SimonD

If it's an oak frame, the trusses are highly likely to be structural. Essentially you'll have something like trusses, purlins above and then rafters. As @nod said, you'll likely go for insulation between the rafters. You can go for warm roof but with this roof buildup you could end up with a very thick roof structure which may be undesirable from an aesthetic point of view. Here's an example pic randomly sourced from web:

Are you having visible oak beams in the ceiling?

Whilst this may be the case the problem is that we tend to be far too optimistic about our ability to control and know how to change complex systems to achieve the outcomes we plan/desire or try to predict. Often this leads to errant decisions that sound plausible, merely giving the illusion of progress. Generally we also tend to be very bad at making decisions for the long-term. Yeah, we can't predict the future, but with some forethought we can make decisions and do things that set us up better for the future. That kind of thing concerns me too. It is too localised and rather arbitrary. Whilst we certainly did adapt, I'd question that it can be categorized as a recovery. There was economic regeneration, yes, but both financial and political systems we built as a consequence of WW2 were primary reactions to ensure it never happened again. As time has rolled on those systems are still racked with the same anxiety. I believe there is still a lot of trauma driving these social and economic systems. Modern supply chains seriously lack transparency, making it almost impossible for consumers to make fully informed decisions about what they're buying. In the construction industry it's just as bad. Some of the supply chains are so complex, the final manufacturer of a product doesn't even have full knowledge of some components, or the ethical/moral standing of all suppliers. Global supply chains and mass production from the cheapest source tend to bring big unintended ethical, moral, economic, social and environmental problems, many of which we've been experiencing in the west already. Nah, when the government sold off its valuable public network, it did this driven by the stupid neo-liberal ideology espousing the idea governments can't pick winners, not because it couldn't pick or create winners. ? This idea about governments not being able to pick winners and should stick to regulating failures is a myth which I think has been fairly well debunked in economics circles, even if it does still perpetuate in the popular press . In fact the 'free market' side of it has actually been found to reduce innovation and is no better at picking winners - it's just they keep quiet about all the losses and takes credit for winners off the back of government support. Also, investors tend to steer clear of the higher risk early stage innovations, especially those that require vast amounts of capital, like a lot of renewable tech. thus slowing down the development of new technology and business (Mariana Muzzucato wrote a good book on this).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the current generation but assume you mean current generation of human beings. I see 'us,' as in human beings as being part of the global ecosystem so we rely on the ecosystem to sustain ourselves. If we destroy too much of our ecosystem, it will undermine both current and future generations. This takes me back to my previous comment about not having either short or long-term solutions. We don't understand our ecosystem enough to make an informed decision about what elements of it are essential, important, or which we can afford to lose. History has mostly shown us that we tend to be overly optimistic about the potential of any interventions (although sometimes totally thoughtless) and then we're caught out by the unintended conequences. We simply have no idea the consequences of not saving current natural ecosystems, and I can't see how saving them might amount to a risk of genocide. I think it would actually have a positive impact providing the necessary structural changes are part and parcel of that. It seems that pretty much all the major environmental problems we're experiencing are caused and/or perpetuated by anthropogenic systems so that's where the interventions need to be focussed. I certainly agree on the education part of this. But my first point would be to prioritise reducing energy consumption, ensuring all production is done on a circular basis - i.e. can be fixed, and can be recycled or repurposed cleanly - and minimising impact on the environment through our activities. I'd imagine it would only be sensible that renewable energy forms a part of that, but there is so much we can do that would not necessarily require renewable energy, or technology for that matter, but would significantly reduce the demand for it.

I think it depends on how you look at it. Failure to respond to change early enough is a typical human trait which leads us to wait until it's too late -the proverbial wall. Then we try everything we can to return to the status quo without appropriate change, and along comes another wall, perhaps in a slightly different guise. For me the problem is mostly structural - how we behave and the various systems, such as political and economic, we've contrived to control and support that behaviour. Despite the obvious fallacies embedded in many of these current systems and their unsustainability, we persist with them. This I think is evident in that we're desperately looking for technical solutions to the environment to simply carry on as we are. I find it pretty bizarre that we find it okay to seek and support experimental ways to play with our global ecosystem, in preference to actively redeveloping our relationship with the environment.

