IanR

Hi Neil, and welcome. Don't rush in with the Class Q, you definitely need to get your ducks in a row before applying, as if you get any aspect wrong at the application stage it could stop the Class Q. Difficult to know if you are being advised correctly without more info re. condition, structural worthiness etc. and knowledge of how your LPA respond to Class Q prior notifications. Definitely don't propose to knock the smaller barn down under a Class Q, there would be no benefit. When I did mine (Class MB then) there was also no pre-App process either, you had to go straight in, plus it was only £90 for the Prior Notification, so cheaper than a pre-App. All LPA's do not appear to treat Class Q's in the same way. You need to review every Class Q your LPA has Allowed and Rejected to understand what they will and won't accept. Some of the legislation is "black and white", so not up for interpretation. Have you gone through the rules and know your barns/sheds fit the requirements of location, floor area etc. Other bits of the legislation are more subjective and depends on whether your LPA are generally for or against them. The most subjective aspect is probably whether the required works to convert to a dwellinghouse are "reasonably necessary". My LPA is strict on this and expects none of the 4 sides of the building to be "open", even though you are allowed to replace walls. A neighbouring LPA allows one side to be open, other's I've seen have allowed a pole barn to be converted. My LPA is also strict on flooring, if it's not got a concrete floor, they won't allow the conversion. Current or last Use being Agricultural, is relatively clear, but understand the definition of Agriculture. It doesn't include equestrian or storing hay for non-Agricultural animals, or storing anything that is domestic or light-industrial in nature. My LPA has rejected prior notification because there have been logs stored in the barn or a car, although I have seem some LPA's be a little more relaxed. It's best to clear the barns/sheds out before the LPA come on site. If the LPA finds its current Use is other than Agricultural you will stop any chance of a Class Q for at least 10 years. You do need to be able to say when the barns/shed were last in Use in Agriculture, but you don't need proof - you just need to ensure it can't be dis-proved. The barns/sheds need to be (or have been) part of an Agricultural unit. Did you buy the "whole farm" (even though it is no longer a working farm), or just the buildings away from the farm, and is the farm they were part of still a working farm. What matters is it is the Agricultural Unit that has the PD, not the buildings. If the Farm that the barns were part of is still operating, then you will need to be asking them to accept you are using up their Permitted Development Rights. If I was them, I wouldn't accept that as it puts restrictions on them with regards to using Class Q in the future as well as Class A & B Agricultural PD. If, as is happening a lot, the land of the farm has been absorbed in to a neighbouring farm (and a separate Agricultural Unit), and you have purchased the old Farmhouse and some Outbuildings, then you have effectively purchased the Agricultural Unit, and as such the PD remains with you. Proving what the Agricultural Unit is, is often more onerous than the Use or last Use of the barns/sheds themselves. With regards to strategy, is there any chance your LPA would consider a Change of Use of the Barns/Sheds to resi? The rules for Class Q are strict, and you may be able to build/convert a better property under a Full Planning App, rather than a Class Q. It will almost certainly be cheaper to convert. This may be worth doing a pre-App for, if the answer is not known, but "sanitise" the barns first in case you need to go the Class Q route. If they won't consider a Change of Use under a full planning App, then go the Class Q route. But, the LPA should then take an Approved Class Q in to account if you were to follow up with a Full Planning App.

Donald Rumsfeld

I may well have mis-remembered. I had it i my mind the FIT was EPC D or better and RHI C or better, but having just looked up the rules I can't see anything beyond how you have expressed it.

They also check the emitters are correctly sized for the calculated heat loss for the house, and the ASHP is correctly matched. Your house of course also need to be EPC C or better. Sorry, no MCS spec to hand.

Does the rest of your install and house meet MCS requirements, so that RHI can be applied for. If so, then I'd do it.

I've heard of others swapping their ASHPs out after the original 7 years RHI, to get a second "grant". If you can do it, then I can't see any negatives.

What actually is this "cesspit" then? Is it just a hole in the ground? or is it actually a structure? I'd missed that you described it as "open". I'd also missed that a Cesspool is not covered by the EA's General Binding Rules, and if it is a Cesspool (that requires regular emptying as it has no treatment capability and should not release to ground/surface water), then it does in fact require Planning Permission, Building Regs, Regular Emptying by a Licensed waster carrier, a minimum capacity of 18,000 litres per 2 users and must not leak or overflow https://www.gov.uk/permits-you-need-for-septic-tanks/you-have-a-cesspool Septic Tanks and small sewage Treatment plants need to abide by the General Binding Rules or have an EA permit (in England). So, if a Cesspool, then another Enforcement opportunity, as well as reporting to EA.

Yes, my experience is also that Buildings Regs control the installation of drainage, including foul drainage, and for off-grid foul drainage expect it to be in line with EA Regulations. EA then "police" private foul drainage systems, so nothing to do with planning control. Exactly my thought.

