As you've probably gathered from other comments, my plan is to build a smallish off-grid house in the fairly near future. I had a plot in mind and was about to approach a possible builder when, last week, I found that the plot had been taken off the market for the time being. I haven't given up on it yet but other options are worth considering, too.

http://edavies.me.uk/2012/01/house-sketch/

There are some other plots in the vicinity (Tongue, Sutherland on the north coast of Scotland) which are also interesting. I'd previously dismissed them because of their slope and the hillside to the south east blocking the sun early in the day during the winter. Perhaps a rethink.

The plots are to the east of a north-south road. From the road the ground slopes upwards to the east at about 1:6 (it's 304 m according to OpenStreetMap from the 150 m contour on the road to the [xxx250xxx] 200 m contour). The views to the SW to the mountains and to the NW over a sea loch are fairly spectacular.

One advantage of this plot is that there'd likely be less objection to a wind turbine than at the one which has been taken off the market.

The problem, of course, is the slope. Houses further down the road are orientated along the slope but that, of course, means that they finish up facing west (or just a tiny bit south of that). With the sky to the SE partially blocked the optimum orientation for solar here would be facing somewhat west of south so pretty much across the slope. With the core house as I've sketched it in the link above being 16 to 18 m long keeping the east end above the water table (i.e., ground level) results in the west end being 3 m up in the air.

The whole objective here is to keep things as simple as possible to control the cost (I haven't a lot of money in the piggy bank and, though PV, etc, is getting rapidly cheaper it's not free yet). My though, therefore, with respect to this plot is “run away”.

Still, I'd be interested to hear the panel's thoughts before I do.

Ed,

I've produced many design concepts for houses for a 'nominal' site and while they've been good thought exercises none of them has ever been of any use for a real site.

I suggest that you start by taking accurate levels off the proposed site and making a drawing of the contours and any restrictive features.

Then take photos of the site from as many angles as is required to record what it and the surrounding area looks like.

Use the above as the starting point for a design concept that's specific to the site.

Don't get hung up on placing all or any of the solar panels on the roof. Some sideways thinking might come up with a better solution.

I'm quite attracted to the concept of building into a hillside. Look upon it as an opportunity to get creative.

Have fun.

Malcolm

Thanks chaps. Good points about detaching the panels from the house. Recent discussions about making more use of PV are relevant here as PV is a lot easier to connect slightly remotely.

In principle I like the idea of building into a hillside. Something like an Earthship (though maybe with less in the way of tyre pounding) was at one time my plan. However, it makes my rather nervous in such a wet area. Where I am now, on the other side of the hill from that plot, water was running across the surface in the back garden (the whole surface, not just a stream) as the little fall of snow we had in December melted. The drainage shown here was a really good idea:

http://edavies.me.uk/2011/05/solar-thermal-1/

The upside, though, is that you don't have to dig very far to reach something solid. The digger driver had to use his small bucket to get through the ground by the LPG tank. It's not "bedrock" as such but very compressed mixed up rock. I assume it's glacial deposits.

Some mapping with GPS and barometric logger (http://www.ewavionics.com/) is scheduled for next week whenever the weather is appropriate.

Walter Segal-type timber frame? Slope no problem - just give it long legs. Footings 'minimal' (depending on ground conditions) - just one pad per post.This is the rear 'undercroft to a Segal house in Sheffield.

We're also planning a build across an east to west slope and have decided to minimise the digging by having the floor levels step down to follow the ground levels, with a stairwell between the eastern and western sections going up half a floor at a time. (If this explanation isn't clear and you're interested, I'll try and work our how to post drawings).
It's a very different style of build, but going for some of the same aims, though we're using the wide southern aspect for lots of window (for direct solar gain, light and view out) and thinking of putting a solar membrane on the flat roofs with amorphous silicon cells (see axter.co.uk/solarpv13.html). Our architect is advising against the system as it will get dirty, but I still find it very appealing to have something that is part of the roof rather than bolted on, and supposed to be good in low, diffuse lighting conditions.

Segal legs was my first thought, too. With the winds to be had around here you'd want to be sure of the cross-bracing but that shouldn't be difficult. Boxing in would also be essential. I was thinking of a greenhouse - something amusing could be done there. Also a good place for rainwater storage tanks.

SteveZ's comment about tanking being hard to fix retrospectively is what scares me. If I dug into the hillside I think I'd much rather dig out a bit more and drain it thoroughly then build something Segal-like above the ground.

A house stepping down the slope would be visually attractive but more complicated, I think, from the point of view of avoiding cold-bridges and air leaks. I suspect that the only way to build decent quality cheaply is to keep things very simple (and small).

I was amused to notice an old croft-style house a bit further down on the opposite side of the road where the ridge line and eves slope nearly as much as the slope it's built on. The gable ends are vertical, of course. I must have a closer look at how it's tiled.

I mapped out the site area with my GPS yesterday afternoon. The actual plots aren't marked on the ground but I think they're about 30 m on a side. Quite big enough for a little house and garage but a bit disappointing in an area where there's so much space available if you want to scatter PV panels and wind turbines around.

I'm going to chew on this one for a while.

Posted By: qeiplSomething that I've thought of but never explored in detail is incorporating solar panels into a boundary that acts as a windbreak for a garden. Our prevailing winds are southerly, which is where we want to point the panels.

The first thing that occurs to me is that solar panels are a bit "solid" for windbreak use. The best windbreaks are ones that filter rather than block the wind.

PS. If you are interested in some willow slips I ought to be pollarding our windbreak sometime in the next few weeks (now they are established I just pollard 1-in-3 each year in rotation).

Posted By: qeiplMaybe 'wind barrier' is a better descriptor?

AIUI the problem with a solid barrier compared to leaky one is that it has a shorter shelter zone behind it, and where that shelter zone ends the eddies are stronger. A solid barrier can apparently lead to locally stronger winds than if there was no barrier at all.

So, I think there is probably a lot more to a well designed walled garden than just the wall? There are probably factors like the height of the wall relative to the distance to the other side (you'd not want the eddies caused by the wall 'landing' inside the garden?), and I'd not be surprised to find trees and shrubs around the outside of the wall to smooth the path of the wind up and over the garden?