jamieled

Some SUD features undoubtedly provide some ecological value - the design guidance directs us to some of the best ways to do that when we put new systems in. As to whether they're counted, probably not unless there is a highly systematic survey going on. LA's don't event want the responsibility of maintaining them, never mind monitoring the bugs. The system is different north and south of the border, but here there is still a barney going on as to who is responsible for these features. Most of the SUDS features near us are not permanently wet (or do not hold water permanently) so I doubt they're providing the same level of value as features or ponds that are.

I will be coming at this from a bit of a biased viewpoint, as I undertake some work on developments (but not for self-build). An alternative explanation to the one you provide would be that certain consultees have consistently had budgets and manpower reduced. Coupled with a reduced technical capability, the onus is now put on the developer to prove there is not a problem, rather than authorities thinking about it for themselves. This has undoubtedly (partly) led to the growth in consultants. I'm not ware of any other data sources. While you may have already considered this, a simple snapshot between two periods will need considered carefully. For example, if you just look at self builds, how much of the additional work now required is down to the nature of the plots available versus a change in actual standards?

True if you want to be able to connect any stove. But if you want to be able to connect a wb direct to an uvc you need to use one specified for this purpose as they have additional safety measures such as quench coils built in.

While that's broadly true, there are a few stoves that can be connected to unvented systems. The essential bit is making sure the stove is designed for this.

As long as your stove is suited to the type of DHW system you have then there are plenty around. Consider boiler stoves, rather than wood burners with jackets as the boiler stoves are far more efficient (take the heat from the flue, rather than the burn chamber). When you say the stove is designed in, is it one of the inset type stoves or is it more a mass heater type thing? One of the more important aspects to consider is the ratio of heat between air and water. Get this wrong and you potentially end up with an overheated house and not enough DHW or a cold house with a lot of hot water. I've seen setups where around 80% of the produced heat goes into hot water, rather than air. This avoids directly overheating the house, and you have a store of hot water to use when you need it (for either heating or hot water). I think if you're using an ASHP, there needs to be a bit more thought as to how the overall system will work together.

We had a different situation with a council roads department although there are some similarities. Our plot borders a public road, and had some fairly old, overhanging and in some cases rotten trees along the verge. For quite a while the council had been chasing the previous owner to do something, partly as a result of local complaints. We knew we'd need to do work, so it was factored into our finances. The council couldn't have been more helpful - we needed traffic management for the cutting and didn't need to pay for permits etc and they came out to site to look at things quite promptly. While this is a different situation, perhaps encouraging the neighbours to complain might help? I wonder whether it's worth trying a different roads council officer, or failing that, simply complain or write to the chief exec summarising the ridiculous situation - I reckon council officers have little ability to deviate from standard practice unless directed by someone higher up.

If it's of any help for comparison, my quote from SSE includes 10m of 95mm Wavecon 4 core for £145.

Thanks for posting - we're planning a similar style build with the I beams and a Glulam ridge, so interesting to see it go up. Hope the next phase goes well.

Yes, the grant is only available if your DNO is SSE unfortunately.

I've spoken to two structural engineers about this for our house and both stated sarking isn't required from a structural point of view. It's main function is additional weatherproofing. I had a quick look at the Scottish regs and couldn't see anything in the structural section about sarking being required.

There are a few 'subsidy free' offshore farms in development although who knows if they'll go ahead. Subsidy free onshore is a lot more viable.

@scottishjohn yep, it's well stickered and now covered. I suspect we'll need to kiln it towards the end, but time will tell.

@Thedreamer , indeed, the trust website is well squirreled away, we only found out about it when the SSE connections quoter mentioned it. Nearly all of our connection is above ground - t off the HV line, new pole, new transformer. Small bit of trenching from the bottom of the new pole to our box (5m) which I've said we'll do ourselves. I've had a couple of chats with SSE but not really made much headway in terms of finding another approach (though the price has come down a bit since we got our original quote). Other than that it's tricky to see where we might save. Most of the work is non-contestable.

