The building has been re-built built with greater consideration towards energy use and energy efficiency, it is our desire that the building impacts upon the local environment in a minimal way, enhancing rather than detracting from the environment.

The original architect's brief was our thoughts in the early 1990s, building standards at that time were very poor, insulation and air tightness were not highly considered and building materials were chosen on price and availability rather than quality and performance. At that time whilst we felt sure that a "better" building could be designed we relied foolishly upon an architect to know how. This lead to some disastrous decisions the original design had the building semi-earth sheltered, this lead to the walls rotting and the building being uninhabitable. Aluminium doors and windows were chosen and cold bridges designed in, chosen for appearance not performance.

The current measures of EPC and SAP 2012 are much more developed than was available in the mid-1990s when the building was designed, although we briefed the architect regarding our desire for eco friendly it was hardly achieved in the initial design. What we wanted was a building which was highly insulated, we insisted on 6 inch stud walls when 4 inch was the norm, and used minimal central heating for basic comfort, and because we had over an acre of woodland on the site which we were obliged to maintain at whatever cost, whilst we wanted to keep some standing dead wood and also some lying dead wood there was obviously a potential to harvest the excess timber and gain from this woodland maintenance by using it as heating fuel and keep it on site and let the ashes be recycled through compost, rather than this resource being wasted and expensively taken off site. Timber we simply regarded as solid sunlight, a renewable resource and there is a wood cycle which goes through the photosynthesis of production: sunlight + water + Carbon dioxide = timber + oxygen and the burning or rotting cycle where by adding oxygen to timber the water, carbon dioxide and heat are liberated ready to go again. The problem with any sustainable energy source is not finding energy but storing it in a way which allows it to be used when needed.

As built, the building's energy performance was very poor, the observed reasons for this were:

• Inadequate attention to detail by the architect, builder's inability to break away from how its always been done.
• The design gave no detail consideration to draught proofing and air tightness.   
• Lack of willingness to understand what our requirement was by architect, and builder.
• A general reluctance on the part of the architect to make function a priority over form.
• Thermal cold bridges designed in by the architect.

During the rebuild process we paid great attention to why the performance was so poor and what should have been done if the architect and builder had been competent.

• Air tightness was appallingly bad, for no reason other than that the architect didn't detail items which were critical and needed detail, and the builder made shortcuts which were obviously going to get buried, and as a consequence were never filled or caulked adequately.
• Insulation fitted by the builder was rockwool there was no specification as to how it should be fitted. The builder did not cut long strips to the correct width between studs but cut a multitude of small pieces and laid them horizontally, the result was poor and vulnerable to slump. The services all ran within the stud wall and the insulation was very poorly fitted about the services and in some places almost non existent where the services looked like a rat's nest.
• Ventilation within the building was not given any energy efficiency consideration.
• Cold bridges were making the building uninhabitable and had to be addressed.

So, we decided to make the building as air tight and well insulated as possible where we were doing the rebuild, as this would involve all the ground floor, some of the first floor, much of the services, and all windows and doors, it was generally felt that a significant improvement in performance would be achieved by good engineering design. A system of Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery was fitted in the main building, the ground floor was fully re insulated with solid "celotex" type insulation, air tightness was improved by:

• Correctly fitting the breathable membrane to the envelope of the building and making sure that any features that pierced the membrane were well engineered.
• Minimising the areas of the timber frame which were inadequately engineered, and presented easy transmission inside to out.
• The internal vapour barrier was seen to be pierced by a huge number of fixings of various types where ever possible the service sockets, pipe outlets, screw fixings were silicone caulked and the under floor membrane and the vapour barrier taped together where seen.
• Where new walls had to be built they were done to a design which allowed for services to be run without compromising the ability to insulate and make air tight.

The result is quite satisfactory, the building heats up quickly with central heating in the morning, 45minutes is enough to make the building comfortable for most of the day especially if there is any solar gain,the log burner is ideal for space heating from the afternoon onwards and the MVHR ensures that the heat from the log burner is distributed into the bedrooms and the connecting spaces together with fresh air.

Rainwater collection and use was something which we wanted in the initial brief but somehow the architect managed to get this deleted from the final design, during the rebuild we have managed to incorporate an element of rainwater capture and use, there are 3 LBC containers in a shed which will store 3,000L of water, this is fed from one of the roof gutters, this water is piped back into the house and is available for use in the downstairs loo, the washing machine, and the Belfast sink. It is also available in the side garden for watering vegetables, fruit and flowers.