Leaderboard

I know, that’s what’s concerning me too. They’re meant to be a reputable company so it’s really frustrating. They have finally agreed to do the job properly after a lot of going back and forth. Thanks for the help on this.

A few bits which i'm not quite sure I'd agree with here... Marmox is in no way strong enough to go on top of the joists and under the chipboard/OSB layer, it would get crushed in the areas of contact, once a lot of weight is put on the floor. You would have to put this layer on top of chipboard/OSB layer and either top with 10mm self leveller compound if you are to use carpet, or by using a wood flooring/engineered wood/LVT/Laminate, and use a thin 2mm EPS under the solid flooring to prevent it touching the rough cement layer on the Marmox. I'm using Marmox under underfloor heating in bathroom, and me just kneeling on it has left a few dents, so it definitely needs something else to spread load. No, do not use Marmox for this purpose, it is only XPS insulation sandwiched between two 1mm reinforced cement layers, it is not designed for point loads such as sitting on joists, and needs to be fully supported. You need to use specific tape which is 'plaster-in', such as https://www.airstop.co.uk/product-page/airstop-flex-fee You will need a primer to put on the block/brick work first, and then tape your membrane down with this style tape. You are then ready to plaster in. Most primers are paint on, however I have just discovered Tescon's SPrimer, which is spray primer, though i've yet to use it so can't comment on how good/bad it is.

Thanks but I think the joists would get in the way. Also I don’t want to be building a frame up in the loft. For full disclosure the wife has been complaining about the massive pile of insulation in the garage and I have promised to do it this week so trying to keep it quick and simple. There is not a lot of air movement up there and the wall is air tight so I don’t need to worry much about air tightness. Mainly looking at losses straight through the wall. As the space is not directly outside I’m not sure how bad the heat losses are. However the wall shows as consistently cooler on IR during the winter so there is definitely some loss.

That is not true, you need either ceiling joists or a ridge beam to stop wall spread.

That is talking about shallow pitched roofs. The other reason for a ridge beam is if you have a vaulted roof. In which case the roof pitch is irrelevant (unless it's flat!).

TBH I think going with the very first pic from environmental building supplies is the one to peg for, done well it'll be absolutely fine. A U value of 0.35 is still 3 times better than the very best 3g windows once installed so pick your battles. Material wise.... I really like Glidevales VP400 breather membrane for below the insulation. £140 from Screwfix. In any case get something with a good g/M2 figure (>140g/m²), good tear resistance (>200N) and a low SD value ( <0.03m) It is airtight so you could use it above too rather than buying a separate airtight membrane. It would be a good choice given its pretty tough. If you do want a separate airtight membrane look for a mass of >100g/m² and a tear value of >200N. I like the semi transparent ones as you can see the studs + insulation etc behind it. Something like Powerlon VCL170 can be bough for about £1.15 per M2 and will work every bit as well as in this application as Proclima DA at £2.66/M2. As for insulation. As well as the K value look for the density of mineral wool. 10kg/M3 is much harder to cut and fit accurately than 35kg/M3.

I am just retiring from 20+ years self employed. If such a draconian scheme had existed I would not have remained self employed. It has been proven again and again that having a bit of paper does mot make someone good, just as not having that bit of paper does not make them bad.

It really is simple. Run an ASHP at a COP of 3 or better and the cost is comparable to mains gas heating. I expect very few people actually save money by switching to an ASHP. The problem with retro fitted ASHP's (boiler replacements) is to get a reliable COP of 3 or better you need low temperature heating which really means UFH or vastly over sized radiators. And that is where the problems start. Who wants to rip the whole house apart to fit UFH (and the under floor insulation that would be needed)? So most will stick with radiators, perhaps a bit over sized, but I bet they will still be running what most of us consider to be "hot" and with a poor COP. ASHP's should NOT be sold to the general public as a way to save money. Yes a way to reduce CO2 emissions but not a way to save money. That is just asking for lots of people to complain very loudly when they do not save money. When I chose an ASHP for my new build, it was not because I thought it was going to be cheaper. I am happy to settle for similar running cost. It was because there is no mains gas here and I did not want an oil tank in the garden.

