Alan Ambrose

Hi Gary, the J Harris spreadsheet is good. I'm sure you will have the surface areas right but it might be worth checking the U-Values as 2.5 total seems a bit low. You can do a quick double check by taking the main insulation material thickness and ignoring the rest. Or you can put the whole stack-up (or just the bit that is actually doing insulation) into ubakus to get a bit more accuracy. You have some feel for your air tightness and your DHW need? Then assume the other thermal leaks roughly net out with the other misc gains from people / always on equipment etc and you won't be far wrong. Another way of double checking is to put a 3kW fan heater in there when its pretty cold outside and see whether it can bring the temperature up to something reasonable within say 1/2 a day.

A. One professional to tell you how to do it. Then 6 other people to talk about CDM, thermal bridging, decrement delay, weather compensation, brexit, air tightness, the low standard of contractors today, J Harris's spreadsheet, Loxone, Wagner sprayers and a few other unrelated subjects. Finally ... 2 or 3 more just treating the whole thing as a joke

Actually this approach gives your 4 attempts at getting planning for your project - removal of PD condition + appeal, then full planning + appeal.

Probably just fibre cement board - the flakes are usually wood or cellulose.

How many Buildhub members does it take to change a light bulb?

Oh yeah I see - I found the language a bit confusing… Another option is to apply to remove the condition. Worth a shot since v easy and quick to do - probably citing modern garage conversion PD rules. Also , if the LPA is going to dig its heels in, then it’ll probably do so both for removal of the condition and also for a full application. An informal call if it’s one of the LPAs that still talks to its customers?

Maybe order in a test kit to double check?

Is that the beginning of a joke?

Yeah you can do it yourself. Read the LPA’s ‘validation requirements’ to avoid going back and forth. Be prepared to deal with a little BS in good humour. Is garage conversion not already permitted development?

Double check the actual water pressure & flow at the location with something like this https://www.screwfix.com/p/monument-tools-water-flow-cup-weir-gauge/5784k https://www.screwfix.com/p/monument-tools-mains-water-pressure-test-gauge-11bar/82412 If that's OK, there's probably a tiny leak somewhere. Check all the bleed valves for a start and all the radiator entry / exit points for signs of water. A paper tissue will give a good indication of a tiny leak. You can re-pressure yourself if you're careful, but it'll happen again if the leak isn't found. Anything changed / happen about the time the problem started?

Yeah dumb with a smart overlay for me that can be overridden / upgraded easily. That means proper wiring with neutrals everywhere and cat 6 with PoE everywhere. Proper switches. By all means wire everything back radially so it can be 'smart'.

Welcome, you might want to give an indication where you are based.

Huh, interesting - another school day for me Anyone have any practical experience with these? I see the roof light opens upwards as usual and the window opens inwards. Oddly this set-up is not really highlighted on Velux's own web site. Is the joining trim thingy thermally efficient? FYI on Velux's web site, I see there's also these somewhat odd roof terrace options: https://www.velux.co.uk/products/roof-balcony-and-terrace/roof-terrace? I have actually seen these balcony versions installed: https://www.velux.co.uk/products/roof-balcony-and-terrace/roof-balcony

This is from a planning application I just saw - anyone know how this 'standard window / roof light' thing works?

>>> Both end elevations have miss aligned windows - it look wrong and badly thought out. Actually sometimes I see mad mis-aligned windows in old buildings and think how charming that is. >>> The PV may look better if it is in a single block. I note it is not included at all in the current plans and elevations. I've mostly seen no PV in planning applications - I think that may be 'a thing' to make the building appear neater.

>>> copy some elements (proportions etc) of the rear elevation OK suggest: (1) make the front gables similar size and proportions to the back ones. This gets rid of the front bays, gives you a bit more space, makes the build easier & cheaper and gets a similar contemporary look to the back. (2) make the front door two parts rather than three, with the door on one side and a similarly spaced window on the other. (3) replace the slopey front porch with a simple flat horizontal number. (4) maybe make the window above the front door into dual inward opening doors with a Juliet balcony for through ventilation. (5) make the front windows similar proportions to the back. (6) maybe make the bathroom windows have a higher cill than the others though as a privacy thing. I'm not a fan either of the slightly asymmetrical back/front gables - I would rather have them the same size (less hassle to build) or a more pronounced asymmetry. That's a matter of taste though.

