Leaderboard

The push at the moment seems to be trying to persuade people to swap gas boilers for an ASHP. A perfectly set up ASHP should be a little, not a lot, cheaper to run than a gas boiler. If not perfect it could well cost more to run than the boiler it replaced. So trying to persuade people to "invest" in a new heating system when they are quite happy with their old one and at best will only get a marginal saving, it is no wonder they are not queuing up to take up the offer. you have to WANT to do it for other reasons, the main one being reducing CO2 emmisions. So are we targeting the worng market? Why not instead target people using electric resistance heating currently, like electric panel heaters, storage heaters, or even electric boilers? Those users would see their heating use of electricity drop by about 1/3 if they swapped to an ASHP, saving them real money, not just marginal, and would reduce strain on the electricity grid which is already struggling at times. So that would give an immediate reduction in electricity used for heating, and reduced electricity use would mean fossil fuel generation required less frequently so an indirect saving in CO2 emmissions. But the point is the customer would see a very real reduction in running cost not something marginal, and rather than increasing electricity use, it would be reducing it. The boffins could do the sums to work out the CO2 reduction per kWh of electricity saved * and market it as CO2 reduction. * It IS CO2 reduction because until we reach the point where no fossil fuel at all is used for electricity generation, then each 1kWh of electricity saved at the moment is 1kWh less generated by fossil fuels. By the same token, installing an ASHP increases the electricity you use so that will increase fossil fuel generation at the moment so WILL result in increased CO2 emissions.

How about we don’t actually need more houses, we need less people.

What a cracking question! Talk about putting folk on the spot! Forgive me if I don't deal with some detail or give a definitive answer. One main reason is I use my own name and while my PI insurance covers me to write on a public forum (give unpaid advice).. it's not open ended. I make some comment later that may help the self builder / folk extending say. It's good guidance. The following is some general comment for discussion purposes only. The guidance adds to / provides a methodology to support some of the things we have been doing for a long time anyway. The recent changes in the regs formalise this and aim to hold folk to account for their design, contractor to their duties and say the duty of a self builder, even someone doing and extension in timber frame. I support anything that will keep folk safe. The document is a guidance document. Many of the clauses in the Buildings regs, British Standards, Eurocodes, product manufacturer's guidance / data etc are.. guidance. But if you choose not to follow this and something goes wrong then you can find yourself on a sticky wicket as the onus falls on you, as often you need to prove that what you have done is equal to or better than the guidance. There are times when SE's need to go back to first principles and develop stuff from scratch. This crops up a lot when renovating, upgrading old buildings and say converting farm buildings to domestic use. You get funny sized cavities / flexible steel frames / old mortar and all sorts. Generally once we get into the "higher risk" building category.. could be a flamible house next door, a TF of say 3 storeys or more, close to an old folks home, a block of flats, a fuel station etc then the bells start ringing. At the concept design stage we would pick this sort of thing up.. good designers spot this kind of thing. To go back a bit let's look at what we are trying to achieve. The following list is not comprehensive and I've tried to put things in some kind of sensible order. 1/ We want everyone who works on the site or attends site to go home safely at the end of the day. It's basic Health and Safety stuff. Everyone on site needs to know what to do and where the exits are if a fire breaks out. This includes anyone working on scaffolding / mast climbers or the like. There is plenty information readily available on this from the HSE and other knowledge bases. One key point more applicable now is that a Client should aside enough in their budget to enable a contractor to comply with the current HSE regs and stipulations from the designer regarding say construction sequence. It's always been there under CDM but hidden to some extent from the domestic Client ( self builder / extender) For all on BH. When getting prices from builders it's worth getting them to itemise out a sum for safety complicance on site. This lets eveyone see that you are taking safety seriously from the outset. 2/ OK say there is a fire and everyone is off site safely. The fire brigade turn up. They need to be kept safe also. You can't have a structure suddenly collapsing on them. Now we are getting into the design / planning of the method of construction and sequence. As a designer when faced with this I would introduce this at an early stage to a Client.. this is usually an expansion of the explanation about fire boundary conditions that apply post completion. See my previousish posts. 3/ OK say we want to do a self build in TF that during contruction poses a risk to a neighbouring building? The Building regs talk about fire boundary conditions.. you can have one even if there is no house next door! Most of the time we know that the construction phase is relatively short cf the common 50 year design life of a house and can see if there is a structure next door or know if one is planned during the construction phase. 4/ Well we can look at the STA guidance for fire during the construction phase, refer to other stuff we are aware of and importanly apply common sense. Then find that we either can't have a TF under the STA guidance or it is going to become too costly to do a self build of say 2 storeys. 5/ Now we need to go back an look at the risks of the particular project. No project is without risk so what can we do? 6/ For me I look at how could a fire start. Again much of this is covered in the HSE regs and guidance on fire safety on site. But basics are no smoking, no hot work, no using a grinder that causes sparks.. no hot site lighting and managing material handling / storage that can add to the fire load (the fuel for a fire) the basic stuff. I look at my design.. Have I / will design something that adds risk? What is not so well covered is site security (your location) and the way you conduct your personal business! A few years ago we had a big problem up my neck of the woods with the criminal fraternity washing money in site security. Bills were not paid and a lot of TFs went on fire at the weekend / at night. Mind you the poor spark got the blame some of the time for dodgy site security electrics! A big risk is theft from containers. Folk use burning gear to cut the container open.. keep your container away from the house if you can. 7/ If we can't get the risk down enough (say 24 hour site security, a fire watch at critical times etc) we may then say let's put up a few TF panels and get the brick cladding up straight away to fire stop level. We may need to get some cross walls in to act as lateral support to the external walls and worst case provide some temporary protection. In summary it's about looking at the risks and mitigating them to an acceptable level. The question is what is acceptable! For me part of the foundation of acceptible is a Client that will engage / discuss, that is my starting point, rather than just "seeing me" as an unwanted expense, a route to getting BC approval and then going off an going their own thing.. the new regs are intended to put a stop to this in some ways. Some may say it's jobs for the boys! But if you get you designer in early and just talk through the job it can lead to lots of other savings and ideas that can easily offset the professional design fee. To exagerate to make a point. In item (2) I point out that we don't want the structure to collapse on the fire brigade. The structure is connected to the foundations and these can provide rotational support to a wall subject to fire @saveasteading has written lots about encastre support / wall and steel frame base fixity and you can find out more about this if you look at his posts. So now we talk about your founds / floor joist span, type etc etc.. and this leads to holistic design and cost savings. Some clouds have a silver lining even if you have to stump up a bit more cash at the outset in terms of design fees. Over my working life I've seen two fatalites and one serious injury on site (loss of a limb). Two were preventable, one was a freek of nature to some extent. I myself got briefly trapped in a tight solum space when I was a young builder (before I became an SE) and set fire to the floor above when using a gas plumbing torch.. I could see the flames above and that rapid crawl to get out stays with me to this day, worst still there were kids in the house so it was just not myself I was looking after! Uncontrolled fire is an awful thing. That's it for now @LnP