You could leave it / chance it but at your own risk. there appear to be a gap between the tray and the timber on the right hand side. So it’s not even sitting on that. To place it on a plinth without using the correct plinth kit it would have been better to use ply sheeting on top of a frame thus creating a false & level floor. Then bedding it on that. Warranty would have been good. if he’s given a reason for not rerouting the plumbing “in case there’s a problem with the boiler” that sounds like a nonsense reason / excuse TBH. I bet he’s on a fixed price for the job. his solution is the cheapest and easiest for HIM.

Providing you have PD rights, you can erect something up to 1m high. The additional caveat to that is if you’re replacing something that already exceed 1m. So if there already was a 2m high fence then technically, you can erect a 2m high gate in its place… https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/fences-gates-and-garden-walls/planning-permission

OK. I would not particularly like this one (I don't like gardens covered in tarmacadam), and I am an activist for safe walking and wheeling, so I'll try and give you an objective assessment as someone who might be objecting like your neighbours. Yes, you would need sliding gates as you will not be allowed to obstruct the public highway (there's an offence in iirc the Highways Act). If your drive is going to be longer you may have space for inward folding gates, but that would depend on your amount of vehicles. I think you are looking at what is called a Material Amendment, which you apply for after a grant of planning permission. There is a separate type of process if it is Planning Conditions you want to vary. I think you have done well to get approval for a drive that is only 5m long on the approved plan, as that is very short (my car is 4.87m long, and 5m will not fit afaik any of the crew cab tonka trucks without obstructing the pavement). TBH a competent planner they should have caught that as it builds in future conflict, but local government has been stripped to the bone in the last decade. One of their principles is to consider potential future use, which imo they have not done here; perhaps the planner was in short trousers. First time round I'd have objected to the short 5m length on the basis of the risk of pavement blocking if you or a future owner has what are now normal size vehicles >5m long. If something is possible, there is always some future hoon who will do it. Ironically that is closer to what you want to do 😉. I think that such an objection may caused them to make you make it 6m or 7m long. Were you to apply for such an amendment making it 7m long, I would have written a letter of support for that aspect. The gate geometry, and entrance width to allow practical access for multiple cars, looks potentially very tight, so I would perhaps suggest getting an electric gate man in 'to quote' and advise you what will be practical - then checking carefully that all the manoeuvres you might need to do (eg going past the corners of all the cars that are already in there). If you have neighbours who are watching closely, you need your ducks in a row and probably need to identify everything in your application that you are doing. It would depend on how good they are at doing research into planning requirements, identifying and sticking to relevant planning matters, and writing objections - or they may employ a planning consultant to write their objection. Here are my things I would have objected to, or tried to ensure that you got good enough so as not to potentially inconvenience neighbours and pavement users. 1 - Number of vehicle movements reversing in or out, and more vehicles turning in the street. That may be OK with the one / one and a half off road spaces you have approved. If it suddenly become 4 or 5 spaces the Council may think that is too much. 2 - Visibility of the pavement (eg seeing wheelchair users and small children, say 4 or 5 years old, when reversing out). They can't regulate to make you go in forward. Similar concerns to point 1. That also speaks to the height of your wall. Could you use railings for a better view? 3 - Drainage. It looks like a principal (ie road facing) elevation so your surfaces should ideally be permeable, or you will need to demonstrate management of runoff within your own boundaries. 4 - Noise? 5 - If your approved plan includes an area of "garden", as it does, I think your neighbours will be able to complain to enforcement after the fact with a hope of success if you do not implement the scheme, who may enforce on you. Councils are likely to view the garden as a mitigation for the damage done by more tarmac area - so I think you need to be clear about what will actually be there for your future protection. I hope that helps - and that you end up with something that works for everyone, with no permanent conflict. Ferdinand

if you want a street gate it will have to be a slider as you will not be allowed a gate opening onto the pavement/road. I have just built one using kit available on the internet.

Talk to your electrician. How are you finishing the ICF, plasterboard on battens with service void, or direct fix to EPS? Do you know that you can’t run standard electrical cable in EPS, because the PVC jacket will perish over time. Standard 35mm deep steel back boxes fixed to the concrete work fine, but that does depend on how you are finishing the plasterboard.

