Temp

No. I would interpret your planning drawings as showing the garage sitting at/on the current ground level of the garden with the ridge 4.08m above that level. You could apply to raise the roof height but the dimensions you have appear reasonably standard and in proportion. You could also apply to raise the whole garage and driveway to avoid a sloping driveway. However that wont be simple or cheap to build. Not sure why you are worrying about kids getting on the roof as the plans show a 2m high fence which can be on your boundary - which presumably is at road level?

Heights are normally "as specified on the drawing". Height limits for permitted development on sloping ground are normally from the highest point immediately adjacent to the building. That would be the level of your garden as you dont mention having to dig into the raised ground to make a level space for it. Its not clear why you needed planning permission for the garage but I suspect an even lower height limit of 2.4m might apply if you used permitted development rights to build rather than your planning permission. eg if its within 2m of the boundary there is a 2.4m height limit. If more than 2m it can be higher.

Raise the steel on a taller padstone?

I wouldn't taper the insulation from 200 to 100. That's an average of 150. I'd go at least 250 to 150 for a 200 average. If the roof is a single pitch perhaps you could also consider sloping the roof front to back to allow you to get rid of the hidden gutter without affecting the appearance (eg Use a conventional gutter around the back)? Edit: What fall does the roof need? A 1:40 fall over 7m is 175mm.

If you know the courses, is that your occupation?

Southampton. Although he's been at home since Christmas.

It all sounds fine to me, or rather nothing you have mentioned definitly needs planning permission. There is a guide here you should read before concluding that your own project would be covered by permitted development.. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permitted-development-rights-for-householders-technical-guidance

From what I've read building two separate walls/floors that aren't connected and both have mass is the way to go. Anything that connects one side to the other is a potential transmission route. This sort of thing... PS: My son has just started a degree in Acoustical Engineering so ask again in three years and he might tell me its all wrong ?

That looks like your best bet so far.

Powerline adaptors (network over mains) have a theoretical range up to around 300m but are very dependent on the topology of the mains wiring. If the two cabins get their mains from a point close to or in your house it might be worth trying. If they have their own separate grid connection then no. I'm using these to get wifi in an outbuilding. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0746HVPMC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 One box in my house near the CU, other box plugged into a socket in the outbuilding provides a wifi access point.

I'm not an electrician but my understanding is that where a wire goes through a hole in a rafter or batten the hole must be 50mm from the surface. However elsewhere I believe it can be closer to the surface. Even in contact with the top of the plasterboard. For example downlight transformers are frequently just pushed through the hole and rest on the plasterboard. So the depth of batten you need depends which direction your wires run.. Then = Than.

I believe that wires should be 50mm deep where they go through rafters/battens but there is no requirement between rafters/battens.

If the planning breech occurred 20-30 years ago I'm pretty sure the planners cannot take enforcement action. Normally they have 4 years for a regular breech and 10 years for a breech involving a change of use. Not sure if the rules are different for a flat. So first off do NOT demolish the kitchen without getting this sorted as that would probably reset the clock. I would find a planning consultant to check our understanding is correct and if so apply for a certificate of lawfulness on the grounds they can no longer take enforcement action. At the same time ask them to confirm its lawful to do the work you want or even demolish and rebuild it.

+1 We have 80mm of PIR under our UFH and would put in more if building again.

Yes sure you can still use them...if you grind off any laitance. Its just a job I'd avoid if possible.

Still have to remove the laitance (according to the instructions) because its a weak layer. It's not recommended for wet rooms either but perhaps that doesn't matter. https://www.tilemasteradhesives.co.uk/file/TDS-AnhyFix.pdf

Sorry ebay is only collecting it on orders under £135.

Didn't i read somewhere that ebay are collecting VAT? Would you be ordering from the UK or German Ebay site?

In the good old days you could ask a planning officer for his opinion. These days they want a fee. You can pay for "Pre Application advice" but the only way to be sure 100% certain it comes under Permitted Development is to apply for a certificate of lawfulness with drawings. Then you get a formal written verdict that it does or doesn't need Planning Permission. Bear in mind there are other restrictions on permitted development such as the need for obscure glass in side facing windows and retention of a strip of roof below the dormer. You should read this guide to be sure you got them all covered.. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permitted-development-rights-for-householders-technical-guidance

https://www.knaufinsulation.co.uk/products/glass-mineral-wool/earthwool-dritherm-32-ultimate "Knauf Insulation DriTherm 32 Cavity Slabs are non-combustible, Glass Mineral Wool cavity wall insulation slabs. "

We have a 12/13 year old Grant Vortex. Originally 40kW but fitted smaller jets that reduce power slightly and improve efficiency a % or so. Feeds a TS and UFH. Has performed faultlessly. I'm happy to wait until the cost of oil makes it cheaper to switch to ASHP.

Appear near identical. Same insulation properties.. Found a thread here.. http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11199

Understood.. I'm wondering if for some reason the super capacitor doesnt store or provide enough power to close the valve leaving it stuck open. I can think of a few reasons.. Perhaps the valves are stiff, needing too much power? Perhaps stats that switch on/off too frequently discharge the capacitor? So when its needed to turn off the actuator it runs out of energy? If I was designing auto balancing actuators I would give them three wires so they have a permanent live available to power the motor when turning off the valve. But that would mean they aren't direct drop in replacements for standard actuators.

Don't get carried away, I was asking _if_ there had been a measuring error. Not stating there was one.

Would be interesting to measure/monitor the voltage on the super cap in normal operation and see what happens when it gets stuck.