Passive House? - Not if you have BATS!

[Barney12]

Today I reached a sense of humour failure only matched by @recoveringacademic .......

Its seems our ecologists is going to recommend to the national park that my plan to build a timber frame passive house design be refused as "it doesn't recreate the habit (including temperature variations) of the traditionally built building it will replace".

When I tried to reason, including pointing out that surely ecology generally benefits from energy efficient building I simply had the "rules" chucked in my face.

Of course she is technically correct, our original planning permission was granted based on standard design and the accompanying mitigation strategy. 

I then suggested that I build (yet another!) outbuilding further down the plot (goat shed!) using traditional brick and slate roof. Again refused as the "roost height didn't match the existing building". For flecks sake we are on the side of a hill, of course the site slopes! 

So I am now left with three choices:

1. Build a standard construction house. 

2. Find some way of building a cold roof section out of block that is isolated from the airtight timber frame. I think this might actually be possible with a bit of thought?? 

3. Sack my ecologist and start all over again, including a planning revision. 

Words fail me. Well ones that I can post here anyway  

 

[Nickfromwales]

3

[Barney12]

1 minute ago, Nickfromwales said:

3

I should have mentioned; I may need to factor in the cost of a divorce if I go that route

[Nickfromwales]

2. 

Faliure is not an option. 

Can you nail said Eco-nugget to that gate and THEN put the £50 sign on it?

[SteamyTea]

I am sure that I have mentioned that for every rule we have that says we must do something, we have another one that says we can't do that thing.

Is there not an appeals process?

[Declan52]

The bats aren't going to live in side your actual house as in your kitchen and living room so what difference does it make about temp swings.

Make a section of the roof sealed off from the rest of the house that they can live in. Wouldn't be that much work to divide it up and give the bats 3-4 sqm of space to live in.

[Barney12]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Is there not an appeals process?

A very interesting question. The short answer appears to be "no" as far as the ecologist is concerned. They are licenced by Natural England and as I've said in my previous posts on the subject effectively operate a cartel. Worse still the national park support said cartel under the guise of slowing down planning applications! OK, maybe that's a bit harsh, perhaps they are doing it for the protection of the natural habitat of the park. 

The appeal process is effectively to find a new ecologist which will support a change to the mitigation strategy and resubmit our planning application. I have a sinking feeling that the park may do its usual trick and not consider this an amendment but demand a whole new application. It's helps there planning statistics and fee earning ability!

Todays another day and I'll go into battle again.

[PeterW]

So could you not build a passive house that has an internal "flat roof" which is then capped with a simple rafter and tile "structure" ..?

It would mean you lose your attic space but would simplify your design substantially (unless you are room in roof ..?) and probably make it more cost effective ..?

If you need headroom then building up into the roof and doing the same using a collar tie giving say 3-4ft for the flying rats to roost in may work too - if you add in a sacrificial floor so if they do find their way in (after said ecologist has signed off and you've foamed up the entrances ... ) then at least it would be easily maintained. 

[Barney12]

25 minutes ago, Declan52 said:

The bats aren't going to live in side your actual house as in your kitchen and living room so what difference does it make about temp swings.

Make a section of the roof sealed off from the rest of the house that they can live in. Wouldn't be that much work to divide it up and give the bats 3-4 sqm of space to live in.

Which is exactly what im saying for 'no.2'. However it will need to have block dwarf walls and a cold roof (natural roofing felt only). Thus I need to effectively create a roof void which is standard construction at one end of the house. This in theory sounds achievable as presumably the timber frame and airtight membrane could stop and then the standard construction start. I'm hoping super brain @JSHarris might have a view. I'm not sure what I'm saying is entirely clear so I'll try and do a sketch later.

[Declan52]

Is there no way they would allow a custom built bat box made to suit their requirements be attached to a gable wall. Or do the bats have to be housed in your roof space.

[Barney12]

28 minutes ago, Declan52 said:

Is there no way they would allow a custom built bat box made to suit their requirements be attached to a gable wall. Or do the bats have to be housed in your roof space.

In short; No. She is demanding that we recreate the roof space which is in the house we demolished. I.e. brick/block walls, timber rafters, natural felt and a 1.8m ridge height.

[PeterW]

Just now, Barney12 said:

In short; No. She is demanding that we recreate the roof space which is in the house we demolished. I.e. brick/block walls, timber rafters, natural felt and a 1.8m ridge height.

So humour me here .... I didn't think natural felt would pass building control these days ..?? So how does Building Regs play off against bat rules ..??

[Barney12]

Just now, PeterW said:

So humour me here .... I didn't think natural felt would pass building control these days ..?? So how does Building Regs play off against bat rules ..??

