IanR

We have mostly timber/ali Internorm windows in our build, with white UPVC/ali Internorm windows and door in our Utility. I can't remember the price difference, but I'm sure it was in the order of 25% cheaper for the UPVC. Externally you can't see and difference between the timber and UPVC options. Internally it's down to the "look" you are going for. If you can get away with UPVC then I'd definitely go for it. Internorm UPVC are very well put together, very nice jointing in the frames, they look a quality product. UPVC frames are more robust that timber and are lower maintenance. Not that timber will be particularly high maintenance, but would require better looking after. The Internorm supplier we used made a point of mentioning humidity levels whilst plaster and decoration is drying out, and telling us to ensure the house was well ventilated during this period as the timber framed windows can be susceptible to swelling at the joints. This was part of our decision to have UPVC in the Utility, that and the money it saved on a few windows and a door paid for us to go up to the Studio range for the whole house.

How much PV and what capacity of battery storage do you plan? Are you expecting to run you ASHP in winter from PV/Battery?

I am putting my faith in the recommendation from a well established company that do Installations and maintenance from small domestic to large commercial jobs and are installers for a large number of brands (although not Panasonic). I also want a cooling solution, which is off the shelf with Nibe. Which is an expensive ideology for a self-builder. ...and unless you're set up allows for the avoidance of mains elec for the majority of heat and water, how much greener is it really than Gas?

Why's that. I'd be on Gas if it were available.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm going with a Nibe. I'm told once the deposit is paid I'll have access to everything I require. I just hope their idea of "everything" is the same as mine.

My Cills are 260mm deep. The outer face of the windows are 75mm back from the TF Structure, outside of which I have a 94mm vent gap plus 38mm cladding. This is for Internorm windows where the Cill attaches to a Cill spacer under the frame which is at least 10mm (maybe 15mm) under-flush to the front face of the windows. The Cills have a drip feature on the outer edge where there is a return flange back underneath the outer edge of the Cill making the edge of the Cill at least 10mm thick, and there is at least 10mm clearance between the back edge of this return and the outer surface of my cladding. Edited to add: [Cladding not yet complete into reveal] For Full height windows and doors, on ours the Cills are narrower since there is no cladding and vent gap, just plinth wall below DPC. Wouldn't that be the same for you?

I didn't find a single company that could do all systems. Even if you found one, I think you'd fall down on the controller side, ie. to find a single dedicated control system that could integrate the functions of all the systems. I have UFH installed by the slab engineer; ASHP and cylinders from one company; MVHR self-installed with plumber connecting the wet duct heater and cooler; Solar PV from the electrician; roof vents from another company; external blind from another company; and home automation from yet another company. My plan, to be implemented soon, is to delete the various dedicated control systems and have "some" home automation sitting over the top that integrates the different systems, along with shading, so hopefully everything is working together to either heat, cool or maintain the house temp. I don't yet have all the info I need from the ASHP manufacturer to know I can avoid using their controller, but hopefully will do soon. Everything else looks relatively straight forward.

Not for "any reason", Class A just talks about the buildings, structures, machinery etc. without defining any uses. Classes B thru E then defines the Uses, of which habitation is not one. @recoveringacademic , I'm not ignoring what you have quoted the head of planning as saying, his/her comments are in line with the GPDO, ie. that temporary structures can be erected if "required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out". But that doesn't mean lived in. If Part 4 Class A didn't exist you'd need planning permission for the port-a-loo, welfare unit and storage container etc. In my view, the caravan may be allowed to be there, if it is a site hut or welfare unit, but the owner does not have the right to live there.

Only if the site already has a domestic use class. ie. if it is within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. (I believe - happy to be corrected if you can find a clause in the GPDO that says otherwise)

I saw that, but he didn't clear the conditions until 2008, so it might be quite tight. Probably knows what he's doing, and got the slab down in time.

