Alan Ambrose

>>> The OP is trying to avoid running another cable out to the outbuilding. Yeah, I am saying I think that's unrealistic. >>> That's the way all grid tied inverters are connected as they shutdown when they loose their grid connection. That strikes me as iffy. I much prefer the layout for non-grid tied e.g. I think that set-up needs a bit of work too - presumably you would want the 'critical loads' on their own little CU. I guess the outbuilding supply could come off the house CU or (better in my view) before it. And I don't see an RCD on there for the inverter. I see some RCDs and RCBOs are bi-directional. Also, in most cases, there's clearly some work to do re earth protection.

On reflection I'm thinking that the various versions of the 'build upwards' idea is a government pipe dream and can't be realised in most cases. Duh, apart from anything else, the foundations were not designed for the extra load.

Unless the planners are going to give positive uplift to applications with proper eco-credentials and use this information in their balanced opinion - I think I would be happier if planning stuck to look-and-feel and neighbour issues and left the materials and insulation to building control.

The technology isn't often seen in the UK, so it would be good to make it available here. Weirdly enough I visited a property with something that looked like it today. Are you importing existing European tech? No harm in that btw. The self-build and PH magazines and shows would be obvious targets. Here's the list of drain heat recovery tech in PHPP right now. BTW getting your product in the PHPP spreadsheet would be helpful too - there's isn't much UK stuff in there.

>>> If the previous PO is still not taking on applications, yours will be allocated to another. But obviously note the clock starts again. @DevilDamo - Ah, I see, it sounded to me like you were suggesting that the clock starts again if a new planning officer was allocated the case following the absence of the initial one.

https://blog.planningportal.co.uk/2023/12/19/biodiversity-net-gain-details-required-from-january-2024

>>> If I was you, I’d just email the Planning team weekly for updates and just sit it out. Well my neighbour's simple unopposed application took 54 weeks start to finish. My LPA seems to totally ignore the 'agreeing timescale' part past 8 weeks. At what point would you choose another path? >>> But obviously note the clock starts again. I'm sure you know that the law doesn't give the LPA the option of re-starting the clock whenever they feel like it.

In theory you can't beat the market by locking in fixed prices as you need to be smarter than the bulk of the traders participating in the futures market. It may suit your particular circumstances though if the sweat of higher prices is more than the benefit of lower prices e.g. if you're on a very fixed budget. Also, the active hedging will cost the providers in manpower and they'll pass the cost onto you. In theory the floating rates should be easier and cheaper for them as they don't have to hedge - they just pass the risk on. Whether that's all born out in practice would need a very detailed analysis.

There was a similar thread on here recently. From brief research, I came to the same conclusions as above - the majority of people run DC back to an inverter near the house CU, with the inverter not so very far away from the CU that a current clamp can't monitor the overall DNO supply. Lastly, I think the power can't go from the outbuilding into the house CU via the RCD/MCB that it is currently hanging off. First, it'll make the house CU live even when the CU isolator switch is operated - which is 'not great'. Also, the house CU may very well have the wrong RCD - it needs a more grown-up one (forget which, type B maybe) for the inverter. (FFS there are 6 or 7 RCD types these days!) A question for @ProDave - why do we generally put outbuilding CU's hanging off an MCB/RCD in the house CU rather than straight from the DNO supply (i.e. in a similar fashion and 'parallel' to the to the house CU)?

>>> an appeal. But then that takes another 6 months Actually another 9 months from the point you submit. You can contact the case officer's boss in an attempt to move things along. Ours delighted is telling us 'to FO' in as many words - so we took both applications to appeal for non-determination. The councillor might be an alternative and more subtle route. I assumed our problem was lack of LPA resources but a councillor I met recently said that the council are swimming in cash due to Sizewell C. It doesn't help progress the matter, but you can check out your LPA's performance in these government tables here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-planning-application-statistics You want table P153 for speed of 'non-major' decisions by LPA, and table P154 for 'quality' of decision i.e. % overturned at appeal.

But isn't it just a repeat of part L, part O etc which have actual numbers in them? Now I think the LPA should use some measure of sustainability as a material factor in weighing up permissions. If they did, that would give an advantage to most self-builders over the mass-builders / minimum regs lot. In my limited experience, they don't at all though - there'll be guff in the local plan about 'sustainability' but the majority of new house permissions will be for low quality / minimum regs houses.

Well that's a weird thing as at least some of those are covered by BC already. As there are no hard-and-fast targets written there, maybe one or two pages of eco-waffle? Most people on BH are far ahead of the curve on these items, so I'm thinking probably you will be too.

