchase and everyone paid according to the size of their dwelling. Plots for five bed houses cost £36,000, for 1 bed flats £18,000. As by this time nearly all the houses and flats had been “sold”, we had enough money from the plot sales to pay David back, complete the site purchase (early!) and create a fund to pay the professionals.
4. Planning Fun & Games
In the Spring of 2001 we submitted a planning application. This was widely supported locally by the Town Council, the Chamber of Commerce and others, although some of our near neighbours objected; they had got used to walking their dogs on the land and used it as a route through to the centre of town.
Despite the planning officers’ recommendation that it be approved, our application was turned down through the activities of a group of Conservative and Independent District Councillors who, we suspect, were concerned about an influx of “alternative types” in an otherwise conservative ward. One Councillor was quoted as saying “this is dead weirdy – they want to eat together!”
Of course we appealed and simultaneously submitted another application which addressed some of the reasons for refusal which the planning officers had had to dream up in order to justify what was a purely political refusal. In the late Summer of 2001 we got our permission.
5. Detailed planning of our Homes
Meanwhile we had worked together to design our homes, as the planning application drawings had been notional only, although overall sizes of units had been agreed at the outset. In groups of 5 bed, 4 bed and 3 bed householders, we designed a generic for each house type which the architects then refined and gave back to us, with clear indications as to which walls we could leave out or change, and those we most definitely could not. At this point each individual household “played” with their house plans and, as a result, all houses and flats are slightly different in layout.
6. Eco credentials
At this point also, we were keen to include as many environmentally friendly design elements as possible. We looked at recycling grey water, considered a centralised heating system, rejected reed bed on grounds of space, and applied successfully to the DTI for a £320,000 grant for photovoltaics on the roofs of the houses. We decided against grey water on grounds of cost, but went for Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) which replicates the way rainwater naturally drains into the soil, rather than – as with typical Wates Housing - being rushed off the site through culverts and drains. We also agreed on high levels of insulation (150mm Warmcell) and triple glazing. The houses have the option to install solar panels on the roofs if they wish. In this way we are modest if not deep green.
7. Paying for our Homes
We had assumed that those of us who needed to raise a mortgage to pay for our homes would get a Self-Build one, where the money is released in stages against the architect’s certification. However, we discovered that these mortgages are only available for freehold properties, not leasehold. At this point, nothing daunted, David embarked on negotiations with Triodos Bank for a commercial loan to cover the cost of the buildings. As each of us took ownership of our homes, we would pay in full and thus the Triodos debt would be paid off when the last house was occupied. Although Triodos has an excellent reputation and is a genuinely ethical bank, we found them very difficult to deal with; there were always more questions and time dragged on. In desperation, we turned to the Co-operative Bank who could not have been more helpful. In what seemed like quite a short time, we had a facility of £3.8M, again to be paid off as the homes were taken over by the residents.
8. Getting it all Built
Our next great hurdle was finding a builder. We had considered the traditional contractual relationship – tendering to a set of drawings and a Bill of Quantities – and rejected it as being potentially too conflictive. Past experience shows that, in the rush to win the tender, contractors sometimes go in low on the assumption that they can pick holes in the contract and increase its value to regain their profit margin. Often, whole teams of lawyers will actually move onto the site to be ready to challenge the professional team on contractual matters. This obviously can lead to an unpleasant and confrontational atmosphere and to mistakes and claims for increases.
Instead we decided to go for a new-ish contract model, Partnering, where a selected contractor joins the design team with his skills and experience. Once everyone is satisfied that the project has been thoroughly thought through and designed, the contractor agrees a target cost for the build and is appointed as the contractor for the job. Should the final cost be lower than the target cost, the saving is shared 50:50 between the Client and the Contractor. If higher, the increase is shared 50:50 as well, up to 105%. Thereafter, the Contractor absorbs the increase.