Hi Everyone, I am just about to start on a renovation and extension project in Co Clare hoping to bring a 1920s land commission up to EnerPhit/Passive standard. The project is currently awaiting planning permission decision due next week and then its all systems go. Looking forward to learning from this great community best jason the pic is ground zero.....

You assume just because a property is ranked D or lower it is unsuitable for a HP. But neglect that if a property is electrically heated it drops several (about 2) categories vs gas. We have gone from E to C simply by swapping to gas. So there will be a plenty of perfectly suitible homes ranked D or E simply because they are using storage heaters. Just looked up 2 flats of ours. Identical except one has electric heating and the other gas combi Electric scores 40 points E Gas scores 65 points D

I've messed about with making sound dampening enclosures in the past but inside The usual 3 options Containment. Clearly not a great option for the heat pump Absorption. In the case of my project this required acoustic rockwool which is much denser. Again not easy in that space Diffraction. This is breaking up the sound waves. The ivy on that hedge is probably doing that pretty well plus probably some absorption. Could you grow a creeper up the wall of the outside shed and fence?

We used key clamp poles and joints. Simply whacked two lines of metre long poles into the ground, then built the frame from there, with a couple of bits for fastening other material to the poles - round clamp with a tail with a hole in it - between each pair of panels. Standard PV module clamps, can then be fixed through the holes. I found a commercial product on-line and simply used their plan. Great thing about this method, is you can set the angle of the panels to suit your needs. We set ours at 45deg which pvgis showed would give us about the same annual kW as a shallower angle but would give peak output in the spring and autumn and higher output in the winter. So output spread more over the year, rather than peaking in the summer. When the sun was shining yesterday we were getting 4.5kW from our 6.5kWp array.

