Leaderboard

We will have a motorised velux at the highest point (my architect is mad keen on velux for purge cooling) We have this (actually, a Fakro PH window) at the highest point and it works great for cooling. Overnight it's much more effective than the ASHP (via UFH or FCU). Couple notes: - we also have an opening rooflight in the ground-floor extension flat roof, opening both together is most effective to create a through-draft - the open plan area, inc hallway stairwell and landing, all cool down fabulously. However, the bedrooms tend not to benefit much as we keep doors closed (no cats in bedroom policy!) which means I'm still working on designing in some extra mechanical ventilation to push cold air around into those rooms more effectively. (The MVHR, even on bypass and boost in winter, isn't enough to compensate for 2 human bodies in the room) - I really appreciate the home automation for keeping track of indoor and outdoor temperature, heating and mvhr status, and current rain status, and automating the skylight open position accordingly. - originally I just had it "open" or "close" but it's a bit slow to move between end-stops (30secs?) and a bit noisy, so when at the threshold temperature it would clatter all night opening and closing every 15 mins. so now I set the skylight angle proportionally to the amount the house is over target temperature, which very nicely modulates the window down to "closed" as the house cools down, and gradually opens it up as it warms back up.

I'm not sure. But, just thinking out loud: - The masonary construction may help keep first-floor day/night temperature a bit more consistent than with a timber-frame. We saw a difference of 1C between 6am and 7pm in January in north-facing bedrooms, which reduced to 0.5C in May. (No Comfopost in use) - But, I don't think it's necessarily going to help ensure that the first-floor isn't slightly warmer/cooler than the ground floor if your primary heat source is ground-floor UFH. - With the additional mass in the walls I would assume that it's even more important to keep first-floor temperature in check, as it will be harder to cool down via ventilation/comfopost if you need to cool the mass too.

Two inches of top soil will dry out very quickly, I would suggest minimum of 6” and preferably double that.

350mm i beams at 300mm centres, makes for a solid floor

Thanks for the responses, I thought this was the case but it's good to have supporting opinions. I'm going to stick to my guns.

Anyone employed to do work by the builder, has a contract with the builder, you as the end user are not part of the contract in any shape or form. Do as stated above

ALL of them. They will all compromise the building from it's original design, and in an extreme case building control could refuse to issue a completion certificate if they are not happy. They are all easy to correct, some at no cost (item C for instance, that is just poor workmanship)

No. Your new contract with him is £1,500 and the main contract is irrelevant. You must write to him, recorded delivery, well worth the small extra cost, to say that the sum paid is in full and final settlement of the sum which was agreed before the works. It is fair to pay the full sum you are happy with. That would make any claim very difficult for him.

if plumber was brought in by builder and he invoiced builder in feb, then you have no contract with him and are not liable imho. i would suggest the £1500 is all that's payble to him by you.

Make the floor a wet room and use a wet room former, then a pair of hinged glass shower doors to stop water splashing very far. A bit like what i did That's a pair of glass hinged screens intended to go on the top of a bath, but used as shower screens, set about 100mm above the floor. Not much splashes over and not much splashes under. They are there to stop the wooden towel storage and vanity unit getting wet and I am sure that is closer than your bathroom door is to the shower. When not in use as a shower, the screens fold flat against the wall leaving the room open.

Hello all. We have a planning application submitted to convert our detached garage to an annexe for my dad to move into. Our neighbours have objected. Can someone have a look and let me know of I should be worried about getting approval based on it? Their objection don't really feel relevant, but wanted some advice. 22/01125/FUL https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/eplanning/AppDetail.aspx?appkey=RA6EWPPMIWF00

No to the first, and yes to the second question. Internal layout is Not a Material Consideration to a planning application.

This part here makes me wonder, if you've just been given an off the shelf solution rather than something proper. The 15mm air gap created I suspect is for production builders to who only aim for the minimal levels of insulation, thermal bypass or airtightness. It allows them to drop their 140mm panel onto site, the electricians fix a 25mm backbox up against the PIR, the boarders put a 12,5mm plasterboard over the top and hey presto it all matches with a 2.5mm gap to allow the socket cover clamp the socket "firmly" in place onto the plasterboard. The trouble with that 15mm gap in your case, is that unless it's very well sealed, it'll be able to vent outside air, ( especially in windy weather) making the 125mm of PIR outboard much less effective. Solutions. 1. Can you contact the TF company and see if they can either. 1. Full fill the studs with 140mm PIR. 2. Foam the 15mm gap at regular intervals before fitting the 80mm PIR over the top to ensure that the 15mm air gap behind is trapped in pockets and the air is guaranteed to be stationary (unventilated) As a final touch I would reduce the internal PIR to 50mm, and boost the service cavity to 45mm and fill with woodfiber or similar high heat capacity and higher density insulant sheepswool or hemp batts. This would really improve your decrement delay (phase shift) and help prevent overheating.