Good question. I don't know the answer. But modern breathable membranes are an absolute NO in the world of bat roosts.

[ToughButterCup]

Barney, tell us where you are in the planning cycle, please. I am not clear about whose feedback is stalling your progress. Is it the LPA, or Natural England, or the Ecology Consultant for the LPA or the ecologist that you employ?

Ecology is a 'soft' science. By that I mean that opinion varies by ecologist because (and here I can give you chapter and verse if you need) I have direct experience of the LPAs ecologist feedback (during the official consultation process) differing greatly by company and time. Let me explain.

Application 1 on site 1 (10 meters way from my place) required no ecology survey [LPA error]. Application 2 on site 1 did require a survey [LPA correct in requiring a survey]. The LPAs ecologist on Site 1 Application 2 wrote that the applicant required a simple RAMS mitigation strategy.

Application 1 on Site 2 (my place)  required a survey [LPA correct] and the LPAs ecologist required a normal mitigation strategy [LPA and Ecologist correct]

Here's the twist which explains my somewhat cryptic introduction.

For Site 2, between the the initial survey, and the writing of the Mitigation Statement, the LPAs ecologist changed. A different ecologist was appointed. By cruel chance it is (for the LPA) the ecologist who dealt with the Site 1 Application 2. The guy who recommended a simple RAMS statement for Site 1. Difference? Many thousands of pounds. 

Site 1 and site 2 are next door.

Why the inconsistency? Because the confidence level required for the ecology survey results is very low indeed. In the case of our Newts, the confidence level is about 10%.

I think I am right in saying that the Planning System [LPA] is required to help you solve the problem. Have you asked for their help in solving the problem? And so is Natural England. Yes, it's costly.

PM me if you like.

Ian

[Barney12]

19 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

Barney, tell us where you are in the planning cycle, please. I am not clear about whose feedback is stalling your progress. Is it the LPA, or Natural England, or the Ecology Consultant for the LPA or the ecologist that you employ?

Ecology is a 'soft' science. By that I mean that opinion varies by ecologist because (and here I can give you chapter and verse if you need) I have direct experience of the LPAs ecologist feedback (during the official consultation process) differing greatly by company and time. Let me explain.

Application 1 on site 1 (10 meters way from my place) required no ecology survey [LPA error]. Application 2 on site 1 did require a survey [LPA correct in requiring a survey]. The LPAs ecologist on Site 1 Application 2 wrote that the applicant required a simple RAMS mitigation strategy.

Application 1 on Site 2 (my place)  required a survey [LPA correct] and the LPAs ecologist required a normal mitigation strategy [LPA and Ecologist correct]

Here's the twist which explains my somewhat cryptic introduction.

For Site 2, between the the initial survey, and the writing of the Mitigation Statement, the LPAs ecologist changed. A different ecologist was appointed. By cruel chance it is (for the LPA) the ecologist who dealt with the Site 1 Application 2. The guy who recommended a simple RAMS statement for Site 1. Difference? Many thousands of pounds. 

Site 1 and site 2 are next door.

Why the inconsistency? Because the confidence level required for the ecology survey results is very low indeed. In the case of our Newts, the confidence level is about 10%.

I think I am right in saying that the Planning System [LPA] is required to help you solve the problem. Have you asked for their help in solving the problem? And so is Natural England. Yes, it's costly.

PM me if you like.

Ian

Hi Ian

We have been granted planning permission but it is conditional on complying with all aspects of our ecology mitigation strategy. The national park are obsessed with compliance to ecology (and I guess they have good reason, too many rouges etc etc).

I can certainly concur on the inconsistency part.

What I'm trying to do is avoid a costly (both in terms of time and money) re-write of the mitigation strategy and then re-submission back to the LPA for them to agree. 

Its "the answer is "NO", now what was the question?" mentality that drives me nuts!

[Ferdinand]

Hmmm.

Don't know how the Planning Inspectors approach batmen and their recommendations, but they are required to follow only Planning Law rather than politics and personalities.

We won our (non-bat related) Appeal in a few weeks (perhaps 10-12 weeks from receiving Refusal from LPA to receiving go ahead from Planning Inspector), but the Council case was a mess of pottage and the refusal was before an election in the face of a 200-300 sig petition. And we had a hot planning consultant who could have been a barrister.

Obviously there are still problems such as the ridiculously low levels of proof required of bat activity before the monkey jumps on your back, but are there any cases about alternative mitigation strategies being allowed if they are as effective?

Would it be a case of find a more appropriate expert Expert then Appeal?