We went through an elaborate selection process, interviewed a number of contractors and selected one, based in Bristol, who we and our professional advisors thought was of a size to take on our project. We worked with them over about three months, developing the designs, until one morning, their MD advised us that they had changed their minds: they were not going to do Partnering with us. This was a blow and of course at this stage there was no legal obligation either way.
Since our professionals had done a great deal of the design work by now we thought it might be safe to go for a Design:Build contract, where the contractor takes all the financial risk and – theoretically – delivers on time. Traditionally this is used for large industrial shed developments and other situations where quality is not paramount and individuality of design is not an issue. For these reasons we had rejected it earlier. But now, faced with a real problem, we decided to see if this route could be the one to get our homes built. Most of the design decisions had been made and we felt we needed cost certainty. Bear in mind, we had at one point thought that we might move in at Christmas 2001!
Given that we expected to pay something like £4M maximum for the build, including all the roads, paths and other features, we were flabbergasted – having gone through yet another selection process - to receive two bids of £6.8M and £7.2M. It was now that we realised that our project had been black-balled. The word had gone round: “Don’t touch this with a barge pole!” Contractors were interested only in nice flat and easily accessible sites, simple “noddy boxes”, and a traditional developer client they could understand; our steep and difficult site, our very unusual homes and the fact that we were a multi-headed and “whacky” client put us out in the pale. What we had not realised and what our professionals did not tell us was that there was a very over-heated market out there, with everyone trying to build as many basic homes as they could before the bubble burst.
At this point we held a meeting to discuss our options: try again to find a contractor, try to raise the £6M, or sell the site and give up. Immediately after the meeting, David telephoned a contractor who, a year earlier, had expressed interest in the project but had been too busy then to consider it. Now, he was interested in tendering. We negotiated with him and we signed a Management Contract. This essentially means that the contractor builds as efficiently as he can and we pay what it costs plus a mark up for him. There is some cost control through the professional team but a certain amount of trust is involved. With John Hodson Builders we felt we could invest that trust. Besides, estimates showed a likely build cost of £4.6M.
9. What it Cost
We had originally been advised that we should budget for a cost of £70 per square foot, to include the fees, the common parts, the infrastructure but not the Common House. This had its own budget as we had all additionally contributed £6,000 towards it - £3,000 in the case of the studios. In August 2002, work started on site and what had been a jungle of teazles, blackberries and assorted less savoury items was transformed into a semi-lunar landscape of shaped mud. We held a ground-breaking ceremony on the site with games for the children and a bonfire, and it felt very exciting, very grown up and rather scary!
As the build progressed it became very clear that our rather naïve assumptions of £70/ft² were going to be far exceeded. Already in 2002 we were talking about £85/£90/ft² and, since we had all contracted to pay for the build of our homes whatever the cost, we went through some very worrying times. Some of us had to dig deeper, to abandon ideas of income from savings, to sell other properties; some left. The final cost was £120/ft², a 71% increase.
In addition, we had wanted for us all to move into our homes at the same time and for the Common House to be ready as well. Because of the difficult site and the dictates of cashflow, we moved into our homes in phases, the first lot taking possession in September 2003. This meant that the first wave of co-housers lived for over a year with a very muddy building site literally feet from their front doors (which they weren’t allowed to use for safety reasons). It also meant that we never had to draw down the entire Co-op Bank facility because the first completions reduced the debt. During this period we all shared the cost of servicing the Co-op loan through monthly payments; these worked out at around £300/month for the 5 bed houses, less for smaller units and even less if the owner had put their capital in already.
10. Delays and More Delays
At the start of the work on site, we were told to expect a year’s build programme. However, it soon became clear that this was unrealistic as delays became a regular feature of the build. The first major delay was the windows, supplied by The Swedish Window Company, an organisation I would never recommend despite having good products. A culture of delay set in and the build was only “completed” in April 2005, a build programme of over 2½ years. The Common House, which we had wanted to be available from the outset, was completed last. Some of us think that this is because the contractor didn’t believe we had the money for it and deliberately left it ‘til last as an expendable item.
