IanR

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.

I've been looking at similar for my own roof. There seems a bit of a premium to pay over conventional rigid module on frame (or direct bracket mounted on to seam) We're you involved in this install.

That's really good news. Seems the Boiler Upgrade Scheme will be extended to include to include self-builds, as per RHI. It's the logical step to ensure self-builds continue to consider ASHPs up to 2025, when they will be forced to. Assuming the BUS legislation retains this once it gets on to the statute books, then for this scenario ASHP seems a "no brainer". The £5K grant should more than cover any additional cost in installing an ASHP. The Building Regs changes for next year require a "low temp" (under 55°C flow temp) heating systems, so I assume that will bake in a Hot Water cylinder into the install costs for any system in a new build and swing the needle in favour of UFH. The £5K grant only then needs to cover the difference in cost of LPG/Oil Boiler + tank with the cost of an ASHP. A benefit of ASHP and UFH is that it can also bring some active cooling to the house, assuming the BUS rules will allow ASHPs to cool, as they do under RHI with the revised rules. I don't believe this is correct, off-gas-grid fossil fuel boilers are already in the sights of the Government to be tackled first. As well as banning their replacement from 2026 I'm sure they will pull on all the levers they can to persuade owners to move over to ASHPs.

Can you still get LPG at that price? Local to me it looks around 67p a litre. Day to day running costs for ASHP are lower than Oil and LPG typically, but not if you can currently buy LPG for under 40p per litre. If you can then LPG for you will be a similar cost (day-to-day) or slightly cheaper, at the moment. The Government have stated they will move the Green Taxes from Electricity to Fossil Fuels. Currently there are 22% green taxes on Electricity, so this will move further in favour of Electricity, however they've only said it will be done this decade, so may be a gradual change. Off-gas-grid, fossil fuel boilers are the low hanging fruit that will become the first victims of the move to Net Zero. iirc the plan is to ban their replacement from 2026. Across the year a well spec'd ASHP costs the same to run as a gas boiler in respect to day-to-day running costs.

Your EPC looks around about correct for the U Values. All need to improve. The 250mm Jet floor is 250mm hollow-core concrete is, it not? so not helping with your U value. 150mm PIR on top is insufficient if you wish to build better than building regs. Same for the roof 125mm PIR in the roof just isn't enough, (if you wish to build better than building regs.) As Dave says the walls also need improving, although on a bungalow I'd invest more into floor and roof.

I've never worked through a Class R, so am not aware of the intricacies, but, if the land and building met the requirements for a Class R change of use to to flexible business Use, does it not meet the requirements for a Class Q to C3 residential? You've mentioned "dilapidated", perhaps Class Q has a higher bar for being structurally capable of conversion? Once the development is capable of being Used, within its new Usage category, the material change of Use occurs. But, that still allows a permitted (but not actioned) Change of Use to be taken in to consideration by the LPA when considering a subsequent Planning Application. ie. LPAs should consider an existing Approved Class Q as material, if a Full planning application is submitted for the site.

I missed that the UK Government got their Heat and Buildings Strategy launched at the end of October. It must have been the shortly after the Commons statement. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1036226/E02666137_CP_388_Heat_and_Buildings_Accessible.pdf The time-line as set out: Looks like the Gas industries lobbying has had the desired effect and a door has been left open for Hydrogen Boilers supplied by the Gas Grid, with a decision in 2026 on whether to keep this as an option. In the meantime, off-gas-grid properties will be banned from replacing fossil fuel boilers from 2026. A decision on the role of Bioenergy in decarbonising heat is also due in 2026. To me, that suggests off-gas-grid properties should make use of the RHI/BUS grant, while it is still available.

I don't believe that section shows he whole picture, as I mentioned before the EPS can't take the loads on to a 100mm block plinth. This image shows it better While the section you showed is not wrong, If you the moved the section along the span a little it would show pre-cast concrete going all the way down to the block plinth. But, this image also shows that along the length of the pre-cast section, there's only 1 localised bearing point every 1m or so, which isn't bad. Although along the width of the pre-cast section it looks like 100mm of localised bearing point (cold bridge) for every 100mm on EPS.

I don't believe it sits on 60mm for the entire perimeter, EPS couldn't take the loads on such a small area, so the there's concrete going all the way down to the blocks. The brochure gives a 2D Psi calc for the cold bridge, that looks reasonable, but it does cut the section where there is EPS between concrete and block plinth. Would be good to see the same calc done for the section where the concrete goes all the way down to the block plinth. Having said that the overall U value they calculate (0.11W/m².K) includes the perimeter cold bridges. As long as they are not using smoke and mirrors then I feel the UFH could go in a screed straight on the precast sections. I probably wouldn't run the pipes too close to an external wall though, ie. at least 200mm away as there is still a bit of a cold bridge.

Is there a cold bridge through slab -> block work -> ground beam -> piles? I can't imagine there's EPS sandwiched between Slab and Block work? There wouldn't be the surface area to take the loads...would there?

I'm not understanding your build up. Is the slab ground bearing? ie. you are placing EPS on a prepared sub-floor that is sitting on earth, and then you plan to place precast concrete sections on to that EPS? What are your load bearing walls sitting on? A Wall-Floor Section would help. Wunda probably isn't expecting you to have 325mm insulation under your slab, hence the thermal break to the screed.

Have you poured the Slab yet are or you at design phase? Most of us with insulated slabs/rafts, put the UFH in the concrete without a screed. But, typically, minimum 100mm thick, rather than 50mm. Who spec'd the slab? If you've poured already, 60mm screed on 50mm slab, is pretty close to what most of us have, ie. 100mm concrete. UFH works fine. Some have 200mm concrete an still report no issues.

Yes, in relation to your opinion that: "what seems to be happening in this thread in particular, but also more generally in the climate debate, is that healthy and necessary scepticism is being misinterpreted and mislabelled as "denial." Which could not have been in relation to your own comments, as you had not made such comments in this thread, so you were speaking about others' comments that you felt were being misinterpreted as denial. Again, I made no such claim about your posts being denial, and have not seem others' make such a claim about your posts. I'll not be commenting on this again.

No. I've made no such claim about your posts, not seen your posts labelled as denial others. I have commented on your opinion that. My recollection is that your own posts in this thread, were focused on disputing what science is, rather than any particular aspect of climate debate itself, so your opinion above was how others' posts were being treated.

Unfortunately Ofgem are a bit slow in providing any new info about the new BUS scheme, so there's nothing on topic to discuss for the time being. We'll just have to make do with off-topic discussion until Ofgem jump into action.

You are conflating 2 separate debates. Claiming climate change is not happening and the evidence that it is is produced by corrupt Scientists, is denial. With Climate Change an accepted phenomena, debating what we do about it is entirely valid, and disagreeing with the current direction of travel is not denial. However to have a discussion of value you'd need to propose an alternative, not just reason why it is wrong. The opinions shot down within this thread are the former. I made no comment regarding the IB post.

I must be reading a different thread. I'm only reading regurgitated, +10 year old disproved conspiracies about corrupt scientists working in cahoots with political leaders to deceive the world's population. That's not new thinking, healthy scepticism or alternative forms of knowledge, that is denial. Thankfully the debate between the grown ups has moved on to what can be done to limit the damage that climate change will do.