OK in that case I would just 'follow my nose' matching up the connectors and yellow and green cable/pcb markings (see images below). 7 out of 8 seem pretty obvious - there's probably yellow and green marked on the other sockets on the unit too. The only one I can't figure is the power cable - that might be more obvious to you with them in your hands. Maybe photograph both ends (pcb & unit body connections) of the old set-up. And the new set-up before powering on and post here.

Yeah as an electronics guy … I suggest asking for the whole unit to be replaced. It’s not your fault that they have completely redesigned the pcb with no thought to upward compatibility. The fact they have an ‘upgrade kit’ with all the adapter cables suggests a major design fault and that lots of these units are failing in the field. Or ask for you money back and buy a different brand.

Yeah we have a Stuart Turner dual flow pump (pumps both hot and cold) after the tank for this reason and it works well and has been going for 30 years. Ask the landlord to pay? You would want to ditch the shower pump also then.

It’s your surveyor’s and solicitor’s job to point out potential problems to you, however minor. With their advice, you then make the decision how important those outstanding issues are. By all means get a formal statement from the sellers that the modifications were in the long distant past. Produce that, if needed, in 8 years time when you sell. Otherwise, I would suggest that all house purchase involves some risk (e.g. dodgy neighbours) which you can do little about. *Life* is risky and you can’t remove all risk from your life - even with the best solicitors and insurance. For new houses, NHBC certificates generally only last 10 years (because you can’t guarantee a house for ever, and at some point you have to say ‘this house doesn’t have any major structural problems’). Expecting to cover structural problems after more than 10 years with any house purchase is a little fanciful. Take a view, get the letter from their solicitors, and move on.

Maybe copy some elements (proportions etc) of the rear elevation, which looks to me quite contemporary, to the front elevation - which looks to me quite 1940s/50s? Maybe your architect wanted the front to blend in with the older houses in the street? This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable question to ask your architect.

>>> When you say it's easier going to appeal than applying for planning permission, does this mean you can skip the planning process entirely?? As well as refusals, you need to go at least 8 weeks and then you can also appeal for ‘non-determination’ if the LPA has not made up its mind by then. >>> When you say it's easier going to appeal than applying for planning permission By all means appeal. But … the appeal process is properly slow. I have 2 ongoing and the appeals admin guys took 3 months just to ‘validate’ they had the right docs… Also my analysis (a morning’s worth) suggested that the appeals process gets just as random outcomes as the standard LPA process. I put up a thread on BH that describes what I found. If you want to do your own research you can search the appeals portal yourself and also your local LPA’s portal under ‘appeals’. So, if your own LPA isn’t ***too bad*** I would let this one go through and make your best stab at convincing your LPA your bulld project is a good one. If that doesn’t work, then appeal. You get two chances that way. That assumes you have all the time and money in the world BTW you can add extra docs to the application as you go along - at least my LPA allows it. I added some photo-montages that showed what passers-by could see for instance. Probably best to let the case officer know as well when you add new docs.

Retailers to pay for consumers’ e-waste recycling from 2026 under UK plans… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/28/retailers-to-pay-for-consumers-e-waste-recycling-from-2026-under-uk-plans

An option is just to live with it for a couple of months. Then if you’re still bothered by it, take the leap and get it re-tiled. A bodge in between may still bother you anyway. It all depends on how much it bugs you - but some stuff your brain just tunes out after a while.

>>> i then appealed my original application and won so you can appeal a previous application and if you win build what you originally wanted. @joe90 I was going to use that technique but our delightful LPA CIL people told me that I couldn't move the self-build exemption from one design to the other. Was that a problem in your case? >>> should planning officers take into account previously approved applications as a precedent for their decision? >>> Although it can help, each application is determined on its own merits. That's true but there's also this: Consistency Principle - The principle of consistency within planning decisions requires that a previous decision is capable of being a material consideration in a subsequent similar or related decision (see, for example: Mann LJ in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P & CR 137 and/or R (Midcounties Co-Operative Limited) v Forest of Dean District Council [2017] EWHC 2050) and/or Baroness Cumberlege v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2017] EWHC 2057).