sansserif

I've found that some of the TF vendors factory fit the (PIR) insulation. The argument being that factory installation is going to have better tolerances and quality control.

What's the thinking around STA assured wall build-ups? I'm thinking if you were to piecemeal the wall -- TF co supplies uninsulated frame, insulation is fitted on site separately... Would you run into issues with mortgage-ability or structural warranty going down that route?

The points around sound insulation seem really valid, that's something that is valuable to me. In general, I've been surprised how adamant the TF firms are around using PIR. Has anyone worked with a manufacturer that's actually open to something else? Feels like in twisting their arm to even discuss something different. Architect is in favour of cellulose, anyone have thoughts there? He's mainly thinking from an eco perspective, which I appreciate but it's not my only consideration. How are you guys thinking about structural warranty / STA assured wall build-ups?

Why did you end up going with mineral wool out of curiosity? What makes you think it's nicer? I'm trying to understand how to make a decision on this. The TF companies steer heavily towards PIR, but my impression is that it's because it's easiest for *them*. Sorry, I wasn't clear. 300mm is the thickness allowance for just the osb+studs+service batten. Complete allowances: - Brick walls: 500mm for everything (brick + cavity + OSB + studs + plasterboard + skim) - Rendered walls: 350mm for everything (render + OSB + studs + plasterboard + skim)

Rain screen would be brick (ground floor) and render (above)

The designs have an allowance for a ~300mm exterior wall thickness, excluding rain screen and plasterboard etc. Would be great to not need the full 300mm though. Design has a gable roof with a that overhangs about 50mm over the gable end. Distance to nearest boundary is 0.8m, and around 1.8m to the nearest building. No (known) nearby obstructions!

Hi all Wondering if anyone has any thoughts re: exterior wall insulation for my timber frame build. I'm shooting for an energy efficient build, but not chasing perfection by trying to hit passiv standards. I'd like to hit a sweet spot between price and performance. It looks like the "standard" exterior wall build-up from TF firms is 140mm studs + PIR to hit a decent U-value. But I'm wondering wondering if I'm missing a trick by not considering other insulation options? In particular, it would be great to have something that's a more organic material, lower VOC etc... Anyone have any advice? What's worked well for you all?

Access isn't terrible for London. It's suburban. ~9m no parking zone immediately outside the house and a off street parking space next to the house. Road could be wider though. How big would you expect the crew to be? One quote breaks down costs and has labour at 30K (10-12 days on site). That's either a big crew or a lot of margin. Would ideally get demo, groundworks and foundation done together, but we might have to book demolition in before groundworks/foundation plans are finalised. Great. Nothing specific has come up yet beyond the usual (ecology, tree protection etc). At what point did they inform you of additional restrictions? In response to section 80?

I need to demolish a 3 bed, 120sqm 2 storey detached house (so 60sqm footprint) in london borough of barnet. The house is near one other house (alleyway in between), otherwise we're pretty far from any other structure. I'm sorting out as much of the "pre work" as possible myself, e.g. fencing, utilities, asbestos. I'm getting quotes that I think are pretty wild. So far 70K and 50K from small demolition firms. At this rate I'll be doing it myself! How would you go about trying to get this done for a more sensible budget?

Hi all Does anyone have any recommendations for a structural engineer for a timber frame new build project? The scope of the work would be to design the foundation based on the site conditions and line/point loads, and determine if any retaining structures are needed as the site is on a slight incline. Ideally they could do the civils too? Ideally a firm that is pragmatic and cost-effective, rather than specialising in billionaire basements, if that makes sense This is in North London (Barnet). Would be super helpful if anyone has suggestions, or advice for how to choose a firm for this.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I've found a few firms from nearby planning applications that look pragmatic, and have reached out. I figure it's a good sign when some of their reports show no need for further action -- and reports where bats were found offer a range of solutions to try and problem-solve. A trick I've learnt on this journey is that money can be saved by skipping the preliminary assessment (i.e. the "do I need an emergence survey?" survey) when the conclusions are obvious. In our case, we have a roof in very poor condition, so there's no way that it could be scored "Negligible roosting potential". It still needs to be documented, but this can be done on the same day as an emergence survey to save an extra trip. I've found it surprisingly hard to actually get estimates though. Some ecologists only want to quote for the preliminary survey and won't even discuss ballpark/estimate pricing for what the emergence surveys might be. Others are happy to discuss end-to-end costs in principle, but want to discuss on the phone but are always on fieldwork and never call back.

Hi all Been told by the council that a bat survey is needed in order to submit planning application that involves demolition. Does anyone have any recommendations or advice on how to choose an ecologist for this? Looking for a firm that is efficient and, quite frankly, won't take me for a ride! Project is based in North London. Cheers

I think this is key. My learning here is that insurers have no appetite to insure a building that's not in a good state of repair (fair), but also that liability cover can't be bought separately to buildings cover. So basically, if you have an uninhabitable building, you're completely uninsurable in any way, even for liability. I spoke to dozens of insurers and brokers, and heard the same things every time. It's frustrating because the building isn't unsound, just needs 5-10K put into it to bring it back to a "habitable" (if not nice) condition. But investing those sums doesn't make sense if it's going to be redeveloped. Feels like there's a gap in the market. Ended up going for the expensive specialist policy, which I'll cancel and switch to liability-only self-build cover when I have a better idea of the scope of the build.

Indeed, I am struggling!

Does anyone have advice regarding insurance for a renovation property I'm purchasing soon? The property is not habitable and is in poor condition with missing roof tiles, boarded up windows etc... My long-term plan is to redevelop the property -- either a substantial renovation or even full replacement. Currently no concrete plans but have been chatting with an architect. Here's what I'm finding: Normal home insurers aren't interested because the building is in poor condition and I won't be living there for the foreseeable future I've managed to find one specialist policy that will offer coverage, at about 5-10x the cost of a normal policy 😬 Site insurance doesn't seem applicable until there are concrete plans in place. I'm mainly concerned with liability, e.g. the classic "roof tile falls on someone's head" scenario. The building itself I'm less concerned about as it's a complete re-do job anyway. Does anyone have any advice on what kind of cover makes the most sense to get?