ash_scotland88

Looks a bit McMansionish No guest loo?

As and update didn't get this house, there was an offer significantly more than ours and ours was under the offers over value.

I though the range would be too inefficient, but could maybe make do for a winter season, but by that attitude the previous occupants survived 30+ years with what's there so why can't we? But yes, hybrid is looking the best way forward. Offer submitted today so will find out tomorrow maybe. Even if we don't get this one then it's all research and knowledge added. There's the big grand plan of rebuilding a wooden lean to to move the utility into and expand the kitchen into the old space. So anything that's make do may need to take into consideration that.

I think the air tightness may be an issue, it's a lovely 1860 house (previous house we didn't get from closed bidding was 1835) filled with the originial period features so ripping down ceilings and padding out walls (some external walls must be close to 1000mm thick already!) and lose all the features and old wall textures etc one may as well buy a new build at that point! Of course the attic rooms can be knocked about to hearts content to insulate those which would help the house. Windows, the modern veluxs need replaced before the sash n case but double glazing is obviously on the cards. The biggest concern at the moment for this house is installing a heating system of some description.

Thanks, will read into it. Admittedly my brief reading of paragraphs about hybrid systems only brought up gas as the other fuel.

In the feeling of the never ending quest to find a renovation property with land the odd farmhouse has popped up. Most have been with oil boilers and as you can imagine they aren't the most airtight for the classic UFH and ASHP combo. The latest house we've viewed doesn't even have central heating, it's electric radiators and an immersion with an oil fueled range providing the hot water. My question: Who's successfully installed ASHP and radiator system CH? Did you run with normal radiators or go with aluminium, as some websites appear to suggest. High temperature ASHP appear to be a newish thing on the market designed for this sort of scenario, is there much benefit speccing these over the standard ones? I'm just trying to get an idea into options and the associated costs of installation and obviously taking into account upping the insulation levels where do-able.

I think that would be obviously expected and wasn't part of the original question.

I appreciate it's a massively open question. It's a house we're trying to arrange a viewing for. Looking at pictures of earial views below can be made out. The flat roof extension isn't actually flat, even for flat roof standards. Almost half of it has a raised portion, internally one has to go up some stairs to gain access to a room and shower room. The slope of the flat roof is down the 9.5m length, which starts at the same height as the raised part before ending (externally) at the same height of the originial pitched roof. The house is on a hill and looking at proportions they've converted a single garage (the raised part) into rooms and then added the flat roof extension in-filling between it and the originial house, but kept that at house level while "old garage" was up the hill. To further complicate matters, there's also a double garage thats flat roof at same out of the raised portion and a further "extension" off the main space also a flat roof, both are off-set to this main space making it pointless to incorporate. Describing all this makes one think it may be easier to just knock down the main flat roof space and start again so internals are level.

Any body know rough costings for "converting" a flat roof to a pitched roof? I know there's loads of variables, but if we accept the current foundation and walls can support it. New pitch would be in line with original house, which is akin to a chalet bungalow, flat roof size is roughly 9.5m by 6.5m. The current gable end is the 9.5m length. How would this cost to making the new roof area live-able?

100mm walls? What are you planning to construct the house form? Timber frame is typically 100mm stud work, 12.5mm plasterboard and 3mm skim, 131mm. SIPS may allow for a thinner wall, happy to be explained why it can be kept to 100mm. Bathroom, right for keeping thicker, more so for allowing soundproofing. Also wouldnt design with mm percision for allowing components/fixtures to fit "just," you're allowing for zero build tolerances. You also have four different zones for wet and waste services, consider the cost and design implications of this.

The 500 working days is total working days. You could have 1 guy work 501 days, have 5guys working 101days- which if you think about it does 5 guys working for 3 months seem a realistic time scale for your build? What you may have to do is ask all your subcontractors estimated number of poeple on site per day and proposed amount of working days.

Is this based off a persimmon home? Pretty sure we looked at one with this layout.

What's above the flat part of the ceiling?

Viewing tomorrow so will hopefully grab potential wall thickness, build type etc. Previous occupant knocked through for a door into an ensuite wetroom. Upper walls will be remaining put. Building is category b listed, but received this due to the outside features according to reading pasmap Back room is the wetroom ensuite and "utility room." The ensuite is carved out making that room an awkward U-shape. The new room created has the potential to become a large 4.7mx7m, kitchen, diner, sitting area. So viewed the house. Recon the walls are lathe and plaster, as evident in the attic rooms. The wall sounded hollow and not solid. Ultimately not going to offer on the house as there's an industrial extractor and bin store for a pub right outside one of the corners.

