IanR

If you are in a CIL area and expect to get self build exemption, I wouldn't do anything that could be confused with breaking ground until the exemption is agreed. This has to be done prior to commencement.

The optimistic reading is that your letter has convinced the Planning Officers, but they need their in-house legal team to agree with the interpretation you outlined of the Planning Inspectorate's decision. That's not unreasonable, the Inspectorate's decision was not well written. You needed to jump back and forth between paragraphs to fully understand the decision. I'd say the HoP is confident in them taking new action against both cesspit and building, otherwise he/she's just asking for trouble by suggesting so and committing to a timeframe. ...even though they missed the suggested timeframe, but they'll just blame that on C-19. There may be actions going on in the background. The LPA will often give the owner the opportunity to normalise the breach, by way of a retrospective, before issuing an enforcement.

Hi and Welcome. That's really quite worrying if that's printed in a UK article. Ensure that accurate heat loss calcs are done to help size the ASHP, which is all part of a reputable MCS installation, and you'll have no problems with a Heat Pump.

I've used People per Hour, https://www.peopleperhour.com/ , in the passed for similar, when I've not had the time to do things for myself. But, you need to be clear on your Project outline exactly what you need. By "3D basic drawings", do you want 2D drawings modelled in 3D and photo-realistic Renderings? Include everything you have in the project description and ask for examples of their similar work.

SMET2 3-Phase meters are difficult to come by. I change supplier regularly and I've not yet found one that installs them, but others on here have. I've currently got a SMET1, which is no longer smart as I've moved away from the supplier that installed it. Is a SMET1 or non-Smart 3-Phase not an option?

The linear drain has an integral bottle trap, so no U bend required.

Was the farmhouse extended or altered when the stables were converted, or the curtilage extended into what was an agricultural use area? If not, it will be unaffected by the planning permission that that the conversion was done under. Under normal circumstance the fact that the farmhouse is in greenbelt would not effect the PD for its established residential curtilage. Before buying any property, if you need to alter it makes sure the planning situation is favourable to do so.

It may not be a fight, LPA's can be quite reasonable. My experience is that they wish to restrict the spread of the domestic paraphernalia, in order to maintain the agricultural scene. They are more likely to be accommodating if you site any new domestic structures close to the dwellinghouse, visually shielded if possible, and use materials and finishes that do not look out of place in the setting. If you already have neighbours extending their residential curtilages, the LPA may be less sensitive. ie. you can't disrupt a rural, agricultural setting, if it is already disrupted. It's very dependant on the local setting and the LPA's attitude. The "pump house" and workshop sound too significant to take a risk on, so if I were you I'd start a conversation with the LPA. Informally if possible, the Officer that undertook your Class Q may be a good contact, or via a pre-planning advice request if not. The garden could be tackled in the same manner your neighbours have, but if you are already submitting a planning app it will cost nothing to include an extension to the curtilage. Just keep the discussion going with the planning officer that is looking after the application, so that if they have an issue with say the garden extension, suggest swapping it to amenity land.

Any additional development, apart from PV, wind turbine or heat pump, will require a planning application as all other PD are removed by the Class Q Officially no. If it fits the definition of a "building", it will require planning approval. Not officially. Class Q only permits a curtilage up to the size of the converted foot-print of the barn. Any further land you own remains in its original Use Class. Getting planning permission for a Change of Use to residential, for more agricultural land will likely be difficult as it allows the residential paraphernalia (sheds, temporary buildings, washing lines, residential fencing etc.) to expand, which LPA's are often sensitive to. Getting it recognised as amenity land, should be easier, but I'd question whether this practically allows you to do much else with it that its agricultural Use class would not permit. LPAs seldom get involved unless breaches are brought to their attention by neighbours. You need to judge if it's worth taking a risk.

Best floor ever... ...for living spaces. Carpet and low-tog underlay works for me in bedroom spaces, with UFH.

I went with 110mm pipe coming up under the slab, directly to where I wanted the shower drain, but then used a 110mm to 50mm offset connector that allowed me to rotate the connector to get a +/-50mm tolerance in all directions. I didn't use a shower tray, just set a linear drain like this: into the slab, sloped the slab itself and tanked it before tiling I did all my showers the same.