As always, the devil is in the detail. Generally speaking dense walls do insulate sound better. However, the materials used in the wall also affect the acoustics in the room. So when designing your acoustic walls, you need to consider both the sound levels and what you're looking to achieve. Is it sound insulation between rooms only or do you also want to reduce room reverberation, which means using sound absorption materials. For sound insulation, the minimum cavity recommended in a block wall for reaching Building Regulations requirement in new builds of 45db would be 75mm. So with some dense blocks, you can achieve this just with wet plaster, some 75mm blocks, or 100mm blocks, 75mm cavity and then wet plaster. With respect to service void, I'd avoid any chasing in the masonry as this will reduce sound insulation. Probably better to build an additional service void which could use acoustic plasterboard to improve the overall performance of the wall. Here's a pretty useful document by British Gypsum giving various wall buildup examples and sound insulation levels. HTH. LIT_Stockist_Guide_Construction_details_02.pdf

Please don't get me wrong. I wasn't suggesting for a minute that the too close to the ground argument was okay, more implying that it sounds to me like something a two-bit insurance company might use to refuse a claim! So far I think the response is disappointing and must be infuriating for you. I am looking at alternatives. I do wonder whether the Scottish climate plays into it. I don't think it's too cold per se but that is has damp-cold-frost cycles so it's not unusual to have a soaking wet wall and then severe frost. This has been found to be a problem in Finland with these EWI systems and as a result they developed their own test and certification system beyond the normal European Technical Assessment. In the Finnish case they found some systems fine, others failed - I haven't be able to find specific results to know which ones were okay and which weren't.

I went and checked mine out after you said this. Sadly they're pressed pins on mine so I'd have to either drill or cut them off.

We went for what our supplier called top swing, fully reversible. The difference is that some suppliers have top hung windows with hinges at the top, others, like ours have the hinges on the side. It's worth checking this as IIRC Aluk windows can either be top hung or top swing fully reversible depending on the window model. I really like ours and prefer them to the traditional side hung. The only thing that still catches me out is the child lock!

I'm going to go against the grain on this one. We had some in our last place. We didn't skimp and it was from one of the higher end manufacterers. We were dissapointed as the surface scratched and went hazy and the top oak surface dented very easily (we had two baby boys during this time). The scratching and hazing I think was most likely down to the factory varnish being polyurethane, wax may have been better. Upstairs we had solid pine floorboards we varnished and these floors looked as the day it was done 12 years later. No UFH and surface problems only.

Sadly, until we hit that proverbial wall.

Thanks, but unfortunately K Rend doesn't do a render for woodfibre insulation, just EPS, mineral wool, or phenolic.

All the woodfibre manufacturers specify min 300mm from ground level although some will provide detailing at below that. This usually involves a gravel splash area and the use of either xps or eps insulation up to the 300mm, including the use of various membranes. What's really unfortunate is that it gives them an excuse to try an wriggle out of it! That's eminently reasonable on your part. Hope they come back with a decent response and the technical support you need. BTW I know you're up in Scotland, but do you suffer particularly from wind-driven rain? Here's a paper from Norway looking at EWI failures and moisture damage. May not solve your problem, but may give you some more info about what might be going on for you? Durability of ETICS with Rendering in Norway—Experimental and Field Investigations I'm keeping an eye on this thread as I have 96sqm of woodfibre ewi about to go on my walls. And after receiving what appears to be incorrect advice already about which render system to use, it looks like I'm down to using the Baumit system! ? Although Weber.Therm is also suitable according to the woodfibre manufacturer. The only other option is to find an independent surveyor with the knowledge to do an assesment and provide a report. If the supplier doesn't come back to you with an offer to assess it themselves, this is perhaps something you could suggest they work with you on getting done?

