IanR

Correct. Class R Change of Use is not permitted if: So, under R.1(a)(i) the building needs to have been used solely for Agriculture, as part of an Agricultural Unit (viable farm business) on 03.07.2012, or last used if it was not in use on that date. You've used the term "Converting", so assuming the building is structurally capable of Conversion, then the performance requirements are lower than a new build, but there are still targets that need to be met. Some of what you list maybe covered by local policies that you need to research from your LPA, some are covered by Building Control and are National requirements. I'd suggest a local Planning Consultant to help you work out what applies. But, if the "derelict stable block" is not structurally capable of Conversion, then it becomes a New Build (knock down and build), for which there are less routes to a successful planning application, and New Build rules apply, as laid out by your local plan and Building Control. btw, Class R doesn't cover Change of Use to Residential, you'd need use Class Q, for which your equestrian stable block is also unlikely to meet.

Type 1 won't stop water "percolating" beneath the raft, it will just drain more slowly and wash out the fines as it drains away. For an insulated raft the EPS would typically sit on a "no fines" pea shingle or granite chippings and there'd be a perimeter drain to aid water clearing. If you have a high water table, or it's temporarily high through surface water flooding then the water will breach the EPS, up to the DPM. Any EPS sitting in water is no longer acting as an insulator. The section I included in your other post shows this. Has your SE got experience of insulated rafts? There should be no issue contracting out the Engineering of the raft to a specialist and have your SE do the other details you've hired him for. Do you know that you can get the formers you need (or at least make it much easier) to create the ring beam detail with the specified insulation? It can be a bit of a closed shop where the insulation providers will only supply the "approved" formers for an Insulated raft that's been Engineered by a company they have a relationship with. Are you hoping to have a building warranty? Will your provider accept the raft design? And will Building Control accept it?

It is now mandatory that the land owner is notified if someone else submits an application for land they own and an Ownership Certificate should be submitted with the application, confirming the appropriate notice has been served. It's an offence to complete a "false or misleading" Certificate. Without an Ownership Certificate the application is invalid and should not be determined by the LPA https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Ownership-Certificate-and-Agricultural-Land-Declaration Object on the basis of the missing or false land ownership certificate.

That's right, no clips or straps, just nailed.

Mine was like this, but with packers between the flanges where the load is taken. Design: Cuts: Installed with packers:

?? All available over the counter at my local plumbing outlet. Pretty standard size across the Continent.

The Thermotech pipe helped here, it's very robust and doesn't kink. It's Ø17 polyethylene which won't damage from the mesh being trodden on squeezing the pipe.

Insulated Rafts remain pretty niche in the UK, so you'll not find a standard way of incorporating UFH. They are however quite standard in Sweden, which is where Advanced Foundation Technology originate from. AFT Engineered and supplied my insulated raft including UFH from ThermoTech (Sweden) - Olof even dropped by to help install the UFH. The Swedes do their UFH a little differently to the UK but they take their plumbing very seriously.

Is this an early "conceptual" section, or the finished design? I'm surprised your FFL is not at least 150mm above the outside ground level. It's also an untypical sub-floor build up, there's no perimeter water management and a lack of insulation "overlap" where the raft steps from floor thickness to the beam thickness. What insulation and thickness is being proposed? My raft from AFT is doing similar to what yours is trying to do, but looks more like (but not identical to): Ref. https://www.advancedfoundationtechnologylimited.co.uk/our-products/passive-building-foundations/

Can you clarify whether you are having a slab or a raft? Typically a slab is poured inside of strip foundations and isn't load bearing, where as for a raft there are no seperate strip foundations and your load bearing walls sit on the raft, passing the loads into it. My answers below assume you have an insualted raft foundation. What flow temp is he considering? Has yours been calculated? If you are at PH levels of energy loss then flow temps are likely to be <35°C. Typically the raft temp will only be 1°C or 2°C above your target air temp, ie. 21°C or 22°C. I see greater increase in raft temp from solar gain than I do from UFH. My raft is 465m² and I have no cut joints. Agreed with regards the repair, but not that high stresses may cause a burst. I did have to repair an UFH pipe, as I cut into it. My pipes were on top of the steel mesh and it was relatively easy to expose and repair. Why are you having a screed? Perhaps you should list your floor build up. Typically an Insulated raft only has floor finishes above it.