That outbuilding is going to bounce the sound stright back at the house. Drive along with your window down and note how much reflected noise you get driving pet a wall vs hedge vs open fields. Have a really good look at what you can do to that structure to reduce reflections. Climbing plants, cladding, hedge etc. One idle thought, the sound is most likely getting in via the windows etc. The sound will be a very consistent "droning". Ideal for some sort of active nose cancellation system? Do they do ones that fit to windows? They used to have transducer that would fit to glass to make them into speakers and could use them as mics.

Don't fix eps as an exposed soffit. It is highly flammable and melts as is it burns, spreading gobbets of fire. Pir is not as awful but still not good. Incredibly these were once standard ceilings. But you could apply it then cover with plasterboard or cement board. Preferable would be to remove the ceiling and fill between joists with rockwool.

The other bit is the "green taxes" (a crap name) that pay for stuff like insulation upgrades, social tariffs.for struggling customers, historical subsidies for wind and solar (but not new ones) all tend to go onto electricity prices rather than gas prices. So when there are grants for insulating lofts - that's paid for out of electric prices not gas. Thry aren't huge, a few pence per unit but if we took 2p.from the 23p electricity unit cost and added it to the 5p gas cost we'd have 21p vs 7p so you need a 3:1 efficency to break even (fairly doable) rather than 4.5:1

Methinks the majority of those seeking to rent a property have other things on their minds. We’re not building anywhere near enough, perhaps if we were and supply was closer to demand then tenants would have the opportunity to be more discerning.

The Electrification of Heat Project looked at this. They concluded, "There is no property type or architectural era that is unsuitable for a heat pump ...From Victorian mid-terraces to pre-WWII semis and a 1960s block of flats – the project has proven that heat pumps can be successfully installed in homes from every style and era". Although it's probably true to say that the less well insulated the house is, the worse the economics will be. It probably depends on your definition of suitable.

Illbruck fm330 is the go to, Soudal do one aswell.

Hi, we have had this extension built for us but our money didn’t go as far as we hoped! We managed to get the shell up and water tight with a finished look to the outside. Our challenge now is to fit the inside out and make the shell a home.

This is a root cause of reluctance. Gas is cheap vs electricity. If the ratio was 1:1 people would be ripping out gas boilers so fast the scrap yards be overwhelmed. If the ratio was 2:1 or even 2.5:1 it wouod be simple to break even vs gas. At the current 3-4:1 range it's hard. Shifting a load of the green and social taxes onto has would help. Reforming the energy market to get rid of the "last unit sets price" method would be a huge win for electricity.

I question the whole 'only well insulated homes can use heat pumps' argument. My house is very, very far from well insulated, nor is it in any sense airtight. And it's working very well with a heat pump. I can see why flow temperature and delta T has an impact, with a wet system, but that will hurt a gas or oil system too. And it's irrelevant to an A2A system.

Scooby Doo is less confused than Sir Kier

I agree with the gist of the OP, but the discussion brings to mind a few general comments 1/ Beware of creating false dichotomies. Yes, we should be targeting homes already on resistive electric heating for upgrade to heat pumps, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be targeting homes combusting fossil fuels too. Both need to happen, and technically there's no reason both can't happen at once. 2/ Keep an eye on the long term goal. Sure replacing one boiler with a heat pump will not reduce scope 2 emissions for that home's heating to zero today, but the goal is net zero by 2050, not today. If it's a step towards that goal it's a step worth seriously considering. 3/ Massive scale systems change is required, not tinkering at the edges. This is a multi industry, multi decade project. Optimising each individual's personal emissions at every single step is not practical or in fact useful. What's important is on average everything trends towards net zero. Regrettable as it is, there will be examples of houses making nonoptimal choices that taken in isolation can be seen as a back step, but by moving towards renewable heat sources they are still support the systems changes needed; e.g. directing more of their ongoing spending away from gas and into electricity (and hence renewable generation projects), and supporting the economies of scale needed to reduce the cost of materials and increase training & knowledge in heat pumps.

Sorry, yes, mm. (I had mentally already converted your cm to mm!). Try a test: drill some 10mm holes in an offcut of plasterboard and mount it the requisite distance from another offcut of plasterboard. Try 1st with holes @ 300 centres, fill a few and then peel off one sheet of plasterboard. Look and see if the patches of foam touch. Try again at 30-50mm centres. Repeat.