Viewing tomorrow so will hopefully grab potential wall thickness, build type etc. Previous occupant knocked through for a door into an ensuite wetroom. Upper walls will be remaining put. Building is category b listed, but received this due to the outside features according to reading pasmap Back room is the wetroom ensuite and "utility room." The ensuite is carved out making that room an awkward U-shape. The new room created has the potential to become a large 4.7mx7m, kitchen, diner, sitting area.

Any body have any experience in removal of a late 1800s internal wall? Said wall atleast carries into first floor, possibly upto the attic rooms (viewing the house tomorrow). I know anything is possible with money but would it be esthetically do-able or by the time of a possible thickness required and then fire proofing it'll just be ridiculously encroaching to height. I appreciate there's too many variables and given too little detail to give an accurate answer.

I think a lot of people confuse "accessible sanitary facilities" with being fully wheelchair compliant, myself included when I first started reading the regs. If I now understand it correctly this allows for those of limited mobility full comfortable access, although I think it does talk about wheelchair access? These facilities need to have one on each floor and space for a shower on the principal living floor, or is it just principal living floor? Hence new builds now having a massive WC downstairs that often feels unproportional. I did find a Glasgow CC document that sums up fully wheelchair compliant living standards.

Thanks guys. Picture attached is the cropped area I was looking at, originally designed to England and Wales part M and a few extra mm here and there. From top down -300mm wide sink space,(the top side of this wall works out to be 600mm for a kitchen unit depth) -850wide by800 deep door/accessible space -850wide by 700 toilet space. Basicallyneed to see if can go out 250mm more or push into the kitchen more and not use the wall thickness difference between exterior and new interior. Or flip it around. Sadly think it's all a bit too much of a pinch and compramise Edit: reading that a sink can infringe on a access space, can a sink (small cloakroom style) also encroch on the "activity space"? I can quite decifer. Also what may let us down is having to include a shower space for future use, or is this not required also due to existing bathroom but on a different level?

Cheers, that's the sort of explanation/ understanding I was looking for. That these accessible activity spaces are in fact the "legal minimum" Can activity spaces overlap? So can the wash hand basin activity space also be part of the toilet activity space? Looking at the document saved on my phone it's 1100 Infront of the toilet by 800 wide. Is there a general rule for over all WC room size? I might need to post a picture of the space and door positions to demonstrate it. Is there a general guideline for external wall thickness too?

I was translating the meaning of accessible as disabled, especially in the regards of front/side access. I have found a 600mm deep comfort height toilet. If a door swung outwards it would be into a vestibule area blocking other an door, which would not open into the WC door if left open. If that makes sense? The current extension is pushed to every MM almost possible, could go longer but need to check build lines, and the WC would carve out space from an other room if it is possible so don't really want to make it much bigger. I know Part M in England is a lot smaller than up here, from memory, started reading the wrong regs to begin with.

Excuse the long post and the bit of waffling but I'm looking for some advice regarding Scottish Building Regs and adding a toilet to an extension where there's not one on that floor. So my understanding is that if you want to build a WC then it needs to be a certain size, show you can add a shower at a later date if required. Essentially make it future proof for disability access. But I was bored over the christmas break and was reading up on the building regs. 2017 Building standards technical handbook says in 3.12.5: If it is intended to install a new sanitary facility on the principal living level or entrance storey of a dwelling and there is not already an accessible sanitary facility of that type within the dwelling, the first new facility should be in accordance with the guidance given in clauses 3.12.3 and 3.12.4. So if our current bathroom (on first floor) fits the guidance for front and side accesible loading would we be ok as it does not stipulate that it has to be on the same level, as my understanding has been 3.12.0 also says Although not recommending that sanitary facilities on the principal living level of a dwelling be designed to an optimum standard for wheelchair users, it should be possible for most people to use these facilities unassisted and in privacy. The room I am looking at is about 800-850wide by 1600 length, the door would be to one end of the length. Taking this into account do you think the below could be succesfully argued?.... "Referring to 3.12.0 and taking this aboard the WC has been designed to maximise space by the proposed use of a pocket door over a swing. The occupants further propose the installation of a comfort height WC that will benefit those of restricted mobility. The WC room size may not be designed optimally to full wheel chair users but all care and design has been made to make the WC as accessible “as reasonably practical” to those of limited mobility and improving amenity of the dwelling. Not including a WC on this level may be of a hindrance in the future and benefits the comfort and usability of the dwelling for the current occupants and guests while increasing the practicality and desirability of a family 3bedroom home." Does the 1100 spacing infront of the toilet is that still a standard that needs to be fulfilled? Or am i simply missing an other chapter or cross reference? Thanks,