garrymartin

Do you have a link to the Trada tables you're looking at? Perhaps the parameters are different? I've assumed access for maintenance and repair only. Are you also looking at the "clear span" of approximately 4.7m? These two links are Eurocode 5 compliant spans (as per Trada); https://www.taylormaxwell.co.uk/uploads/files/D.100.01-01_C16-Span-Tables_Design_Span-Tables.pdf https://www.taylormaxwell.co.uk/uploads/files/D.100.02-01_C24-Span-Tables_Design_Span-Tables.pdf

Using C16 timber, 47 x 220mm (roughly 2x9) will suffice for the clear span you will have and will allow you to be more efficient with your insulation. "3x9" is indeed overkill. If internal height is an issue, then moving to 63 x 195mm C16 will give you an extra "inch" but will reduce insulation performance. You could also use C24 timber, allowing 47 x 195mm or 63 x 170mm. See https://www.timberbeamcalculator.co.uk/en-gb/span-table/flat-roof-joists?load=0.75&class=C16 for C16 and https://www.timberbeamcalculator.co.uk/en-gb/span-table/flat-roof-joists?load=0.75&class=C24 for C24 timber.

Depends on the LPA. I'm just getting a Preliminary Ecological Assessment done and the LPA won't accept a report that is more than 12 months old; has to be re-done.

Perhaps worth reminding your wife that glazing below 850mm doesn't aid views or daylight much, and ends up costing more... 😉 Do you need three sets of sliders? Would reducing the overall height of some of the openings put the National Landscapes chappie more at rest without diminishing the views you cherish or requiring other conditions?

Amazed that the planning officer isn't up in arms about the amount of glazing to be honest given it's a barn conversion. I didn't even think such a radical change with regard to window openings was allowed...

Self-build is exempt... Self-build and custom build applications An exemption applies to this type of development when it meets all the following conditions:   consists of no more than 9 dwellings on a site that has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares    consists exclusively of dwellings that are self-build or custom housebuilding as defined in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015

Were they not submitted as part of the planning permission? If they were, you can likely download them from your LPA website.

I find the site search is pretty rubbish. I used Google, with the search term 'mbc duct harris site:buildhub.org.uk' - using site:buildhub.org.uk limits the search to just pages from this site.

This one?

That's a great observation to make and something that might have been forgotten. 👍

It's 100A per phase. I'm more interested in why one of the phases has a 60A fuse and the other two have 80A fuses?? Were you given a reason, or have you requested it for some reason?

Don't forget building regulations... In brief: 1) Building Regulations do not usually apply unless you want to sleep in it 2) Under 15m2 INTERNAL floor area can be installed close to any rear boundary 3) Over 15m2 and up to 30m2 needs to be a minimum 1m from any boundary If you want to put up small detached buildings such as a garden shed, garden room or summerhouse in your garden, Building Regulations (except Part P for Electrical works) will not normally apply if the floor area of the building is less than 15 square metres INTERNALLY and contains NO sleeping accommodation. If the INTERNAL floor area of the building is between 15 square metres and 30 square metres, you will not normally be required to apply for building regulations approval, providing that the building contains NO sleeping accommodation, and is either at least one metre from any boundary, or it is constructed of substantially non-combustible materials. I kept it to below 15m2 for mine. It's well insulated and works well as a room despite the 2.4m restriction, but as a gym, you'd probably need higher ceilings for anything that involves you putting your hands above your head, so as you note, you may have to dig down if you don't want to apply for planning permission.

Welcome and fingers crossed for a reasonable quote on the electrics! 😉

Yes, extended content. But also specific evidence in rebuttal to the reasons given for refusal and for dismissal at appeal. It's also clear about the law regarding determining "significant and demonstrable harm". It's not enough to just state something, there has to be demonstrable evidence to support it, and therefore the Council must provide that evidence.

That's exactly how we are approaching it. We want to build to Passivhaus standards, but we won't let that dictate how we want to live and how we want to experience our new home. If there is tension between those things, strict Passivhaus will lose out every time.

Agreed, but I found that I'd come across some old case law that said one thing, and then when you search on that case title, you'd find something later that referenced the ruling and may have clarified some position or other further. It was a lot of work. I started searching case files in date order to save that extra work. Having something more current as a reference would definitely be a good idea. I've seen one site say the 2nd edition is due in August and another saying May 2025 so not sure when it will come out.

Yep.

New, 2nd Edition version is due any time soon I understand. The current version is 8 years old now and that's a long time for case law to be updated.

Absolutely. The thing I find really frustrating is that the courts can't really overrule the weighting an inspector applies unless the process they took to determine the weighting was in error. So if the inspector determines, lawfully, that there is a conflict with a particular policy. It's then up to their professional judgement to determine whether they fancy it to be limited weight or significant weight and you can't challenge that. The only thing you can do (as I tried to) is introduce another, similar appeal that reaches a different conclusion as a material consideration and in doing so they should clearly articulate why they have departed from another inspector's view. Mine didn't do that though. I've got this paragraph in my Planning Statement "Although the professional judgement of a decision-maker in choosing the weight to apply is not something legally challengeable, this inconsistency undermines public confidence in the operation of the development control system." Not sure whether it will make much difference to the re-determination but I feel better for having explicitly noted it and if it does end up with a need for further legal scrutiny, I hope the judges will take that into account.