Having played a bit more I can see it's not doing either of those. But, while it's getting the Total Energy losses approx. correct, it's overstating the kWh.m².annum by around 200%. The extra is mostly in the shoulder months and summer, although December, Jan and Feb are a little high also.

I'm not sure if it's a good thing, but putting in my overall figures, it's pretty close to my "Total Heat Loss". But I'm pretty air tight, have mitigated most thermal bridges and benefit from plenty of solar gain, so I'd have expected your model to over state my thermal losses. But, costs are someway off. Either your Total Heat Loss value is dividing by COP of the HP (which I don't think it should be) or your costs are not considering the COP of the HP. It also assumes heating all year, where in reality I have around 90 heating days a year. Your ventilation value (ACH) - are you using that for the MVHR loses or for uncontrolled loses? It should be uncontrolled loses + MVHR loses in my view. I assume you've not accounted for thermal bridges ie. by setting some defaults values? Not all values are saved if you close and come back in. ie. location, manual house volume and energy source selection are not saved.

Unfortunately not. HMRC makes no distinction between integrated or not. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/goods-and-services-you-can-claim-for-under-the-vat-diy-scheme

If it's on the Planning Approved Drawings, then it's zero rated. If not then HMRC could argue that it's not, but unlikely they would look in that detail. "white goods" are not covered.

I believe it would, although "holiday let" may mean different things to different people. To me a holiday let (which may be let via AirBnB), would be a self-contained unit that provides facilities for day-to-day living for a single person of family, so falls within C3. C1 is intended for hotels, where rooms would be individually let to unconnected people and may not provide full facilities for day-to-day living. Ref. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/764/schedule/part/C/made?view=plain

If your are renting out the unit as a "whole", where it may have a couple of bedrooms, a kitchen and a sitting area, then this would be a C3 Residential Use, rather than a C1. I believe for a C1 you'd have to rent out individual rooms, as per a hotel. But... there is a grey area between these two. The last Tory government had completed a consultation for a new C5 Use Class, specifically for AirBnB "2nd homes", I've not heard if Labour intend to bring this to fruition, but it's not on the statute books yet.

Hi & welcome. Assuming you are outside of an established settlement, now the buildings have been removed they can't help with a new planning, unfortunately. From what you've said they are likely to have been removed in a trade-off for the development that has occurred, making it even less likely that the site could be re-developed. That leaves the Para 84(e) option mentioned by your architect. This is a long and expensive route with no garuntees, costs overall will be much higher than £8K. Do some research into Architect's that specialise in this type of application. Some LPA's may not accept that the site is an "Isolated" position (that allows for Para84(e)), due to the neighbouring properties, but there is now some case law that has defined "isolated" as anything that is not within a built settlement. Ref. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/5-delivering-a-sufficient-supply-of-homes If it were mine I'd canvas the adjacent properties so see what it is worth to them, someone may want to keep a horse and pay a premium for it. If no one offers an amount acceptable to you, then you could apply for Equestrian use + stables and tack room, with a high enough ridge that can be later converted. With water and electricity connected it could return a reasonable rent, while you wait it out for 5 - 10 years and then approach the council for a conversion/re-build. It's got a low chance of success, but stops being a chain around your neck and covers its costs. Caveat - hopefully you have access rights over the drive/track and it includes running utilities?

No, the insulated "slab" can't extend under and take the external wall loads (making it a raft) while sitting on PIR and without a suitable build up under the raft (see AFT examples at link I provided) What's missing in the AT's sketch is the pile capping/beam that joins the top of the piles for the dwarf wall to sit on. Giving the AT the benefit of the doubt, the rectangle they've drawn is intended to cover the piles and beams. What have you asked for with regards the floor/foundation. There appears an attempt to go above building regs regards insulation, but there are better ways of doing it.

