Indy

Care to expand why? I was also quoted a similar amount for a REGA unit - £5k for supply only, £7k for supply and install. Chose to go with Zehnder based on recommendations (which has turned out to be much more expensive sadly!) but I'd like to understand why REGA are considered so bad.

Our builder used X-Board Paper to cover all the treads and risers while the plastering happened. Seems to be holding up so far but the key is to make sure the edges are all taped up and keeping them taped up as they do get knocked and come loose.

100mm either side is what I've heard - which seems to tie up generally with the 2 comments above. One area we were told to be very careful on is to not breach the 1m from the boundary rule in our area (for detached houses) as the LPA are generally quite hot on not creating a cramped/overcrowded look. My instruction to the builder was very simple - no deviation from approved plans. After the nightmare we had with getting planning in the first place, I have no appetite for any further planning related battles.

It depends on if its a retrofit or something that needs to be passed by BC. If its the former, there are obv ways to self install, balance and no need for certification. Cost will be the parts and your labour (unpaid) if you're skilled that way. Ours was the latter as giving up trickle vents and exhaust fans in the bathrooms meant that we had to get it professionally certified. That means generally finding people who will want to do the whole shebang - design, supply, install and certify. You *may* have luck in finding someone to certify a self install but those people are few and far between.

Take the advice - don't invite them unless absolutely needed. There's a small bit of leeway as houses can't be built mm perfect as on paper but there is obviously a limit as to how much it can be stretched.

Agreed. I will admit that on balance - it still remains one of the best places on the planet despite the doom and gloom that we get blasted from every media outlet. However, I have noticed a real degradation on a number of fronts since 2008. Public services, wage growth, levels of taxation, investment in infrastructure - these are all worse in a material way.

I'm not really qualified to comment on this - but isn't there a statistic that the birth rate is dropping and therefore there's a glut of school places (which is why schools are closing down)?

Not exactly what this thread is discussing but another point that came up when I had a long conversation my architect while going through an extended 4 year planning process - people tend to hate the homogenous and identikit houses and there's a lot of looking down upon so called housing estates. These estates, the uniformity and symmetry is exactly what is prized when you look at architecture from the past. Whether its the Georgian rows in Bath, Islington, the rows of Victorian housing or the 1930s semi-detached houses. So it's a little confusing when new developments are looked down upon for doing the same - the developers do it because it sells. Plot sizes is a separate topic though!

Hard disagree. NIMBYism over the years has killed off the growth and any opportunity to provide private solutions to a problem that governments don't want to tackle. This is why there are only a few large developers who control the bulk of new builds - they're the only ones with the funding, patience and armies of consultants that can battle through the NIMBYist culture to get anything done. Most rational people trying to make a better home for themselves and their families can't endure years of delays and regulations and move on with their lives. Calling new buildings modernist monstrosities and concrete landscapes goes back to the point I made earlier in the thread - this desire to keep us in the 1950s. It's high time we get over it and move with the times.

It's something I actively investigated and discussed with my builder, before chickening out. A few key points of difference though - ours is not a passive house, only built to BR standards. We had specified UFH on both GF and FF as the missus wanted it. I wanted active air con - and I actively looked into ditching the UFH on the FF and replacing it with a multi-split air con system that would cover all the rooms on the FF (not hallways and landing etc as that would be heated from the rising heat from the GF). It was definitely doable as the A2A units can do both heating and cooling though we were asked one key question by the builder which made us change our mind - would you buy a house with no source of heating on the FF? Most buyers wouldn't consider air con units to be source of heating so it does limit the resale potential quite a lot, and even though we aren't considering selling our place - it's something you have to consider as situations change very rapidly.

Agree with all of that. My issues with the planning process also extend to the fact that almost every part of it is designed to put you off. If you're doing a new build - it has to be in line with the local architecture which is usually dated stock from the 30s, 50s, 80s etc. Massively more energy efficient, have insulation, triple glazing, get loads of surveys done incl noise, arboricultural, ecological, light, bat etc. Pay through the nose to have your electricity and gas to a temporary spot and then pay again to have it moved back again. Have to provide a spreadsheet which lists what taps/fittings you're using in each room and their flow rates. The mind boggles! It's almost as if people sit in a room and think of ways they can exert their control over each part of the build process and stick on a load of regulations - which drives prices up and self builders out. I fail to see the real connection between politicians claiming we need to build more houses, but then the regulations being designed in a way that stops people from doing that exact same thing.

Governments provide jack shit as we’ve seen over the last 20 years so it’s not really something to bank upon going into the future.

I also don’t buy in to this need to ‘protect’ our countryside. The country is largely empty once you get of London/SE and I’ve read stats which indicate that 97% of the country is not built upon. What exactly are we protecting and more importantly, at what cost? Younger generations can’t afford to buy or move anywhere as all the existing stock is overpriced, precisely because new stock is so hard to come by or build in the first place.

Catch22 situation - developers or private companies won’t provide services unless there’s enough population in a place to warrant the investment. The demand won’t be there if developers aren’t allowed to build houses for people to move in. You get stuck in a doom loop where everyone expects this to be magically funded from a non existent pot.

I’d argue the thing that needs the most immediate reform is the Town and Country planning act, that holds development back to a rosy picture of what Britain looked like in the 50s. Any development or attempt to modernise is viewed with hostility by both the planners and local residents who have far too much power. Of course, a reform to that needs strong political will and therefore political change to start with. So far, none of the parties have any concrete ideas on how to deal with this outside of empty slogans like Build build build etc…