Temp

Sorry I've been away from the forum. 13A fuse will work but is too high. I think most heating pumps are <250W so a 3A fuse should be plenty.

The manifold loop pump is needed to circulate water around the floor loops. I suspect without it the return temperature to the boiler might be too high causing it to switch on and off so not delivering 6kW continuously. The pump will eventually be controlled by the room stats and wiring centre which will also open the appropriate actuators. If you want to run the pump without control I would remove the actuator heads so the loops are all on. Turn the mixer down to control the flow temperature. Turn it up gradually to dry the screed. Don't rush it or you will get cracks. Might get them anyway.

+1 If the supply to the manifold is hot, the actuator(s) are open and the pump is running then something is blocking the flow. Two possibilities are.. 1) Sludge in the pipes. How good a job did the plumber do in flushing the system? 2) The mixer/blender (on the left) is faulty. The only other thing I can think of is that the pump was faulty and they put the new one on the wrong way around. Check the arrow on the pump and compare with your other manifold.

I don't think that's true if that bit of your land is highway. Thats why the OP needs to know where the highway boundary is. Some houses own the land to the middle of the road.

I think that's only needed if it's in a Conservation area or it's listed.

OK so in short.. You think their proposed access crosses your land. That's legal if part of your land is public highway. You need to find out. I suggest writing to the highways department enclosing a site plan and ask if they can confirm where the highway boundary lies.

I would contact highways and ask them to confirm in writing that the highway extends across the green land as mentioned in the attached deeds. Then write to the planners stating that you do not need planning permission to form an access onto an unclassified highway which the highways department have confirmed includes the green land. If worried about future come back apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness. On the grounds that that highway extends to your property boundary.

AO were cheapest for appliances last time I looked. Great delivery as well.

So did I pre-Brexit. Now you should be charged UK VAT not German, but you can still claim that back.

They probably only want it for their own delivery trucks.

I think the site is probably too small. 50*200m is about 2.5 acres. https://www.startupdonut.co.uk/start-up-business-ideas/types-of-business/how-to-start-up-a-paintball-centre Although I did Google up some at 12 acres. Google found code of practice from 2016 here mentions rights of way. https://ukpsf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Code-of-Practice-For-Paintball-Site-Operators.pdf You could consider asking a planning consultant for a quote to do a quick look at the site and comment verbally on the chances of someone getting PP for paintballing. A written report would only be worth getting if an application was submitted. The reason I suggested it was unlikely to be dangerous is because if granted permission there would likely be a planning condition attached intended to prevent paint balls leaving the site. That might be by erecting netting. If paint balls were to enter your garden on a regular basis i suspect that would put them in breach of their planning permission or amount to a statutory nuisance. Loss of privacy can be an issue that prevents planning being granted but again it might be addressed by the paintball co erecting fencing. I'm not trying to defend paintballing next to your house, just point out how the paint ball co might try and overcome your perfectly understandable objections.

https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/australia-bans-engineered-stone

Difficult one the comment on. I've only done it once with my kids. I think the noise might bother me but I doubt it's a safety issue. Government policy tends to encourage rural land owners to diversify into other areas. Find out if your council has any similar local policies. Perhaps find out if there are any bats or similar endangered species living there. Google found mixed results... https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/563420/casebook-appeal-case-leisure-entertainment-paintball-games-permitted-ancient-woodland https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/17774373.skirmish-paintball-faces-action-harm-woodland/ You should look for more cases and the reasons others cite for rejection. I also found mention of a document.. "English Nature & European Paintball Federation (1993) Paintball games in woodlands: a guide to good environmental practice, English Nature, Peterborough" Probably worth finding a copy to see what that says.

Faulty foundations apparently... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2548v1dpyo

WPB is available in various grades ranging from absolute cr&p to the best quality boat building marine plywood. Some of the big timber stores sell more than one grade at different prices for the same thickness. Might be worth asking around. I bought some that claimed to be WPB from a big store beginning with W and it delaminated quickly. I suspect there is probably a CE, EN or UKCA standard that the best grades should meet but I haven't bought any for awhile. Plywood is sometimes specified to prevent racking so check with the designer before deleting any.

