MDC

A breath of fresh air; always welcome... aye!

Filled our key hole with wool and stuck thick tape across the hole on the outside. Presumably there is thermal bridging via the spindle, so you could take that out for the winter. And/or put a blank handle plate on the outside, so there is no hole at all.

Thanks for this

I understand a means of escape window has to measure a minimum of 450mm height and width. Do all first floor rooms have to have a means of escape window? Bathrooms/landings etc., are excluded from this requirement?

I had a thermal survey of the house and I also spent considerable time and cash plugging the many holes in the insulation. The air tightness test on the EPC is 3.3, but in reality there's less air movement on Brighton Pier on a November night than in my house. How much effort does it take to fiddle air tightness?

My house is B rated, but that isn't how it performs. On paper it looks good, but the reality is, the fitting of the insulation etc is really poor. The builder didn't do what he said he'd done, and you can't blame the government for that. But it contributes to the little B line on that graph. I don't think you can rely on that graph as evidence of anything.

I just read right through this fascinating thread. There wasn't one mention of what you might cover the windows with at night - blinds/curtains etc. We live in a house built in 2016 of blocks and all that. It has double glazing. The north side is colder than the south etc. We get condensation on the windows. If we left the blinds completely shut at night, we'd eventually get the black stuff on the window frames and reveals and it would develop from there. So, from September to March, we open the blinds a minimum of 5 inches from the ground/sill so the air isn't trapped against the cold glass/frame/handles/key hole and so on. This is from 11pm at night. There is no condensation. The rooms have the same humidity, but the warm air isn't trapped against the coldest surface. We had the same issue in our previous eco-house, which had an MVHR. Another thing, we considered buying a house near Bristol, which had a pair of very nice modern efficient extensions around an 18th century grade 2 listed tower. It had MVHR and an incredible ground source heat pump. It was about 220 sq metres. The electricity bills were out of this world [in my opinion] and the tower was full of mould [I'd say the bedrooms there were unusable]. The new and the old just didn't mix humidity wise. The owner was eco-friendly and wanted to save the planet, but he'd actually created a damp monster in that house, by mixing modern insulation in some areas, with no insulation in others. Just saying.

Presumably the new owner will try to have it de-listed. Brighton didn't go to such lengths with the West Pier. I wonder if the scaffolder is a Councillor.

There you go! you like those windows and have good reason too - design it from there!

Seeing as you've invited comment, I think it looks like something of a traditional house that has been overextended. Which is odd, as it is not traditional and hasn't even been built. I wonder if that's what you can't grasp about it. If nothing else, it should start with some decent symmetry. My personal taste is for a symmetrical design with one external finishing. The other thing I don't like is too much glass, so for me I'd have the glazing to the living room by the chimney more in keeping with the rest of the design. Apart from all that is great! There you go! Good luck!

Crikey, that's a story. Point noted.

Perhaps 5mm of plastering all round is a good solution?

The new build will not be entirely on the same footprint. You have me wondering if the original piles will be left in situ or dug out.

I now agree. I was looking at some Weeping Willows by the Thames yesterday. I thought the tree in question, by the house on my plot, is big, but I see it isn't by comparison, so if it stays, there will be considerably more trouble down the line.

No ground investigation. I got the information from house plans. Thank you for your advice.

The tree was planted after the bungalow was built.

When the present house was built in 1953, there were no trees. The house sits at the top of a hill in a clay field. It was originally a bungalow, so it possibly safe to assume the foundations are shallow by today's standards. Why would it be on piles?

Less than 16 metres.

Fair point

I'll assume deeper footings

With the willow gone, we'll move the design across, so 35+ metres or so

Yes, this willow has more growth away from the existing house. If we take the willow out next week, and achieve planning by next May, in theory the foundations will be in by July, and so on we go. The willow has to go, and the south side oaks stay. Thanks for your advice.

Interesting you'd wait for BC. Round our way people take the trees out to avoid TPO's before the build.

This willow is at the high point of the land! There is no stream/burn anywhere. I'm told it was bought from Woolworths at a cost of £2.50, and it'll cost a fair bit more to remove it.

That's interesting. I have the impression you're suggesting the willow provides a service, which will carry on for a season and then stop, so the soil will be wetter in the future, which means it will act differently after the house is built [if it's built within a year of felling the tree]. The ground is clay. The tree and the proposed house are at the highest point on the land.