@ProDave we had a lot of chat with them. Their policy depends on how they perceive the risk to their lines. If you go to them and ask them to take a tree down, then they'll do it for free if it's in their interests. If it's not, then you either pay them (and they're tree felling costs are extortionate), you pay a contractor with utility arb tickets, or you just DIY.

Since the last blog entry we've been working away at co-coordinating the paperwork for the building warrant . But progress is slowly being made. Last week we heard we've been lucky enough to get a 50% grant towards our grid connection costs, which is a big help. Anyone else who's thinking of applying, feel free to get in touch if you want to know more about it. I think you need to sit within SSE's (North Scotland) area. As part of our build we're removing quite a few conifers, the condition being that we replant with a load of native trees. One of the constraints on this is that the conifers sit quite close to a HV line, in particular within what the DNO call the red zone (where if the tree went the wrong way it would hit the line). For a while it was a bit difficult trying to figure out how we'd get these down, but in the end we were lucky enough to take advantage of a line shutdown by the DNO a couple of weeks ago. So now most of the conifers are down (only a few remaining), we just need to get them extracted. In other tree related news, we also arranged to mill a few of the hardwoods that were felled a year or so ago. Pretty pleased with the results, these will now air-dry and then probably need putting in a kiln just before we use them. Action shot of SWMBO taking it out on a tree: The aftermath: Logs ready to mill: And some of the results:

@ProDave thanks, that's helpful. At the moment we're planning on using structural fibreboard externally that is only ~15mm. I don't need it any thicker as the frame is already wide enough for the target u value. It has the same racking strength as OSB.

I am finalising my building warrant application information. The original wall build up uses an i-beam frame with a structural wood fibre board on the external face. I had planned to do this on both wall and roof. The structural engineer has now asked me why we're not having sarking boards, but I (perhaps in a slightly misinformed manner) assumed that the fibre board could act as sarking. Clearly I need to discuss this with the engineer. I know a few others on here have made use of wood fibre board on external walls, but has anyone used it to replace traditional timber sarking boards?

Have you considered Norscot? Someone suggested them to us, but we're not at that stage yet. Have an outlet in Inverness I think. https://www.norscotwindows.co.uk/windows-doors/window-materials/upvc-windows/

I think some LA's have guidance on this related to privacy - worth checking with yours if you haven't already.

It does seem a bit variable. They seemed happy with us not having a soakaway and I hadn't bothered to prove that one wouldn't work (although it won't due the water table in winter), only that the alternative would meet the regs. Their email to me made no reference to needing to consider a soakaway, only that the discharge from our system needed to meet the relevant standards.

The regulatory agencies tend not have preferences for this sort of thing as they are overly worried about liability. However with a tested treatment plant it's clearly much easier to prove requirements are going to be met. In Scotland SEPA only seem to be concerned with meeting BOD and Ammonia standards with no obvious preference as to how that happens. We have a more unusual setup planned involving an aquatron and reed bed. It was accepted on the basis of us showing the design would meet discharge requirements.

I have seen a couple where the effluent gets treated in a reed bed instead of a leach field. Clearly to do it without pumping requires a certain topography.

In Scotland SEPA still allow you to register a new septic tank.

@JSHarris there are separate private water supply regs in Scotland and I've not yet come across a private supply here that the local environmental health officer didn't want tested at planning application stage (in order to understand what, if any treatment is required). Following construction, it is as you note above - commercial premises or multiple houses on the same private supply that need routine testing . Interesting about the ozone injection - I'll look into it some more as I'd not considered it, but I suspect your supply (in microbiological terms) is a bit healthier than ours. For anyone else needing water testing in Scotland, I'd recommend using the Scottish Water labs. They have a logistics service if you need it for transporting samples (you can just drop off at the labs but there's only two)and it's a lot cheaper than the LA or commercial lab. Our tests were around £50 each for a fairly broad range of parameters.

It may well be possible to bury the drum so I'll have a think. Around here it's a condition of PP that treatment is installed and I think may well be the case nationally as I've done a few private water supply assessments in a professional capacity. In our case it will involve a three stage cartridge filter to remove the bits, an iron filter and a UV filter.