I read this one a while ago. For me a lot of what is being said about hydrogen belies the fact that what most people are doing, many experts included, is viewing hydrogen or renewable energy, electricity in particular, as direct replacements to the existing model of energy distribution and use, with a bit of energy reduction tacked on at the end. It's as if there is a belief that we can swap out the dirty, dangerous and exceedingly costly fossil fuels and carry on the way we are with [insert your chosen energy preference here]. It's a technocratic approach to avoiding what is probably going to be inevitable and fundamental change. This may mean getting used to paying higher prices for energy as well as finding new models of business and economics, and behaviours, individually and socially. Unfortunately people don't want to change because they mostly see change as requiring loss instead of affording opportunity. At present there are actually no short or long-term viable options to allow us to carry on as we are. So, what if we do actually have to live our lives with less abundant energy available to us at the switch of a button. Would that really be such a bad thing?

Oh well, that's simple, they'll just have to build desalination plants powered by..hydrogen. Magic perpetual cycle ?

And to play devil's advocate, how many people are going to want to give up additional space for DHW storage when the heatpump hasn't got the output of their combi-boiler ??

Yeah, it's a proper dilemma. I wonder whether councils even have the funds, but given how much council housing stock has shifted to private ownership and/or housing associations, I wonder how much funding needs to be passed their way. I sat on a parish council as few years back where there was a housing association that decided to demolish an existing low rise development and build new. Temporarily rehousing residents took years because they didn't have an alternative ready development where they could move them and they also had to build a good number of houses they had to sell at commercial rates to fund the development. Therefore they ended up with less housing space than before. IIRC it took over 10 years from conception to when they actually started demolition.

For me there seems to be a bit of a binary hydrogen argument going on at the moment. On the one side you've got the hydrogen is not suitable as a means of heating houses and powering our cars because conversion is too inefficient so we need to convert everything barring heavy industry to electricity. On the other there's the hydrogen is the future brigade together with lots of companies desperate to secure their future revenues, like oil & gas companies, boiler manufacturers etc. I find myself sitting somewhere in between. We're so deeply invested in the gas network for home heating and converting everyone and everything to electricity would be enormously expensive and take a long time to upgrade the grid. Therefore as a stop gap hydrogen, starting with a 20% natural gas mix, could be used as part of a phase change to how we heat our homes. Heatpumps are a very sensible next phase but currently too expensive to realistically provide a viable change-over. In East Asia there have been studies into piping hydrogen to homes fitted with fuel cells to provide micro electricity generation. There definitely needs to be imaginitive solutions, but as you've said, upgrading housing stock and reducing energy consumption has got to be the first step. I read an interesting piece on Passivhaus recently which suggested that embodied carbon was less in retrofit upgrades of houses compared to bulldozing and building new. So perhaps it is indeed greener to upgrade as much existing stock as possible and build new where its just too dire.

Man, that takes me back. We had those in our house in Switzerland when I was growing up. What really toughened me up was what we had outside the cottage in Sweden. Something looking like this: Shovelling the sh*t every year was something I thankfully managed to avoid!

Haha, brilliant. I can only imagine what that must have looked like. Probably better than asking the rep to turn around as you pull your trousers down! ?

Well, that renders it pretty useless then ? Never mind!

While looking up some data for sealants and adhesives for external wall insulation, I came across a PU foam glue that Soudal sells that is suitable for building non-load bearing interior masonry partition walls. Now, with the price I can get it at, it's a bit more expensive than buying sand/cement/plasticiser, but blimey, for knocking up a wall without the hassle of dealing with mortar, it seems like a great idea. I'm tempted to give it a try.. I wonder how it works in practise. Anyone used it or something similar? Adhesive for non-load-bearing walls

I trialled a whole load and preferred Trello in the end. However, I didn't use it long term as I ended up doing the building work myself. PM kind of goes out the window then.. But since, I've found Excel to be the most helpful software for each stage as it's so flexible - being able to create lists, charts, and calculations all within the same app I've found essential.

Not seen that. I will have a look at it.

That is exactly what motivated my post. Even after reading the paving expert and seeing all the reassurance on here about sub-base, I'm still feeling half-minded about it.