LnP

I don't have an answer to that just now, but will be meeting with our planning consultant in the next few days to discuss it. I'll reply when I have more information.

Regarding how the obligations in the UU are enforced, when you sign the UU you’re agreeing to a charge being registered on the property. You won’t be able to sell your house until the charge is removed by the LA, either because 3 years have expired, or the LA have agreed to it being removed. The UU says they will look “reasonably” at requests if you need to sell within 3 years. You will anyway have to pay their legal fees to look at it (as well as having to pay their legal costs up front to put the UU in place). They hold all the cards. Regarding the consequences of entering into a UU, you might not be able to get a mortgage on your self build. The charge will make it harder for the lender to sell the property if they have to foreclose. Regarding gaming it and carrying out prior work to lower the baseline score, if they catch wind of that, they can force you to score it on the habitat before you made the changes. LAs are unilaterally closing the door on the self build exemption which is allowed in the regulations - it’s regulatory over reach. I’m wondering if it might be possible to do the BNG assessment yourself. The scoring is done in a spreadsheet and there’s guidance on how to do it. It doesn’t look particularly difficult. Has anybody tried that?

Same thing happened to me, but on a much smaller scale. My neighbour submitted a planning application for an extension to his house which was partly over the boundary onto my side. I approached him and told him he was mistaken about the boundary position. I lodged an objection but it didn't make any difference and he got his planning permission. You don't have to own land to get planning permission on it. What followed was a boundary dispute with my neighbour. He ended up building his extension keeping to the boundary as I saw it and paying my legal expenses for the dispute which lasted 6 years and went to court. I won, but it was a right pain in the proverbial and quite stressful. My advice would be to talk to the applicant about the issues and let him know he's going to have a fight on his hands. You can lodge an objection with the LA but I don't think it will make any difference apart from making your position publicly clear. Btw, my legal action against my neighbour was supported by my house insurance. I'd taken the legal cover option on the policy, best £25 I ever spent.

Not sure about this ... as far as I know, the reason CCGTs are seen as a good fit with renewables is their flexibility to be turned up and down as the generation from wind and solar varies. But as I mentioned elsewhere their efficiency (kWh of gas in to kWh of electricity out) can never beat the laws of physics.

The laws of physics (2nd law of thermodynamics) determine that for every 100 kWh of gas you burnt in your boilers, the best you could ever have got out as electricity would have been about 64 kWh. The other 36 kWh was coming out as waste heat (first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed). So, it's good that your plant found a way to use that waste heat. It's the same story for a CCGT power station but unfortunately it's not so easy to make good use of the waste heat. District heating would be one way if there are users nearby. 400 g CO2 per kWh is about right and will never approach the performance of a gas boiler. I'm not an expert on CCGT, so I'm not sure about what benefits you can get by generation at scale. But regardless the scale, the maximum you can get out as electricity is the Carnot efficiency, which is 1-Tc /Th.. Tc is the temperature on the cold side Th is the temperature on the hot side. If say Tc is 300 K (27 oC) and Th is 600 K (327 oC) the maximum efficiency you can get, limited by the laws of physics, is 50%. With a gas boiler you can get close to 100%. Nevertheless as @Beelbeebub pointed out, if you put the electricity into a heat pump, for a given amount of energy going into heating your home, overall you'll get about half the CO2 emissions compared to a gas boiler.

@Beelbeebub is right. If you're asking yourself why a CCGT looks less efficient than a domestic boiler, it's because in a CCGT the heat energy (gas) has to be converted into work energy (electricity). There's a thermodynamic limit to how efficiently that can be done. CCGT is about 50% efficient. In a gas boiler the gas heat energy is being used directly without being converted to a different form and in theory you could design a boiler which could do that with 100% efficiency. Second law of thermodynamics - there are two types of energy, heat and work. Work can be completely converted into heat, but heat cannot be converted completely into work. No matter how hard you try, you'll never design a device whose efficiency for converting heat into work exceeds the theoretical thermodynamic limit (Carnot cycle efficiency). His sums are also right that installing a heat pump will reduce CO2 emissions even if the electricity is coming from a CCGT power station providing the CoP is better than ~2.

The guidance I previously linked to says this (emphasis added): 5.7.4 Mixing of PV DC connectors from different manufacturers should be avoided, and all panel connections should use the connector(s) recommended by the panel manufacturer. System operators should hold spare PV DC connectors compatible with the PV installation for future maintenance, to avoid the potential use of incorrect PV DC connectors. Internationally documented PV fire loss data identifies faults with DC connectors and DC isolators as primary causes of fire. Therefore, it is essential to use the correct PV DC connector, assembled according to the manufacturer’s guidelines, with the correct length and thickness of exposed DC cable, the correct crimping tool for the connector pins, and the correct torquing of the connector cable glands. IEC 62548:2016 and IEC 60364-7-712:2017 explicitly do not allow the connection of DC connectors from different manufacturers. So the concern could be demonstrating that you connectors and extension leads are up to the job.

