oldkettle

One of the standard recommendations they give is starting FF in Safe mode (which will mean IIRC no extensions among other things). If you trust the few sites you keep open this could help check whether it is the extension. Also, if you open a different static page, may be on your own web site instead of this one, does the memory grow as well? FWIW, I have noticed a stackoverflow page in Chrome can easily get to 300MB and more if left for a few days (and I usually have quite a few of those open) - that's in the office where I have no control of the extensions. The nice thing is I can usually kill this page only and keep working.

yeah, I misread the wiki 2017-09-21 Firefox 58 Firefox 57 - thought it was the release date

I just notices that you are on V.58 - seems to be old by the current update standards. There is a reason why they keep fixing it :-) My limited experience with Ubuntu shows it can be quite slow as well though.

Just to make sure, Jeremy. Your %appdata% is on the SSD, right? Regardless, extra memory will surely help. You could also use Resource Monitor to look at the disk queue, might be useful to compare the picture when the speed is OK vs when it is slow.

@mikew1978, sorry, will try again. We are trying to extend the existing bungalow and everybody recommended demolish and rebuild instead as it gives better quality and potentially comes at a same cost due to VAT benefits. In our specific case though, residential mortgage is fixed at 1.29% for another 4 years, where as self-build mortgages are 5.5%+, which means paying extra 14K+/year in interest. Taking into account the project is unlikely to take less than 2 years and after that we will not get residential rate anywhere close to the current, in 4 years we would lose (overpay in interest) a sum comparable to a VAT benefit of say 45K.

Yes, I naively thought the value of the land would be good enough a security, but this is not what the "standard product" covers. If you find anything - let us know, we are interested. At the moment in our case it seems paying an extra 4%+/year for a self-build mortgage defeats most benefits of demolition.

As I am looking for a way forward following the setbacks mentioned on the other thread, I wanted to get an idea about options for extension foundations and the existing slab replacement. 1. The bungalow has a traditional strip (or trench?) foundation. Is it possible to use a passive raft foundation for the extension? 2. I want to dig out and replace the existing slab adding insulation and UFH. The questions here are a) Is it OK not to do the whole existing slab in one go? Ideally I'd want to leave the bathroom and possibly the kitchen for "stage 2". Are there significant technical disadvantages of this approach? b) How do the these replacement parts come together and how do they connect to the extension slab? any dangers / complications there? issues for UFH (no single loop)? From some other threads (such as https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/3726-how-to-deal-with-these-stones/) it seems the answer to 2a is "it's doable". I understand overall this is not an ideal approach but I'd really want to start the process ASAP - I am not young enough to wait for another 3-4 years before moving forward. Yes, it will be somewhat more expensive and yes, it will have cold bridging, but as long as it is not dangerous for the extension's sole plate and just requires more insulation and/or more heat we can hopefully live with it. Thanks in advance.

I obviously did not make it clear enough that I have absolutely no reason to blame MBC for anything. I don't even want to blame the architect. The rant was more of "damn, can't get a break" and "what do I do now".

Not sure what the best place for this is and don't want to split into separate posts. As if our planning issue was not annoying enough, one new new problem arose linked to another one that I deferred considering while I could. The news is that in spite of previous verbal assurance from the architect that MBC would take on the extension for us thanks to his involvement in other projects with them they refused to do it. Quoted for a new build only - and I wish I could take that quote. The old one is the mortgage. I read this thread http://www.ebuild.co.uk/topic/15342-do-i-need-to-tell-my-mortgage-company-about-my-imminent-demolish-and-rebuild/page__st__20. We may have a similar issue even if we only try to extend as the roof will have to come down. I had the same phone conversation where they said "of course, you are going to make it better, just send us PP". Based on our current 1.29% fixed for another 4+ years vs 4.69%+ that self-build mortgage would cost (forgetting about early redemption charges and potential rate rises) if feels satisfying almost any condition set by the current lender will be cheaper than switching the mortgage. @Bitpipe , you mentioned your bank requested professional supervision - was it about having a Project Manager? Was this or the overpayment money you mentioned the deal breaker for you? Our mortgage is roughly 50% LTV, the land alone certainly covers but will likely be below 60% LTV required. Feels like a vicious circle at the moment. Add to that that we have a covenant that requires us to request a permission for works from the company that used to own the land over 60 years ago (and is dormant) - and the light ahead is hardly visible. We are not even close to starting yet :-)

