Alan Ambrose

See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/24/power-grid-battery-capacity-growth This sounds good, but what are the implications: No point in having house-based batteries as the grid does it cheaper? Renewables + batteries as good as nuclear etc? More transmission capacity required?

@Fred F - I'm wondering what your outcome was?

Thanks, that's v helpful. Amusingly, the question in the planning application says "Would you be willing to accept a condition and/or section 106 agreement...". Well you would be an idiot to agree to enter into an agreement without knowing what the agreement contains. Sometimes feel like you're dealing with badly behaved fools?

Yeah, that's a tricky ask - to navigate through the regs in a practical way in that situation. Most regs and systems are written fairly dumbly to try to cover all eventualities - I just filed another planning self builld application and had to answer stupid questions about employees, hours of opening, non-residential floorspace, waste management, industrial processes etc etc. Yeah, it didn't take that much time, but ffs once I say it's "1 unit of 3 bedroom self build housing", do I then need to answer the questions 'Reason biodiversity net gain does not apply', 'Are you building more than nine houses?' So, very reasonable to try to avoid having a ton of expensive and intrusive BC fall on your head. It's counter productive, of course, to have BC be a negative influence on your desire to improve thermal efficiency. I wonder whether you could have an informal chat with your LPA BC and a private BC and see whether there's a common sense path? (I appreciate that common sense isn't really a thing nowadays) Otherwise I wonder whether you can do a few back-of-the-envelope calcs (J Harris spreadsheet if you fancy) to see how far away from the regs you might be. That might be helpful to you anyway as, for instance, the extra cost of triple glazing may not be warranted if the other fabric still remains lowish in U-value.

Apologies, I can't reasonably copy much of it here, but "concerns have been increasing in recent months among some commentators that a series of exemptions to the policy, such as for self- and custom-build schemes and projects affecting less than 25 sq m of habitat, have allowed applicants to get round the rules" and "applicants may be attempting to game the system by starting construction without planning permission and then submitting retrospective applications". That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as I can't imagine those two categories account for a lot of applications or a lot of houses. "get round the rules" is a bit steep as that's what the rules say duh ... but I wonder whether some LPAs are cooking up a scheme to tax self builds given that self builds get (central governement mandated) CIL exemptions and BNG exemptions.

Is this the next step after self build 106 agreements? Government considers extending 10% biodiversity gain requirement to close loopholes The government is considering broadening the range of development that is required to deliver minimum improvements in biodiversity, under a second phase of the biodiversity net gain policy which could be rolled out in coming months. https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1893464/government-considers-extending-10-biodiversity-gain-requirement-close-loopholes

@IanR >>> If they don't have a permit, then they are under the rules, if they're not discharging within the pre-2015 rules they're at risk of a prosecution, but in the context of your connection, they are discharging "within the rules". I don't quite understand that - assuming they have OK treatment plants, do they have to do something or are they good? In further news, I had a call (23.4 weeks in) from an EA guy asking for a few more scraps of info - including the entire 3-4km route to a 'named river'. A day after I provided that info, the EA guy said that he had what he needed and a decision should arrive in about 4 weeks - which will be ~28 weeks total. I trust that the decision will be 'yes' as I don't have any other options

BTW this took 40.6 weeks / 9.3 months from filing, so about 2.2x the headline number quoted on the .gov site. I can't imagine a much simpler householder appeal. .gov quotes 18.8 weeks for householder appeals. But these timescales are from 'validation' until decision. 'Validation' took 4 weeks in this case.

I think I understand now - this is a bit like LPAs removing PD rights as a matter of course (i.e. ignoring the rules sent down by central government). As central government has said "self builds are free from CIL" then the LPAs have gone "bollox to that - let's find another way to tax the self builds ... I know, how about a section 106 agreement ...".