What are installers currently doing about fire risks for in-roof installations? This guidance from the Fire Protection Association recommends (para 5.1.3): New rooftop PV installations, including panels and fixing systems, shall not lower the fire performance/classification of the roof. In-roof systems should have the correct fire qualification to satisfy the requirements of the Building Regulations. If installation on a combustible or partly-combustible roof is unavoidable, then a fire resistant covering should be applied. Perhaps sheathing the roof under the panels with cement board rather than OSB sarking?

I was assuming that a laurel would be smaller than this, but that could be an incorrect assumption. Apologies for any confusion. If it does meet these criteria, the next question would be whether a laurel is a tree or rather a bush or a shrub. Maybe speak to your LA arboriculturalist.

The official answer, "All trees with a stem/trunk diameter of 75mm (approximately 3 inches) or more at a height of 1.5m from the ground are protected in a Conservation Area." So no you don't. We're in a conservation area. You should ask your AT what successes he's had dealing with your planners to check he has a track record of success. You mentioned he was up for a fight and was cheap, which might not be the best selection criteria. We have an architect but also engaged a planning consultant and are glad we did.

The company I used was Underground Surveys.

Just came across this and can't let it pass. This is very bad advice. There is no safe lower limit for asbestos exposure. One fibre can make you sick. It causes a range of illnesses including chronic respiratory diseases such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), and various cancers. The worst one is mesothelioma. None of them are curable, it's a one way ticket and it only takes one fibre. 5,000 people die every year in the UK from asbestos related diseases. It used to be said that some forms are worse than others - blue, brown chrysotile whatever. That's not the case anymore. All six forms have been found to cause cancer in humans. What does vary though is the precautions you should take, depending on the material. Asbestos cement is easier to deal with than insulation because if it's in good condition, it doesn't release the fibres. There is plenty of guidance out there on what to do about it if you think you might have asbestos and plenty of companies who can deal with it. A good place to start is the HSE, link here. You can also get cheap DIY test kits from Amazon to get a sample tested - follow their advice on how to safely take the sample. I know that happily the OP'S problem was sorted, but couldn't let this go without comment.

@Gus Potter Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Thinking about this point though... is it possible the fire prevention measures could make TF too expensive?. Would it be that difficult to get to a Category C1 Fire spread resistant frame? Maybe just replace the OSB sheathing on the wall facing the neighbours with a e.g. cement board or similar? Even getting to a Category C2, which means you don't need any separation, just means not cutting out the window apertures in the sheathing until the external cladding is up. Obviously depends on whether the cement board has the necessary structural strength. If you've thought about this at the design stage, perhaps the extra cost is just the difference in price between the OSB and the cement board?

Actually not sure that's quite correct. Maybe we should say it's expensive gas and even more expensive electricity! Expensive electricity is not just a problem for heat pump implementation. Jim Ratcliffe, CEO of INEOS (and these days Manchester United shareholder) is blaming high electricity prices on the demise of the UK chemical industry. Mind you, he could have also have mentioned Brexit, which is just as much of a problem, but that would have been embarrassing for him because at the time, he said it was a good idea. More recently he's said Brexit hadn't worked out as he'd expected. What a surprise.

It's a different skill set. Lots of people use architects to provide planning advice and I'm sure it works out fine, but it's not core to their business. You can even do it yourself if you're prepared to take the time to read lots and learn it and if your situation is straightforward. But there are lots of wrinkles and traps - CIL, BNG, heat pumps, bat surveys etc and there's new stuff coming along all the time. Some of it is not written in the guidance and very subjective and based on precedent. Our project is in two parts. The first part was to renovate a Victorian coach house in the garden, for which we needed to get planning permission. It took so long to be determined and we wanted to get started that our planning consultant advised we could take the risk and start. We were 2/3 complete by the time we got the planning permission. I wouldn't have done that without professional advice. The second part of our project is proving to be not straightforward and I'm glad to have his support. Wherever you go, you'll have to pay for it so my preference was to engage an expert. I found our guy through the RTPI web site. We engaged him before we engaged an architect because we needed to sort out planning issues first. He was previously head of development and control at our local authority so he does know his way around.

Good advice. We're using a planning consultant and consider it money well spent. You can find one via the RTPI web site.

The Electrification of Heat Project looked at this. They concluded, "There is no property type or architectural era that is unsuitable for a heat pump ...From Victorian mid-terraces to pre-WWII semis and a 1960s block of flats – the project has proven that heat pumps can be successfully installed in homes from every style and era". Although it's probably true to say that the less well insulated the house is, the worse the economics will be. It probably depends on your definition of suitable.

