Jeremy Harris

To me unfortunately it sounded very empty, the back side covering exercise, as I don't understand what character means with regards to our stretch of the street where all houses are set back from the road. I think this may well be quite critical. Our planners were obsessed with the "street scene" and wanted drawings to show the relative heights of our proposal to the neighbouring properties, including those behind up on the hill. I got the distinct feeling from reading the previous planning applications that understanding how the proposal would fit in was key, and that some of the consultees, in particular, just couldn't read a drawing properly (hence the scale models I ended up making - which showed the relationship with the surroundings well). It may well be that you can provide some street scene views that show the minimal impact and then argue that the planners have no reason for refusal on those grounds. There is (or should be) a presumption for approval, UNLESS there is a clear breach of planning policy or guidance, so that's worth remembering when making any argument.

If you want any info on wells/boreholes, pumps, water treatment, pressures, filters, losses, flow rates etc, just ask. I had a stack of problems finding companies that had a clue about how to do this in the UK. It's commonplace in the US for household supplies to come from wells, but relatively uncommon here, where most wells/boreholes are only used for farm irrigation. As a consequence, I ended up wasting a lot of time with UK companies, and ended up getting lots of really good information from a US forum that had a section on wells and water treatment. Some of the guys there gave me a lot of help (bit like this place in many ways) and I put together a system that works very well. We have two 300 litre pressure vessels (could really get away easily with one, but I needed the extra volume to back flow the sand filter - there is now a low backwash rate filter media available that would have got around this and saved needing the second pressure vessel. The system I use is to inject ozone into the pumped water feed (a typical down hole pump will deliver over 9 bar, less head and pip losses) to cheap (less than £100) contact vessel, where the iron nd manganese, plus a bit of hydrogen sulphide, are very quickly oxidised out, with the useful side effect that the ozone disinfects the water and oxidises many other potential contaminates that could make the water smell or taste unpleasant), then the water flows to two parallel connected 300 litre pressure vessels, at a regulated pressure of between 4 bar maximum and 3 bar minimum, and then it flows to a sand filter, that filters out the oxidised iron, manganese etc particles. Every 4 days a simple timer just backwashes the sand filter at around 2 am in the morning to flush away the small particles of iron and manganese oxides that it's trapped. Once set up it's maintenance free, and just supplies water on demand to the house at between 3 and 4 bar, with no chlorination etc to spoil the taste.

