BadgerBodger

Yes, I’m inclined to agree. There doesn’t seem to be a single solution for all scenarios. interesting observation regarding the PIR and wiring. I imagine it’s a retained heat issue, something that can likely be overcome by oversizing the cabling for experience with other cable overheating issues. Something I’ll discuss with my architect for sure.

Considering @SteamyTeas comments you could consider a multitude of cheap “short term” solutions… EPDM, felt, pvc… the options are there…

I see no reason why not. I have installed single ply (read Sarnafil or equivalent) underneath kalzip before (a long time ago mind) on a modular solution where we wanted weathertightness quickly to allow for quick occupation of a building. We completed the roof post occupation. The final covering was effectively cosmetic only. Just be mindful that the overall cost will be greater.

@Annker I see. I can’t tell, are you planning to use a VCL or use the PIR as the VCL? If the latter… Would the infilled stud option with insulation between not be an option akin to mine then? The difference being your VCL sits outside in the “cavity” and the stud frame is on the “dry” side. An infilled stud allows for better optimisation of space if it is scant. Service routes could the. Be routed in the PIR or you could use a nominally deeper stud to allow the PIR to sit at the back and have service void to the front? I appreciate that may not result in a “warm batten” design but I would consider it as an option.

@Annker I am planning a barn conversion with IWI. I think we are considering similar strategies. Architects preference was for natural breathing solution but my preference was for a more commercial bag it up and stop it moving solution. In the most extreme case the external walls deviate 200mm from plumb…. We have an internal steel frame and are looking at currently looking at a minimum 50mm ventilated cavity, treated timber stud with PIR infill between. Likely 120mm. VCL to the inside face counterbatten and then PIR backed board to the front which will also be used to cloak the steel frame (potentially with and addition 25mm board to further limit cold bridging). Window openings will have VCL dressed through to the frame and the PIR bonded board will form the reveal which will vary I depth but be a minimum of 350mm deep. I’m considering the use of a breather on the outside face of the stud to protect the timber better but I think it might be unnecessary and make buildability challenging. Currently planning erecting stud frames at ground level and offering up for fixing to steel. If I were in your position, and wanting square wall I’d batten up at fixed centres and plumb with packers before affixing the next product. IMHO VCL could then be either to front or rear of PIR and dare I say it if you’re just driving improvement but without a specific figure you could just use foil faced PIR and tape with alutape… that’s the rougher side of me. Compromised VCL is almost always inevitable and I take one of two approaches I see as being practical and pragmatic. Either tape VCL to timber battens using some butyl tape strips then PIR backed PB could be directly affixed with the butyl tape “self healing) the fixing point OR (and this is how I always approach it) sandwich the VCL between two sheet products. In this case PIR and PB. The “trapped” nature of the fixing point and sandwiching between two impermeable products means leakage is minimal. The first option is a belt and braces version of the latter. Also might be worth considering a gypliner system… these can form a void of 30mm if I recall. Quick, easy, cheap and maintains a continuous cavity… https://www.british-gypsum.com/Systems/wall-linings/gyplyner-single#description Other variants exist

Yes, the one you see is decorative, there were 3 in total, all the same barring the flue that came from the cremator in one. It was an all electric crematorium which was interesting as t the time it was the second in the UK.

@saveasteading not the but thanks @JohnMo I’ll follow up on that!

@saveasteading I can’t remember the precise details but I recall the battens being approx 28 x 35. The panels were made up in a workshop so I’m not exactly sure how they were kept straight but it was furniture grade timber. The subframe was a ladder frame at around 450mm centres and the battens were double pinned and made good with wax at the same centres. The battens were left the oversail by 450, 300 and 150 mm to ensure a staggered joint and those were then pinned to the next panel etc. The reveals were a veneered mdf board. The timber was bought as soon as we got the design through which was then delivered and left to acclimate in the workshop for 3 months. This ensure we could select the most true lengths and so that we had timber from the same trees and area to ensure a uniform colouring. The cost was £€$¥ but the finished product was 🔥 The brickwork outside was almost as impressive… the eflourescence you see on the columns has gone now. The photos were taken professionally for Benchmark architects the lead designer. I forget who the engineers were. The project was for Hambleton district council in North Yorkshire. One of those jobs you’ll always look back on!