I found out there is one. But one of the conditions for use is that you don't own your own car or have access to one!! 🤣

Thought it was time for a quick update, especially now the new Government have released their proposed changes to the NPPF. I spoke to one of the most highly regarded planning consultants in my area and they said they couldn't help me. They feel the two refusals and the dismissal at appeal have pretty much killed any opportunity to get permission. I don't agree with that, so I went back to my research and DIY submissions! I'm pretty much 100% convinced that the Planning Inspector made "an error in law and misdirected himself" on three points. The first is that he gave "significant weight" to the policy that restricts development in the "open countryside". This is defined as any land beyond the development boundaries. My research found several case law examples that prove this was an error in law when the 'tilted balance' is engaged. When a LPA can't demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing, then policies relating to housing supply are deemed out of data and the weight they are given in the planning balance is reduced accordingly. However, counterpart policies to those specifying housing allocations, such as the one that restricts development in the open countryside are all housing policies and hence should be afforded much reduced weight in the planning balance. The Inspector should have known this but did not take it into account. Secondly, the Inspector disregarded an appeal I had submitted as a material consideration. He is allowed to do this, but in doing so, case law says he must properly consider the evidence presented and he must give his reasons for departure from the previous decision. He did not do this. The Inspector had also commented that he had "limited details on the quality" of the cycle routes and so appeared to dismiss them as a valid, sustainable transport option. I've since learnt that both the road and the bridleways are the responsible of the local transport authority. Under the Highways Act 1980, the local transport authority are responsible for ensuring the safety, accessibility, quality, and suitability for all users, including cyclists. Therefore the third point is that the Inspector should have known this, and yet used the "unknown" quality of the routes to reduce the apparent availability as a sustainable choice. The Head of Planning got someone to respond to my questions on their behalf, but they chose not to answer any of them and simply repeated that their decision was as documented in the original application and if I disagreed with it I should go to appeal (even though the email clearly stated that I'd already done that). The Local Transport Authority have also not responded to my request for clarification on the word "intensified" when saying that any new or "intensified" access needs to provide visibility splay at 85th percentile speed surveys to justify safe access. I've got case law that demonstrates there are no legal or policy requirements to change an existing access unless use is being intensified, and intensified requires a qualitative change and not just a quantitative one. So I think I have that covered too and shouldn't need to do anything from an access perspective. I've also dedicated a section to the case law surrounding the determination of "significant" and "demonstrable" harm, explicitly detailing the evidential requirements - you can't just say something (like the inspector said he wasn't convinced people wouldn't just prefer to use a car) you must be able to demonstrably prove it. Clearly neither the planning officers or the planning inspector have done this in their refusals or dismissal. So today I've submitted a new Outline Planning Application with Some Matters Reserved, including a 60+ page Planning Statement making my position very clear, and with "guidance" that the detail is so comprehensive because you can't introduce new information at a judicial review, and hence if any decision requires further legal scrutiny, all the required supporting case law and material considerations are already in the Planning Statement. Hopefully, the planning officers will not repeat the same mistakes that I've seen previously from them and from the planning inspector, but if they do, then I am confident that they will have made a further "error in law" and misdirected themselves and I'll then go straight to judicial review rather than to appeal. Not giving up just yet... 😉 Oh, and I added some hard numbers. A Passivhaus Classic dwelling with solar PV and using a zero-emission vehicle delivers over 3,084 Kg/year in CO2 emission savings...

Closest match seems to be a "pressure test valve" https://shop.westco.co.uk/15mm-cxc-pressure-test-valve.html But that doesn't explain what you're observing so not really sure.

We have something similar in terms of distance, but in reverse, so to answer your specific question, I think it will be fine. We have the dishwasher next to the sink, and the hob on the back run (with a bottle pull out for oils etc.) where you were considering moving the sink. A corner unit next to the dishwasher and under the hob has all the pans etc. that you'd use on the hob. Gives you a completely free peninsular work surface.

Usually depends on how deep the service void is. Some people fix to the batten. Some people put a thinner piece of timber across the void and fix to that. Some people put a (25mm in your case) piece of timber across the void and run cables through it. The trick is obviously not to go through any airtightness barrier if possible. If a solid barrier (smartply) you can glue your counter battens to it. If not, you'll probably need to use the vertical battens to take the fixings for the horizontal battens.

There's a common misconception that components must be certified individually if you want to achieve an overall certification. That's not the case. They just need to meet the minimum requirements for that component class. According to the Passivhaus Institut, while it is strongly recommended to use Passivhaus-certified components due to their guaranteed performance, it is not strictly mandatory for all components to be individually certified. The key requirements focus on the overall performance of the building rather than the certification status of every individual component.