I'd high-light the two options the Council has, with something like: The Planing Inspector's Appeal Decision has high-lighted two course of action the Council could take. With the original enforcement being against the caravan, no arguments for Concealment were put forward (the caravan was not concealed). But the Inspector found that what was once a caravan, is now a building, so enforcement can still be taken against the structure itself under section 171B(1), since the building was covertly developed under the cover of the caravan shell, which would stop it from becoming immune from enforcement after 4 years. Indeed, the fact that the Council originally enforced against the caravan is itself material, since the building was concealed by the caravan. The Inspector then continues in para 38 to state that "even if" the structure becomes immune from enforcement, a breach of 171B(3) has been implied which allows its Residential Use to be enforced against, for which, as I'm sure you are aware, there is a 10 year duration before it would also be immune from enforcement. I'm not sure if Planning Control have any jurisdiction over "drainage" or Building Regs. ie. this may be out of the HoP's remit. I believe the Environment Agency and Building Regs each stand independently from Planning Control.

What size UVC did you go with? We have a similar demand, although not quite as high as children are a little younger, but have a 12kW ASHP combined with a 500l UVC. While the 500l tank has never left us short and the 12kW ASHP seems to heat it back up relatively quickly, ie. 3 or 4 showers in a row without a problem and back up to full temp in around 1 or 1.5 hours, I'm not sure I'd want to go smaller than 500l.

And, he's ignoring the second option the LPA has to challenge the Residential Use of the building set out by the Inspector in para 38: "This in turn implies a breach under section 171B(3) and case law has established that if a dwellinghouse is erected unlawfully and used as a dwellinghouse from the outset the unlawful use can still properly be the subject of enforcement action within ten years, even if the building itself, as a structure, becomes immune from enforcement action after four years." I would assume the HoP has either been badly briefed by one of his minions, or has chosen to obfuscate the matter to get the MP off his back, in the knowledge the MP will not look in to the detail. Can you reply to the HoP and cc the MP to politely correct his mistake?

The LPA can act now with an enforcement notice if they believe there is a breach of planning control (which surely they must do). The Notice would most likely be put on hold if the Owner then applied for a CLEUD, and then picked up again when the CLEUD was rejected. I believe the Owner previously (2015) submitted a planning application, which was rejected and appeal dismissed, so another (retrospective) planning app would hopefully not delay an enforcement notice.

Thankfully the Planning Inspector has not made the Dwelling-house lawful, he's only quashed the incorrect enforcement notice against the caravan, so no precedent set. It's for the LPA for restart enforcement against the Dwelling-house. If you are not already, keep on at the LPA to take action. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Have they given their reasoning for why they believe it is no longer enforceable, in writing. Has it brought up a consideration that we have over-looked within this thread? If their argument is incorrect and can be challenged, then that's a good basis for a formal complaint if they don't then take action once it is pointed out to them. On the subject of the over-flowing cesspit, I'm surprised the EA didn't respond. In a similar, but lesser polluting local example, we had the EA Officer out the following week, when the local Pub's Treatment Plant started spewing untreated sewage into the adjacent ditch (undersized treatment plant and new Owner refusing to have it emptied like the old owner did). Your situation is more clear-cut, and installation that does not meet the Binding Rules and I assume the operator does not have a permit from the EA. Should be an open and shut case for the EA.

Definitely one for the EA. There should be an EA officer at the Council. If there is effluent being released it's a prosecutable offence. If that's the current situation, then the building (dwelling-house) is definitely being concealed by the Caravan shell Edited to add: The entrance walls also require planning. It's quite unbelievable that the LPA aren't starting a new enforcement.

Up firers are not going to be able to re-produce the over-head effects with a sloping ceiling, and I'm pretty sure they won't work as a wall speaker at the edge of the room, no matter how high you can get them. If you've not found this page before, it's a good reference to walk you through the options: https://www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides

You've linked to soundbars that are simulating Atmos by bouncing effects off ceiling and walls. I've never listened to one of these but understand them to be very sensitive to room geometry and finishes. I feel you'd need to listen to these in your own room before making a decision.

My reading of Para 32 is that the statement is not absolute, but is in the context of this Appeal, where as noted in Para 42. "the Council have offered no evidence of positive deception in this case". Since they were incorrectly enforcing against the caravan, they wouldn't have initially considered concealment. I believe the Council could enforce against the building under 171B(1), on the grounds of concealment. There is no immunity after 4 years if positive deception is proven.

The Inspectorate kept the door more open for further enforcement than I remembered. He's not found in favour of the Appellant for anything other than the Council incorrectly enforcing against the caravan, rather than a building. Concealment is still on the table as the Council hadn't argued that, since their focus was the caravan which had not been concealed. Having re-read the Appeal decision, I am surprised that the Council haven't restarted enforcement. The current situation is a no-man's land. The building has not been found to be lawful and the Inspectorate has implied in para 41. that the the Council have 10 years to enforce as the "appellant's suggestion ‘without planning permission, the erection of a building and material change of use of the building to a dwelling’ would not (based on the available evidence as concluded in paragraph 39) accurately reflect the breach of planning control." The Inspectorate is saying that the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to define the planning breach to be within "Section 171B(2)" where it is immune from enforcement after only 4 years. If the Council takes no further enforcement action, then the appellant just has to sit tight until 2025 and then apply for a CLEUD, for the 10 years he will then have lived in the property.