What is the general level of training of Bat Experts? Do they just have had to go on a couple of courses for the Bat Conservation Trust?

Ferdinand

 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by Ferdinand

[ProDave]

The issue here is you have PP to build a house that looks like the one in the PP.

Whether it's an eco house, passive house or barely complies with building regs house is irellevant. That's a seperate matter.

So I can't see anything stopping you making the "human" part of the house super insulated and air tight and leaving the loft cold and draughty for the flying rats.

I wouldn't bang on about it being a passive house. Just agree with your ecologist to provide the cold draughty loft space he demands, and build the rest of the house well insulated and sealed and just don't make a big thing of that when talking to the ecologist. All he needs to know is it will have the cold draughty loft space he demands.

[ToughButterCup]

So, have I got this right?

• The initial survey(s) have been done and an requirement to mitigate the effects of the build identified, and
• The Mitigation Strategy has been written by your ecologist and accepted by Natural England (NE), and 
• Your licence has been issued, and
• Submitted to the LPA and sent for comment to the LPA ecologist AND
• further additional conditions have been imposed by the LPA

Have I got it right so far?

[Barney12]

30 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

So, have I got this right?

• The initial survey(s) have been done and an requirement to mitigate the effects of the build identified, and
• The Mitigation Strategy has been written by your ecologist and accepted by Natural England (NE), and 
• Your licence has been issued, and
• Submitted to the LPA and sent for comment to the LPA ecologist AND
• further additional conditions have been imposed by the LPA

Have I got it right so far?

Yes, all correct.

[Temp]

Quote

Sack my ecologist

If it's your ecologist not the councils then you are under no obligation to submit her report. I would brief another. I would show them her report and see if they agree your contention of the wider benefits or if not can mitigation could be used before hiring them to do a new report. 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by Temp

[joe90]

I can recommend my ecologist, she was great but fair, she is Tamsin Lee from Lee ecology.  In my case I want to abide by the ecologist recommendation but the council wants different!!!, this bit is also part of my appeal. In my case the council also wanted a loft space for bats that fly into a building ( or cave) and my argument was the bats were found in the small gaps under the old tin roof, known as crevice living bats and no large openings existed for bats to fly into.

[ToughButterCup]

@joe90 and @Temp, I think you might be missing the final twist in this sorry saga.

@Barney12 has done all that's been asked of him at National Level.

Despite that, the LPA's ecologist has imposed additional  conditions  - as I understand it design requirements -  that the build should follow the original plans.

Has the design of your house changed from the design submitted for Full PP?

'...Of course she is technically correct, our original planning permission was granted based on standard design and the accompanying mitigation strategy...' (Barney's original post above)

In which case, the original ecologist submitted the correct Mitigation Strategy (because it was accepted by NE) . If all of the above is correct, then ask the ecologist you already have (who may well not know anything about the design change in the house) for an opinion on how to meet the LPA ecologists conditions.

Your case won't be unique.

How have other TF builders solved the problem locally?

[joe90]

Ah! +1 with wot Ian says above .

[Barney12]

9 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

@joe90 and @Temp, I think you might be missing the final twist in this sorry saga.

@Barney12 has done all that's been asked of him at National Level.

Despite that, the LPA's ecologist has imposed additional  conditions  - as I understand it design requirements -  that the build should follow the original plans.

Has the design of your house changed from the design submitted for Full PP?

'...Of course she is technically correct, our original planning permission was granted based on standard design and the accompanying mitigation strategy...' (Barney's original post above)

In which case, the original ecologist submitted the correct Mitigation Strategy (because it was accepted by NE) . If all of the above is correct, then ask the ecologist you already have (who may well not know anything about the design change in the house) for an opinion on how to meet the LPA ecologists conditions.

Your case won't be unique.

How have other TF builders solved the problem locally?

Thanks Ian, that's exactly as I see it but its good to hear a third party confirm my thoughts.

I'll just need to keep plodding through the red tape.

I'm also going to talk to MBC to see if they have any experience.

 

Bottom line I'm just going to have to get design changes agreed by the park and the ecologist

Your last question is a good one.

[ryder72]

FYI - we were in the same situation. Our existing bungalow has (had?) bats. We are replacing it with a flat roof structure which originally had a flat roof garage. Upon discovery of the bats, we had to recreate the space so we  decided to make the garage into a pitched roof building with a void to suit bats. This is going to be significantly (probably 70%) smaller than the space its replacing but no one has flagged it as a problem, neither the ecologist nor the LA.

 

If it helps, I can forward you details of our 'bat man'. He is a nice bloke and has been more than helpful in navigating the mess that is ecology.