OK, some stats: + 19% of homes are privately rented, 17% 'socially rented', that's 36% i.e. ~1/3rd of homes where the landlord would have to pay for the installation (including a rental void period) with the financial benefit of lower heating costs accruing to the tenant. That going to happen very rarely. + overlapping with that, 22% of dwellings were flats. Yeah, realistically impossible for flat owners to install ASHPs. + overlapping with that, 31% of dwelings in UK have no EPC rating (only required since 2007). We can reasonably conclude that they are mostly old enough to have sub-standard insulation and therefore not suitable for an ASHP. + overlapping with that, about 50% of homes that have EPCs are D or below and are probably not suitable for ASHPs. + overlapping with that, 74% of households use gas (plus 5% using oil) and therefore don't have any financial incentive to change. + of houseowners, 15% of private owners without mortgages are poor (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) and 17% of those with mortgages i.e. they don't have enough money to invest. + 2% of homes are listed and there are 10,000 conservation areas - both of which are either unsuitable or impossible to swap to an ASHP. + we don't have any idea how all those segments overlap, but just from EPC ratings (or lack of them) 2/3rds of dwellings are not suitable for heat pumps, 3/4 have gas already and no incentive to change. (EPCs are, of course, nonsense anyway as the main insulation areas (roof, floor, walls) may just be 'assumed'.) + plus it requires personal energy, money, time and the ability to endure the disruption and uncertainty that installation of an ASHP would require. You may also have to battle at your expense with the planners, who have no incentive to be reasonable. + many people may just be sitting on the fence as they know that government doesn't always get it right (viz. diesel cars); technology may improve, installers may be better skilled etc.

New forum member in Warwickshire, looking at feasibility of parting off ~900sqm of our back garden as a plot for an infill bungalow. We have done and managed some substantial renovation/extension to houses over the past 20 years but its now time to downsize & this might be the preferred route. The basic idea seems to fit in with the local neighbourhood plan so exploring in more detail and discussing needs vs wants with SWMBO. Just starting the journey and may fizzle out but there is lots of great advice and encouragement in this forum!

The point of the BUS grant is to incentivise switching to an ASHP, required for gas boiler users because if installing an ASHP costs more than just putting in another combi, the vast majority will just put in another combi. Somewhat unfortunately for resistance electric users, they already have a very strong incentive to switch to an ASHP as they could already achieve payback within a short time period. Thus, the government can leave the market to do its thing and no intervention (funding) is required. I may be in the minority but the BUS grant did exactly what it was intended to for me. 11 year old end of life boiler and the BUS grant brought the price of an ASHP below that of a new combi, so in it goes and off goes the gas connection. Big tick in the decarbonisation box for that BUS funding.

Can you not use gravity. Connect the two outlets and let them self balance level wise. Put a tee in as an outlet to tap or what ever. All the bits you need are on here https://ibcadapters.co.uk/index.asp

The best local face recognition I've used yet is via Homekit Cameras, they use a local device like an Apple TV to do the processing and it works well. The main downside being getting at the actual results so they can be used for automation (other than inside the Homekit ecosystem) is tricky. I've used Scrypted to turn some non Homekit cameras into Homekit ones.

Broken gulley below the rainwater pipe, or broken clay connection. fairly normal to see this. I’ve seen a kitchen extension drop 25mm due to a dripping pipe under a corner. you will need to take up a lot more paving and fix the broken pipe first. then back fill the hole paying great attention to compacting the fill material, or mass fill with concrete. fix the cause of the problem first.

For ages I have felt quite cold sitting next to our patio doors🥶, but I love sitting there to watch the birds outside. However, i finally really looked today and after feeling a cold breeze/draught in the corners, i got out the thermal camera and found in the actual corner, it was down to 1oC, its minus 5oC outside. So I pulled back the carpet and trim and found large gaps at the side. I watched the guys instal the doors in 2019 and saw them spraying in expanding foam around the frame itself so thought that should be okay. But it must have left some gaps. I have been out and bought some Polyfilla expanding foam and sprayed it into the gaps. I shall let you know how much of a change it is, after it dries and I get it all trimmed, ready for the carpet and trim. 😁If it works, i may have to look for more areas to fill - dont want to waste the majority of the can and I hate draughts!

Makes sense, you might have slightly more luck with Nvidia Deepstream for that purpose as it handles occluded objects better. There are also some improvements in the latest beta for Frigate that handle stationary objects better but unsure how this would handle occluded objects. I'll be playing with it extensively once the build is complete so I'll do a detailed write up if I get everything working properly. We are somewhat open plan too. Glad mmWave is doing its job at the moment.

I used Unistrut to build the frame for mine. FAR cheaper than any of the aluminium PV mounting rails. Some have used scaffold poles or similar.

thats the one. small screen but otherwise, no complaints.