What I did was lay a flat concrete slab (excavate, compacted hardcore shuttering, sand blind, DPM, concrete), then two courses of engineering bricks, a DPC and timber frame (Mostly 2x4 and 4x4). Then on the outside WBP to prevent racking. A vapour permeable membrane, then vertical battens and horizontal cladding. I used oak boards but T&G also works. I extended the battens and cladding down over the bricks stopping about 25-30mm above the concrete. Gravel around the outside of the slab to reduce splashing. Ideally water running down the cladding would drip onto the gravel not the top of the slab but the engineering bricks keep out any water that does. The roof is pitched and tiled but flat roof with fall also possible. The front of my building has a stable like roof overhang to shelter the door. The wall plate of the timber frame was bolted down to the slab. I did this by pushing "bolts" made from threaded rod and nuts into the wet concrete slab. These were tall enough to go through the two courses of bricks and the wall plate, big washers and nuts. Caution: I tripped over and nearly impaled my head on one of these "bolts". After that I put 50mm plastic pipe off cuts over them. Scary moment. I also put some electrical duct/pipe in the ground before pouring the slab so that later I could run SWA cable up in through it. I used a so called "garage CU" which has 1 power and 1 lighting breakers. Electrician installed Earth rod etc. The inside was insulated between the frame and another layer of WBP painted white. I wanted it strong due to tiled roof.

We have a similar size utility room. It's slightly more square and 2.8m ceiling. We have a single 3600 lumnen LED batten in the middle. It's one of these... https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B07WMMLJFZ?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_title Plenty bright enough. The only issue with that particular model is it's designed to be linked together so the power goes in via a socket on the end rather than just a hole on the top. I think you will be fine with two panels around 2000-2500 lumens each.

What we need is an organisation with teeth to set and enforce standards and quality in the building industry. Perhaps with powers to fine or disqualify builders and trades?

Depends how many you have to do. It's not my favourite job cutting and refilling but if the plasterer can't be put off it's not a nightmare. What does the electrician say? A bigger issue is running fat cables for an electric hob after the whole house is plastered.

No thats not what I meant at all. I'm not suggesting leaving a void. You need to know how much existing insulation you have above the rafters. Then put no more than half that between them. Suppose you had 100mm of PIR above the rafters already. Then you shouldn't add more than 50mm between them. That way the total is 150mm with 1/3rd (50mm) between and 2/3rds (100mm) above. As others have said it should really be no more than 1/3rd of the total R value but 1/3rd of the thickness is probably close enough. The vapour barrier would normally go under the rafters before you put the plasterboard back up but if you have downlights that are recessed into the plasterboard they would put holes in it. Consider replacing them with surface mounted LED lights and seal the holes where the wires come through.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/heat-pump-planning-rules-overhaul-noise-pollution-fears/ Rules on installing heat pumps are to be overhauled to limit noise pollution, under government plans. The Government aims to install 600,000 heat pumps a year from 2028, and offers households a grant of up to £7,500 to do so. But local planning authorities “would not have capacity to cope with the increase in planning applications and noise complaints that would arise under current planning requirements” as the rollout expands to built up areas, according to a report from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It found that one in four people living near a heat pump found the noise to be intrusive, with complaints “usually centred around disturbed sleep”. Last month the Telegraph revealed that millions of British homes could be unable to install a heat pump without breaking noise rules, as most available models were too loud to meet guidelines for noise disturbance. The report recommended removing the limit on the size of the heat pump unit to encourage manufacturers to prioritise noise reduction over aesthetics. It also urged regulators to provide clear guidance on what is meant by a “solid noise barrier” which must be in place between a heat pump and a neighbouring property, suggesting that hedges or “a fence with gaps” would not be sufficient. It also said installers needed to take into consideration “acoustic reflections from surrounding surfaces” such as walls that “can increase the resulting noise level at a neighbouring property”. However the report also said sound emission limits “constrain” the heat pump roll out, “particularly where there is a higher density of properties such as blocks of flats and terraced houses”. It recommended removing a planning rule which states a heat pump must be at least one metre from a property boundary, a restriction experts have previously warned would restrict large numbers of terrace homes with less space from installing a device. Jeremy Hunt committed to scrapping the rule in November’s Autumn Statement.

