IanR

Only replacement ff boilers for off-gas-grid properties were changed. They we're due to be banned 2026, now they've been pushed back to 2035 along with all ff replacement boilers in all residential properties. FF boilers for New builds are still intended to be outlawed in the Future Homes Building Regs to be introduced 2025.

The final decision on hydrogen heating wasn't supposed to be until 2026, but looks like they've killed it early with dropping of the hydrogen ready boilers now. That's the right decision and allows manufacturers and installers to concentrate on electric alternatives. Heat Pumps won't be mandatory, but Fossil fuel heating will be off the table. The fossil fuel ban, for new builds has not been put back.

That's what I suspected. For me the relative height to the neighbouring house is more important to the planning permission than a height above ground level. Since you haven't started the build yet, I'd bring this up with the Planning Officer unless you are happy with the risk. It would be too much of a risk for me. Hopefully the LPA just acknowledge the error and allow you to continue but they may request a material amendment which they may refuse. Can you still build what you want with a 400mm lower ridge? That would be your fall back if they refused the correct ridge height relationship to the neighbour. Assuming the Architect was responsible for the survey and not working off a 3rd party survey, paid for by you, then it's their mistake to be corrected at their cost. Had you occurred a loss due to the mistake that's when the Architects PII would come in, but I assume at the moment you've not incurred any losses. If you continue with the build with knowledge of the error and then incur a loss due to the LPA asking for changes, you can no longer rely on the Architect's PII.

Is that a dotted line for the outline of the neighbours building? Or a dotted leader line from the roof of the neighbours building towards your new roof line? ie. is the intention of the drawing to show your ridge similar to the neighbours. If the former, you'll likely to be OK, unless the scale of the neighbours is substantially different from reality.

? OP's not made any further replies, and doesn't mention what dimensions are on the drawing, or what conditions. As I said "surmising". No idea why you wish to create an argument out of attempts to give the OP some feedback. Not wishing to trash the thread any further, so will bid you good night.

As neither of us know what's in the drawings or written in the Design & Access statement, we can only surmise, hence me using "could", "not sure", "I suspect". What I don't get is: It's rude/arrogant and unnecessarily stifles contribution. You'll give architects a bad name.

It will be set as a condition. Ie. Built in line with submitted drawings, no's xxx, xxx No need for a separate condition.

I reckon that could be serious. In an urban area Relative height to neighbouring properties is more important than measured ridge height. Not sure what the LPA could do, but I suspect they could void the planning. But, they'd only do so if it's materially different and if they would have rejected the application had it been drawn correctly. Check the Architect's PI insurance.

15 day free trial of AutoCAD, and if you need it longer £60/mnth for AutoCAD LT https://www.autodesk.co.uk/products/autocad-lt/overview?term=1-YEAR&tab=subscription

Hi & welcome. Could you paste the Planning conditions that restrict the barn to Agricultural Use, and the related reason for refusal, from the Officer's Report. "Isolated" doesn't get defined in the NPPF, so there's been a few arguments over its definition. It now seems to be accepted though that the "Braintree" decision at the Appeals Court has settled it for now. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/610.html Lindblom J said: “Simply differentiates between the development of housing within a settlement - or village - and new dwellings that would be ‘isolated’ in the sense of being separate or remote from a settlement”. Ie. a site is either within a built settlement (town, village, parish, hamlet) or it's isolated.

From the info you've provided, it's difficult to tell. Even if working correctly, the buffer temp at its centre will be cycling between flow and return temp, and there may be some lag in the Temp the sensor is reading as it's likely to be placed in a pocket on the buffer and not within the water itself. What's your distance between ASHP and Buffer? Is much of that distance outside? and how well insulated are the pipes? I'm trying to gauge what your losses may be. Since the HP is set to switch off at an LWT of 40°C, a well designed 4P Buffer would be almost fully charged at the point the LWT temp hits 40°, so the centre of the tank should show close to 40°C (ie. 40°C - losses in flow pipe), once the pocket and sensor have stabilised and as long as the heating circuit isn't circulating at that point. If the heating circuit is circulating the buffer will discharge and the temp will drop. At what point were you measuring the 31°C temp? and was it stable at that temp for say 10 mins? Your DHW is controlled differently, ie, by a temp sensor in the tank, or perhaps the return temp, so the HP LWT will exceed the UVC set point until it's temp requirement is met (potentially masking any losses in the flow/return pipes). The temp of the water in the UVC is also likely to be less transient than the buffer temp, so the gauge is more likely giving stable/accurate readings.

That's exactly my situation. A 6kW ASHP would easily cover my heating requirement, but I have a 12kW HP for faster DHW reheat times (500l UVC). I therefore have a 200l 4 port Buffer in my install.

Sorry to hear the outcome, it's a long wait to hear a rejection and then feel you are starting again. I didn't want to post previously and bring negative comments about your scheme just as you were going to committee. I did feel however it is over-developed for the plot, and I know my LPA would have rejected it out of hand against their interpretation of the NPPF rules. My feeling was that you had overdone the massing and scale with your proposal, and not traded off anything else within the site to mitigate it. The extra width on front and side elevations, to achieve a full height second floor, does lead to a tangible increase in massing that I feel would be considered as harmful to the openness of the countryside by most LPAs. I've not watched the linked videos or read the Officer's report, so perhaps they've not rejected it on that basis, but it stood out to me. To get around those rules you are in Para 80 (e) territory, where you need to demonstrate: Which is a high bar to pass.