Yep, that's another one of those: I have not requested connection info yet as don't know whether we can afford 10KW. No idea whether it is worth installing and not connecting for a while. On the other hand larger array is more likely to produce something reasonable in winter. Yes. it's possible and I will certainly query it. We have now established that the planner ignored ALL relevant information on the application (dormer bungalow, completed CIL form etc) and claimed in his decision we would be liable to pay CIL because our current first floor is in fact a storage space! When questioned he said there was "no layout" (beds not shown, does not say "bedroom" on the floor plan). No comments. Anyway, this is easy to fix and is relevant for your suggestion because we probably have a few m2 to spare before we hit the 100m2 threshold. It would also give this window a bit more light.

A few ideas there 1. I expect MVHR to go in there. 2. For me it is storage and I have never heard people complaining they have too much. TV and other boxes and yes, quite possibly suitcases. Nothing wrong with it as long as it is organised. 3. If somebody wants to add staircase in the future there should be a way to do if from the office or - in the original design - from the guest bedroom. There would be close to 30m2 there, not bad for somebody's kid to hide. Basically, creating room in the roof later is expensive, but making it possible now should not be. So if it does not cost too much - why not? I mean If my floor area was 600m2 :-) it would probably be excessive, but we are close to 200.

Thank you, @AliG I agree it looks a bit better - but so much more complicated and so much less space. Don't care much about future valuations - more concerned whether we have enough funds. It may all change in 20 years :-) On the other hand the original area of the gable is just over 15m2. The front gable area on the new design is 9.9m2 + at least another 15m2 of the roof slope, to me it does not look any less heavy than the original. No idea why the planner is that fixated on the front gable. The area above the entrance is not a part of the office, the window is there to provide some natural light to the stairwell. So extending outside would not add much - but I will ask the architect whether we should do it to avoid using the steel. We will not need to lower the eaves as it would mean the steeper slope and it is already higher than what is ideal for PV: another minus to this design. It is planned as TF so certainly not winning on bricks :-).

Thank you, Peter. This is where I will have to rely on the architect / MBC to produce something sensible, it will only happen after getting PP. But is sounds like the price difference may not be that high. Catch-22 at the moment - going for this solution and not knowing the price and available space.

Thank you, Peter I hope for something like the last option here https://www.diydata.com/general_building/roof_construction/roof_construction.php I think it is called attic truss? Anything that lets us use the attic space for storage. I want to install built in panels, 10KW array, but it is all down to affordability. Not sure how much more MBC would charge for the trusses, but the main concern is the work: it probably takes much longer to install valleys/gutters/slates (more cutting) etc.

A follow up question - may be somebody can help with a guesstimate. The obvious alternative to our front gable roof is a crossed gable one. This option would lose us some attic space which is a shame but we have almost accepted it. What worries me more is the cost difference in building it. So - does anybody have an idea how much more would this cost (MBC frame, roofing contractor). I can see that the roof area is not massively different, within may be 10% (approx 136 vs 145m2). But it would require lead flashing for valleys, much more rainwater goods, fascia and soffits. £5K is probably OK, I so much hope it is not 10. The floor area is about 10.2m wide by 11.5m long.

Thank you, @Ferdinand. Plenty to think about when I am not on a train. We are communicating via our architect only. To be honest, I am thinking of trying to talk directly instead, in case it can help to change the tone. Unfortunately, there were no other ideas discussed so far. Our planning proposal directly states that our absolute roofs height will be the same as that of our neighbours to the left. Their house is set higher though. I am almost certain there is a section in the proposal explaining why we need all that space. I remember being quite unhappy reading it as from my point of view "it's nobody's business". Feels quite diminishing having to provide this information to strangers. I will mention it all to the architect. He is very experienced, I am sure he will come up with something, the question is how long it is going to take. Do you think it makes sense to mention the permitted development ground floor extension as a backup strategy?

