davidc

Thanks, the finish will be timber (with no masonry leaf). In most wood fibre use cases i have seen folk seem to have gone for rigid boarding non the exterior or blown into the frame - so is there any reason the batt type wood fibre isn't installed within the frame itself ?

Should there be any compelling reason to avoid using TF suppliers who are not STA members ?

Are there any notable drawbacks for going with wood fibre (blown in roof on site, sheathing in walls) for a timber frame construction ? (Previous proposition was Celotex but considering wood fibre for comfort factor).

Thanks all. Problem for me is that no such clear assignment was stated at the outset (or since) - though on the second point full payment was made. I guess i need to discover if payment bestows a right to use - which itself will necessarily involve reproduction of that design (BW plans, physical dwelling etc) albeit just once and on the intended site.

If a design, planning drawings and application has been completed by one architect (timber frame company) how do you stand to have the warrant and any subsequent build work carried out a different company ? The design and planning work has been paid for in full but how would the copyright work out in that case ?

Thanks jamieled. Yes, less than a mile away from Russwood, Thedreamer Yet to decide if it will be supplied by Russwood but would be gratifying if it was. Not sure if same could be said for the price though.

Thanks. So are the stories of it going wrong on this forum or elsewhere ?

I see. I'm in Newtonmore

Does any one know any contractors who can build an EPS raft type foundation in the Highlands (or Scotland even). I already know MBC will if you go for their frame.

I'm starting to think there may be no demonstrable reason why not having a masonry leaf would lead to a build that has a shorter lifespan or is in some way compromised.

Quite ! Perhaps though what the lenders perceive as a risk may be in fact be somewhat illusory and just born of them being risk averse ? You'd hope above all else that compliance with the building regs/warrant system would leave any build impervious to weather for as long as is required - all other things being equal. As i'm just about to decide on which way to go it would be nice to get some more clarity on the issue than i have right now though.

Hi Lizzie, i got the impression that the reluctance was nationwide. There was no suggestion that mortgage lending wasn't forthcoming but just that a sizeable proportion of lenders excluded full timber without masonry. That said though, as Thedreamer pointed out, the number of lenders is less in Scotland so the effect may be even more noticeable (i'm located in the Cairngorms). So would that suggest there is an impression that timber only is less impervious to water ingress ?

I am intending to build a timber frame (or SIP) house in Scotland. I had intended to clad with timber also but I am struggling to understand why some lenders (main mortgage market that is not self-build mortgage market) insist on having a masonry leaf between the frame and cladding for lending purposes. Are there any fundamental reasons why a build lacking the masonry leaf would end up worth a lesser amount than the same one with it ? The only argument I have found so far is that it may take longer for a lender to off load a repossessed property composed only of timber structure and cladding. But this itself must surely be grounded on some tangible/empirical reason ? So, aside from some lending reluctance, are there any cons that I have not foreseen in forgoing the masonry leaf ?