It seems to me the objections will get nowhere, although it does look like they're hinting heavily that what they really object to is that they don't want some sort of air BnB type thing in the future. Asking for a condition that it is re-converted back to a garage later is unreasonable and I don't think has a basis in planning, except where you're asking for temporary permission, which you're not. The layout does seem to waste a lot of space with a long walkway from the front door to the rear living area. You could consider moving the shower room so that it sits across the full width of the garage either at the front or the back which will give you a much more flexible "squarer" living space with space for a small sofa or chair. I don't think you need 2 doors either, a single door is probably more sensible and, whilst not suggesting you concede anything to your neighbour, they would see it as a minor victory for their "complaint" and could be seen as you taking on board their comments and being a good neighbour. I would put the door facing your house, or leave the existing opening where it is. Good luck.

Motorised Velux / roof lights with automation are a great and cheap option for purge, or for overheat pre-mitigation. I would deffo fit post heating / cooling in anything remotely well built. My house is shart, and already beginning to become uncomfortable. Air con going in this year ( burning off excess PV ). The thermal time constant plus the heat energy captive in the interior materials / inner fabric will allow a long swing from temp A to temp B, but probably too long for the upstairs rooms with adverse North > South solar inertia. Depends a lot on glazing as well. Solar reflective coatings work bloody well, so consider that for your strategies.

It’s always messy . But the prize !! 😁

From what I can see online the issue of annexes, council tax and planning can get a little messy. You are likely to get permission but it will be for use as an annex only and you will not be allowed to rent it out. This would need further permission at some point in future, the same for a separate dwelling. It will probably get its own council tax bill which you would be exempt from if using it for an elderly relative, but again if you wanted to rent it out or have someone not exempt like a teenager live there then it would become liable for council tax.

Hello and welcome . I’d say (expletive deleted) your neighbors for starters . They are going to hate you anyway ; so don’t worry about that . I see opportunity here . Trust me 😁 ; a garage can become a house . I’d certainly go for change of use . Forget any rules for changing back . At a later date you then have an established footprint for a dwelling. Don’t concede to get what you want at the prospect of future opportunities! . Slowly , slowly , creepy monkey …. A future independent house is the prize here …

Planning objections are comedy gold. Do they really think that the planning officer would meet with them to discuss change of use of a garage! I agree with the other comments here. The only other thing I would note is that the door to the north side and the gate/ separate garden area suggest that this has been designed to be totally separate accommodation with its own garden. I think that would raise the concern that it is to be rented out at some point in the future. Of course your neighbour has not mentioned this and planning may or may not think of this. I don't consider the overlooking relevant. They don't say you will overlook them, they say they will overlook you. If you don't mind this then it is not an issue. Generally if you are at ground level issues of overlooking are not an issue, assuming that there is a fence or hedge between the gardens. It may be worth noting this on the plans.

Firstly welcome! You are understandably concerned. There's nowt like a Planning Application to flush out what people really think - as opposed to what they say to your face. You are in very good company here. At a guess I'd say many of us have had the same issue to deal with. Objections to Planning Apps are nothing new to us or indeed to planners. The vast majority of objections are made on what's called in planning terms 'Non-Material' grounds: they are not relevant to the application. You and I would call the grounds: Nonsense . I have looked at the objections offered; Re: 1 - I think that the Planners can write a condition require the garage to return to its original use when it's no longer required. But I'm not certain. Re 2: make sure the view from the windows is obscured in some way Re 3: non-material consideration (irrelevant) Re 4: non-material consideration ----- " ----- There may be other considerations which are material but we have missed them ...... I'd say your concerns in relation to the objections as stated , while understandable, are unfounded. To lighten the mood a bit, have a read of this ...... yes I was livid at the time I wrote it. The post contains links which should be helpful. On balance, I'd file the objection to your application (referred to in your post) in the waste bin. Ian

I experimented with "summer bypass" when I first installed mine (different make to the one being discussed) and I found the window when you could actually usefully bypass the heat exchanger was very limited. As pointed out, when it is warmer outside than in, you want the heat exchanger back in circuit. I found the simplest way to cool an overheated house was keep it shut in the day to keep the warm air out, and keep the heat exchanger in circuit to stop drawing in warm air. then in the evening when the temperature drops open up all the windows for a night purge of cool air to cool the house down for the next day. Once cooled down a well insulated house will stay cool for the next day when closed up again to keep the heat out. Then you only need to consider active cooling if the night time temperature does not drop below what you consider a comfortable temperature.