I looked on the portal, and there's no provision for a habitable caravan, so any temporary buildings allowed are for storage, welfare etc. in relation to the build of the stables. If he's living in it then he's in breach of planning, and you'd be best to flush that out. The planning for stables was 2003, expiring 2008. I assume he got started before 2008? When did the caravan turn up? I also notice that he didn't loose the Appeal for the Dwellinghouse, but rather was a few days late in submitting the Appeal so the Inspectorate refused to hear it. He's likely to resubmit the application (with a few changes) expect a refusal, and get his Appeal in on time this time.

I definitely agree with the "pick your battles" option, but double-check the potential outcomes, just in case it could be deleterious to your own site. While he has right to site a caravan, does he have the right to live in it? If there's not planning or PD for a dwellinghouse I can't see that he'd have the right to live on site during any works towards building a stables. If he doesn't have the right to live there then he is of course in breach of planning. I'm not clear in this instance if that breach would be immune from enforcement after 4 or 10 years. If it would be considered an unauthorised Change of Use ie. agricultural or equestrian to dwellinghouse, then it would only require a 4 year breach. It remains a breach until the LPA issue an Enforcement Order. So even though they have noticed it and are investigating it, they haven't stopped the clock until the Enforcement Order is issued. If he gets beyond the 4 or 10 year period, which ever applies in this case, then he could obtain the Certificate of Lawful Existing Development, and therefore the right to continue to site, and live in a caravan there. That may not be a good outcome for your site. He won't have the right to build a new house, but he has the right to continue to live in a caravan, or pseudo-caravan for perpetuity. One option could be informing the Council Tax office that he is living there. If he goes on the record to deny that then he won't be able to later claim that he's been in breach of planning.

On mine, it looks like there's 1 or 2mm extra space. Excuse the paint over spray, only just took off the masking to take the picture.

That's a bit worrying though. Is that the same for all windows where it's fitted? Ours are HF310, and the turn lock can be operated when the window is closed.

I've just checked my ecoHaus/Internorm order and it was recorded under Accessories as "with turn lock". But it could be referred to as a night vent, I guess - since it makes the window more secure when left tilted open,

Looks to me like a 'turn' lock. Ie. Locking the turn function, so it can only be tilted.

Well, the Statutory Instrument is the Law for PD, and it doesn't include the word "installation". The guidance on the portal however, by mis-quoting, doesn't help arguing this with the LPA. I'd definitely refer to this document (page 100 class G): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/pdfs/uksi_20150596_en.pdf when contacting the LPA.

@Onoff I assumed SBR was what was mixed into self leveling compound, although weaker than you suggest. Reading up on it, it is a recommended mix just as you have done it, for thicker repairs. I read a few comments though than it can get difficult to work with when used in higher concentrations. @Steptoe the epoxy mortars are sometimes called patch repair, or concrete repair, so this is what I wish to self mix. I've got a few full height windows so I'm needing a fair bit of it. Seems a waste to spend around £400 on pre-mixed, if I can mix it myself for less than £100. @PeterW , @JSHarris , Bingo.... this is what I was hoping for, I thought it was along these lines but didn't have the confidence to order it in without some confirmation. Thanks all!

Where did you get this quote from? The word "installation" doesn't appear in the English GPDO (2015), and from a quick scan of the above, nor in the Scottish version. The English version states: I therefore change my view. The ASHP just needs to be on the MCS list, the installation doesn't actually need to be MCS Certified.

That's how I would read it. ie. the whole installation must be MCS compliant, so needs to be installed by an MCS installer. I'd look into how she got the ASHP removed. The PD for ASHP does not require a Prior Notification to the Planning Authority, so no neighbour consultation is required. I can't see how she could have used a planning issue, unless it just didn't meet all the caveats of the PD and she high lighted this to the LPA.