>>> Was constructed between 1 July 1948 and 28 October 2018 Ah, I missed that. Presumably a bureaucrat came up with that time span. So that excludes a lot of old Victorian and Georgian city houses. Goodness, you're invited to make sense of these... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/632/contents/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/632/regulation/22/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/20/crossheading/class-ad-new-dwellinghouses-on-detached-buildings-in-use-as-dwellinghouses?view=plain

Does anyone have any practical experience of how 'permitted development rights for extra storeys' works? e.g. https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/additional-storeys-extending-upwards/planning-permission Seems too good to be true . For instance, could I build a bungalow with a plan to 'simply' lift the roof up and build under it?

>>> So for me it doesn't make sense for this to be refused Ah, you were not expecting the regulations to make sense, surely? You do know that we did away with all common sense in the '60s (and it was rarely used then)? Obtuseness and fragile, opaque and confusing laws are the order of today. Welcome to 2024. >>> the proposal exceeded the building area of the original building that was there 15 years ago? Sounds like you are falling foul of: Conservatories (including previous extensions) and other buildings must not exceed 50% of the total area of land around the original house. Sheds and other outbuildings must be included when calculating the above 50% limit. Given that: The term ‘original house’ means the house as it was first built See e.g. https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/miniguides/conservatories/Conservatory.pdf Perhaps you can work backwards to figure out he max sized conservatory you could build under PD rules and then see whether that works for you? Or go with the awning if you prefer - as that doesn't 'count' at all? Otherwise, a full planning application if you're set on the initial size you have in mind. Was the LPA guidance formal response to a pre-app or a confirmation of PD rights ('certificate of lawful development') or what?

Well you've come to the right place . Lots of knowledge and help. Whereabouts are you in the process?

Congrats, score +1 for the team.

>>> if there is a design change from another consultant (e,g, mechanical consultant changing plant details) i don't commence with my re-assessment until i have had a chat with the end client (who is paying my bills) in relation to the design change/implications and their agreement on my additional fee (where its required). <<< Yes, that's what you would expect grown-ups to do. It suggests both the SE and the contractor are at fault for not getting the cost increase agreed in ample time. Leaving it until the last minute doesn't count. So, both were either negligent or devious. The SE didn't apparently have anything to gain which suggests negligence, the contractor could be either. It could be that both were negligent though and you have still ended up with the right solution, just 'cos RC was the right answer in the first place. But that suggests the SE made a misjudgment to begin with.

SY cable is not really ‘armoured’ - it’s usually used in light industrial settings for yeah some protection but mostly noise screening. As sites are a risky-ish environment, so you probably should use your own judgement re physical protection (swa / conduit / risk of damage etc) but probably also a decent sparky re correct earthing (i.e. TT with measured impedance), correct rcds, testing the bonding etc.

>>> heat a 185m2 house with a single plug in radiator. Does that heat circulate OK?

Hmm, you may have have lost this one. You could have a 3-way call or meeting to understand how it came out that way, but it's possible everyone will be pointing fingers or ass-covering. However, it is possible that the new solution was either the right one to begin with or is a substantially better idea than the original. Not for sure, but quite possible. It would be interesting to try and ascertain the validity of this thought, but you might need to obtain a second opinion from another SE. What you could do now, now that it is built, is try to ensure that if there are failings with the basement, that you have a clear path for redress.

>>> Now apparently if you've had a gloss white kitchen for 28 years you can't have another gloss white kitchen You are not meant to understand, just observe the instruction .

Take a bit off - end cap or bracket etc and see the manufacturer's markings - that's what I did with mine.

>>> if you've got reasonable cold pressure (we do) One very useful bit of data is the actual water pressure you have - you can buy a test gauge to measure this for a few quid. Better yet, wire one in permanently via a ball valve to make it easier to change. Then you'll know whether you can use eternal pressure to power the new build. If the pressure is really good then maybe a quick and dirty unvented install?

In shopping for BC providers, I asked my LPA and they said 'no' (even though I gave them the Cornwall and Kent examples), but a private BC near the plot said 'yes'. The question was 'will you allow PHPP instead of TM59?'. I have yet to do this 'in anger', but I've done the solar gain calcs in PHPP which seem to come out reasonably favourably. I mitigated the gain with external blinds and anti-solar-gain glass. I guess even if your BC insists on TM59, you could do the design work in PHPP and then order a TM59 run to verify and maybe tweak - it should be fairly close by the time you've finished with PHPP.