They are Metal to metal Though you might have to use a few wafer self tappers in the primary Which is ok as you can put a wafer point in alongside once everything is in place

Hardware failures of the Miniserver are relatively rare but if they do happen then swapping it out for a replacement is fairly quick and straightforward. It's more complicated if you are swapping a Gen1 for a Gen2. I do keep a couple of spare Gen1 and Gen2 Miniservers just in case a client needs a quick replacement to get their system back up and running. The main failures are more likely with the SD cards, so always keep a back up with a recent copy of the config file. The Miniservers are just the hardware, all the system config software is on the SD card.

Just a heads-up, if going around squirting foam into every nook and cranny you should really be using a closed cell foam which won't bridge damp or wick moisture Illbruck 330 is my favoured product, which is also rated as air tight too. Completely different beast when cured also, and cures much hardier and more resilient imo. Random grab: https://www.fixingsstore.com/illbruck-fm330-pro-expanding-foam-air-seal/p/5519?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAyoi8BhDvARIsAO_CDsDsUOSd1ufBQNY2aiJoovQP-mt6AUDHFNJm0pC2UxkeJ-7QR_AXukIaAvhFEALw_wcB

Needs a drawing and spec.

@LnP thanks for that link. I was not aware of this document so will read it thoroughly later. It's a great example of what I was going to say which is basically...it is complicated and ultra important. i have designed and built buildings for decades. Hundreds. I thought I was expert on fire risk. One of our steel buildings was exposed to extreme fire and the fire chief said he'd never seen such good resistance. And yet, when I went on a 3 day intensive course I learnt much more. Professors study nothing else, and what we see in the regulations is a summary. Building inspectors rightly want to see proven constructions as any variation creates a risk. That can be frustrating when you have a special circumstance of a 'great idea' but safety must come first. Why should they accept a variation. Even so, we find that kingspan and celotex ( do i say allegedly still?) cheated their fire tests. @ARC GuitarsWhat are you paying the bco? Typically about £1000 for the whole project. That is what 4 days of a tradesperson will cost, or 1 day max of a professional designer. The bco is not your designer. On the positive side. A timber housing estate here won't burn like in Los Angeles. Timber needs air flow if it is to blaze and spread. Working to the regulations prevents that.

I believe it would, although "holiday let" may mean different things to different people. To me a holiday let (which may be let via AirBnB), would be a self-contained unit that provides facilities for day-to-day living for a single person of family, so falls within C3. C1 is intended for hotels, where rooms would be individually let to unconnected people and may not provide full facilities for day-to-day living. Ref. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/764/schedule/part/C/made?view=plain

Thermally you're not going to achieve much here in terms of reducing conductive heat losses. The build up is just too thin. This is what you have currently. This is what you are proposing. Sonic gold isn't magic. It'll perform much the same as any thin layer of insulation but it's K value isn't great at 0.048W/m2k. Ideally you would lift the existing floorboards and insulate between the joists, lay something like Egger p5 chip board on top and then your floor. However if you've ruled this out then I would really concentrate on air sealing all the drafts from the floor. This really is the biggest win thermally and in terms of comfort. I wouldn't bother with the Sonic gold. Its mostly marketing guff. Like mentioned above you could glue the wood floor directly to a tile backing board like Jackoboard which has a K value of 0.034 W/m2K. Lay the boards and seal all joints fastidiously with sealant or tape. Seal them to all perimeter walls similarly to completely eliminate all drafts. This will be your biggest win. The elimination for the need for a layer of ply or OSB will buy you some more insulation depth too. Here's 12mm. And here's 20mm if you can fit it. Both are better than the sonic gold in terms of heat loss but like I said before. The really really big gain is to be had in airtightness and the elimination of drafts.

It is legitimate to do research, research is about answering questions after all. The question I would ask is how long can this 'stuff' be stored reliably. A billion is not enough. Thing is, when the two cheapest new generation systems are, apart from manufacturing, both zero emissions (near enough), why bother to try use others that need secondary processes. There really is not need to use combustion technology these days, and huge parts of the world have better resources than us. The UK is rather fixated with 'reliability and price' while being very scared to try anything new (I still know people that have not tried a curry or a pizza).

