IanR

I'd have them South facing, with external (automated) blinds. Embrace the Solar Gain and use it when you need it.

Magic Man or Plastic Surgeon, similar service from each.

I would not pay anything "upfront". No issue with fortnightly invoices with a swift payment, but paying money upfront will not work in your favour.

Thanks @chrisb that's a great help. As you say I need to stick with analogue lines for now due to bandwidth but we may get Superfast in a couple of years so want the option to move to VoIP. You've given me the acronyms I needed to get better results on my searches. May look to a IP PBX solution so that it works out the box, I've got a few other home projects to straighten out and could do with something that "just works".

Mine is a solid sole plate. The Engineer for the insulated raft did show an I joist on its side for the sole plate, so I assume it can be done, but that's not how the TF supplier did it. While the thermal bridging would be further reduced with an I Joist sole plate, it would not give much flexibility with bolting positions to fix the sole plate. I believe most I Joists have a 47mm deep flange so your going to want the bolts right in the middle. Your Slab would then need to be spot on, assuming your having and EPS upstand coming up underneath the soleplate. A solid sole plate gives a little more flexibility.

Hi @chrisb For me: 1. copper line, broadband provided by TalkTalk - 6.5Mb/s download (rural) 2. 2 lines in, 1 domestic, 1 business. Voicemail for each line. Office phone to ring for business calls, all lines ring for domestic calls. Others can "pickup" business calls if I'm not "in the office". Internal calls between extensions. 3. VOIP Service added in future. More handsets as children age. 4. Mixture of wired and wireless handsets 5. yes 6. Hmmm... as long as I perceive it to be good value, then what ever it takes... within reason. I guess I'm expecting to get the PBX for sub £250 and handsets sub £150 each. I'm open to buying used kit from Auction etc. 7. yes, all IT and Automation is in a "Node 0" area, either racked or DIN rail mounted. Edited to add - PoE kit would be preferred...

My plan was to run IP phones, but I've a gap in my knowledge that's stopped me from ordering the hardware I need. On the server/exchange side, I want to connect the IP phones to my "standard" BT line, and perhaps add a VOIP Service in the future. The PBX servers I've looked at don't explicitly say they can handle a standard BT line and route the IP phones through it, but I assume they can. Can anyone confirm that's the case, and if possible recommend a suitable brand for a cost effective domestic set-up. ie. max 2 lines in and say 6 extensions. Thanks.

Couldn't agree more. I was able to 3D scan the existing steel frame of the original cow-shed we converted, and CTD then built the timber structure around it, resolving the issues in CAD rather than on site. They seem to enjoy the challenge of designing non-standard structures. In defensive of the TF companies I'll give my "take" the markup of the TF companies: The TF company in question is offering a package of which the frame design and production are a couple of parts. That package offers the self-builder the opportunity to de-risk substantial components of their build, including what I believe is +25 years experience of erecting more-or-less the same frame technology and developing a propriety erection process that delivers an air tightness substantially better than PassivHaus requirements. Taking this into account I believe the "mark-up" includes a whole lot more than just profit. Whether or not that seems to be good value will depend on whether a self-builder is capable of erecting the frame themselves or if they need to contract that portion out.

Sounds like a similar service to what Cullen Timber Design offer. Definitely worth sharing your experiences of who you are working with as I'm sure it could benefit others. The route I took got me involved with CTD and their service was excellent.

Whether panelised or not was not decisive for me, although building around an existing steel structure was easier with a stick built frame. More important was a robust buildup designed to be able to deliver the air tightness I was after and an experienced frame erection "crew" capable of delivering the quality required to deliver the air tightness target. I also had some tricky detailing to work out around the existing steel frame so needed to be confident the design team could come up with bespoke solutions that resolved these issues without compromising thermal bridging and air tightness. I talked to a lot of companies but was only left with one in the end that I had confidence in which was Touchwood Homes. The downside to that was I had to fit in with their timing and I wasn't in the strongest position to negotiate down the price as I didn't really have a plan B. Very happy with the outcome though, the frame is excellent, and nothing was left to chance. All the tricky detailing was designed and engineered before they got to site so there were no surprises that required a quick fix during the build phase.

Yes, I'm half clad in Oak (other half Sapele). For European Oak, fresh-sawn feather edge 27 x 175 (2.5m - 3.5m lengths), I paid £2.48 per linear m delivered on a 1,500m order. I thought the price was very competitive.