We now have a situation where there are still a large number of outstanding bits of remedial and other work to be done by the builder – called “snags”. There is very little movement on these at the moment and it is causing considerable frustration, bearing in mind some of these items have been waiting attention for 2 years.
11. Meetings, Meetings
Decisions are made at monthly meetings of Directors and, since moving onto site, a Residents Association. There are also numerous sub-groups such as Common House Kitchen Group, Gardens Group, Maintenance Group and a Pets Committee. The Leases state that residents have to abide by rules made from time to time by the Residents Association, and so far these include cooking and eating only vegetarian food in the Common House and establishing a Disputes Committee. The Pets Committee has the task of monitoring the Cat Quota – currently 20 – and personally interviewing any proposed dogs. People, it should be noted, self-select; there is no screening process.
Decisions are made almost exclusively by consensus; when this fails a simple majority vote (70%) is held. Email exchange forms an important part of debate in Springhill. Nearly everyone is connected and it is rare to have less than 10 emails every day on various subjects, from organising 5-a-side football to issues around parking. As a group we have sometimes had to make quite fundamental decisions with very little notice and often with minimal information to go on. This was particularly true of specification decisions during the build, but the group rose to the challenge and turned the requests round very quickly indeed.
It is the intention of the Cohousing Company to sell the freehold asset to a new Company – Springhill Cohousing Company, at which point the initial investment of £5,000 in shares will be partly or wholly repaid. As with the present arrangement, each household will have one share and also field a member to be a Director of the new Company.
12. I want Out!
The exit strategy is straightforward. Anyone wishing to sell their home either obtains an independent, external valuation or simply chooses the figure they want, and then informs the Cohousing Company of their intention to sell. The Company then has 28 days to nominate someone to make an offer to purchase. If no offer is forthcoming from this source, the vendor can then put the property on the open market at the same price. The seller is not obliged to sell to a Cohousing Company nominee but to date most people have preferred to pass their homes onto other co-housers who are scaling up or down. Once the seller has notified the Cohousing Company of the price, it can only be lowered by 10%, otherwise the 4 week notice period is repeated.
A number of people have rented their homes and, while we expect and welcome the tenants’ full participation in all Springhill activities, most people are happier for the owners to be in residence.
13. The Common House
The three storey Common House is yet to be fully fitted out internally, but is gradually being decorated. The top floor kitchen is now fitted and meals are offered 3 nights a week at £2.50 for adults and £1.50 for children under 11. Everyone is on a 4 person cooking team at least once a month. Cooking is required, easting is optional.
Currently, there is some debate as to whether we should make the facilities of the Common House – particularly the fine first floor space – available to local groups or – as stated in David’s original flier for the project – it should only be used by residents as “an extension of their living room”. Watch this space.
14. Visitors
Another issue under discussion at the moment is visits. Increasingly, we get people who turn up wanting to be shown round. As most of us are busy earning the money to pay for our much higher than expected mortgages, we can’t always respond immediately. Those who email or phone first are assured of a warm welcome – on an agreed date – providing they don’t expect to bring an entire bus load around our homes. We will probably have Open Days soon, when visitors get an official tour, see some of the homes, enjoy tea in the Common House and are encouraged to ask questions.
15. Residents Profile
In Autumn 2005 we were 75 souls (give or take the odd visitor) of which 25 were under 18. We live in 32 households comprising 20 houses, 7 flats and 4 studio/maisonette units.
If you are interested in visiting and/or living at Springhill, please visit our website on:
http://www.users.waitrose.com/~ecnf/springhill/properties.html
or, for background information, the original website at http://www.cohouses.net (now of historical interest only). There is a waiting list for houses and flats but homes do become available from time to time and will be offered on a first come, first served basis.
This is a personal recollection of how Springhill Cohousing developed. I have been with it from June 2000, through thick and thin, and my account may be influenced by how I experienced the excitements, triumphs and frustrations of the last five years. Nevertheless I hope it is as accurate an account as is possible in the circumstances. Please ask other Springhill residents for their take on it.
Max Comfort, September 2005.
