Leaderboard

South elevation finished, apart from making a permanent "platform" in front of the cat flap and some steps down for the cat......

I think there is another option before recourse to law, though Jack is right that if you do go down that route, it is your neighbour that you would have to take action against, rather than the contractors. If you do this, I would guess that there is very little chance of you co-operating together when you need to replace the whole roof - or indeed any other problem with a shared interest. Put the £1900 (regardless of who should pay that) towards the cost of a complete re-slate, at least of that side of the roof. This should be an equally shared cost, but it will solve all the problems of a mismatched patch, damage, and a roof nearing the end of its life. Perhaps more importantly, it will prevent you spending the rest of your life at daggers drawn with your neighbour, even if it does mean using some diplomacy at this stage. You may even need to swallow hard and forget whose 'fault' this is in the first place - your only aim is a satisfactory outcome, and if you both benefit from that, then that is the best out come. If things go to law, that has the potential to work out far more expensive than a new roof, and the only real winners then will be the lawyers.

I almost never give quotes. If I had to quote a fixed price for every job, I would have to take account of every difficulty that I might encounter and factor in the job taking that long, and the quote would be higher and I probably would not get the job. Usually I estimate jobs and most times things go well and the final bill is lower or no higher than the estimate.

Don't know your situation so... You may need a water softener. You can check with your local water supplier what hardness your water supply is. If you need a water softener you may need to consider where it will go and how the plumbing would work including the non softened water to any outside tap. Good luck M

Entrance lobby WC? Pipes have to come down anyway.... M

Yes it would have to be a syphonic flush to achieve what you want. What is the issue though? Surely the tenant pays the water bill so leaking flush = higher bill for them?

You can still get syphon flush valves from screwfix. Some are dual flush.

Wot I said

I have a set of these, the doors are so hard to get right, didn't do soft close when i bought these, but I can tell you that I ALWAYS forget to click the clip (its like a lock i think) on the top of the doors into place, which seems to be the difference between not working and working in a lot of cases!

And ask for the control panel to have a an autodialler, so that you get a text when the sh£t is away to hit the fan, when something trips

Just spoke to him...he's knocking the wall down and re-building it ?

why are you trying to re-invent the wheel ..?? Sewage pump systems are sized in the building regs by the number of occupants / bathrooms, and how much they can store in the event of pump failure. You can’t get round this, so just go to a supplier and say you want a 4 bed suitable sewage pumping system, send them the delivery address and dig the hole…

Have you ruled out a gravity drain? 500mm fall over 50m gives 1:100 which just works. Putting in a pressure pipe will be cheaper then a gravity drain, and overcome obstacles and topography, but the pump and any storage capacity (in case of brakdown) can be costly and needs maintenance.

So you should have the bayonet hose running to a proper bayonet connector that will have a 1/2” threaded connection. This goes to a 15mm solder connection and 15mm copper through the wall, then to a regulator. Reg then connects by flexible to the bottles.

OK that doesn't sound too bad with poor sun amounts and losing Sun at 6pm (remember shading on even a single panel if they are all connected to a Single MPPT will kill the output on all, double MPPT will help keep this to a minimum, or solaredge to maximise each individual panel, but obviously i don't know your setup), keep an eye on it and see how it goes. You are quite a shallow angle too which might have a bearing on it, 30 degrees plus is much more favourable, and it can make quite a difference (as we experience in winter).

