SimonD

By following the train line and identifying places along the line that you are attracted to and may have potential opportunities within your budget. You can then draw circle around those places to give you a search area. IMHO your search area is just too big and covers a whole host of areas with massive variations in land and property values, some are horrible while others are just amazing, which means you'll be struggling to make any valid comparison between plot prices and understand why they are how they are. There are also huge variations in the services to London - some are direct and fast, some are slow and meandering which means that you can select a town that has a direct link with London but takes 2.5 - 3 hours to get to London, whereas another town just a few miles away might have a station providing a link so you can get to London in less than 1.5 hours (consequently there usually a good price difference because of this too). It may sound unhelpful, but this really is the starting point and requires a good amount of research. It's time consuming. It's a really good opportunity to get to know the country mind you and can be an adventure in itself. That, I'm afraid to say, is the reality every self-builder has to face. It's a gamble but one where you can increase your odds through diligent research - e.g. how to asses the potential of a plot.

I'm guessing you don't know Reading very well? I'm sure the area has improved over the years but where that plot is used to be pretty rough. Great for access to the M4 mind you. Personally I'd recommend you try and narrow down your choice of area and then get to know it. That way you can begin to develop relationships locally to find a plot. I had subscribed to various plot finder services and looked at auction sitse for more than 10 years but the place we found came through deciding an area and getting to know the estate agents and clearly telling them what we were after. It then took only 8 months then. Lets not mention the rest of the journey 😉

You probably know then how many psychological studies, which form the basis of so much psychology theory, are based upon a rather limited demographic (western, white, middle class university students) with context removed as far as is possible? At some point, there is going to be an unravelling of this, or at least I hope so.

You're going to me started on method and methodology here - especially when it comes to qualitative/quantitative research. It's one of my pet hates in psychology where it is so common to try to convert what is qualitative into a quantitative value as if that gives it more standing - take a Cognitive & Behavioural Therapy question that asks a client to rate an emotion from 1 - 10, or asking someone who is depressed how many times they've had a negative thought in the last 7 days. There are plenty of qualitative methods that can be used to great effect and provide reliable results, but the problem is they're more challenging. What I like about the papers you link to is their explicit acknowledgement of context and how emotions are context dependent. In my work I've spent countless hours with senior people helping them to untangle their emotions because they've been taught their emotions are just 'theirs' but when they finally articulate the context, only then does it start to make proper sense for them and those they work with. If you just consider the emotion seperately from context, it loses so much of its meaning, but also falsely gives us the impression we feel and behave independently of our environment. For me, the field of EI has been so unfortunatley sloppily defined and conceptualised, but also it has attempted to reduce the nature of human relationships down to a mechanistic process based on competencies and 'factors,' whereas true human relationships really do tend to be much more emergent and unsurprisingly, more down to feeling your way about them!

lol 🙂 Goleman is a major proponent here. I've found a downloadable copy of the book The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace which is a bit of a follow on from his melding EI into a model for leadership during the 1990s. You can also find quite a bit on the Emotional Intelligence Consortium. It's not that I'm against EI per se as a concept for being aware of and improving relationships, just more how it has been morphed into a tool applied for a defined gain, which changes the nature of it entirely. This is not unlike how Mindfulness has become a way in which organisations as well as societies at large can divert the responsibility away from themselves onto individuals rather than consider and change the organisational, or environmental context, that is causing the individual the problems in the first place. It's also about the imposition of a model of being onto general populations I question. I've worked in a number of engineering, technology, and accountancy firms, several of them world leaders in their field. In those organisations I've met a lot of specialists that don't posess great interpersonal skills to say the least, they're techies and specialists and that part of their nature is actually part of what makes them special. EI training here doesn't land very well...nor does it necessarily provide the intended gains, but can have the opposite effect on those individuals.