That sounds like you don't intend to continue the pipe insulation through the wall, but rely on the blown cellulose within the wall. That feels to me a condensation risk, as you suggest. Could you use a pre-insulated twin-pipe duct for the external portion of the run and through the wall, then swap to your PEX-AL-PEX once inside the thermal envelope. Edited to add: I've just re-read you OP. You're not just crossing the wall, you intend to run within the wall for a distance. I feel you need to insulate the pipes separately within the wall to stop water vapour getting to the surface.

Unfortunately, after 2026, when their existing oil/LPG Boilers break down beyond reasonable repair, and they are in the market for a new boiler, oil or LPG will not be an option. Biomass is currently an option and that includes bio-fuels. I've never looked at the latter, so do not know if that is a viable option. A 500l UVC coupled with a 12kW ASHP will handle the Hot Water requirement. Depending on energy losses, you may not need to go any larger for space heating as well.

I feel you need to continually insulate the pipes from outside to in. Makes an air-tight seal around the aperture more difficult. Is it too late to duct under the slab/foundation?

This is specifically Oil and LPG Boilers for off-gas-grid properties. It's the low hanging fruit, and it's not just new installs, the prohibition will cover replacements, but not spare parts. The BUS is the ideal opportunity for those properties to go ASHP, or biomass (for rural properties, in some circumstances) before 2026

Have you considered the impact of the phasing out of off-gas-grid fossil fuel heating installations for all domestic and non-domestic buildings from 2026? I've not looked at the detail, but assume you won't be able to buy a replacement oil boiler from that date.

Absolutely I'm familiar with typical twin-stud and Larsen truss wall build up, but MBC's twin stud uses 89 x 37 section size. As a typical framing section, it's logical the vertical loads can be carried through just one side of the twin-stud, allowing the other to overhang a non-loadbearing insulated upstand. For the I-Joist in the image, the flanges are 45 x 47, and finger-jointed. To my knowledge this isn't a typical framing section, and with the outer flange sitting over EPS 100, it's not going to be taking any load. For this reason, the detail I'm familiar with for a thermal bridge free slab detail with I-Joists is a little more complicated than required for a twin-stud and looks like this: A simpler, but not quite thermal bridge free detail is: Where the EPS L former width is reduced at the top to get the concrete slab under the outer flange, to support it. Don't get me wrong, I like the detail shown with the unsupported outer flange of the I-Joist, and an SE must have been happy to sign it off, but it doesn't follow I-Joist principles I'm familiar with. In fact, I needed to provide additional calcs for BC to convince them the outer ring-beam in the first image above could take the loads that would come through the outer flange, with "just" 100mm of EPS beneath.

Is that really an EPS upstand? Does look like it is performing at the same level as the EPS under the slab. It doesn't look like it would work (to me), but if that's a true reflection of the built house then my views on the structural capability of I-Joists are too conservative. I'd like to see their internal plaster after a coupe of years and see if there's much cracking from any settling of the frame.

Somehow you need to get a bulk price direct from the manufacture, ie. James Jones & Sons or equivalent. You'd be buying an artic load, so you won't be paying BM prices. If you went this route, would you pay for a frame design, or do this yourself? With my frame Designed and Engineered by Cullen Timber Design, they send the cutting files electronically to JJ&Sons, and cutting is automated from their files. It's got to be the cheapest way of buying the I-Joist package, but I never saw this price as it was wrapped up in an erected price from Touchwood Homes. I never saw the price for the Egger DHF board either. I've only ever seen both flanges of the I-Joist supported when used for wall framing. When you say "overhang an upstand" does that mean the outboard flange being unsupported, or sitting on insulation? I don't believe you could do that. Every T&G joint needs a generous squeeze of adhesive, not difficult to do, but there's a lot of joints. The difficult detailing is where boards come together at corners, or the free edges. Making sure the the boards in the corners have a continuous surface on the underlying frame to be sealed on to is more robust that trying to seal to edges of boards coming together at a corner. Wet boards may stop the glue sticking, you'd need to take advice on that as I've not got experience of it. Not at all. But, joists we're on not more than 400mm centres, on the external walls and the roof, and PB was screwed every 150mm. Nothing special about the PB. Just 12mm foil backed. I put the 100mm PB discs I cut out, back in to the hole once the insulation is installed, screwing the discs on to a small length of batten I bridged the hole with. There's a lot to do, but it's surprising how quick you get. I had the PB skimmed.