That's not what I'm suggesting, it's that we need to take a systemic approach to net zero, which considers the ramifications of the decisions and pathways chosen, so that we actually understand what damage, or benefit, might emerge as a result of those decisions and pathways. It may be more helpful for me to quote a document published by the Royal Academy of Engineering which highlights the importance of taking a systemic approach: "This helicopter view of decarbonisation of homes raises the wider sustainability and environmental impacts that result from a positive policy such as net zero, including: • Material resource related to mass production of components such as batteries and solar panels. • Circular economy, though the recycling and disposal of redundant components like gas boilers. • Biodiversity, which is significantly impacted by housing and infrastructure deployment strategies. While it does not necessarily provide simple or easy answers, understanding systems is vital for identifying all the trade-offs associated with decisions. It can help to identify potential leverage points, or points of influence that can be used to design effective, future-proofed policy interventions across this complex landscape." Yes, perhaps we are. In wider view, I'm referring to a systems perspective, encapsulated very well by the above quote, but also that it isn't all about just CO2 emissions. For example, the global company NovoNordisk recognises this by having an environmental strategy that not only targets the reduction of CO2 emissions, but also waste and resource use and they realise this makes perfect sense from both an environmental and business sense. They clearly recognise these things go hand in hand: "We consider use of resources, CO2 emission and waste to be our most material impacts on the environment across the value chain." This statement goes right back to my point. How can you reasonably ignore policy decisions that potentially have the opposite effect, or where you don't have sufficient knowledge to know whether it is actually going to provide that outcome? Because that is what you're doing here. What I'm highlighting is that whilst heat pumps are a great technology, their mass production may not be as universally benign as is popularly promoted, especially on forums like this. Given that you say the discussion is about CO2 and that the OP asks about the likely future of heating, gas boilers, in their context of CO2 emitters, absolutely fit in with the discussion as otherwise you remove part of the context of discussion. If the point as you say is about reducing CO2, then why is the baseline cost for day-to-day heating only relevant? You may have read about the recently published report on blue hydrogen, taking a life-cycle approach (as per the original paper I referenced), suggesting that blue hydrogen production may actually be more damaging in terms of global warming potential than burning methane in gas boilers. Interesting that this now starts to question the basis of the UK government's hydrogen strategy, due to taking a wider approach to understanding potential impacts of new technology. Now we're even seeing that research suggests methane may not be the 'second' most important GHG, but maybe the 1st most important due to its short term GHG potentency. My view is that narrow goals can often be counterproductive and may, particularly when dealing with large complex systems, reduce innovation, vision and flexibility. Narrow goals may also prevent both individuals and organisations from seeing or recognising other more valuable opportunities. The definition of net zero is really about finding a balance between output of emissions and sinking emissions. And it is clear from most of the formal definitions out there that one side of this equation is about capturing/storing/sinking CO2 that's too difficult to cut from emissions. The Carbon Trust, For example: ‘To reach a state of net zero emissions for companies implies two conditions: To achieve a scale of value-chain emission reductions consistent with the depth of abatement achieved in pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot and; To neutralise the impact of any source of residual emissions that remains unfeasible to be eliminated by permanently removing an equivalent amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. To risk being simplistic, but this may and already is in some spheres naturally focussing attention in that specific direction, one of those being the obsession with finding and developing carbon sinks so that the world can continue as it is and, like one Nobel winning economist suggested, GDP can continue to grow even with global warming up to 4 degrees C so not much to worry about. This represents probably the greatest risk - it may be possible to find technologies, but it's recently moved into the bizarre and rather concerning area of geoengineering where we actually have no idea of the potential ramifications of those activities were they to be conducted at the scale required. Thankful there are many people looking at it from a wider perspective, including more systemically, that may find solutions in other areas, not necessarily constrained by singular focus. As I quoted above, it is already recognised by those far more qualified and experienced than me that net zero policy does not necessarily cover "wider sustainability and environmental impact" and that it is essential these are baked into the mix, along with flexibility as insights and environmental effect emerge through the process. Drawing from the Royal Academy of Engineers paper again: "Challenges such as decarbonisation appear smaller and more manageable when broken down into constituent sectors and challenges. Without an over-arching system architecture or system transition strategy in place, there is a risk of failing to adequately account for the knockon effects that changes in one sector will have on each other. For example, transport decarbonisation strategies will make assumptions about, and have ramifications for, requirements for houses, workplaces, energy infrastructure and vice versa."

Rods will go round a curve no problem. You are very unlikely to have a blockage in the pumped section. The pump will not operate more than once a day. It is like a fire hose.

Rebuild the wall in 140mm blocks at their cost. Will remove the issue with the founds.

If you don’t fix it now it will mess everything up the further down the line, fix it now before it’s too late.

Just a large pile of wood and relocated chassis. It's now a post build project.

It really isn’t a big job

It surprises me that we, on this forum, seem very conscious about energy use but less so about water use. We designed our last house to minimise energy and water useage. Aerating taps and shower heads reduce water use without any negative effects IMO. Our reasons for both low energy and water use is because of the beneficial effects on the environment of doing so.

I expect foundation design can mitigate any risk to the extension, but perhaps need to consider damage to existing foundations through heave if the tree is close, depending on soil type and tree size. It may need to be removed over the course of a couple of years; get some expert advice.

no i meant the bottom picture showing a chamber.

This just isn't something we have up in Scotland unless you own a farm. I am hoping for less than 200l per person per day once we are in onky because I have a low yield borehole.

184 lt/day over the last year, and there is just me. I am a clean chef, not one of those grubby, unshaven ones.

where do you get the details of usage ?

Hep20 is my go-to for internals. Never had a leak. damn, I shouldn’t have said that ?

Are we looking at your half of the roof? I don't mean to be rude, but it has to be said that it is in pretty poor condition anyway. I think the patch is the least of the problems. There are a lot of broken, cracked and clipped slates there. I couldn't say how long that can be kept watertight, but realistically, it will need re-slating in the near future. There may also be a good reason why the new slates are not sitting down properly - if the existing battens are in poor shape, for example. It may be hard to conclude other than that the builders did the best they could with a roof that is already in poor condition. Perhaps it wasn't so much that they damaged your roof, but that any disturbance to the old and fragile slates inevitably resulted in needing to replace some of them. As it's a semi, you will need the co-operate with your neighbour when re-slating, so making enemies of them is not recommended - ideally, you'll do it as a joint effort.

Plasson for external, Hep2O internal

Starlink deserves a mention in this thread but one thing that might irk the Passiv House self build enthusiasts is the 100 watt consumption of the control box + dish even when the system is idle.

Use 25mm MDPE and sleeve it with 28x19 armaflex pushed over the top of it without splitting it. Fits easily inside 110mm UPVC

More than a few acres are required.. https://www.primalsurvivor.net/much-land-need-self-sufficient/ More land needed to raise money to pay council tax. Other bills might be avoidable. No electric, water, sewerage etc Would there be business rates on a smallholding? Fuel for cooking unless some trees about.

Maybe you haven't got the right shaped bin? Simon

This brings back fond memories of you installing the glass pocket door.

Would be a shame to destroy all that exquisite craftsmanship