To enable BuildHub users to find things a little quicker, and in discussion with the admins, the blog has been tidied up to allow access to the links as below. Also included are the links to the useful information such as the energy usage spreadsheet to download. The current blog has also been updated so this should allow you to see the latest content as its posted. Blog Posts Part Forty Six - Over-thinking things - Part Two http://www.mayfly.eu/2017/01/part-forty-six-over-thinking-things-part-two/ Part Forty Five - Architects and consultants, what are they likely to cost and can you save money by doing some of this yourself? http://www.mayfly.eu/2017/01/part-forty-five-architects-and-consultants-what-are-they-likely-to-cost-and-can-you-save-money-by-doing-some-of-this-yourself/ Part Forty Four - Over-thinking things - Part One http://www.mayfly.eu/2016/12/part-forty-four-over-thinking-things-part-one/ Part Forty Three - Completion and getting the VAT back http://www.mayfly.eu/2016/12/part-forty-three-completion-and-getting-the-vat-back/ Part Forty Two - Water Treatment http://www.mayfly.eu/2016/07/part-forty-two-water-treatment/ Part Forty One - Hot water at last http://www.mayfly.eu/2015/11/part-forty-one-hot-water-at-last/ Part Forty - Getting into hot water - episode two http://www.mayfly.eu/2015/10/part-forty-getting-into-hot-water-episode-two/ Part Thirty Nine - Getting into hot water - episode one http://www.mayfly.eu/2015/10/part-thirty-nine-getting-into-hot-water-episode-one/ Part Thirty Eight - Heating and cooling controls http://www.mayfly.eu/2015/09/part-thirty-eight-heating-and-cooling-controls/ Part Thirty Seven - A long tale about water and life http://www.mayfly.eu/2015/08/part-thirty-seven-a-long-tale-about-water-and-life/ Part Thirty Six - Winter energy consumption for heating http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/12/part-thirty-six-winter-energy-consumption-for-heating/ Part Thirty Five - Hot water and LEDs http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/12/part-thirty-five-hot-water-and-leds/ Part Thirty Four - Things are going slowly and some hot water stuff http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/11/part-thirty-four-things-are-going-slowly-and-some-hot-water-stuff/ Part Thirty Three - System details and the bathrooms http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/09/part-thirty-three-system-details-and-the-bathrooms/ Part Thirty Two - More on MVHR and nasty smells http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/07/part-thirty-two-more-on-mvhr-and-nasty-smells/ Part Thirty One - It's slow going on your own http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/07/part-thirty-one-its-slow-going-on-your-own/ Part Thirty - MVHR details http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/04/part-thirty-mvhr-details/ Part Twenty Nine - Some details that may be of interest http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/04/part-twenty-nine-some-details-that-may-be-of-interest/ Part Twenty Eight - 90% finished so only 90% to go http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/04/part-twenty-eight-90-finished-so-only-around-90-left-to-do/ Part Twenty Seven - The need for a sense of humour http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/02/part-twenty-seven-the-need-for-a-sense-of-humour/ Part Twenty Six - The scaffolding comes down at last http://www.mayfly.eu/2014/01/part-twenty-six-the-scaffolding-comes-down-at-last/ Part Twenty Five - More larch, or "your lupins or your life...." http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/12/part-twenty-five-more-larch-or-your-lupins-or-your-life/ Part Twenty Four - Number One - The Larch http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/12/part-twenty-four-number-one-the-larch/ Part Twenty Three - Odds and ends and first fix http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/12/part-twenty-three-odds-and-ends-and-first-fix/ Part Twenty Two - Roofing and MVHR and a quick video http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/11/part-twenty-two-roofing-and-mvhr-and-a-quick-video/ Part Twenty One - Putting in the insulation http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/11/part-twenty-one-putting-in-the-insulation/ Part Twenty - The windows and doors are in - almost http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/10/part-twenty-the-windows-and-doors-are-in-almost/ Part Nineteen - Sorting out details http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/10/part-nineteen-sorting-out-details/ Part Eighteen - A House in 4 1/2 days http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/10/part-eighteen-a-house-in-4-12-days/ Part Seventeen - Day One of the build http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/10/part-seventeen-day-one-of-the-build/ Part Sixteen - Fun and games in the mud http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/10/part-sixteen-fun-and-games-in-the-mud/ Part Fifteen - The site is finally ready http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/09/part-fifteen-the-site-is-finally-ready/ Part Fourteen - Things can only get better http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/09/part-fourteen-things-can-only-get-better/ Part Thirteen - Unlucky for some http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/08/part-thirteen-unlucky-for-some/ Part Twelve - Minor disaster strikes http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/08/part-twelve-minor-disaster-strikes/ Part Eleven - Fracking - only kidding........ http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/08/part-eleven-fracking-only-kidding/ Part Ten - Out of the ground http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/08/part-ten-out-of-the-ground/ Part Nine - Bloody services http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/07/part-nine-bloody-services/ Part Eight - The Wall http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/07/part-eight-the-wall/ Part Seven - Pouring concrete http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/07/part-seven-pouring-concrete/ Part Six - There we were, digging this hole.... http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/07/part-six-there-we-were-digging-this-hole/ Part Five - Trials and tribulations http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/06/part-five-trials-and-tribulations/ Part Four - Services http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/04/part-four-services/ Part Three - The devil is in the detail - episode one http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/04/part-three-the-devil-is-in-the-detail-episode-one/ Part Two - The joy of planning http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/04/part-two-the-joy-of-planning/ Part One - In the beginning http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/04/part-one-in-the-beginning/ Introduction http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/01/intro/ Other links Energy Consumption http://www.mayfly.eu/2017/03/energy-consumption/ Domestic electrical installation earthing and circuit protection - part 2 http://www.mayfly.eu/2017/02/domestic-electrical-installation-earthing-and-circuit-protection-part-2/ Downloads from the top menu http://www.mayfly.eu/2017/02/downloads-from-the-top-menu/ Domestic electrical installation earthing and circuit protection - part 1 http://www.mayfly.eu/2017/01/domestic-electrical-installation-earthing-and-circuit-protection-part-1/

What's the pH of your well water? Provided it's not higher than about 8, then getting the manganese out is easy, just oxidise it. I use an ozone oxidation system to reduce both the ferrous iron and manganese in our borehole water and it's extremely effective. Not that expensive to fit, either, and an easy DIY job. Compared with paying ongoing water charges it was a no-brainer for us to have a borehole drilled and pay out for the parts needed to treat the water. The running costs are a fair bit less than mains water costs here, plus we have better water quality, with no chlorination.

It's hard to tell from those photos, but ideally the lower chord of every joist should be restrained so that it is held tight relative to the wall, A tiny bit of horizontal movement at the lower chord translates into a fairly large vertical deflection, in the centre and I suspect that the joist is not held rigidly enough at the bottom, and this could be the primary cause of the problem. It's hard to be sure without a close up of a joist end, though.

My gut feeling is that the problem is with the joist hangar detail. It's critical that the lower chord of the joist is properly supported in the correct type of joist hangar. The standard details given on drawing PSD05 here: http://www.mitek.co.uk/Products/Posi-Joist/Standard-Details/ is critical. Note the key note to not trim the lower chord - this is the super critical bit, as it ensures that the lower chord of the Posijoist can take the compressive load without movement.