Hi Amanda, and welcome! Looking forward to seeing your project progress. We to are cursed with great views that demanded more glazing than is sensible on a low energy home. Our planning (PD) didn't allow fixed brise-soleil shading as we had to keep within the existing building (cow-shed) envelope. Our solution were external venetians connected to a little automation to optimise slat angle to sun position. These are a big success and I now wish we'd put them on more windows than just the ones that were adding to the excessive solar gain. Fitted behind the cladding, when they are retracted they are not visible so for us did not cause any issues with the planners.

Good spot. Elsewhere in the Essential Guide for Applicants it specifically states water cooling https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2017/09/essentialguideforapplicants_rpiia_september2017.pdf So, cooling via UFH is OK, but if you plan to cool incoming air through the MVHR with a wet duct heat exchanger then perhaps not.

I agree, an MCS installer is unlikely to install an ASHP you purchased from elsewhere, even if it is an MCS Approved ASHP. You could always sell it again on eBay, if the numbers work out and you'd rather hand over the install and commissioning to a 3rd party.

It could make enough difference. The RHI is based upon the as-built SAP/EPC heat demand figure for the property. The "as-built" term is a little ambiguous of course, it's really still a theoretical figure as no physical metering or testing is needed. If you choose not to go to the expense of an the air permeability test (as is your right for a single property development) then the default figure of 15 m³/m²/h at 50Pa would go forward to your SAP calcs and if you haven't had the true Ψ-values calculated for your thermal bridging (as most people haven't) then default values would also be used. You'd probably find the SAP calculated heat demand figure to be a little higher than you were aiming for, but alas, that is the one that Ofgem insist on using for calculating RHI. I've just had a play on the Ofgem RHI Calculator and picking some numbers at random, that to me do not feel to unreasonable, ie. 7500 kWh space heating + 2500 kWh hot water, heat demand per annum, then for an ASHP with an SPF of 4.2 the RHI would contribute £5460 to your heating system costs over the 7 years. The SPF of the ASHP does have a significant impact on the RHI payment. If you were to allow a budget of say £1500 for the installation of a non-MCS installed ASHP, then the break even figure for the MCS installed version is just under £7K. Considering only the ASHP and not the cylinders, pumps and valves that both installs require I think it is possible to get an MCS installed ASHP for £7K.

Parliament must have done its bit as the increased rates did come in for any applications registered after 14.12.2016. But energy caps were also introduced for any registrations after 20.09. Max payment will now be capped to 20,000 kWh per annum

Quite right.

Interesting, I've not been required to do the Air Test (so a figure of 15 ACH went forward to the SAP), but BC have requested a registered EPC for the completion cert. -mine's a CoU Agri to Resi I didn't look into this as I needed the EPC for RHI anyhow.

My request for the same was politely declined, but the assessor offered to run all the different scenarios I wanted.

Hopefully that was for an "official" SAP, that can then go forward to produce the as-built. If he's not an accredited energy assessor then he's likely to have contracted that out and you've been charged a management fee. The most cost effective route may be to go back to him to produce the as-built. If the Design SAP was official, it should be a minor update to produce the as-built

But you still need an EPC for you BC completion Cert... don't you?

I was charged £175 for the Design SAP, and £35 to complete the As-built and Register the EPC

Only an Accredited and Registered (with BRE) Energy Assessor can upload the EPC that Building Regs will require, so your as-built SAP will need to be done by that Assessor. If you're going to do a Design SAP then you might as well use the same Assessor as the as-built will use the same calcs and should be a minor update at the end. The Assessor's are not supposed to use someone elses "file", so shouldn't take a home-brew design SAP and produce the as-built from it. I used Pebble Energy.

...but not in an AONB

To get a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use you need to demonstrate a breach that has existed for more than 4 years and is continuing. If that use is to be "Agricultural" then generally the LPA will also require demonstration of a business need. ie. a profitable business that requires a barn to function. In truth if there was a functioning agricultural business the building may already have a lawful agricultural use through PD if the building fits within the caveats that are allowed. If a lawful Agricultural use can be proved/achieved then there would be a slim chance of a Change of Use to Residential. Lots of hurdles to jump though. But, as I mentioned before the development that has already occurred, does't imply to me an Agricultural use. I'm thinking specifically of double glazing and a connected "cesspit". This sounds unlawful to me (unless you can find the relevant permission). An unlawful use can not be used to argue for a Change of Use.