Havkey100

Yes, have been speaking with the heating engineer. Looking at the options on HPs at present. @JohnMo thanks for the input. Direction is low power HP, reasonable cylinder size of 300l or so, wet U/F and as per @Iceverge electric u/f in bathrooms and electric towel rails. On the MHVR I am investigating options as I am very tempted to DIY as I believe I can probably do the lot for 4-5k in a week myself with a spare pair of hands from my wife.

Yes, you're right on the overheating. I am inclined to not commit to anything on that front as I would rather run the system for a year and see how we manage. If we find we have an issue then we would maybe consider split air in one of the main rooms. 1% over 25 degrees, I believe peak was 26 degrees. Not sure on the solar gain impact of the PV, I assume it is embedded in the PHPP methodology as the calculation takes input on the array size. Location is Bristol, non coastal.

Thanks, that's why I posted. Agree on HP controls. Have one at the minute and it's unzoned. If I can get that install at less than £5k I'm happy. MHVR seems like it's 4k components, 2k ducting, 4k install, but am working on prices around that. Seems a big racket on it by installers at present.

All, PHPP calcs are in and we are firmly in between Passivhaus Plus and Passivhaus Premium by design, less than 0.6ACH, with overheating risk at 1%. Amazing of course, but the one slight downside of all of this is the multitude of options for heating and ventilation. The solar installation will be 9-13kw of solar (pending DNO approval), a 15kw battery, with no gas installed on site. May consider a V2X Sigenstor as my car has that feature and I have access to free charging. The basic issue is that we can almost heat the house with a toaster, therefore a heat pump system is for the most part going to provide HW in an unvented cylinder for a family of 5, with only periodic use via a wet U/F loop downstairs on the insulated raft. The MHVR solution is likely to be a Zehnder Q450. I am trying to weigh up all the permutations we can try in order to minimise capital cost and simplify controls. So far my considerations are: 1. MHVR Heating/Partial Cooling with Direct Hot Water Cylinder - £16k Zehnder Q450 and Comfoclime add on HP, which gives about 2kw of heating and cooling capacity. It comes in at £13k and has the benefit that it likely has all the heating capacity we would ever need, can temper hot conditions (clearly not a full blown AC, but 2kw of cooling would help a lot). OSO 300L DHW cylinder. Can heat overnight on an agile tariff, economy 7, and recharge daytime from battery, V2X if needed. £2k installed. Contingency install U/F loop in case the above is less liveable than we hope. £1k 2. MHVR with 5KW HP HP Cylinder - £18k Zehnder Q450 £10k Vaillant Arotherm 5KW with 300l Vaillant HP Cylinder. £7k out of pocket. U/F loop in case the above is less liveable than we hope. £1k 3. MHVR with Direct Hot Water Cylinder and IR/Electric Heating - £14.5k Zehnder Q450 £10k OSO 300L DHW cylinder. £2k installed Strategic Electric Heating - IR or a few towel rails in the extract locations of the MHVR loop - £1.5k. Contingency install U/F loop in case the above is less liveable than we hope. £1k Any other options I am missing here? I am inclined to go with option 1 as it is a bit cheaper, harmonises the controls, and in practice I can't imagine it will cost any more or less in practice to run, plus has some cooling capability. I was also considering the NIBE S735C, but am struggling to lock in pricing on that. I think it may come in at 20k and is an entirely integrated solution from which I could heat via air, u/f, ventilate, cool and manage HW with 300l of storage. But, the issue is the overlap of heating and cooling adds complexity to ownership of an installation between the MHVR designer and heating engineer. Thanks for any input and experience!

I wish I had pushed a bit. Our original request from our case officer: Apologies for the delay in responding. I can confirm I have now written the report for this proposal with a recommendation for approval. Please find attached the conditions for your agreement. Due to the number of comments that are contrary to the officer recommendation the application must be published on the Council’s Circulated Schedule before a decision can be issued. The next CS will run from the 25th April – 2nd May. Whilst the application is on the CS Members can choose to call the application to Committee. If the application is not called in, it will be issued as a delegated approval by the 6th May. If the application is called to Committee I will be in touch with the relevant dates. It would be appreciated if you were able to agree to an extension of time to the 6th May to accommodate the Circulated Schedule process. They then changed their decision in the extension window forcing us to appeal (which we won after a 7 month delay!) I always wondered what may have happened if we had been obtuse. Probably our case officer's line manager would have been still on leave and we would have avoided the lost time...

Yeah, only my 11 year old was around at the time. Had to use him for emotional support lol.

Submitted mid August Started 25th September Site Visit 18th December Decision this week.

Appeal Decision notice attached for anyone who is interested. 3350167 Appeal Decision (1).pdf

In my opinion having a clear island is much better. When hosting, you have two separate congregation points, without cooker mess and paraphernalia in the way. Cooking than then be kept separate. I used to think otherwise, but having just been to a friends new home, they have the cooker against the wall, a similar sized island to your proposal, and it worked really well as a gathering space.

Relevant sections: 12. One of the closing paragraphs of the TAN deals with the planning balance in the determination of planning applications. In this case I have found that in terms of the main issue that most of No 37’s external areas would not lack acceptable outlook or be dominated or suffer adverse visual impact if the proposed new house were built. The same would apply to the large room served by the French doors. I find differently in respect of the bedroom. However, having regard to the many factors in the development’s favour, this is insufficient reason, in itself, to refuse permission. 13. In conclusion, I find, on balance, the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of No 37’s future residents. Accordingly, I find that no significant conflict arises with those provisions of Policy PSP8 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan directed to ensure that new development should not have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby property. At some point I will drop in my appeal document. It is hefty, but I tried to leave no stone unturned.

Massively. It has added a 7 month delay. We are lucky in that we are at my in laws, the house is spacious so we have no real issues.

Another one to many! Should never have got there, but still...

Appeal successful. I need to sit down for a while 😁

I think the consensus is to try and not take it personally. I feel the same, that comments should be restricted to addressees impacted directly by the development in the direct vicinity. However, defining the cut off would be challenging. We had all sorts commenting on ours, none of which were deemed valid. The only comment that was valid in my view was from a parish councillor, and after a minor redesign he was satisfied.

Thankyou. Seems the reports are trickling out from that weeks appeal visits so we may hear something soon!

Yes, he seems to do 5 or so visits in a day then write them up over a few weeks.

Site visit now done. The inspector was there for about 10 minutes, not sure if that's good or bad! Checked the kitchen/diner view and the dual aspect bedroom. Went outside and asked about the intentions for replacing the lleylandi, which will be a dry stone wall with native planting. He seems to take 3 or so weeks to issue a report. Fingers crossed.

A few thoughts. Just thinking about what the case officer might say: 1. Very close to rear boundary. What's behind the house? 2. Turning for vehicle will be required if it is a new build. They assume people will not reverse onto their drive. 3. Front garden will not count as private amenity space. Looks tight. Here it would be 70sqm for a 4 bed. What will you have? 3. Planner may say it is contrived as it does look a bit shoehorned in. Are there similar builds in the area?

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.

Have spent a lot of time on it. As many others have experienced, we just want a fair shake at it. It seems we are being held to the whims of a personal opinion from one person, given our case officer was actually happy with even our original design. We made several changes to offset the concerns of the authorising officer, but they pretty much ignored them. I did have this from the inspectorate: "In the interests of clarity, and having regard to the appellant's initial correspondence and grounds of appeal, would the appellant produce a list of the plans, with references, it wishes the Inspector to consider, and which it considers was subject of the Council's determination. " Maybe that says a lot about the lack of clarity from the council on which version of the plans their report was based on. I have clarified again, which aligns with my appeal documents.

We have an appeal inspector now and hopefully will have site visit. On the bright side, I think we have somebody who can bring a balanced view to the application. Having read a similar one the inspector decided on, they had this to say on the 12m rule we are being subjected to: 'The amendments made to the previously rejected scheme are noted, as is the appellant’s contention that the western facing wall could no longer be regarded as ‘blank’ in terms of the Council’s TAN3. I share the appellant’s view that ‘the 12m minimum distance is guidance rather than strict regulation and each application can be reviewed on its own merit and the local impacts assessed’. Given we are at 11.5m, at an angle, don't have a blank elevation and much much better than guidance on the 25 degree rule I would hope that we can reach a similar accordance.

LPA response is no change to their assessment, but they recognised the incorrect versions of the plans had been referenced in their report. Final comments are open until 12th November. Still awaiting a site visit date from the Planning Inspector.

Yes, already done as recommended by the planning consultant.

Inspectorate have come back to me asking that I attach the relevant plans from the refusal notice, which I thought I had. It seem not, the refusal notice is referencing the outdated drawings that were superseded and formed part of the re-consultation we had to go through. I have now had to go back to the planning department and ask what the process should be. I am not sure if they need to issue a corrected decision notice and new circulated report! Can't make this up.

Any particular reason for the delay?