Hello! We were lucky to be able to reserve a plot of land that really appeals to us again. Unfortunately, the soil survey we commissioned revealed peat in the ground. Since the peat is not that deep, the potential general contractor suggested that soil replacement might be the most financially attractive option for a safe and stable foundation.
Oh, you again... do you search for plots with a dowsing rod or why do you always somehow have watery soil problems? I really dislike reading about a "potential general contractor" so early on; better look for builders after the planning stage. And not following the trail of all-inclusive price promises either.
Actually, I would be inclined to say tough luck, peat in the soil means expensive, let's look for another plot. That's what we did the last few weeks, we are on every waiting list we found, we have looked at various plots and the search area with "Schleswig-Holstein" wasn't really small. But mentally and in conversation we keep coming back to this plot, this new development area is simply exactly in the area where we would most like to live; we really like the town and the surroundings.
An entire federal state is way too large a search area. That just deepens the confirmation bias that plots are unfathomably hard to find. "Exactly the area we most want to live in" is at best a better search area (and you'd be surprised what’s out there).
The first page of the survey shows the location of the plot, apparently in a newly designated building area. Is that a retention basin directly bordering the surveyed plot to the south, and have you precisely hit the problematic plot?
We had to fix the house positioning for the soil survey so that the drilling could be done accordingly, and that was already maddening without knowing the actual dimensions of the house. If the house were smaller, larger, or differently shaped, the soil could again contain a peat lens at a deeper level, and the foundation would have to be done differently—or is that a mistaken thought?
Drilling only where the result looks less scary, despite expecting heterogeneous subsoil, is definitely a major mistake.
Without signing the contract with the general contractor, we don't get any floor plans. However, the house size would be adapted to the floor plan (half a meter more here, a meter less there).
The internet is packed with floor plans. I would put that contractor right at the top of the blacklist.
What is a planning contract? I have never heard of that; we were not offered that.
Basically yes, just with different wording: "Floor plans only after signing." A planning contract—which I definitely advise against!—means here that the builder wants to have a "necessary" architectural planning paid upfront for security, even though he would "credit" it later (if you build with him). A kind of deposit to bind you. As popular as it is dubious.
Yes, that’s true, just signing and then planning everything afterwards can go thoroughly wrong... We would prefer to know the exact costs for everything down to the cent before starting construction, but that is just wishful thinking.
"To the nearest tenth of a million" would probably be more accurate in this particular case.
Keep searching. It may be possible to somehow tame such a plot too. But you are accepting a foundation cost overhead here that would be completely disproportionate to the construction costs of a normal single-family house. Neither rent to be paid in the meantime nor possible interest rate increases can even remotely reach such dramatic dimensions as the additional foundation effort on this plot would.
Please urgently wake up from this nightmare; building land in your federal state only comes with this gigantic catch / drawback! Under no circumstances spend money on placing a house ideally over the boreholes on this plot!