NSS

@jamiehamy Yes, October has been quite a month. I became a grandfather for the first time, I hit the big 60 and we moved into what will hopefully be the home they have to carry us out of in boxes Hope you're in for Xmas.

Well, long day. But we're in and we have a sofa to sit on and a bed to sleep in tonight.

Nightmares about this last night!

Cheers Barney. Right now, it's probably more a feeling of relief than anything else, but I'm sure it will feel good once we're in and settled.

Already messed up as we've been moving stuff across to it for a week or so. It's just the big stuff that won't fit in my car,

Tomorrow, 2 days short of 28 months since we broke ground (and 3 years since we bought the plot), we're finally moving in Happy days!

Looks like it will be worth the wait @lizzie

I needed one that could be used on pre-varnished Thermowood which narrowed the choice and increased the cost

Exterior Dave. Any cladding within 1 metre of a boundary is supposed to be Class 0 for spread of flame, they just didn't bother to mention that until the final inspection.

@DH202020that's uncanny, my BCO has done likewise. What annoys me is that the cladding was present on original drawings and in place on both of the previous inspections without any mention of needing this Class 0 coating. My guess is that this is 'post Grenfell Tower' covering of backsides. Try Rawlins specialist paints. They recommended ThermoGuard for our job (₤253 for enough to cover 20m2).

Definitely after. If you zoom in on the nearest window in this pic you'll see that the operal board is not yet in but we set the corner profiles so that the board will sit against the frame and then I'll seal around with clear silicon.

Yep, but you need to be careful with the vertical trims for the window reveals to ensure a good fit of the 'lintel' profiles that then carry the board immediately above the windows. We used offcuts to do a temporary build up either side of each window to make sure we got it right as the corner profile on the reveal sides has to be fixed before the boards go up. We're using Marley Opera board (same colour and material as the Click) to complete the inside face of the reveals.

I did, with a little help from a couple of mates. The Cedral Click comes in 3.6m lengths and is pretty heavy so needs at least two pairs of hands to lift and slot into place, particularly on the higher level stuff on the gable ends.

I used a mix of Thermowood and Marley Cedral Click. The latter is tongue and groove fibre reinforced cement board with invisible fixings.

Ditto

Just received our EPC. Scored 96

Hi @Amanda and welcome. Our build is not to Passivhaus standard but potential overheating from solar gain was a big concern for us, and 'night purging' was not an option (long story). The solution I've gone for is Sageglass (electrochromic glazing) and it seems to be working very well. It's not cheap but it does mean you can control excess solar gain whilst retaining the benefit at times of the year when that gain is desirable.

Yep

Actually, it doesn't. ATTMA guidelines for the test clearly state either * positive or negative pressure test is acceptable, but IF both are conducted then the average of the two should be used for the final result.

So the song goes, and that was the predicted air permeability number which went into our 'As Designed' SAP calcs (though our target was to be sub 2 'as built'). Well, we finally reached the point where we could delay the test no longer (we hope to move in in 3 weeks' time), and with some trepidation I watched as the blower door was fitted and the fan turned on. First thing to happen was the suction pulled the frame out of the door opening. Re-fitted, the fan was turned on again and depressurisation commenced. With inward opening windows I'd have preferred a pressurisation test but the tester wasn't planning on sitting outside in the light rain that was falling. The first run of recorded numbers were rejected by whatever software he entered them into on his laptop, it suggesting he needed to cover four of the eight holes in the fan cowling. He duly did so and re-ran the test. It was clear that the suction was again trying to rip the blower door out of the door frame as air was leaking past it on both sides, but the entered numbers provided a m3/h/m2 score of 1.74 - not bad (and inside my target), but both the tester and I knew it could be better if we could stop air leaking past the blower door frame. Tape was added and we had another go. Again, air was soon rushing in around the blower door, but the recorded numbers gave a score of 1.599 when entered and, as that was comfortably better than the original aspiration, we decided not to try again to seal the leaks round the blower door. Okay, I know this is nowhere near the 0.6ACH (I estimate our test result equates to around 1.23ACH) required for Passiv House, but we were never aiming for that and the complex shape of our chalet bungalow and large dormers never leant themselves to such levels of air tightness. Frankly, I was delighted (and mightily relieved) to have achieved 1.6 but I'm now wondering what it could have been had that blower door sealed properly. Would I be being greedy to get them back for another go? Running it as a pressurised test would pull the frame hard into the door seal after all, and any chance of minor leakage past the windows would be reduced. Would it make much difference? Would I get a lower number and would that have any impact on the 'As Built' SAP score? Or do I just accept that 1.6 is my magic number?

I see The Times is reporting that mayor Khan is set to ban WBS in most polluted areas of London. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/wood-burning-stoves-face-ban-in-pollution-crackdown

Can't comment on IKEA units but we fitted our three bathrooms with units from BluewaterKBB in Solihull and have been very impressed with the quality for the price. They also sell via ebay as bathcabz.

So probably circa 101 if only 4Kw, which is still exceptional. My point is that, as @le-cerveau said earlier in the thread, renewable (in this case PV) does seem to have an overly large impact on the SAP calculation. Probably explains why developers stick as few as 2 panels on roofs. In fact, one of my daughters bought a new home last year. Directly across the road from her, a new house built by a different developer has 4 panels fitted on the north facing elevation. Apparently, all the houses of that particular design have 4 panels on the same section of roof, irrespective of the houses' orientation to the sun. Farcical!

So, if 6Kw gets you to 101 and 8Kw gets you to 107, does it follow that 4Kw would reduce it to 95?