jamieled

Members
  • Content Count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

jamieled last won the day on January 28

jamieled had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

73 Good

About jamieled

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's usually a lot more work treating surface water. We're doing it because even with the extra treatment it's a lot cheaper then putting in a borehole and I can do it myself. If in future we think a borehole might be needed we can re-use some of the filters. It was quite a large estate, I believe part of the problem was the lining of the borehole.
  2. Local authorities in Scotland have an obligation to provide water to private supplies in dry periods. In practice it's Scottish Water that provide the water.
  3. @SuperJohnG, the two companies you've asked for quotes are the two that I most commonly hear about doing this work in Scotland. I can't help much with the rest as while we are not on mains, we used a burn supply. However, as a note of caution I will mention a nearby estate who opted for boreholes, paid similar amounts of money you stated above, and did not get what they were hoping for.
  4. If you paid a main contractor double your estimate for the exact same turnkey house, do you think building control would have double the work? It may be possible to use a QS or similar to provide a professional estimate that they would accept, but it would wipe out any warrant savings. It's difficult to prove the end cost at the beginning and if BC didn't take a standard approach every man and their dog would be trying to claim they were going to build really cheaply simply to reduce their warrant fee!
  5. I think (but am happy to be proved wrong) that they use standard building costs per m2 for the warrant. There are a few discounts if you get certain bits externally certified but they don't add up to much. I too expect to complete for less than the build cost indexed by BC. They will not give you a refund later. Think of it this way - the cost to them is not related to the cost of your build, they just use a per m2 cost as the fairest way of figuring out how much to charge.
  6. I have a small space between my vertical cladding and soffit to allow for ventilation. I have installed insect mesh to prevent any beasties getting in.
  7. jamieled

    Stove

    I was under the impression that the minimum distance to combustibles was mainly to deal with the risk of a chimney fire, at which point the flue would be a lot warmer.
  8. jamieled

    Stove

    Looks really nice, well worth the early planning. That timber is lovely, it's often easy to write off something that just needs a bit of TLC.
  9. @zoothorn due to my cockup I ended up with a load of non-waterproof chipboard exposed for weeks this summer. Water was pissing through the gaps, but it all dried up fine. You'll be fine for a few days for sure.
  10. jamieled

    The roof

    @Thedreamer we just used a couple of universal handsaws. Apparently you can use a recip saw with a cement blade but we didn't have one and weren't keen to shell out. Obviously a bit slower, but then it allows you to catch any mistakes before they go too far!
  11. jamieled

    The roof

    @Cpd thanks, your advice elsewhere on the forum was invaluable as it applies to this stuff just as much as the traditional sheeting.
  12. jamieled

    The roof

    I'm posting this as a single blog entry for a number of reasons. One as it's the biggest bit of work we've done without professional help. Two as sheet roofing seems to be a topic of interest on BH and three because this stuff was hard going, with minimal information available on fitting guidance, so hopefully this might help others. We are using eternit profile 6 sheet roofing. It is fibre cement board and we initially chose it due to some perceived benefits over wriggly tin (principally acoustics, condensation management and durability). Cost wise it seems to come out roughly similar (from what I could tell). One of the biggest differences is in weight. Each cement board sheet is in the order of 55kg. All 54 were manhandled on to the scaffolding, and the roof. Without doubt this is the biggest downside and I'd strongly recommend anyone considering using this stuff to be sure they have a way of moving it safely. Another challenging aspect is the sheet thickness. At around 7mm thick, this means potentially 28mm thickness where 4 sheets overlap. To avoid this, the sheets are mitred, which is a pain to do accurately on a curved sheet. The profiled wavelength and amplitude is greater than on most metal sheeting which when combined with the sheet thickness makes neat fitting around velux quite hard, irrespective of the pre-planning we did. A profile 3 sheet is available which is more similar to traditional metal sheeting. This probably sounds highly negative, but we're pretty pleased with how it looks. We've had a few downpours recently and it's looking quite solid. Still a couple of small bits to complete, but nearly done. As to whether I'd use it again, jury's still out... While it's still fresh in my mind, the other things I'll note are: -there is a right and wrong way to overlap sheets which is not obvious in the eternit guidance. It's not crucial for weatherproofness, but it can make the roof appear bumpy if not done correctly. -eternit helpline was not hugely helpful, but the local reps were definitely worth speaking to and very useful. Anyway, the photos: Above shows the sheet overlaps, with the mitre clearly visible. When the top right sheet is added, this disappears. Above shows the sheet overlap in section, but it also helps illustrates the sheet thickness. Below are a couple of more general shots of the finished product.
  13. @KimBI haven't heard of them and I work in the industry. However, that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things as I tend to work on larger scale flood risk jobs. If you can get some recommendations, all the better. As with all professional services, the key aspect is what you are getting for your money. Are you paying them simply to get an independent rubber stamp of something you already know? Or are they potentially going to inform your design? Flood risk assessments can sometimes give clients an answer they don't want, but a good consultant will be able to help steer you through any problems. A bad one will just write a report assessing the level of risk and leave it up to you as to what to do next. The single biggest area of disagreement is usually when a client expects a flood risk assessment to give a clean bill of health and it doesn't do that. If it were me, I'd want to know the scope of their work, will it completely deal with planning requirements, might you need to do any more complicated assessment if this one turns up something concerning etc...?
  14. The OP is likely to be ok with this approach due to only 4 trees being of concern, but for the benefit of other readers in the future, be aware that felling a large number of trees prior to applying for planning may result in you falling foul of forestry legislation. There was a case in the Cairngorms recently where a developer did this and was prosecuted by the forestry commission (have changed their name now to something else).
  15. We had a lot of trees on our plot - we took out about 80 mature spruce (on condition of replanting). As to the machine, it depends a bit on how you are going about the work. You can get some quite big root plates out with smaller excavators, but it takes a lot of messing about, and unless you already own a smaller machine is unlikely to be cost effective. A 13 ton Hitachi did ours. It depends a bit on the ground as to whether a jcb will work - it would have got stuck very quickly on our site.