Nah, you need to take most of it up, the odd stone will be ok.

Yes it must hurt when something like that costs so much. My pet gripe is if you need a new PCB for a boiler, something that looking at it and with the components it has would cost about £10 if you were buying it to fit in a television, has a silly price tag.

why do you specifically state this? I see no issues with putting OSB on top of the service cavity with plasterboard on top of that. I've spoken to a number of builder friends and they all say that they put plasterboard on top of OSB as it gives the wall a rock solid feel. it is something I am very seriously considering. can I ask if you have a specific reason for using 2" x 2" battens for your timber cladding? we used 2" x 2" for ours due to the fact that our external blinds needed the space between the building and the cladding to function but it cost us a LOT of money especially as we, like you, are going for vertical cladding so needed to batten and counter batten. if you don't specifically need that size battens it might be worth using 2" x 1" roofing battens as that should save a ton of money? just a thought.

Pitch pine most likely. If that is a suspended floor with nothing underneath, you'll have terrible draughts unless you do a good job of filling the gaps and sealing the wood.

Both Nudura and Thermohouse should be fairly airtight as standard. Check best practice for each product on sealing openings, required vents etc Internal Plasterboard straight over. Plywood beneath plasterboard mentioned already for fix to. Really heavy items could be fixed to timber secured directly back to concrete in chases. It's not just the weight, is it static or dynamic? We have a climbing wall fixed through ICF....not you average kitchen cupboard full of baked beans. External Most EPS based blocks are classified impervious until finished. Most thin coats are locally repairable but tough as the proverbial. Check with warranty issuer and product manufacturers for appropriate brands. Not all EPS/XPS are the same density and this can impact the quality of bond. Sadly this last point seems to change depending on area, warranty, wind direction. Getting this choice right though could eliminate the need to cement board everywhere. And I would suspect repair could be more involved.

Render IS waterproof, which is why it gets applied! Yes, point impact would damage this with relative ease, but you can apply additional layers of base coat and mesh to 'beef' this up. If you want to take a hammer to it, not much will withstand that tbh, but render over a cement board would be an option. Visit a house with render over EPS EWI and see for yourself that it is quite robust. If you are crap at parking and hit the corner of the house........use the bus

This is one of those topics where 'in my opinion' folk like to say how their house is so good they don't need it - bit of a look how big my schlong is statement. Yes, in a passive house the first floor will generally be warm enough without, but the outlay is minimal and the benefits worth it imo. We talk about oversizing ASHPs to make them work less hard etc, why wouldn't you over size the 'emitting' surface within the house so it is easier to warm up/cool down. When folks are insulating their houses to the hilt and making them airtight and sticking loads of glazing in, keeping cool is a far bigger issue than warm. The use of an ASHP in cooling mode seems a go to approach on here to help in that sense, surely having twice the surface area when using the ASHP in this manner is one of the key points in favour of installing UFH upstairs. For context, my own build is 0.1 U Value for walls, floor, ceiling, triple glazing and 0.2ACH. Keeping warm is not an issue and was never going to be, I put the UFH in upstairs for other reasons, keeping tiled floors 'feeling' warm and helping to cool in the warmer months.

Boosting helps increase the transfer, but transfer will still happen at standard flow rates. Our first-floor non-boost flow rate is 145m3/h which should equate to 1.5kW/1.8kW cooling/heating. If this is "useful" or not, will depend on the specific build and your goals. Our whole-house cooling load is just 330W so, along with UFH on the ground floor, 1.5kW is enough to "trim" things on the first-floor on the hottest days of the year. Our total heating load is around 3.5kW, which can easily be covered with UFH but having some output on the first floor helps avoid befrooms getting chilly on the coldest days of the year. What we found this winter is that even with MVHR on low at night the air suppy (after heat exchange) is enough to lower bedroom temperature to 17/18C even when ground floor is a nice 21C. This approach was based on feedback from others with MBC builds that were very happy with just ground-floor UFH as primary source or heating/cooling, but commented on the fact that on the hottest/coldest days of the years bedrooms could be a few degress higher/lower than the ground floor which wasn't always ideal.

As long as the VCL is installed as an airtight layer (taped joints and edges) then that should work, otherwise it will still leak air, it just won't be apparent around your window frame as the leak path will got through into your service void.