OK I had to google myself because I could not find the pics that I promised. Here is a link to the forum where I was asking for help. Most people told me it wouldn't work because the tube was too small. So now 10 years later they can kiss my entire butt! LoL And here is the guy that inspired my build ZeroFossilFuels

Or how a planning officer tells you he will make sure you never get planning until the day he retires They allowed to make vague threats ? Or told to stop putting in planning applications - you will never get this ! Sounds a bit hostile , yeah ? Just as well I recorded this and other conversations…. You think they might be pressured to “ make this one go away “ ? . Picked the wrong person for a fight 💪👍😊

Indeed. We had an objection from someone who claimed our proposal would lead to an overdevelopment of the locale. That same person lives in their parents old house because their parents built a new house next door. The irony was clearly lost on them. What they really meant was that they don't want someone they don't see a "local" building in their area.

I don’t think they have a plan Other than throwing unrealistic numbers out there

TLDR; we've been unsuccessful at appeal for a single self-build dwelling on a 0.25 acre rural plot in Droitwich, Worcestershire. The longer version, with some background. Like most people, our search for a plot has lasted years, beginning in earnest in 2017, although in reality, in our hearts, much earlier. The first real glimpse of anything remotely affordable came in 2020 following a conversation with one of our neighbours where we mentioned we were still looking for somewhere to build our own home and they mentioned their sister might be looking to sell a side-garden plot. We viewed it, and although not ideal (it backed onto a railway) we agreed a price to purchase the 0.2 acre plot with existing outline planning permission on the condition that we would subsequently be able to secure a dedicated electrical supply at our required supply characteristics before proceeding. Unfortunately, this wasn't possible due to convoluted land ownership for the route of any new cable, so we had to reluctantly back away from that particular opportunity. Nothing much came up for the next few years. My skills at finding potential plots and analysing them for potential costs (services, fencing, access, etc.) and the likelihood of being able to gain planning permission improved greatly. Sadly, this was tempered with frustration at the increasing asking prices of plots in our target search area, including completely unrealistic asking prices for land without any permission at all. Then, a chance conversation with some close friends came with the mention of their parent's large rear garden which started us on this current journey. After long discussions over several months (they had never even remotely previously considered selling part of their garden), we thought we'd been unable to get to a mutually agreeable position and had given up hope. Nevertheless, following a few more months of fruitless searches, we decided to make one last-ditch increased offer and, well, it must have just landed at the right time because it was accepted! The agreed purchase price for the bottom 0.25 acres of their garden came on the condition (from our perspective) that we were able to achieve planning permission and (from their perspective) that we did all the work to do so and took on any risk (and cost) associated with achieving that permission. We submitted our first planning application in May 2023 but this was refused. Following advice on "dual-tracking", we submitted a second application in July 2023 with additional information addressing the refusal, but we also started an appeal on the first application at the same time. Despite our efforts, the second application was also refused for the same reason as the first. Crucially though, by dual-tracking, we did not lose another couple of months as the appeal on the first application was already in progress. Had permission been granted for the second application, we could have withdrawn the appeal. This is a great strategy if you think you might end up in the same position. The appeal process is both long and lacking in any certainty regarding the expected duration or indeed the visibility of progress over time, and it took until late June 2024 for us to find out we had not been successful and that our appeal had been dismissed. Please, don't underestimate the emotional and mental toll an appeal can take. In retrospect, we should have engaged planning consultants after the first refusal, maybe even before. Although there would have been a cost, we've spent almost a year in limbo not knowing what the appeal outcome would be, and if I'd had a high degree of confidence that engaging a planning consultant after the first refusal could have avoided that lengthy delay, it would have been worth every penny. Caveat emptor - make sure it's an amazing planning consultant of course! After the first refusal on "sustainable travel" grounds, I included extensive information about the cycling options available from the plot. But the planners still said that although they accepted this was possible, it was still not particularly safe and they again refused permission. Only after submitting the appeal and getting the second refusal did I find a planning statement that contained detailed statistics from Strava showing how extensively a particular route was used by cyclists and how, combined with accident data, I could use that approach to evidence that it was a well-travelled and very safe route. A planning consultant might have known this prior to the second, even the first application, and might have included the detail accordingly, potentially removing the planner's position for argument. The