Kindness, yes, consideration, yes, and a number of other important social behaviours, yes (but with some caveats in what the children actually end up experiencing socially and culturally within the education system, which is in many ways at odds with this in terms of what actually gets valued and thus modelled). Emotional intelligence, however, it is not. Please forgive my cynicism here. I work with people psychologically as my main profession. I first trained as a youth counsellor in the early 1990s and a lot of my work is related to mental health. I've spent a lot of time teaching and training clients in EI, especially in organisational contexts. I think there are serious questions as to whether the term EI has any real meaning or validity at all, other than being another means to derive better work productivity, and thus economic performace from individuals - which is really where EI as we know it today came from. It is more or less a tool for manipulating productivity rather than a tool for helping people to learn how to navigate a complex world and being able to effectively deal with the emotions associated with doing that - in this sense, children are not being taught EI. The rise in young persons' mental health problems is an indicator that there is something wrong here and that what is being taught may not be of any practical use, rather like a number of things being taught within today's curriculum.

I think you're putting it mildly. I doubt with the current buildup it's going to perform as intended at all as there are too many additional layers within the cassette wall buildup plus the ground/damproofing etc. IIRC sheepswool can also only absorb up to about 35% of its own weight in moisture before deterioration of performance. This is one of the reasons why European detailing using timber frame/panels with natural insulations often specify a minimum height above ground of 300mm. Below that the detailing starts to become onerous and often requires replacement using EPS, for instance. I personally wouldn't even trust a desktop condensation/moisture analysis but would be looking to build a test rig in situe with some hygrometers within the structure for at least a full year cycle.

Torx all the way for me. I hate PZ with a vengeance even with functioning hands. I've been using the Torx screws from Forgefast all the way through my build. Good price and work just as well as spax IMHO. Honestly, I don't think the schools or the teachers are equiped in any way to teach emotional intelligence properly. They have neither the resources, time, nor the necessary training to do it. And that's not to criticise them, they've got enough crap on their plate and don't get sufficient reward or funding for what they do as it is. The construction industry has a culture problem in this regard too as it's 'too soft' which is shown by how high the figures are for those in the construction industry suffering mental health problems - unfortunately under the radar for the most part. But as for the basics of communication and listening to the customer, there's just no excuse there!

+ 1 to this. I burned out an SDS drill clutch and when it went the drill nearly broke my arm against a joist. Instead of trying to save money on a cheapo sds drill I went and bought a proper core drill with proper bits. I don't even have to have all my weight behind it, just a firm press, to chew through concrete blokes. The bit set I have has an extract function so it hardly ever binds on the grounds. It's a revelation.

How annoying and frustrating!

It's funny this. I wonder whether it comes from a misreading of the regs, by the gas safe engineers and the way the training organisations seem to do it. Or maybe they can't read or think properly. In the regs for equipotential bonding on gas pipes, it says that bonding needs to be within 600mm of the meter, if the meter is installed internally. Where the meter is installed externally, bonding should preferrably be installed internally as close as practical to the point of entry. It even says that connection within an external meter box is acceptable but unpreferred. If the gas man questions this, you can point them to the Domestic Gas Safety On Site Guide published by the NICEIC, so should be considered a reliable source 😊 Oh yeah, I know this because I've just finished my Gas Safe training portfolio and am just writing up my method statements! Even we have ben told to make sure the bonding is always within 600mm and before the first junction, but that's not what my method statements reads.... 🤔

Yes, it needs to have equipotential bonding. That's a job for the electrician as it's done according to BS 7671, or at least should be. HTH

Thanks for expressing that as I now don't have to 🙏 I tend to sound like enough of a grumpy git as it is 😁

No problem. I haven't used Siga myself but Siga has a very good reputation for quality products. Siga Fentrim 20 should be fine as it's for connection to solid surfaces and you can plaster over it. If you do a search on the forum you'll find loads of preferences, another of which is Tescon Vana. I've used a number of products but mostly Gerband tapes from Passivhaus Systems. I've also used a lot of the Soudatight LQ for floor to masonry wall junctions as there a lot of old masonry to deal with and the liquid follows the undulations better than tapes I've found.

Your choice is really to use a tape suitable for the materials, Siga do sell a couple of options here, or use a paint on membrane like Soudatight LQ on its own or with a geotextile when it needs to bridge a larger gap. Your choice will also depend on whether you are using an internal airtightness membrane or relying plaster for airtightness.