Hi and welcome, Assuming you are not considering fossil fuels or Biomass(?), then your energy usage does suggest ASHP is the best option. Say your SCOP is around 4, then a direct electric solution is going to require 12,000kWh a year, so your heating and DHW will be around £3,600/yr on a standard tariff. Can you move the ASHP a little further away from your back door?

Mines a 100A Supply, but similar to the above unit, and feeding 2 phases within the house. Picture to visualise:

I'm using Yay.com They do a free 14 day trial. iirc it was around £25 to port a number. I'm impressed with the service, even for their lowest cost option. Loads of storage for voicemail and call recording. The voice-to-text transcripts are pretty good too that gets emailed and stored on the account, when voicemails are left.

It's just a smaller OD, so 20mm less insulation all round. The equivalent Rehau product to that is the Rauthermex 32mm+32mm/111m

That's good to know. Advanced Foundation Technology Ltd. did gain European Certification (ETA / EOTA) for their foundation system a few years back, which Building Control accept, so reduces the paperwork needed for sign off.

What size ASHP? You'll be safe if you go with Ø32 pipe, but maybe you could go smaller. If you plan to run these in through a duct later though then how are you going to insulate them? You should get in something like Rauvitherm pre-insulated twin duct from Rehau. The 32/150 duo is pretty well insulated, but needs a deep trench due to the minimum bend radii. Most SE specify that the pipes/ducting must come up vertically through the raft. iirc the 32/150 Duo needs a 750mm deep trench (below insulation) in order to get it coming vertical through the raft.

For us there's an ideal location between kitchen and family room area that wouldn't be used for anything else, and it does get used for other things it's just the Loxone use is less than I expected. It's handy to have several Apps running on it constantly so it's quick to switch between CCTV, Loxone, YouTube Music, VoIP phone account for checking voicemails, a household Google Calendar (with everyone's individual schedules in one place), shopping list, Google Keep etc. etc. I did think I'd end up running it on Android, but Windows has proved to be flexible enough to cover everything we want.

Slightly different approach for me. I hung a touchscreen on its Vesa mount, in a recess and powered it with a Windows NUC behind the flush door below the Touch tree "switches" I use it a lot less than expected, as Loxone runs itself, so the screen is usually showing CCTV or being used to cast music etc.

The example you linked to shows one of the compromises you'll need consider. The depth of the column is, on this build, greater than the thickness of the wall, so the plasterboard adjacent to the column has no insulation behind it and in January will be sitting a few mm off a concrete column that will be close to 0°C. And those exposed roof portals are attached to that column drawing out the heat from inside the building and possibly compensating. I do also like the industrial look this gives, but for me I'd want bring the portal frame within the thermal envelope and get a reasonable thickness of insulation around the outside. I'd then just live with the cold bridge from the base of the column to its concrete pad, as long as I kept warm moist air away from the lower parts of the column. When following PH principles, once you've added sufficient insulation and got the air tightness within target, the cold bridges are where you will leak your energy. Like for like, it has to be cheaper. You could perhaps spend some of the money you save on a Glulam portal frame to give a similar (but less industrial) internal appearance. ...and park them inside the thermal envelope.

That likely gives a little more freedom than a Class Q would do, but... The planning ties you down to what's in the submitted drawings. It's normal for the primary structure to be retained for a "Conversion", and as the planning included a structural survey my guess is that it's been stated the structure is capable of conversion and has been shown on the submitted drawings. Are the purlins also shown and are they called out as the original ones to be kept? On the submitted drawings, how much space has been provided from the outside face of the concrete portal frame to the outside of the rain screen for the walls and roof? Are all the columns within the external walls, or are there any that come down internally within the building, ie. is there a lean-too on any part of the portal frame that then positions the columns internally? The Columns of the portal frame are attached to concrete pads in the ground, which will sit at 8°C - 10° all year round, so the base of the columns will also be at that temperature. While reinforced concrete has a lower thermal conductivity than Steel, the columns will still act as a heat sink if they are exposed to the internal house temp and be a potential risk for condensation. Is it easy enough to get the portal frame and purlins outside of the thermal envelope? The haunches where the roof portals meet the columns can be a difficult area due to the extra depth of section in this area. What's your plan for the floor, are you keeping an existing solid floor are will you be installing new. This may also need some consideration on how it will dove-tail around the existing pads and be thermally broken from the portal frame, especially if you intend to install UFH. From where you are now a combination of SE and Architectural Technician would see you through if you plan a standard building regs type build. If you have aspirations of a higher performance building and are consider PassivHaus principles, then you'll need someone with that skillset to tackle some of the compromises brought about by the portal frame. For me, I'd consider approaching the LPA to see if they'd consider a knock-down and rebuild, and give yourself an easy route to a good thermal performance. If the LPA are insistent on the keeping the appearance there are lots of options.

I guess this is the report the piece is referring to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6568b7b95936bb000d3167ef/ashp-planning-regulations-review-main-report.pdf Although I couldn't find the "one in four people living near a heat pump found the noise to be intrusive" comment. But, I haven't read the whole report. Contradicting that statement, within the Key Findings the report states: And goes on to conclude: There is a comment though regarding LPA's concern over noise complaints: