IanR

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

We went with Poured Resin in our living space - love it and ideal for UFH Similar to you, we're a farmhouse with children and dogs. Easy to clean, no grout lines or expansion gaps and seems to be lasting well after nearly 5 years.

In the HMRC guidance on CGT they state "You must have lived in your home as your only or main residence at some point while you owned it." - Pretty vague. Not sure if there is case law on "duration" (worth researching), but as long as your actions are not purely for CGT avoidance, then I would think a period as short as 3 months could not be argued against (I'm not a Tax expert). If it was genuinely your main residence then you wouldn't have a rental agreement at another property, you wouldn't have a mail re-direct set up at the property, bank accounts would be registered there, you'd be registered at the local Doctors and on the electoral role as well as paying the correct Council Tax. Yes, but you need to get it nominated as your main private residence and plan to live there at some point. I wouldn't be comfortable with just a month. But three months just about does it for me, 6 months would be better. Yes, I don't think you have anything to loose. If in the end you do not ever liver there, then you can't make use of Private Residence Relief, but if you do live there, and it takes you another couple of years, then Nominating it as your Main Private Residence will buy you the extra time.

You must live in the house at some point, if you wish to use the Private Residence Relief. So for your "surrender" options you would need to move in while selling, in order to not pay CGT. As long as you have lived in the residence at some point, you get an initial two year period where you do not have to live there, IF it's being built or undergoing renovation. And you get 9 months prior to selling, that you don't have to live there, as long as you lived in it at some point. You can extend the initial 2 year period of not having to live in it, generally with an additional, 3 years max, if you write to HMRC and notify them that it is your main private residence. This nomination has to be done within 2 years of every time the combination of homes you own changes. So, fairly relaxed from the rules perspective, but you have to have lived in the property at some point. https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home/absence-from-home https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home/nominating-a-home

Were the PV modules factory fitted (by you) or were they fitted on site? Do you know if the PV modules are removable, without damaging the panel coating? ie. with a 20 - 25 year life on the PV and a 60-70 year life on the SS panel, they'll need replacing at some point. From who?

Hi, and welcome. What flow Temp did the calcs estimate is required for the size of radiators you have installed? Is the ASHP achieving that temp? and what is the return temp when it does achieve the set flow temp? Are you leaving your heating on for the majority of the day, or are you scheduling it for a couple of periods during the day (as you would do if you had a gas boiler). On the coldest day in your data the ASHP could have delivered that energy in around 11 hours of running, which suggests there is some headroom where it could deliver more energy/heat.

I've used similar units from Colingwood. Although integrated LEDs, rather than GU10's The ones I've used have a 38° beam angle and are 5.5W. I have 8 (two rows of 4) over a dining area that is approx 6m x 5m and they light the area well, even though it's part of an open plan living area so no wall on two sides to reflect the light back in to the "room". I am wishing I'd gone for GU10's rather than integrated LEDs for these. Even though Collingwood give a 7 year warranty, if they fail in 10 years they'll be a pain to replace.

I'd do both. Cooling via UFH is very effective, but slow to respond. It is more-or-less free, just select an ASHP that allows cooling out-the-box and doesn't require a hack. I did have to pay for an accessory on my Nibe, but most brands don't require that and I'm not sure if Nibe still does. You may pay a little more for the UFH controller, to understand the cooling requirement. The one thing you have to avoid is lowering the surface of the slab below the dew point. The hotter the internal air and the higher the relative humidity, the higher the dew point, but as a surface temp of 18°C on the slab provides very effective cooling, it's unlikely you'd need to be getting close to the dew point, but some logic in setting the flow temp may be useful. Loxone can do all this for you is you plan some Home Automation. The slow response of UFH in a slab, means it's best not to let temps get to high before cooling is employed. Fan-coil units, perhaps working off the same cooled buffer as the UFH, will give a more instant cooling effect, as it is cooling the air directly. But, as they are only cooling the air, when you switch them off the air temp will rise again, heated by the fabric off the building. Having both seems to me the best of both worlds. I wish I had included fan-coil units within my build, and am now considering them as a retrofit.

Air infiltration, will be a factor, but not substantial with 5° delta. Solar gain might be with that glazing, depending on direction and insolation levels

From my research, yes, lower efficiency compared to rigid panels, ie 14%-16% Fly lead wiring is attached to one end, via a visible small junction box, well hidden under the ridge trim on the photos provided. Designing-in to a "formed on site" standing seam isn't possible, but pre formed standing seam can now be purchased with the PV modules pre-assembled. Edited to add: Efficiency now up to 17% https://bipvco.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/BIPVco_Metektron_LR.pdf

The solar PV panels will be flexible modules bonded directly to the standing seam, either in the factory or on site. The standing seam will be fixed to an OSB/ply deck, with (probably) a vent gap underneath.