Mike

I get the impression that you're not a registered architect? If not you'd need to style yourself as an 'architectural designer' or similar to avoid potential prosecution.

Indeed they're not. To increase services you'd either need to raise taxes further, or cut some existing expenditure / do things more efficiently to free up the cash. For example, from the chart below, restricting the NHS to 1980's drugs & technology should make a big difference (and indirectly bring down the pension bill too). IFS: How have the size and shape of the UK state changed?

And the average UK worker pays much less tax than many of the other leading economies, as below (from the OECD's Taxing Wages 2025 - several other charts are worth a look too). . The taxes here in France are some of the highest (for businesses too), but you notice the difference - the country feels in much better shape than the UK, despite its various problems.

It does seem to be relatively popular in the USA. I'm subscribed to the emails from https://www.hempbuildmag.com/, which has plenty of interesting information, though in practice I rarely have time to read much. But this upcoming book could be useful: https://www.hempbuildmag.com/home/hempsteads-book-architectural-details

I had - a good point!

BTW, did anyone notice the Severn Estuary Commission's recent recommendation that the Government should 'act now' to include tidal range energy in general, and a tidal lagoon in particular, in their policies? https://www.severncommission.co.uk/commission-recommends-uk-government-act-now-to-harness-tidal-energy/

The UKAEA is still exists (though it's now focused on fusion); guessing you meant the breakup of the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board)? While that wouldn't have helped, it was after Chernobyl (in 1986, coming 7 years after Three Mile Island in 1979) that most new nuclear power ground to a halt world-wide. Fukushima wasn't much of an encouragement either. If's only the recent focus on electrification that has lead to renewed interest in - or, rather, more successful lobbying by - the nuclear industry.

For active schemes, the Schemes Register (the 2nd link in my post above) lists the 2012 price (everything uses that as the baseline) & the current price. So Hinkley Point C is £89.5 / MWh at 2012 prices, but £127/MWh at current prices - so multiply by 1.42. Which does suggest that they're using CPI, as @SteamyTea suggests.

For those interested, the European Network Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) is setting up an expert panel to investigate that - press release on their website.

It would increase price stability, but may not reduce bills. In last year's CfD auction (Allocation Round 6) the strike price for solar averaged £50.07 MWh and onshore wind £50.90/MWh (both at 2012 values); Hinkley Point C is £89.5 / MWh (also at 2012 values). The first of those links suggests a strike price for new gas of £82.83/MWh (at 2012 prices).

Good idea - Citiz have been growing a network similar to that in France for 20 years, mostly in cities and towns, but in some rural areas too (more, in English, here). While most of their vehicles aren't yet electric (and they don't include the Citroen Ami), they claim that every one of their vehicles removes 8 to 10 privately owned ones. That also means that people increases the number of trips they take by alternative means (e-bikes, public transport, walking, ride-sharing, etc.) so that each Citiz vehicle has the effect of reducing overall CO2 emissions by around 10 tonnes per year. I'm a member myself, so can reserve a vehicle anywhere in France within a couple of minutes from the app. There are also various smaller private sector schemes (Citiz is a network of 14 regional co-ops & public sector operators).

Combustible structural materials need to be 200mm away from the inner face of a masonry chimney flue in order to meet the requirements of Building Regs Part J. You'd therefore have to ensure that it can't be used as a chimney in future to avoid those requirements - for example by permanently blocking it with that padstone & considering how to avoid the potential for elevated moisture levels within the old flue. Provided you've done that, there's no need for further protection for the beam.

This bit does: votre toiture protège de la pluie et à moins de déposer la toiture, il n’est pas possible d’installer un pare pluie qui se situe au-dessus des liteaux But not the fist part: Nous veillons à bien calfeutrer partout avec l’isolant. You can't make a roof airtight using only wood fibre insulation. To do make it airtight from the inside requires a proper airtight layer. Pro Clima show one way of doing it on their website, using Mento, at https://fr.proclima.com/produits/etancheite-exterieur/solitex-mento-1000/mise-en-oeuvre#sub_navigation (see Pose ultérieure d’une sous-toiture par l’intérieur). If the tile already have a sarking membrane/felt beneath them that's in good enough condition to catch any rain that bypasses the tiles, then I'd omit the central batten that creates the V shape. And probably omit the other spacer battens if the sarking membrane is vapour-permiable; I guess yours may well be? Of course this requires doing with care, especially to make sure that the airtightness remains at the ridge, eaves, skylights, etc. It would, however, be much better (present fewer potential leakage paths) to use a continuous membrane instead of cutting & sealing it at each every rafter. In other words, very similar to installing a membrane when insulating a floor (but doing it overhead) - for example here (though, as above, potentially omitting the VCL):

That type of vent will tend to blow the air vertically downward, so being close to the wall probably won't be a major problem (unless the installation instructions say otherwise). Though unless you have a tiny room I'd imagine that there are some other options.

Selecting the correct internal environment in WUFI to model that is not at all straightforward, as mentioned in my post on the topic from last year - there seems to be an absence of accurate information on which to calculate it. And, If they have erred too much on the side of caution (which I suspect), the results will be overly pessimistic. If you're able to post the details of the internal environment that they've used, that may give us a clue. if you don't have it, it would be worth asking for it. If that's what WUFI suggests, that increases my suspicion that it's inaccurate. I'm not a WUFI expert, but based on my own WUFI experiments, adding Intello membrane to a building that has WUFI is likley to make the moisture build-up within the wall somewhat worse (in winter), not better. That's because standard MVHR is likely to result in a lower internal relative humidity than would otherwise be the case, which, in turn, would remove moisture from the wall structure. A VCL, even a smart one such as Intello, will tend to block that drying action for part of the year. If that's also based on WUFI, that also seems counter-intuitive in view of the previous suggestion. Option 1 (Intello) suggest that slowing drying to the inside (in winter) is better; Option 2 (clayboard) suggests that increasing drying to the inside is better...