IanR

Unfortunately not. HMRC makes no distinction between integrated or not. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/goods-and-services-you-can-claim-for-under-the-vat-diy-scheme

If it's on the Planning Approved Drawings, then it's zero rated. If not then HMRC could argue that it's not, but unlikely they would look in that detail. "white goods" are not covered.

I believe it would, although "holiday let" may mean different things to different people. To me a holiday let (which may be let via AirBnB), would be a self-contained unit that provides facilities for day-to-day living for a single person of family, so falls within C3. C1 is intended for hotels, where rooms would be individually let to unconnected people and may not provide full facilities for day-to-day living. Ref. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/764/schedule/part/C/made?view=plain

If your are renting out the unit as a "whole", where it may have a couple of bedrooms, a kitchen and a sitting area, then this would be a C3 Residential Use, rather than a C1. I believe for a C1 you'd have to rent out individual rooms, as per a hotel. But... there is a grey area between these two. The last Tory government had completed a consultation for a new C5 Use Class, specifically for AirBnB "2nd homes", I've not heard if Labour intend to bring this to fruition, but it's not on the statute books yet.

Hi & welcome. Assuming you are outside of an established settlement, now the buildings have been removed they can't help with a new planning, unfortunately. From what you've said they are likely to have been removed in a trade-off for the development that has occurred, making it even less likely that the site could be re-developed. That leaves the Para 84(e) option mentioned by your architect. This is a long and expensive route with no garuntees, costs overall will be much higher than £8K. Do some research into Architect's that specialise in this type of application. Some LPA's may not accept that the site is an "Isolated" position (that allows for Para84(e)), due to the neighbouring properties, but there is now some case law that has defined "isolated" as anything that is not within a built settlement. Ref. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/5-delivering-a-sufficient-supply-of-homes If it were mine I'd canvas the adjacent properties so see what it is worth to them, someone may want to keep a horse and pay a premium for it. If no one offers an amount acceptable to you, then you could apply for Equestrian use + stables and tack room, with a high enough ridge that can be later converted. With water and electricity connected it could return a reasonable rent, while you wait it out for 5 - 10 years and then approach the council for a conversion/re-build. It's got a low chance of success, but stops being a chain around your neck and covers its costs. Caveat - hopefully you have access rights over the drive/track and it includes running utilities?

No, the insulated "slab" can't extend under and take the external wall loads (making it a raft) while sitting on PIR and without a suitable build up under the raft (see AFT examples at link I provided) What's missing in the AT's sketch is the pile capping/beam that joins the top of the piles for the dwarf wall to sit on. Giving the AT the benefit of the doubt, the rectangle they've drawn is intended to cover the piles and beams. What have you asked for with regards the floor/foundation. There appears an attempt to go above building regs regards insulation, but there are better ways of doing it.

That's not a raft foundation. Is the technician calling it a raft, or is that an assumption you have made. Yes, to be a raft, what is shown currently as a concrete slab needs to extend under the load bearing walls. If you are after an insulated raft and require it to be supported with piles due to ground conditions, that's quite niche. You'll need someone with proven experience. I'd recommend having a chat with Advanced Foundation Technology: https://www.advancedfoundationtechnologylimited.co.uk/our-products/timber-steel-icf-framed-building-foundation/

What have you based your opinion on? Are you aware of the NPPF Rules for Green Belt? Does the LPA have a policy in the Local Plan that says how they deal with development in the green belt? From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land You need to be able to argue one of the exceptions, otherwise the LPA will refuse. If you have deep pockets with regards obtaining the planning permission, it's worth looking at "Para 80 e)" development. While it's not explicitly a green belt exception (it's regard development in the open countryside), on occasion it does get an Approval within the green belt.

I've got the KF410 Studio from 2017 in my Utility and Boot room, which looks to be halfway between the current KF520 and KF410 versions. For an opening sash, there's not enough frame on the inboard side to cover any more than around 5mm of the frame, before you'd be stopping the inward opening sash from being able to open. So, internally you'll be seeing nearly all the frame. Externally, you can cover the sides and top of the alu-clad frame with your cladding/render board, but not the bottom. On the sketch below the blue block at the bottom comes on the window and I've shown the internal cill level with the bottom of the frame, and the pink is a folded external cill. The hatched area is supposed to show cladding on the side of the rebate covering some of the frame. Edited to add: I have alu-clad timber across the rest of the house and while I'm very happy with them, if/when I do it again I'll think seriously about saving the money and going UPVC through out. The KF410 is a really solid, stable, well built window.

Ha - Not something I have direct experience of but I know of the "Probity in Planning" guidance document for councillors: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/34.2_Probity_in_Planning_04.pdf As per section 5 I believe the councillor in question would have to withdraw from the committee since if he's already given his view before committee he has a "closed mind" with regards the decision to be made.

I'm going to ignore your comments now, no idea why you choose to be argumentative, some of your input is of value. The ASHP will be on and off, the emitters are more constant. They are not balanced.

The gauge in the pocket 2/3 up looks close to me measuring at 35°C, although both the gauge and the laser temp gun will likely have a ±1°C tolerance so can't be relied on to compare between the two. You'll need to measure a few times to get a feel for what is going on, the temps are dynamic as the ASHP comes on and off and you're wanting 0.1° accuracy which isn't achievable with consumer devices. It would be nicer to see the temps across the top, and those at the bottom within 1° of each other. If after multiple readings, at different times, you are still seeing a similar result are you could try to slow the emitter pump down and are you able to limit the flow rate of the ASHP? Not sure if it's a setting available on all HPs, but I can turn mine down (on space heating only) to make it run slower for longer. I set mine up with a data logger and DS18B20 sensors and some times the traces would show the flow temp to the emitters higher than the flow from the ASHP, which isn't possible - the accuracy of the readings I need are not within the capability of the DS18B20's. After about 10 different sets of readings, each running for a couple of hours mine averaged out with the emitter side being within 0.5°C of the ASHP, except just as the ASHP stopped or started. Is it cold enough that the emitter circuit is running continuously (my own heating isn't on yet), are the measurements you have taken are at a reasonably steady state?

? The emitters are not on, the Buffer is at flow temp, possibly fully charged. You can't draw any conclusions, unless you have a biased view. A 4P buffer removes the inefficiencies and warranty concerns of short cycling, at the cost of minor standing losses and powering a second circulation pump that would not otherwise be required in most cases. ? The ASHP will switch off when the buffer is fully charged at flow temp.

That's not correct. A 4P buffer is to allow hydraulic separation, allowing the emitter circuit to take energy at a different/slower rate than the ASHP adds energy, reducing short cycling. Thermocline/stratification is a robust phenomena that does not require balanced flow rates - it occurs in HWCs that do not have balanced flow rates, and have no baffles or features to promote stratification.

You'll be losing a lot of temp from the uninsulated pipe work. Can you measure the temp on the pipe into the buffer from the ASHP, just at the joint to the tank.