You could temporarily tape the door gaps up to see if it reduced the noise enough, but I think it's likely the noise will still get though the doors. Have you got enough room between the unit and the door to box the unit in and acoustically insulate? - With the added complication that the boxing needs an opening to change the filters, or needs to be easily removed for servicing the MVHR.

It's not that clear from the photo, but does look like the window frame is 100% in line with the stone outer course, so the only thing insulating the inner half of the thermally broken frame from the potentially cold stone course is 5mm - 10mm of expanding foam. If this is correct then while the window frame itself is thermally broken, the stone course is creating a thermal bridge to the inner half. It may be made worse by high RH while the building dries out, but I would imagine this will still be an issue later on once the building is dry. To confirm this you could get an IR thermometer and check the temp of the inside surface of the frame when it is cold outside. If it's dropping below 12°C it's likely to cause condensation.

This is what I was getting at back on this thread: I believe that yes, that LPA could challenge the C3 status of the building, but not the building itself. "IF" the LPA has evidence that the building was first Used as residential, then it has up to 10 years to take enforcement, so can still be enforced against, but if the Owner can "say" it was used for a different Use initially, which is immune from enforcement after 4 years, and was then lived in, so went through a Change of Use, again only enforceable for 4 years, then it is now immune from enforcement. I don't believe the first Use has to run for the full 4 years, it just has to be Used for something other than Resi, before it was then used for residential. Having lost an Appeal, I doubt the LPA have the appetite to challenge it, now the Owner has the necessary info from the Inspectorate on how they should set out their case. [I haven't re-read the full Appeal (I did from the previous thread), so will re-read a little later when I have more time, to make sure I have my thoughts aligned with the Inspectorate's decision.]

Have you got a section showing the window position in the wall? As much of the frame as possible should be across the insulated cavity to avoid a thermal bridge. If the window frame is mostly in the stone skin such that the thermally broken half of the frame is in contact with the stone then you have a difficult problem to fix. The internal part of the frame will be at the same temp as the stone and you will get condensation unfortunately.

You need to work out the flow temp your emitters require to deliver the heat in to the house to offset the energy losses. You then set the Flow Temp on the ASHP space heating to match this. The larger the emitters, and lower overall heat loss, the lower the required Flow Temp and better SCOP. From this set Flow Temp, you can then use a weather compensation curve to increase the Flow Temp as the outside temp drops. This allows a lower general Flow Temp, and even better SCOP, raising it only when needed. I found it better to run without weather compensation at the start to understand how the house reacted to a known Flow Temp, and then set up Weather compensation.

I went with an offset verge flail for the paddocks, so that I could takes the hedges back as well:

Unless you plan to cut the paddock every couple of weeks during the summer, I personally wouldn't go with a "garden" ride-on that has a belt-drive deck. My experience is that the belt-drives can't carry the torque to cut/mulch longer, thicker grass (plus the weeds/thistles that invariable grow in paddocks). I'd go with a commercial machine with hydraulic decks and +30hp. Something like a Toro Groundmaster, Jacobson, Ransomes, John Deere etc.. For 0.75 acres an "out-front" would be fine, you'd not need to go all out with a "bat-wing". The ones with the large multi-blade rotoary decks are better for a paddock rather than the separate individual rotary decks that golf-courses use, that will stripe. 10 year old, Ex-council machines can be picked up for around £6K or £7K at the auctions. The tow-behind, flails are fine, but still lack horse-power, so tend not to have too-wide a cut. They're also not as "nimble", being towed behind a quad so take more work to get in to corners, close to hedges/fences and around trees. Even with the sheep, you'll still need to top the paddock a couple of times a year to take down what the sheep won't eat. Edited to add: As an example https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224592270153?mkevt=1&mkpid=2&emsid=e90001.m2368.l2648&mkcid=8&bu=43410497432&osub=99cbb4b05dbdf6c33b48b5e144fe02c7%7ETE81002_T_ALL&segname=TE81002_T_ALL&crd=20211231033000&ch=osgood&trkId=0A49DCE4-7C49D327D74-017DD3B73FF2-0000000002195827&mesgId=3041&plmtId=700003&recoId=224592270153&recoPos=2&sojTags=osub%3Dosub%2Csegname%3Dsegname%2Ccrd%3Dcrd%2Cch%3Dch%2CtrkId%3DtrkId%2CmesgId%3DmesgId%2CplmtId%3DplmtId%2CrecoId%3DrecoId%2CrecoPos%3DrecoPos%2Cchnl%3Dmkcid