Nice @Russell griffiths. Oak CAN look great. Here’s something I did with an architect and a bespoke joinery contractor in a crematorium. The architect gave a concept, I designed a unitised solution, and the contractor fabricated and installed. A softwood frame with acoustic insulation within the frame, wrapped in acoustic fabric with the battens pinned to the frame in staggered lengths (uniformly so the next panel married up) and hung on a unistrut frame to shroud the building steel. Here we had composite panels forming the main roof which was cloaked in slate. The oak was treated with fire rated lacquer for spread of fire along with rated fabrics and mineral wool insulation.

I’m not sure that the cladding in itself would have any impact upon regulation compliance. The omission of plasterboard may be possible but the would be dependent on a number of factor such as whether the ceiling formed part of a fire compartment and/or part of the air tightness detailing. For example consider the following assumption - the vaulted ceiling has nothing but a roof above (which does not form part of an exit strategy for the floor above), it is a new build and it is assumed there will be a vcl lining to roof structure. In this case you COULD omit the plasterboard and timber line directly. However, it should always be considered that a good roofs function is not always only to keep the rain out but also limit the external environmental noise out too (in rural cases this might not be the case so much) and even the sound of wind and rain. Omitting the plasterboard may result in louder background noise dependent on the roof build-up above. The PB lining will also have some impact on the overall u-value of the roof (albeit timber will likely improve this value if used as a continuous lining) The simplest route would be to line with PB and then overclad with your selected material.

As I meander through the slow process of my purchase I am in a position to start some of the enabling works, first and foremost the provision of services to the plot. Amongst other aspects, with the project being a “conversion” I understand that the works associated should be rated a 5% (or at least as permitted under notice 708) and I am wondering how best to proceed with the works. Specifically, the planning permission is currently under the vendors name. I have read somewhere that to make your claim for a VAT refund as a self builder one must have their name on the planning permission. How is best to make this name change? I will be submitting for (or at least trying for) some NMA or perhaps even just as material amendments for ASHP, solar and some other more minor changes including an updated internal layout. Does this name change occur at this juncture automatically? In turn, the vendor is willing to make the necessary applications and payments for services installations. But, if he does so, the invoice would be in his name and I would not be able to to claim the VAT back at a later date because of this (supposing the name change on the planning permission). Would I be better making the application on the vendors behalf (as his agent whilst it remains his property) or just let him do it and forget about the £500 or so that in would get back? The are additionally some more novel factors in that the services will need to traverse the vendors remaining property to meet the new plot and up a private lane with which access is permitted. I get the feeling the latter option is a better option if only for ease and simplicity of easements etc. as whilst it’s his he can do as he pleases.

Sure, this is the band seal catalogue. There are a seemingly infinite number of variations on the theme… http://www.dureycastings.co.uk/uploads/DOCS/naylor-bandseals-brochure.pdf They can be bought from pretty much any builders merchant although they may carry a different manufacturer such as flexseal. The benefit with this is they are quite a tolerant connection in relation to size and position. Whilst the products I posted may not specifically be the correct arrangement alternative variations on size are generally available, you just have to take your measurements and search for them.

If you are willing to remove the PVC and re- plumb… Either band seal which comes with a variety of OD variations or you might have some luck with a male/female adaptor. It looks like the installer wrapped the plastic in some Denzo tape and just shoved it in. If you think it had a mortar point you could always reinstate that.

Thinking about we’ve had machines with restrictors to maintain certainty that the proximity limits in GS6 aren’t breached.

FYI useful docs for guidance are GS6 (overhead cables) & HSG47 (underground services). First port of call for general guidance on the topics and industry standard protocols. There are also explanatory notes documents for both if I recall. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/gs6.pdf https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg47.pdf

I like the outdoor lights. Are they the nordlux aldura seaside, I am thinking of getting them for my project but I didn’t see that colourway.