I used 35mm metal back boxes, my internal layer of EPS is only 55mm ( Beco Wallform ) so I screwed the back boxes to the concrete

I did a 50mm service void, so just a big standard one for plasterboard.

A helpful police officer might lend you a couple of their police bollards, to mark the space if the car does move away. and they will carry more authority.

Yep, with the right setup. If your battery is DC connected and your inverter carries a G98 cert then good to go.

Cart before the horse. You can't have a soakaway design until you have a percolation test result.

Fantastic.. it's great fun, sometimes frustrating but sounds like you are putting a lot of thought into it and reading up, reading around and expanding your knowledge. You'll reap the rewards of your efforts. The best thing you can do is to post what you have in mind in terms of conceptual design. Don't be embarressed if you think they are rough looking (you want to see some of mine!) and you're not under examination. If you do this you'll get loads of help, ideas and suggestions.. then you can pick out the best bits, discard the ones that don't suit. For all... here are two key points: Many two storey modern houses have big open plan spaces on the ground floor and big glazed openings. While this is ok and can be designed for SE wise if you don't want to break the bank then there are a couple of things (not least but start here) that you want to aim do. Try and avoid a layout that results in the roof loading landing over / near the middle of the big glazed openings unless it is spread out. With big open plan spaces you often have a floor (maybe another?) above that may need to have long spanning joists thus you may need to split up the joist span with a transfer beam.. try and avoid transfer beam end loads landing over glazed openings. You can do it.. it just cost more as you need to control deflection. Also big openings reduce the amount of solid walls you have to stop the building moving sideways as per next point. This other key point is what we call lateral (global / overall) building stability.. we need to design the house so it does not move sideways in the wind. This is different from "buttressing" covered in the regs for small buildings. Yes.. if you add up all the small buildings guidance bit you could well end up with every wall being structural.. and then find that non of it works anyway in terms of point loading from transfer beams and global lateral stability. The above said you are on your way (well done you taking the time to study) by recognising that the individual wall panels need to be braced to stop them from buckling sideways, out of the vertical plane. The buckling effect is commonly caused by two things.. the fact that the vertical load from above does not sit directly over the centre of the wall and by addition of wind suction / pressure loads. And you have movement joints.. it's quite complex to arrive at a reasonably economic solution and all this changes depending on the type of construction.. masonry, timber frame, SIPS, ICF. Roughly concrete blocks shrink after laying and clay bricks swell over a long period of time. But both move about depending on the temperature. Generally I get nervous when a block wall gets over 5.0m long.. and if I was designing using a traditional English clay brick I would not stretch it to 9.0 m without a movement joint on a self build unless I new exactly what brick you were using and had control over the mortar. Basically it's self build and the brickie may be hand mixing so there lies the risk. Good point.. at the right time you can detail this.. you let the lintel slip at one end and put a small movement joint above. Now that has made me think.. You are right.. but both the English and Scottish regs are kind of giving rules of thumb, small building guidance... maybe also called deemed to comply.. if you do this and provided there is nothing "odd round about" it will be ok.. maybe.. In terms of the regs in this context a lot of them were written a long time ago.. call it tacit knowledge but also a lot of thought has been put into it.. by some clever folk.. and each reg has to be read in conjunction with all the others. They also get updated so let's take them as current. My thoughts on the 6.0m thing is that beyond that you may get a lot of defection in say a joist / steel beam. That causes the end to rotate more.. the guidance assumes a simple support at the joist / beam ends. The rotation introduces (springs to mind) two deterimental effects. The first is that it shifts the centroid of the bearing closer in span.. thus you get an eccentricity of loading on the wall.. introduces a bending moment which masonry is not ameniable to... it can significantly reduce the load bearing capacity of the wall. The other one is that if you are using timber joists (if you could get them to span that far as you say) then you'll get concentrated load and crushing of the timber. Or if using steel you need to check for crushing at the inside face of the block.. well you don't as you design the steel beam to deflect no less than say span / 360 (12mm is a also good number... but not over glazing) so you reduce the beam end rotation and the problem goes away. Yes keep posting and loads of folk will chip in.. then you will be in the best place to make informed decisions as to how to spend your money.