As per my earlier question, what has already been finalised and what is still open for re-evaluation and re-design? Presumably the windows were ordered when the timber frame was signed off for production, which means that's essentially fixed... Thanks, I really needed educating on that one 😉 Unfortunately a 1:100 scale drawing isn't much help when doing the details as even a bold line can hide a multitude of sins equal to as much a 100mm. But I don't think your problem is with the eaves, it's probably with the detailing around your qausi dormer window. Do you know the actual dimensions or do you have a detail drawing for that dormer to roof area? Assuming that your tf is not open to any change, then your options, if you want to go for a natural insulation, are to build up the total thickness of your roof either to the outside or to the inside of the timber frame. Each of those options comes with its own compromises. To the inside you'll lose ceiling height, which wouldn't be great at the lowest point as it's already fairly low. To the outside, it is probably easiest but you have the detailing around the window and possibly the eaves (the eaves are probably not a great deal in the grand scheme of things). To the outside you're probably looking at a minimum of 100mm extra. Also, if you did go this way, you'd probably also then be looking at modifying the wall buildup to replace your pir in there with woodfibre as there doesn't seem much point only doing it on the roof, IMHO. This means implications across all the build. HTH

Ah, okay, we've hit a sore spot - very common on here 🙂 😉, we all have them at several points of the build. Sorry to say this, but there's a few things that don't sit right with me here. If I've understood correctly, your roof is currently being designed by Roe, but the window to go into the timber frame has already been specified, ordered and made? Has the timber frame also been ordered and made? Because if that's the case the whole conversation re a change in buildup is moot and you're then limited to what you have. In that case you're limited in what you can add internally to the roof as you'll lose height where you've only got 2179mm height already, which I think is where you patio doors are going with the steel. If that's the case, given the buildup, you can't full fill the rafters with woodfibre because you need the ventilation behind the metal roof and only putting in 170mm isn't really going to cut it for what you want to achieve. If you're not completely stuck however, just for reference, when I refer to the pitch of the roof, I'm suggesting the change in pitch only to accomodate an alternative buildup using woodfibre with sarking boards. That would mean something less than about 2 degrees change if that. The finished roof level at the top where you'll install the standing seam would stay where it is. Depending on the size of your window, it might actually be possible to hide the difference in pitch, so nobody would be the wiser. In terms of measurement and to give you a better feel, this would mean that the height indicated on your sectiom B-B where the rafter meets the vertical wall reduces from 3586mm to about 3400mm, so really very little. What has actually been finalised here, ordered and made and what is open for re-evaluation and re-design?

Has she been watching youtubes? It could be a good thing. I've recently found some helpful stuff on there for kitchen design which has changed my design. What I also found really helped for my wife was to buy in a few of the bits like fridge/freezer, sink, dishwasher, place them out where they're going to be and then mark out the floor where the cupboards etc, are going to go. This helped her to visualise it all enough for us to finalise the design. Phew, and I didn't have to get the digger out to prep that new patio

I like cellulose too. Having used cellulose, sheepswool and woodfibre, I like them all. Just the experience of working with them makes it a whole load more comfortable and pleasant. I've used one small sheet of PIR in my built at a point where I needed to reduce coldbridging near some steel and I hated it. I've got some papers somewhere re the natural insulation - I have to admit, my management of references has been useless while I've been building so it's a bit haphazardous - I'll have a look to see if I can find something. It might take a few days or so. Yes, agree in good airtightness - totally essential - I just left those parts out as I assumed it was covered already and not the point in question. I'll be more thorough next time 😊

I get it. It's one of those full of compromise. However, I assume the problem of height is just to do with section B-B? Can you confirm which flashing you're refering to here? Is it the flashing between roof and vertical wall, or something else? Assuming it's the one at the roof to wall junction, a standing seam roof requires a minimun upstand of 100mm for a roof of 13 degrees. Is there something not visible on the section drawing, like windows, causing the height issue? Not knowing your design history, the other possibility is reducing the pitch? You've got a 13 degree pitch right now and standing seam can safely go down to 5 degrees even with penetrations for velux windows. I don't think a lot of adjustment is required to give you that extra space at your roof to wall junction. I wonder whether it's worth a quick call to your designers to have a chat about your requirements as a client and how you'd like to revisit this design, in light of your updated needs? Or are you looking for something more definitive to go back with?