That's not a raft foundation. Is the technician calling it a raft, or is that an assumption you have made. Yes, to be a raft, what is shown currently as a concrete slab needs to extend under the load bearing walls. If you are after an insulated raft and require it to be supported with piles due to ground conditions, that's quite niche. You'll need someone with proven experience. I'd recommend having a chat with Advanced Foundation Technology: https://www.advancedfoundationtechnologylimited.co.uk/our-products/timber-steel-icf-framed-building-foundation/

What have you based your opinion on? Are you aware of the NPPF Rules for Green Belt? Does the LPA have a policy in the Local Plan that says how they deal with development in the green belt? From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land You need to be able to argue one of the exceptions, otherwise the LPA will refuse. If you have deep pockets with regards obtaining the planning permission, it's worth looking at "Para 80 e)" development. While it's not explicitly a green belt exception (it's regard development in the open countryside), on occasion it does get an Approval within the green belt.

I've got the KF410 Studio from 2017 in my Utility and Boot room, which looks to be halfway between the current KF520 and KF410 versions. For an opening sash, there's not enough frame on the inboard side to cover any more than around 5mm of the frame, before you'd be stopping the inward opening sash from being able to open. So, internally you'll be seeing nearly all the frame. Externally, you can cover the sides and top of the alu-clad frame with your cladding/render board, but not the bottom. On the sketch below the blue block at the bottom comes on the window and I've shown the internal cill level with the bottom of the frame, and the pink is a folded external cill. The hatched area is supposed to show cladding on the side of the rebate covering some of the frame. Edited to add: I have alu-clad timber across the rest of the house and while I'm very happy with them, if/when I do it again I'll think seriously about saving the money and going UPVC through out. The KF410 is a really solid, stable, well built window.

Ha - Not something I have direct experience of but I know of the "Probity in Planning" guidance document for councillors: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/34.2_Probity_in_Planning_04.pdf As per section 5 I believe the councillor in question would have to withdraw from the committee since if he's already given his view before committee he has a "closed mind" with regards the decision to be made.

I'm going to ignore your comments now, no idea why you choose to be argumentative, some of your input is of value. The ASHP will be on and off, the emitters are more constant. They are not balanced.

The gauge in the pocket 2/3 up looks close to me measuring at 35°C, although both the gauge and the laser temp gun will likely have a ±1°C tolerance so can't be relied on to compare between the two. You'll need to measure a few times to get a feel for what is going on, the temps are dynamic as the ASHP comes on and off and you're wanting 0.1° accuracy which isn't achievable with consumer devices. It would be nicer to see the temps across the top, and those at the bottom within 1° of each other. If after multiple readings, at different times, you are still seeing a similar result are you could try to slow the emitter pump down and are you able to limit the flow rate of the ASHP? Not sure if it's a setting available on all HPs, but I can turn mine down (on space heating only) to make it run slower for longer. I set mine up with a data logger and DS18B20 sensors and some times the traces would show the flow temp to the emitters higher than the flow from the ASHP, which isn't possible - the accuracy of the readings I need are not within the capability of the DS18B20's. After about 10 different sets of readings, each running for a couple of hours mine averaged out with the emitter side being within 0.5°C of the ASHP, except just as the ASHP stopped or started. Is it cold enough that the emitter circuit is running continuously (my own heating isn't on yet), are the measurements you have taken are at a reasonably steady state?

? The emitters are not on, the Buffer is at flow temp, possibly fully charged. You can't draw any conclusions, unless you have a biased view. A 4P buffer removes the inefficiencies and warranty concerns of short cycling, at the cost of minor standing losses and powering a second circulation pump that would not otherwise be required in most cases. ? The ASHP will switch off when the buffer is fully charged at flow temp.