Oh FFS - I'm just re-submitting my planning application and I find that my LPA has added this kind of nonsense since I did the last one. Yeah, war on all builders, yes! Keep those land prices high! This is my answer to Q6 btw: 1. Would you be willing to accept a condition and/or section 106 agreement clause confirming the development is for/includes custom and self-build housing? If no, please explain why. No, this is unnecessary and the CIL self-build exemption already requires the filing of self-build evidence e.g. self-build mortgage, self-build VAT reclaim etc. Also, some mortgage providers have said that they will not accept this style of arrangement.

Any idea which glass manufacturer this is? I just installed 8 off 1.7 x 0.8m toughened DGUs - can’t see a trace of that kind of wave.

That's curious. I think it's normal ... for Elizabethan pubs I wonder - with a small straight edge e.g. a metal ruler, whether you can see whether it's the glass that is wavy or the frames are all over the place? Is it one sheet of glass with mullions stuck on or many smaller panes?

Just noticed these guys have a variation too: https://edgebespoke.co.uk/gallery/

Ah

Oh, I thought it must be some kind of arty thing.

OK we're all at ease Your bracket has odd angles?

I'm pretty sure they're just on/off style (and it takes a minute say to switch from one state to the other). That is, heat the wax, or don't heat the wax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wax_motor https://waxmotor.com/blogs/introduction-to-thermal-actuator

It occured to me that another simple option to figure whether it is actuator or valve is simply to take the actuator off as you have done, operate it via the controller, and see if it clicks. If not, it's the valve.

>>> percentage uplifts Sorry, I don'tunderstand the use of that phrase there. Poss to explain?

Ah, whereas the PA suggests adding one or two v similar floors to those existing and 'bumping the roof up' a storey or two? So, slightly less of a bar, but I guess the LPA could be equally as awkward if they didn't actually like the 2020 PD law much? In this (somewhat speculative) case, I was thinking I would want to do EWI also to bump up the insulation, which would presumably need a full application. Sounds like the PD law might be a useful fallback negotating point though to push a similar full application through?

No it wasn't class Q - just conventional planning permission. My LPA removed PD from the recent permission for a whole new village estate of 20 conventional houses - I think the LPA do it now as a matter of course. I guess the developer doesn't care. Some are 4 beds with big gardens. Amusingly, for my place, when the developers got permission, the LPA heritage people said 'knock it down if you want to, it doesn't have any heritage interest'. And 6 years later, the LPA, in response to my application for reinstatement of PD rights tried 'we need to control its barn-like qualities'. Yeah right.

Does that make a difference - in previous threads people have discussed swapping BCs where their existing one has e.g. gone bust?

I was just reading this bit here about PD addition of extra floors ('class AA'): https://www.planningaid.co.uk/hc/en-us/articles/360012081098-Extending-upwards-building-additional-storeys It talks about "Prior Approval of the Local Planning Authority on matters including external appearance and the potential impact of the extension on the amenity of neighbours (including overlooking and loss of daylight/sunlight)". That sounds a lot like householder planning permission to me. Is there a difference?

From memory there's a fair bit of pressure required. I think there's a strong-ish spring under the plunger and, of course, a valve. The actuators are quite interesting in that they work by heating up wax which expands and then forces the pin down. When the heat is removed, the wax cools and shrinks and the spring helps push the pin/plunger up again. That's why they work quite slowly. You could try pushing the pin up and down a bit - that will require quite a bit of force - to see whether that's the part that's causing the noise. You could compare with its actuator neighbour. If you're being clever (mark the actuators in advance) you can swap over actuators between valves/circuits and see whether the noise is connected to the valve or the actuator. You'll need to be careful to figure out which stat is controlling which actuator / valve combination. Read off the actuator model code while it's easy, so you can source a new actuator if you need it. I've just twigged that this is a newish installation, so you might just have a dodgy actuator or valve installed. It's possible that there was something wrong with the valve install, although that's fairly unlikely. Can you not just get the original plumber back in?

>>> So I've narrowed the noise coming specifically from one of the actuators. Neat, well done. Try and reseat the actuator (pull it off and put it on again) to see if that helps. If not, just replace it - they're about 20 quid each. They can be 24V or 240V - in any case power off the controller when you're changing it. To make life simple, just buy the exact same actuator model you have now.