You could also manage air flow with a volume control damper in the ceiling void, however that generally requires access for commissioning or adjustment…

Fair enough. If it is just collecting rain water you can pretty much run it flat as there should be no to minimal solids and it would be easily roddable via the gullet grating if it isn’t trapped. how good is the concrete, a jet wash can do a reasonable amount of damage to old degraded concrete but is unlikely to do much to clay vitreous

Depending what you want to have flowing in and mindful of any requirements to segregate foul, surface or rainwater you want a saddle. Particular attention needs to be paid when connecting could in the manner as you need to connect maintaining the direction of flow and ensure at least 1/3 of the bottom channel remains intact. something akin to the below. https://www.drainageshop.co.uk/drainage-tees/flexseal-ta-saddle-45-110mm.html?kw=&ci=685597489864&network=g&pm=&cid=20892672460&aid=153930635701&tid=pla-2225359058083&dev=m&mt=&lim=&lpm=9046321&pos=&dm=&fid=&mid=104842450&pid=GWTA110-45&country=GB&source=google&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADi76WXXifCeIvkpeie6f3PJ1Lth7&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3vO3BhCqARIsAEWblcBvvfAdjrvhkTcZfdK0pMR1Xr7uusAv0IVbQYC5HfBDoXghg454mK4aAk1eEALw_wcB

Thanks, this is a useful piece of information. Ultimately I think a customers satisfaction with their designer will boil down to just a couple of things, the responsibilities bear heavily on both and I think it will be unlikely that cause of dissatisfaction will rest with solely one party. In reality the relationship is no different to any other business transaction but for one reason or another it become a little more emotive the customer needs to be able to identify what he wants i.e budget, features, feel, quality the designer needs to be able to follow the brief both parties need to be able to communicate ESPECIALLY when there is a feeling that the product is deviating from the brief the customer and the designer should bear in mind the type of work that is being requested, it may not align with the designer portfolio of work, in such a case there is a greater likelihood that both parties will not get what they want In my view, the problem with above is that most customers are reaching out to a designer in whatever form BECAUSE they don’t know what they want and this leads to change which leads to cost which leads to dissatisfaction. This is where the responsibility ends up landing at the doorstep of the designer and in my opinion is where a good designer shines through as they gently guide the customer through to the determination of their desires.

So this is something I was unclear about. The differentiation between and architect and others was clear i.e ARB registration. There is a difference between designer and technologist? And how does one quickly determine the difference?

Yes, this is the point!!!! This was my leading enquiry with all the designer i.e what was their vision for IWI strategy and then my thoughts and preferred solutions and if that deferred from theirs would the be prepared to work with my vision. Thanks for the heads up on the bat solutions. I think the proposal is the replace the existing roosts with integrated or surface mounted solutions. The ecologist I am engaged with appears very engaging. I think you’re right! Let’s see how it pans out but I have a good feeling.

I’m inclined to agree, poor analogy, this is more akin to the people building my house which from prior experience is even more variable. I was never actually against either option. I was more curious as to whether it was thought that working without a designer was a viable choice considering the relative complexity. I have actually chosen an architect as when I met them they came having reviewed the existing proposal and identified some problem I had overlooked (extremely valid) and proffered solutions. I immediately realised that despite my experience I am operating in a field unknown to me and I am used to the support and input an architect offers. I think a new build may well have resulted in a different choice. First expensive decision of many, made.

Ecology = Bats (in our case) = mitigation and watching brief when removing the and relocation if required along with replacement of roosts. Archaeology = Listed building in area of historical importance (lost medieval village) = WSI, level 2 historical recording for cataloguing of the original structure, both to be submitted to planning for approval prior to commencement, and watching brief for and subsequent reporting of findings.

Absolutely. I’ve actually chosen to move forward with one of the architects today on this basis. I absolutely got the feeling they would work with me to deliver what I wanted whilst carrying the experience of dealing with heritage projects that I saw beneficial. The same goes with the ecologist who I chose based on having seen some of his work prior and was the middle price. The archaeologist will be the toughest nut as I’m entirely unfamiliar with the field. Fortunately my chosen architect has already forwarded some preferred contacts with whom they have had success already. Feels like there is a hole in my pocket already… It’s much easier making these decision for work than myself!!!