@Gus Potter since it's timber frame, what are your thoughts about needing to have the structure assessed against the STA Design guide to separating distances during construction?

I lived in Canada for many years, owned houses and had work done. It was all tapered edge plaster board and taped joints. Providing the structure you're fixing the boards to is straight, it's cheaper to do than plastering and once it's painted, you'll never know the difference. I built stud walls and taped the joints myself and you'd never have known it was done by an amateur. That would not have been the case if I'd attempted plastering! Drywall compound in Canada, which you use for the taped joints, is a mud which doesn't chemically set. Is that the same here? After it's dried, if you're not happy with the finish you can sand it, though the pros would never need to sand! You use three widths of "knife" to apply it in three coats. The first coat with the narrowest blade is the one you put the tape in. I'm wondering why traditional plastering is still the norm here ....

That's a nice story. Maybe if it had been a Michelin blimp the spill would have been met with a Gallic shrug. But the hazardous properties of the Avgas which the airport fire brigade would have been worried about, would have been its vapour pressure (the extent to which it could be the source of a flammable gas cloud) and its flash point. The Buncefield explosion incident in 2005 was caused by a release of gasoline/petrol from an overflowing storage tank, albeit on a much larger scale than your 80- 100 litres. Avgas is a gasoline/petrol formulation. Unless there are embers falling out, what causes combustible building materials like wood panelling behind wood burning stoves to catch fire, isn't the release of flammable vapours. It's autoignition. Regarding Markocosic's towel, maybe it depends how much after shave he's using ...🙂.

It's not the flash point you you have to think about, it's the autoignition temperature. They're not the same. Flash point is the temperature you have to heat something to so that when you hold a naked flame over it, the vapours coming off it will ignite. As you raise the temperature, the concentration of the vapours in air increases until it gets to the lower flammable limit and a flame will ignite them. Autoignition is the temperature you have to heat something to so that it ignites without the presence of a naked flame. Not being pedantic, just want to highlight that it wasn't a naked flame which caused markocosic's towel to catch fire. It just got too hot.

On the subject of wood burning stoves and health and safety, be sure to follow the guidance on separation from combustible materials. I have a relative in Canada whose house burnt down because his stove was too close to some wood panelling. The radiant heat from the stove raised the temperature of the wood above its autoignition temperature and it ignited. Autoignition - you don't need a spark or a flame, just get it hot enough and it will burst into flames, like a chip pan fire.

SMRs are not going to be commercially available for a long time yet. There are numerous designs in development but only one has been licensed for commercial operation (see earlier posts in this thread). That design estimates an electricity cost of $0.089 /kWh but on past experience with nuclear, you can be sure that the price will rise a lot, and not just for inflation. So more expensive than renewables. None have been built. For sure they will be part of the long term solution but not in time for net zero 2050. The risk though is that people use the hope of non-available technologies like SMRs to delay getting on with implementing the available ones like insulating our homes and electrification of heating and transportation. Yes there are challenges with electrification, like grid capacity, but we just need to get on and do it.

I guess you're talking about when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn't shining. Nuclear isn’t the answer. Flexible generation is what's needed to balance renewables; nuclear is inflexible. We could doubtless build it to be more flexible, but then it would get even more expensive, both due to the extra engineering required and running at a lower capacity factor. If we asked it to run like we are now running our gas CCGT plants (35-40% capacity factor), it would cost around double the current unit cost. Exactly how much that is, nobody knows of course. Hinkley C strike price is £137/MWh in today’s money, but it’s nearly 100% over budget, so perhaps the real price is closer to £200/MWh at its design capacity factor. Operating like a CCGT could make that power £400/MWh. That's 40 pence/kWh vs the current Ofgem energy price cap of 25 pence/kWh. The jury is still out on what technologies will provide the required resilience. I've seen articles suggesting that short duration supply/demand imbalance will be managed, as batteries become cheaper and more ubiquitous, by a mix of EV smart charging and V2X. Longer "Dunkelflauten" might be managed by gas back-up or through extensive interconnection (even transatlantic) to avoid correlated weather events, or biomethane and hydrogen to power. Nuclear is unfortunately swimming against this tide. How this eventually looks will depend on finding the right mix of market and regulatory mechanisms. Let's hope our regulators are up to the task and resilient to lobbying. Credits: Most of the above is taken (even copied!) from LinkedIn articles by Rachel Lee.

@SteamyTea is unfortunately right about nuclear. I grew up at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell immersed in the hopes that surrounded it. But it has just proven to be too expensive and takes too long to build. We don't have the time or the money. SMRs might eventually help. There are numerous designs in development, but as far as I know, there are currently no licensed commercial designs anywhere in the world, let alone any built. Regarding Hinckley C, I'm reminded of a headline in the Economist, "What's the Hinckley point?". Unfortunately, the hope of a nuclear solution has the risk of being a distraction.