moral of this particular part of the story is that as intelligent as you think you are, there are always experts in the field that have experience aligned to that intelligence that will trump you every time. With a significant delay, we now know that we do not have permission. I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, especially as I believe the Inspector has been particularly harsh, has erred in some assumptions and has not taken into account all of my evidence and statements. But what we did have in the Inspector's comments was an indication that things may have looked a little more rosey for us had the application been of a type where conditions could have been applied; as a Permission In Principle application, this wasn't possible. So the fact that we would be installing two 22kW car chargers, that we would be building to a Passivhaus PLUS specification, that there would be a home office, and that we would be installing Ultrafast Broadband could not be secured and hence there would be no certainty to them. As a result, the Inspector noted "this and any associated environmental benefits attract limited weight". So the moral of this particular part of the story is to be very careful about the application route you choose. So where do we go from here? Well, we're discussing the situation with the landowners and seeing whether they are up for one last go at planning. If they are, we'll hold out a little while to see how the new incoming government might shake up the planning laws and re-write the NPPF and then we'll look to submit an Outline Application with All Matters Reserved such that we can be clear that we are willing to accept conditions that would ensure the environmental benefits of the development. In the meantime, I've also requested clarification from the LPA about a number of areas of application of policy that I find difficult to agree with. For example, Paragraph 109 of the December 2023 NPPF states "Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes." But LPAs and some Inspectors apply this particular paragraph and especiallly the "offering a genuine choice of transport modes" to all development. Is a single dwelling "Significant development"? If the remainder of the sentence should indeed be applied to all development, why does it start with the word "Significant"? There are others. Our dream has taken a significant hit, but hopefully, we're not down and out just yet. So, as an avid and competent DIY-er, with exposure to many planning areas that I never envisaged becoming knowledgeable in before, I've already been dipping into conversations as I've been building up my knowledge on the forum, so although not a newbie, now seems like the time for a proper introduction to both me, my family, and the plot. So, my name is Garry, I'm 54, I work in a senior position for a global IT services company, and I currently live in Worcester with my wife Nicki and my two adult children, Georgia and Alex (except when he's studying at Manchester Metropolitan University). Our proposed plot is the bottom 0.25 acres of the garden of an existing dwelling (so rural brownfield), but it has its own access (by prescriptive easement) along a private road to a field gate. We're fortunate to have a transformer for the electrical supply (which we hope to get upgraded to a three-phase supply) and a telegraph pole with 1Gbit fibre availability right next to the plot boundary, but there is a 3" PVC water main that runs right through the plot that will need to be moved due to the 6m easement required (3m either side of the main). Of course, on the other hand, the water supply is therefore also very close! There is a sewage treatment plant in the garden of the existing dwelling that is large enough to cope with the extra demands we will place on it. The existing dwelling and garden are on the outskirts of Droitwich and border a country estate and farmland with a couple of Grade II Listed properties (crucially we should not affect the "setting" of those properties) and a handful of cottages and barn conversions nearby. The planning applications and all documents (including the appeal) can be found online, so if you are interested in viewing them, drop me a PM and I'll send the links. If we ever do get permission, we'll be working with an award-winning architectural practice based in Herefordshire to create a Passivhaus dwelling with a design brief that currently envisages a home of approximately 220m2 with a 60m2 garage/workshop. I'm hopeful that I'll be able to bring you on the journey at some point, and that I'll continue to benefit from the combined wisdom of all forum members as we move forward with our design and, hopefully, build. In the meantime, I've attached some photos of the plot for your viewing pleasure. The first shows the bottom of the garden and most of the 0.25 acres of the plot. You can see the field gate in the bottom right corner. The second shows the plot from the bottom right corner, including the field gate that provides access. The third shows the view to the right (of the first photo) which is farmland (including a blurred-out landowner). The fourth shows the view across the plot to the farmland, taken from the access road (with the planning notification attached to the telegraph pole that has the 1Gbit fibre connection) The fifth and sixth show the view to the left (of the first photo) which is the access road. In the fifth photo, you can see the transformer bordering the plot, and the garage of the property that is visible in the first photo. The garage is at the end of the access road before it turns into the plot to the right, and round the corner to other properties to the left. In the sixth photo, the view is from almost the same location but looking in the opposite direction towards the main road.