As I said before, here is a building next to the T-junction, 100m down the road. Just for comparison vs our monstrosity :-) And here is how it currently looks from the road - street view level

Thank you, Peter I have found that on the latest Google Street View the pictures happened to be taken from the opposite side of the road and obviously higher level than the eye level, so it is indeed possible to see several houses, which is probably not great for our case. But from the pavement it is very different.

Thank you, @Jml, I will have a look. There was one only in our street where a developer replaced a single house with two detached standing right next to each other. Talk about "out of character". But there might have been other applications nearby so certainly worth a try.

Thank you, Jeremy. Of course I remember the model you've made. This was my concern exactly: view from above can be scary, but from the front it actually is not, well, not much worse than the other houses.

Thank you Jeremy, Jml I will post a photo in the evening - an existing house, a wall of bricks and a gable with no windows anywhere, facing our street, it is on a T-junction with an adjacent road. Apparently, it is not a problem.

@JSHarris Yes, our architect has suggested we submit to this requirement, but we have spent quite a lot on this already and I hoped we could avoid spending more. Clearly wrong in hindsight. My problem with this street view is how to show that it is impossible to see much from the pavement. Of course the bird's eye view can be nice (or maybe not in our case) but general public can only see anything from the ground level. Apart from taking photos like the one attached I couldn't figure out what to give them!

Our planning statement does mention that the new ridgeline will be level with one of the neighbours (although their house is set higher). I don't think it mentions the degree of seclusion, but it is visible on the 1:200 plan. One thing the planner mentioned in communication was To me unfortunately it sounded very empty, the back side covering exercise, as I don't understand what character means with regards to our stretch of the street where all houses are set back from the road. Edited to add: Your case does look incredibly similar, but the main difference is no objections from the neighbours for us. Oddly, your roof looks fine on the final plans. The scetch for ours with 22 degrees looked terrible. As you went for the hipped roof and it worked this may well be an indication for us.

Thank you, @bassanclan The architect said we can update the application without the loss of the fee, I hope he is right.

Had our application for extension (bungalow to a house) refused today. There are a few reasons mentioned by the planner: ... not demonstrated acceptable impact on the character of the street ... incongruous gable-like front elevation... not demonstrated, that this large massing would be in keeping with neighbouring houses and my favourite: ... proposal creates a property that is both wide and deep which is out of character with the prevailing urban grain of the area. I.e. everybody has 150m2, you can't have 200! And yes, one can only see if from a helicopter. He made it sound like we are proposing some kind of a monstrosity, where as in fact this is just a normal family house (please tell me I am not wrong :-) ). We are trying to replace a front facing dormer for goodness' sake. Yes, there is a front gable, as it gives us south facing slope for PV and the width is smaller that the length. Neighbours had no concerns AFAIK. We have a very long plot - about 50m back garden only, front garden of about 15m. We are separated from the road and from the neighbours by very high hedges (2.5-4m). It is not actually possible to see two houses at the same time from the pavement, only parts of the ridge line. The other side of the road is not built up. I am quite disappointed that we are basically not allowed to build a normal house on a massive plot - where as if a developer tried to split it into two they would have no problems (this happened down the road). I talked to a councillor - member of the planning committee. He said they would pull the application from the planners but clearly this has not happened. I will of course follow up but would be useful to understand whether I have any chance to stand my ground here. The only proposal from the planner was dropping the ridge line by 1.5m! It would mean a slope of 22 degrees and look absolutely abhorrent. My only suggestion to the architect was creating a half-hipped or may be hipped roof - as much as I dislike the idea. Would anybody at all be happier if I choose to build an 8m single storey extension under permitted development? :-( The view is our neighbour's house - our existing root can just be seen on the right. The new ridgeline is proposed to be 1.5m higher.