So what you are saying is that cob infill timber frames are much easier to get planning permits for, than just a cob building?
Absolutely, in most cases, as this now becomes a non-focal point for many building officials as it no longer plays a critical role in holding the roof up or the building from falling down. This is now part of the insulation and/or thermal mass. Which brings us to the point of "good" (or perhaps a "slight of hand" magic trick) in the way we communicate with officials. I have witnessed folks go in with very adversarial language that basicly attacks or condescends to the officials with comments like, "....why can't I build this way...its better for the planet..." or "...I want to build with only natural materials, and nothing out of a store as much as I can..." Both of these can be huge red flags for officials and building councils. They may very well not understand, and/or fear that someone is "experimenting" with building something that is not safe, will draw down housing values in the community, and/or have other unknown ill effects. Some simply do not want to deal with being challenged or moving outside their comfort zones of understanding.
I have seen positive conversations with officials about "mass wall super insulated cellulose" wall infills for a timber frame and the added value to the community for such high end architectural forms. When the conversation, in the same community not a year before was, "what do you mean I can't build a straw bale house?"
Just a year later it was done. The difference? Language and approach to how the project is presented to the building professionals. I don't like many of these rules and regulations that are forced upon us, yet at the same time, as a professional design builder I am also really worried about many of the "self builder projects" and their very obvious lack of experience in designing and building sound structures. There are as many "experiments in architecture" being built out there in the world of cob, straw bale, earth bag, etc, etc, as there are actually good design in sustainable and enduring architecture. The later
should be the goal not the experiment...
Also remember, it is great to dream and plan for all manner of things, but when it all boils down to actually doing the work, don't get blinded by the "romance" of a building style.
I would conservatively state that more than half the "natural builds" I see going up are a matter of "romance" not a solid and well thought out choices in what is the best or least effort in a vernacular design for the location. If you have to ship clay, straw bales, or other resources thousands of miles to a build sight...it probably isn't the best choice. The least distance a material has to travel and be handled, the easier it will be to facilitate the build. So if you have stone, use stone, if you have earth use earth, yet at the same time balance this out with good solid structural design, the project's available skill sets, timelines of need, and other factors. If someone can take ten years to build something, it will in most cases be much better than someone the believes or needs to have a structure up in just 3 to 6 months.
Remember..."Often for the "self builder," fast building is money spent foolishly, and time taken to build puts money in the bank..."
so here goes:
1