Thought it was time for a quick update, especially now the new Government have released their proposed changes to the NPPF. I spoke to one of the most highly regarded planning consultants in my area and they said they couldn't help me. They feel the two refusals and the dismissal at appeal have pretty much killed any opportunity to get permission. I don't agree with that, so I went back to my research and DIY submissions! I'm pretty much 100% convinced that the Planning Inspector made "an error in law and misdirected himself" on three points. The first is that he gave "significant weight" to the policy that restricts development in the "open countryside". This is defined as any land beyond the development boundaries. My research found several case law examples that prove this was an error in law when the 'tilted balance' is engaged. When a LPA can't demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing, then policies relating to housing supply are deemed out of data and the weight they are given in the planning balance is reduced accordingly. However, counterpart policies to those specifying housing allocations, such as the one that restricts development in the open countryside are all housing policies and hence should be afforded much reduced weight in the planning balance. The Inspector should have known this but did not take it into account. Secondly, the Inspector disregarded an appeal I had submitted as a material consideration. He is allowed to do this, but in doing so, case law says he must properly consider the evidence presented and he must give his reasons for departure from the previous decision. He did not do this. The Inspector had also commented that he had "limited details on the quality" of the cycle routes and so appeared to dismiss them as a valid, sustainable transport option. I've since learnt that both the road and the bridleways are the responsible of the local transport authority. Under the Highways Act 1980, the local transport authority are responsible for ensuring the safety, accessibility, quality, and suitability for all users, including cyclists. Therefore the third point is that the Inspector should have known this, and yet used the "unknown" quality of the routes to reduce the apparent availability as a sustainable choice. The Head of Planning got someone to respond to my questions on their behalf, but they chose not to answer any of them and simply repeated that their decision was as documented in the original application and if I disagreed with it I should go to appeal (even though the email clearly stated that I'd already done that). The Local Transport Authority have also not responded to my request for clarification on the word "intensified" when saying that any new or "intensified" access needs to provide visibility splay at 85th percentile speed surveys to justify safe access. I've got case law that demonstrates there are no legal or policy requirements to change an existing access unless use is being intensified, and intensified requires a qualitative change and not just a quantitative one. So I think I have that covered too and shouldn't need to do anything from an access perspective. I've also dedicated a section to the case law surrounding the determination of "significant" and "demonstrable" harm, explicitly detailing the evidential requirements - you can't just say something (like the inspector said he wasn't convinced people wouldn't just prefer to use a car) you must be able to demonstrably prove it. Clearly neither the planning officers or the planning inspector have done this in their refusals or dismissal. So today I've submitted a new Outline Planning Application with Some Matters Reserved, including a 60+ page Planning Statement making my position very clear, and with "guidance" that the detail is so comprehensive because you can't introduce new information at a judicial review, and hence if any decision requires further legal scrutiny, all the required supporting case law and material considerations are already in the Planning Statement. Hopefully, the planning officers will not repeat the same mistakes that I've seen previously from them and from the planning inspector, but if they do, then I am confident that they will have made a further "error in law" and misdirected themselves and I'll then go straight to judicial review rather than to appeal. Not giving up just yet... 😉 Oh, and I added some hard numbers. A Passivhaus Classic dwelling with solar PV and using a zero-emission vehicle delivers over 3,084 Kg/year in CO2 emission savings...

That’s outrageous, with that attitude virtually no houses will be given planning permission in rural locations. Ditto Very good idea. 👍

+1. Don’t let the buggers grind you down .

Jeez - "sustainable travel" doesn't include an electric car? You can bet the planners all drive to work (when they go into the office) from their pretty country cottages. Pretty much impossible to function as an economic element in the countryside without a car.

Commiserations from here, that’s tough. I’m impressed by your careful analysis of the situation. And it looks a lovely plot. From my point of view, the planning system is increasingly capricious - each set of new rules just provides a bunch of new reasons to turn down applications. And we have some dreadful quality dwellings in this country and desperately need high quality buildings to be built. I hope you have the time and energy to continue with your quest.

Theres many variables here. I'll try to list them, in no particular order 1. kWh price 2. TOU unit price 3. Annual Space Heating demand 4. Annual DHW demand 5. ASHP Capital cost. 6. ASHP lifespan 7. Future energy costs 8. Cost of credit 9. House occupation patterns 10. FIT rates 11. Battery costs The only one you can make a big difference to is #3. Get your demand as low as possible. Then even the worst case doesn't look too bad. We are heating the house and providing DHW for 5 people for about €1500 annually doing it the most expensive way possible. Resistive heating and DHW. A €1400 A2A would save €700/year (2 year payback) . €800 total bill A €1900 ESHP for DHW would save € 265/ year (7 year payback) €1235 total bill A €5500 A2W ASHP would save €950/year (5 year payback) . €550 total bill A €3750 of 4kW Solar PV would save €750/year. (5 year payback) €750 bill A €100 second hand storage heater would save €288/year €1212 total bill, For us I decided that an A2A HP and 4kW of PV would virtually eliminate bills. Time will tell. A2W ASHP and PV will be cheaper to run but cost much much more to install inc UFH etc.