ProDave

Because they come as a kit with pipes that have to be connected (like @JSHarris little aircon unit) you can put the evaporator outside under a suitable cover.

You won't want a constant run off from your supply pipe as that will kill your water pressure. Either run a supply pipe and a separate overflow pipe, or a high tech solution a level sensor and a solenoid operated drain valve when the tank gets "full"

More reason to keep the water in the feed pipe moving, very unlikely to freeze if moving. I would be looking for somewhere to overflow to to keep a constant flow.

My flow temperature is lower than the blending valve will go, so I just rely on the ASHP regulating the flow temperature when in heating mode. I just set the desired temperature on the ASHP control panel.

This sounds like a job for one of those "kit" fridges that you build into boats.

If it's council land, why do you need to buy it? You just want an undertaking that it won't get blocked. Perhaps you could just ask their permission to maintain the land at no cost to them, i.e you cut the grass and prevent it turning to scrub?

So why not have the tank close to the source so it can overflow constantly back to the source, and then a longer pipe to the house?

I get the impression this is for potable water on a private supply. I can think of at least 3 such private supplies that I have seen that use a storage tank. However I question is shutting off the feed when full is the correct thing with a stored potable water supply? All the ones I can recall, the tank is there to maintain a buffer as the source is only a low flow. But instead of shutting off the input when full, the tank keeps on getting fed, and deliberately overflows to somewhere safe, so the water is not sitting stagnating. Perhaps some more details of the overall system from @jamieled

If you look at the Wunda controller, it is simply a matter of how many terminals and how many wires you can get into them, and you really can't get more than 4 actuators connected to each zone. But step back a bit. The purpose of a "manifold controller" is to individually open / close each zones actuators, while at the same time turning on the pump and giving a call for heat output if any one zone is calling for heat. Now if you are not zoning, and instead having all the zones operating as one, then a re think is needed. You don't need individual actuators. You don't need the logic to turn the pump on, so the logical extension of that, is you don't need a manifold controller. So a simple manifold without individual actuators. You simply turn the pump on and call for heat directly at the command of the programmer and perhaps a single room thermostat. I would expect most of the UFH companies to regard that as completely alien thinking and just quote for the standard kit.

Are you looking for a packaged system or do you want to put it together yourself for the minimum cost? I bought most of my stuff from ebay. A 5 port manifold that came with a noisy pump that I later changed for a Wilo. five £10 actuator heads, a £50 "no name" 3 channel manifold controller, and a 250 metre coil of pex al pex UFH pipe (I had two 50 metre lengths left from a previous job as well) I do have the 3 downstairs rooms on their own thermostats but you won't get much temperature differential from one room to the next.

Is this why google maps has shifted our postcode "pin" about 1/4 mile to the west, so it is now in the middle of a field?

Definitely get a pump in each manifold. Some ASHP's require quite a high water flow rate through them and it can be quite hard just to achieve the flow rate they need (I had to fit an extra circulating pump). The last thing you want to do is restrict the flow even more by expecting the ASHP's pump to push water around the UFH pipes.

And I think that looks so much better for not having a full wall of glass.

There is no longer any Feed In Tariff for solar PV. That also means there is no longer any need to use an MCS installer. Yoi can DIY install it, or just pay any competent electrician to install it. I did my own at the beginning of this year. By DIY and shopping around a LOT I got it down to £1500 and I am on target to self use £250 worth of electricity giving a payback time of 6 years. Given your roof, and the fact you have plenty of land, I would go for a ground mount system, which also makes it a lot easier to DIY as no high up on roof work. As already mentioned, the solar PV would power the ASHP for most of the summer while it is cooling the house so you get the cooling for free and it should be pretty easy to self use all that you generate. Also re the ASHP and MCS. A lot of us have found that is is simply not worth paying the inflated MCS prices just so you can claim the RHI payment, which might be small for a well insulated house. Just buy the ASHP as cheap as you can and install yourself or any competent plumber and electrician can install it and forget the RHI. No need to buy second hand, some new bargains come up from time to time.

Can I ask why did the architect make everything floor to ceiling glass? Was it because that is an open side at the moment, and he thought near 100% glass would make it look more open like it was originally? If so I would say that is misguided. You are changing the use and function of the building, so I would not have any concerns whatsoever about making that a solid wall with an appropriate amount of glazing to give enough light and views while controlling heat loss and gain. If it was the planners that insisted on all that glass then my despair of the planning system just gets worse.

Hi and welcome. You certainly have some challenges there. As it's certain you are going to need active cooling, I suggest you install solar PV to help power that in the summer. Probably ground mounted. Please don't take this comment the wrong way, but I think this build illustrates just how plain stupid our planning system has become. You have got permission to convert that open Dutch barn into a house, but let's be honest for a minute, that building is the very last building I would consider a candidate for conversion. Nothing about it lends itself to conversion. You are in effect building a new house and sitting it under the tin roof of an old barn so it is counted as a "conversion". And this is where I think the planning law is just plain bonkers. It would be far far better if you were allowed to knock that down and build a proper house from scratch, of no greater size than the old barn. You would end up with a better house technically, and (please don't take offence) a better looking house. Having said all that and hoping I have not upset you, you certainly have some interesting challenges ahead.

I used Protekt VP400 plus on my roof, recommended by the builder as it would stand up to prolonged exposure before the roof got tiled.

I forgot to say, I did sign up with Velux Rewards and my £593 purchase earned me £80 of rewards, which I have chosen to spend at Argos.

Well it is in. My helper today also agreed that he could see no reason for the fold, and had never seen that before, so before fitting the top flashing, we flattened it. I am still not convinced this is the best flashing for these tiles. But I "discussed" it with the supplier and they were adamant this is the correct flashing for flat interlocking concrete tiles. I don't like the way the tiles adjacent to the window kick up slightly, but it shows it doing that in the instructions, so it has not been done wrong. I still can't help thinking a "slate" flashing would have been better, but they were adamant it would not work.

I faced this issue. The first draft from Highways during my planning application said I must provide 90 metre visibility plays and "demonstrate control" over that land used for the visibility splays. That was not possible as that land was 2 neigbours unfenced front gardens. I discussed it with highways, and largely because another application in the same street had been passed with less onerous requirements, they reduced it to 60 metres visibility and removed the "demonstrate control" clause. I discussed what should happen in the event a neighbour for instance plants a big bush that blocks the visibility, he said to contact highways, as in the case of unfenced land, they can exercise control over the first 3 metres from the road and deal with the obstruction. Note to everyone else, if you don't want highways cutting down your bush, put up a fence so it is no longer unfenced land.

That is forcing the top flashing section and / or the top of the side flashing section to distort. I am not even sure there is room for it to move like that when wrapped round a window. It would fit perfectly if that folded bit was flattened...... When I get there for real I will see how it fits. And have the pliers handy.

That "fold" on yours looks more like it has just got a bit bent in storage and it would soon flatten out, rather than the deliberate nicely formed fold that I have.

It is better than the paper instructions. BUT is shows their side pieces do NOT have the folded over section either at the top or the bottom.

I am 99.9% sure I have them the right way. The bits of foam all line up properly. If I tried to swap the two sides over, and in doing so put them the other way up, then at the bottom the two bits of foam would not meet, leaving a gap, and at the top, the bits of foam would try to overlap. Of course Velux could make it simple and foolproof by printing "left" on one of them and "right" on the other, but that would just take all the fun out of it and reduce the calls to their help line. If you have one accessible (i.e. not tiled) then please have a look I am planning to fit the first one tomorrow, I have all the tiles removed and ready to go in the morning.

Some help with my flashings please. This is the Velux EDW flashing for a standard GGL roof window. The bottom piece of the flashing joins to the two sides correctly and easily. However I cannot get the top piece to join to the sides. First picture shows the top of the left hand side piece of the flashing. It clearly has the top of the bit facing you deliberately bent over. This is the same on both side pieces. It must be bent over for a reason. But if you try and slot the top piece onto the sides pieces, it simply won't go, because this bent over piece is in the way: I could make it fit together by using a pair of pliers and straightening out that bent over piece. But I should not have to do that, it is bent over for a reason. What am I doing wrong? The instructions are useless, just a few pictures with little details.