Yes with a warm roof all the insulation should be above the joists. It is possible to put some insulation between them as well but you should really get a condensation risk analysis done. I suppose some insulation manufacturers might do this free? I've got it in my head that there is a rule of thumb which says no more than 1/3rd between, leaving 2/3rds above. So if there was 100mm above now, you shouldn't add more than 50mm between. However I cant remember where I got this from. Adding a vapour barrier before replasterboarding might be worth doing but don't penetrate it with downlighters etc.

If you can afford it I would go for Engineered wood. The best are 14mm plywood with 7mm finish layer so 21mm overall. The top layer is thick enough that it can be resanded the same number of times as solid wood (eg until the T &G fails). Can even get it ready finished with hardware oil. Shop around as its colour and quality varies. Can go for wider boards with less risk of cupping.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/south-london-builder-beats-hmrc-1m-tax-battle/ South London builder beats HMRC in £1m tax battle Gary Ives accused of flipping properties without paying dues on his profits A builder from South London has won a £1m battle with HMRC after being accused of flipping properties without paying tax. Gary Ives renovated and sold three family homes between 2008 and 2013, but the tax authority said these activities amounted to a trade and therefore the profits should be liable for income tax. HMRC claimed he owed more than £712,000, plus penalties of over £283,000 – a total of almost £1m. It put forward a second argument that – if Mr Ives was not carrying on a trade – then capital gains tax should apply. Homeowners do not have to pay capital gains tax on their main house under “principal private residence” (PPR) relief, but the tax authority believed the properties purchased were not family homes. Had it won this argument, Mr Ives would be charged around £400,000 in capital gains tax and around £160,000 in penalties. Stephanie Sharpe, of accountancy firm Moore Kingston Smith, said: “HMRC had decided at an early stage that the properties were not lived in by the Ives family or if they had lived there, it was as temporary occupation and not as a family home. “The HMRC officer seemed to be influenced by the fact that Mr Ives had described his self-employment as ‘builder’ on his tax return, but he mainly undertook plastering and odd job work, not major property renovation.” Mr Ives told the tribunal that the type of large family house he and his wife wanted was always out of their price range or did not exist, so they set out to create the perfect family home instead. However, financial difficulties and the desire to live close to family meant the couple sold up shortly after. “The broad facts are that each purchase was intended to be a permanent home for the family, but circumstances got in the way,” Ms Sharpe added. In 2008, Mr Ives and his wife bought the first property in Fulham as two flats for £760,000. A large amount of work was needed to make the place hospitable, so Mr Ives and his son moved in soon after completion to start the renovations. His wife remained in their previous property. However, the renovation was meant to be funded by the proceeds from the sale of this former family home – and when a sale did not come through, the couple ran into financial difficulties. The couple sold the property as a single dwelling in 2010 for £1.8m and then bought another house in Wandsworth in a partly renovated state. Mr Ives told the tribunal it soon became obvious the purchase was a “disaster”. Traffic noise and a lack of parking drove them to sell up earlier than intended, he said. They sold it in 2012 for £1.5m, having bought it for £750,000. A third property – also in Fulham – was much better suited to them, the tribunal heard. They bought it for £1.7m in 2012. However, by the time it was renovated, their adult children had decided to leave Fulham and the couple decided to move in order to be close to them and their grandchildren. They sold it for £3.25m at the end of 2013. A number of friends and family members gave evidence that the Ives had furnished the properties, as well as holding dinner parties there and hosting guests overnight. The tribunal concluded that the properties were not purchased with a view to make a profit in the short term, but had been bought as family homes and therefore the transactions were not trading in nature. It then decided that Mr Ives was using the properties as his residence and therefore no capital gains tax was due. Jeremy Johnson, of inTax, the firm that instructed Mr Ives’ lawyer, said they had encountered a number of cases like this over the years. “We have also dealt with cases where HMRC has challenged whether an individual has occupied a property to the extent that private residence relief would be due on any capital gain,” he said. “However, in relation to property, HMRC is frequently also interested in undeclared income or gains on second homes or rental properties.” He added: “We weren’t overly happy about needing to take this to tribunal, as it was very stressful for our client, but we are pleased that our client got the right result.” An HMRC spokesman said: “We are reviewing the tribunal’s decision and considering next steps.”