Thanks @8ball I'll give them a call and see if they have a view. @Declan52 the back fill of the drop thresholds is up to around 40mm thick, my concern with using a cementitious product is shrinkage and cracking and it coming loose from the main slab. My experience is limited, but I have just that situation on my current house where a self-levelling compound was used to back fill the gap on a retro-fit set of french doors and I'm trying to avoid a repeat performance. I'm sure a self-levelling compound would be OK for the mat wells, however the mat wells join into drop thresholds, so if I can use the same product that would be preferred. I have actually just trialled one of the shower floors with a self-levelling compound and am waiting for it to fully dry. If this goes OK I may stick with the self levelling compound for the others, it is a lot cheaper than resin based products.

In looking for epoxy mortar it seems all the pre-mixed stuff is priced similar to raw epoxy resin price at £60 - £80 per 10kg rather than the kiln dried sand constituent at £20 per 25kg. Which seems a bit high when I'm thinking it will likely be a 1:5 mix or weaker. So, anyone mix it themselves? if so what ratio? and where did you purchase the Resin? This is to fill a few holes in the slab ie. The drop thresholds for full height windows and doors, to fill the internal gap between slab and frame To level the base of Mat wells that were cut in after pour. To tidy the slope and around the gully of wet room floors, that were also cut in after the pour. Thanks!

I would have thought "standard" timber studs of a suitable depth to enclose sufficient insulation to meet Buildings Regs would be the most cost effective. Any chippie would be able to build it without it being Designed and Engineered, and Building Control would most likely pass it without needing a full set of calcs to prove it's strong enough. I-Joists (and twin stud) construction however comes into its own if you want to insulate to a higher level than building regs. They both offer a cost effective deeper wall (to house more insulation) with a lower timber fraction than standard stud. In my view an I-Joist wall could potentially give a "cheaper" wall than twin stud (but very difficult to get like for like costings to know for sure), but would possibly require a slightly higher cost slab/foundation to eliminate the cold bridge at the wall floor junction, IF that's what you were looking to achieve.

Or whoever measured up. Did they ask where the Finished Floor Level is to be? We cut our mat wells in after the slab was poured. Wasn't the plan, the main contractor ran out of time when preparing for the pour and didn't get the formers in to cast them in situ. We cut ours in 25mm deep, to then leave space to use a self-levelling epoxy screed/mortar to create a level base. Finished depth will hopefully be 15mm and mat very slightly (2-3mm) over-flush to finished floor. Cutting it in after the pour was not a nice job in C35 concrete. Beforehand everyone was telling me how easy it will be. No one thought that after the job was done. It is doable though with the right tools.

A 12m span is easily achievable in the typical steel sizing used for Agricultural barns, without stepping up to the monsters used these days in warehouses and distribution centres. The sketch below was for the structural changes I made to the primary frame of my barn. The high lighted yellow portion is the main barn span and is what your are describing and the areas crossed out on the first portal are lean-to bays that are add-ons. The distance between the two high-lighted vertical columns is 45 feet (13.7m). The width of each bay 19'6" (6m). Ridge height around 6.5m. Columns are 10" x 5.75" and the roof portals are 8" x 5.25". Not shown are the 173mm Z Purlins and 9" x 3" Eaves Beam timbers similar to what you describe. Typically the first bay is braced as shown and the follow on bays lean against the braced one. I removed the low level cross-bracing (simple 2" tube) as it got in the way of an open area I wanted and had to replace it with the giant goal-post arrangement you can see between the internal columns of the centre bay. As I said previously, the portal frame structure is designed for a light-weight roof, ie. profiled sheet steel, corrugated cement board or insulated profiled panels. I'm not sure it will hold up the weight of structure required for a domestic warm roof that you'll be after in your double volume area. I'm not sure how much this image shows: The steels are half in - half out the external wall. The sheathing on the timber structure actually notches around the steels so the wall narrows across the width of the steel. And then when the cladding does its bit, the lower portion of the steels are visible and the upper covered, as per planning requirement. I know I sound like a broken record, but in your shoes I'd do it with a large glulam ridge beam and I-Joist roof structure. I'd hate to add up what it's cost me to integrate the steel frame. But I had no choice, my planning is for a conversion, not a new build.