If you're intent on using the flex woodfibre between your rafters then I'd suggest it would be really useful to consider if you can increase the height of your roof buildup over the rafters. This is because if you're looking to maximise heat decrement delay then using the woodfibre sarking boards on top of the rafters is a better solution and is the typical detail for woodfibre roof buildups. Because the sarking board is denser and it sits outside the rafters it is more beneficial for reducing cold bridging as well as improving decrement delay than having insulation to the inside of your rafters within your service void. In this sense, I'd recommend you seriously consider this buildup from the outside: 1, standing seam 2, iso-mat membrane 3, plywood (I'm not suggesting sarking board but if you prefer them, for a standing seam roof they should be between 18 -25mm thickness and fitted with a gap of between 3-5mm between) 4, battens to create ventilation space minimum 50mm 5, woodfibre sarking - you can opt for anything between 25 - 60mm, but if you full fill your rafters then about 40mm would be fine 6, rafters full fill with insulation 7, internals and you can then decide if you want a service void or additional woodfibre sheathing boards and then your plasterboard etc. etc. With this buildup, you'll be around the 0.16 ish on your u-value with about 260 depth in. The important thing to consider with woodfribre is that natural insulation materials often perform much better in the real world than theoretical calcs and certain woodfibre builts benefit from improved reduction of thermal bridging and can therefore be designed slightly thinner than a basic u-value calculation might indicate. This buildup is likely to give you a comfortable indoor environment and if you make sure you use all breathable paints etc. it'll be even better.

I have no idea what current pricing is like but Russell Timbertech is very worth a look. They were recommended to me after I'd ordered my windows. http://www.russelltimbertech.co.uk/windows-doors-ranges/conservation-windows-doors

I would take a few steps back here to ask about the design process. I may have read this entirely wrong but from your questions something doesn't quite sit right with me. It doesn't seem like you've received a design service as that would normally entail the architect asking you what you like/don't like design wise and then going through an interative design process with you. This would involve discussions about exterior finish, as well as light and sound proofing, particularly if it's to reduce solar gain/over heating problems and your requirements as a client.. First I would dispense with the immediate technical discussion, go through a mutual design process which would naturally proceed to the technical details such as thermal performance, heating system and ventilation design etc. Just read this. Doesn't sound good from a design or relationship perspective going forwards as you may well need to call on the architect a lot during the project, especially if there are issues with planning wanting amendments etc. I'd be talking to some alternative architects right now...

The Norwegian state owns 67% of Equinor which used to be Statoil. The state derives its revenue from the oil industry in part through taxation, in part through the state's direct financial interest arrangements and of course dividend. The organisational design is evidently not your typical plc and actually confirms that the company is essentially owned by the state. Yup, the oil and gas companies are definitely coining it in but SSE's Q3 trading statement was hardly gloomy. In fact they're so positive about trading that adjusted earnings per share is now up to at least 90p from 83p. It looks like they're going to be fairly generous with dividend payments too at 81p plus RPI. Not too shabby given the current market. In September reported Earnings per share were up 65% mainly as a result of market volatility. More interestingly the SSE interim results of 30 September 2021 state that while renewable profits were down, this: I also don't think it was intended to malign SSE as such, it was simply that the data used for calculation was from published SSE figures which are broadly representiative of the market. If that is indeed the case, then having it under national public control and ownership makes more financial sense. If margins and returns are indeed tight then investment typically suffers (as we know) and value is extracted for the benefit of shareholders, and surprisingly, a huge buildup of corporate debt. Just look at the debt held by SSE, yet still paying generous dividends. SSE debt in 2021 was over £9.5billion pounds and if I've got it right the servicing of this debt costs about £200 million, operating profit of £376m And that is the pattern what we have seen develop over the last 10-20 years in many large companies, so it does make a difference. It's a pattern of corporate behaviour that doesn't belong anywhere near energy generation as it's unsustainable.

As I've mentioned before. I beg to differ. It depends on the model used to run the service. Take 2 examples of current activities I'd argue are fairly successful: Norway: Source: https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/governments-revenues/ Sweden source https://www.scc.org.uk/about/patrons/vattenfall/: