My situation is I am renovating a ground floor bathroom which previously had a solid uninsulated concrete floor. It will become a wet room with underfloor heating.
The entire subfloor inside the bathroom has already been cut up and removed, and most of the loose aggregate underneath it dug out. Its now just a 1&1/2 foot deep pit with dirt at the bottom, so a blank slate in regard to floor design.
The original plan was to lay down a new DPM, insulation, then new slab in that order. But I've now had second thoughts. Since the bathroom will be used infrequently it doesn't really make sense to have it warm all the time, and therefore the thermal mass of the slab over insulation could be a hindrance rather than a benefit. The bathroom is only a few square meters and probably less than 10% of the entire house footprint, most of which will never be retrofitted with effective floor insulation. The building as a whole is around 1970s level of insulation and a bungalow so quite leaky by modern standards. This points to a requirement for room temperature controls instead of maintaining a low level of heating continuously?
So if I instead use an insulation over slab approach, this should allow the desired barefoot comfort floor temperature to be reached quickly when required without an obligation to leave the UFH (bathroom only) running all the time. It would probably just be left on a bit longer to help dry the floor after use and to reduce dampness in winter. Is this the correct philosophy?
One potential problem is the load bearing/spreading capacity of a thin layer of screed versus thick concrete for baths, wall hung toilets etc which I will probably have to create a new post for in the appropriate forum. But I feel the thermal behaviour of the floor is the inherent factor that should drive decision making. What's the right answer to this?