Hi Robin, welcome. How does their forecasted kWh use match to what you actually used between June and Feb? Have they just taken the total kWh you consumed, divided by the 8 months and multiplied by 12 to get a year's usage? Even though that would be an over-estimate, since the 8 months usage includes 100% of the heating system, I suspect they've bumped it up a little higher, which is the typical model of the energy suppliers. There is a tendency now to have their customers financing their business, by always having them in credit. The reality is that in a PassivHaus the heating season should now be over, and you likely haven't required space heating for the last few weeks. A PH house will only make a noticeable difference to the space heating proportion of you energy bill. Your hot water requirement, lights, cooking etc. will be pretty much the same as you old house if your lifestyle hasn't changed. My energy bill is quite a bit higher than yours, but my non-space heating energy use is quite high.

My timber-frame, built within the original steel portal frame of the shed I converted, derives no strength from the steel frame. ie. the two are not structurally connected at any point. The build up I have is a typical Cullen Timber Design buildup they use for new build, PassivHaus builds. The Egger DHF is the racking strength layer, as well as the air-tightness layer. The first opportunity to air-test would be when all external sheathing is complete, sole-plate sealed to floor, doors and windows in and no plasterboard (and therefore no insulation) installed, so loads of opportunity to fix any leaks. The air-tightness then improves further with the installation of the blown cellulose fibre.

I do wonder how they'd legislate/police mid-tenancy changes, I think it's more likely the requirement for EPC C will be for new Tenancies. Expect buy to lets that are EPC D or worse to start to be discounted once the government publicise the new legislation. Agreed

I'm not sure I'd use a twin stud, unless I was benefiting from its ability to allow a simpler foundation/raft detail, while removing all thermal bridges at this junction. Using a larger 89 x 37 section, at least for the inner stud, allows all loads to run down through the inner stud to the foundation, so that the outer stud can sit over the perimeter insulation of a slab and remove any thermal bridges to the floor and sole plate. If you are going to use smaller sections, that require both sections to take the vertical loads, the an I-Joist seems simpler to me. There's not much to choose between twin stud or I-Joist build up. I-Joist is easier to stick-build on site and has a slightly lower timber fraction, but requires a slightly more complex raft detail to eliminate all thermal bridges. I've never seen it done on a twin stud structure, perhaps because the outer studs are often not load bearing, but an I-Joist structure can allow a very simple build up, combining the racking strength and air tight layer in the outer sheathing, using T&G Egger DHF board, and then a foil-backed plasterboard on the inside as the vapour barrier, with the blown cellulose in between. No membranes required for air-tightness or vapour, although a breather membrane externally for protection. To get very high air-tightness though, a non-curing butyl adhesive is required in the T&G joints. The T&G DHF board and blown cellulose insulation can achieve sub 0.2 ACH, without membranes, if the detailing is done well. Sub 0.1 ACH on mine. This simple build up does mean no plumbing in the external walls (cabling is OK), unless you add a service void. But, that means no OSB, other than where you want plumbing. I'm not sure structural performance should lead the choice of framing type. While it needs to be considered, I would prioritise thermal performance (energy loss) v. cost of the whole envelope: walls, roof and floor. Structural performance leads in to cost, as does the labour required for an over-complicated build up. Ah, but as a Chartered Engineer, once you have all the required data, you will re-calibrate your view. There is a better way... Edited to add: If you are looking at JJ I-Joists, James Jones & Sons will pre-cut all the holes for MVHR ducts etc., if you plan ahead.

Please do, you'll be one of the first on here to use the BUS, so it will be good info for us. Since this is a rental property, while you are planning some level of renovation, it is worth targeting and EPC C or better. Not sure what part of the country you are in but both the UK and Scottish Governments have announced an intention to legislate a minimum EPC C for the private rental sector during the mid '20's. Possibly as early as 2026 for the UK and 2028 for Scotland.

Hunter Douglas stated 36mph max (I think) for the warranty, so I set that up from the start. I must admit, since they are recessed into the cladding they are barely moving before they do get pulled up.