FWIW, I have a spreadsheet somewhere comparing at least three insulated slab systems, from when we were looking at options. One was Kore (the system that MBC normally use), one was Supergrund and another was IsoQuick. I think there was also another company, too, but I can't recall their name. Some used a lot more concrete than others, in essence they used a simpler design without local reinforcement for any internal or edge loads. IIRC, one use 250mmm of reinforced concrete. The key thing with all of them was that when you add up all the costs (and they are not easy to compare, as they all quoted on a different basis) they all cost about the same. Some had more cost in labour and steel, some had more cost in concrete, but all were within about 10% of each other in total cost. In the end our decision was based on the tie up between Kore and MBC, that meant the foundation would be installed by MBC, and for me that was the clincher, as it removed a massive amount of risk. Had we used a different foundation company to the frame company I could see that we may well end up with an argument if the accuracy wasn't spot on, and it just seem a lot easier to use one supplier for both.

Generally the cheapest is Gallup 360, but beware that this is an "agricultural grade" version, that needs more dilution that Round Up or Weedol as sold in garden centres etc as it is far more concentrated. It's the same stuff (glyphosate plus surfactant) and a 5 litre container will dilute to enough to cover over over 1 ha for normal use on grass-like weeds (around 2 1/2 acres). Often the cheapest place to buy Gallup 360 is Ebay, as I've found the local agricultural suppliers are sometimes a bit iffy at selling it over the counter, as I believe Gallup have some stipulation that it's and "industrial use only" herbicide.

The main thing with glyphosate (Round Up etc) is that the plant has to be actively growing when sprayed to work effectively. If sprayed on dormant plants then it won't be as effective. As Dave says, it works better if plants aren't cut down first usually, the exception to that being using it in Spring, when cutting dormant plants and then spraying new growth is extremely effective, as new growth has a much great uptake rate than old growth. The other point worth noting is that glyphosate is pretty safe when used so that any spray falls on soil, where it breaks down after a few days, but it's highly toxic to marine life, so needs to be sprayed well away from any water course, ditch etc. It doesn't break down in water at all, so remains toxic to marine life, both plant and animal, for a long way downstream.

Are the local authority OK with that? I found that they were very restrictive when it came to assigning a name to our new build. They wouldn't let us use several names that were related to the local area, for example, because of apparent confusion for delivery services. So. we're on Mill Lane, but were not permitted to use the word "Mill" in the house name. Similarly, the land our house is on used to be an old orchard (Mill Orchard) but we were forbidden to use the name "Orchard". To add insult to injury, when we did come up with a name that the street and house naming department were happy with, they charged us £125 (I think) in order to make it official...................

Very true, it applies to pretty much everything related to VAT. TBH, I doubt HMRC would even look at a garage door VAT receipt to see if there was anyway to split out the electric opener, as when we were looking around for one I specifically wanted a manual door, and simply couldn't find one in the size and type we wanted. It seems that electric operation is getting to be pretty much standard for some types of garage door, now.

Mine was, they just zero rated the whole supply and installation. In my case there was no manual option available for the door we chose, anyway, all of the models in that range were electrically operated.

If it is integrated into the cold and hot water tap, then VAT can be reclaimed, if it's a stand-alone, boiling water only, tap then VAT cannot be reclaimed. We had to get this cleared up with the VAT helpline when doing our VAT return, and our Itho integrated boiling/hot and cold tap was not classified as a kitchen appliance, and so was eligible for the VAT reclaim.

It can be blown into huge voids. Our walls are twinwall, so the insulation is blown into the hollow space between the whole wall width and height.

It's not blown in by a truck, just a small machine. This blog entry shows the cellulose being blown in to our walls: http://www.mayfly.eu/2013/11/part-twenty-one-putting-in-the-insulation/ The bare minimum in a roof is probably around 300mm, the thickness we have in our walls. 400mm would be better with a vaulted roof, though, as you need deep rafters anyway and you also need better insulation because of the increased insulated area compared with a cold roof and insulated ceiling.

There's no Celotex or PUR foam anywhere in our build. The roof insulation is cellulose. effectively ground up old newspapers treated and blown in under pressure with a blower machine. Celoetex and all PIR/PUR foams are poor acoustically and have a low decrement delay, and I wouldn't use either in the walls and roof of a house, personally.

I think your best bet might be to a roof build up like ours. Practically the whole of the South elevation of out roof has built-in solar panels, so potentially just as noisy a steel sheet, I suspect. From the inside out, our vaulted ceilings are structurally made up like this: - skimmed plasterboard - 50mm deep service void, supported on 50 x 50 battens aligned with the rafters - VCL taped and nailed behind 50 x 50 battens - Composite rafters, hung from a laminated timber ridge beam, that consist of 38 x 89 studs, nailplated with a 10mm thermal break to the lower chord of a 302mm deep I beam joist used as a ridge-hung rafter. - 22mm OSB3, nailed to the outside of the roof as both sarking and the airtight layer. - 50 x 25 counter battens nailed in line with the rafters on top of the sarking boards. - a layer of Aerotop vapour permeable, non-tenting membrane, laid to drape over the counter battens. - 50 x 25 roofing battens laid at the correct pitch for the in-roof solar panels and the surrounding slates. Finally, the key element, the insulation is 400mm of blown in cellulose insulation, that completely fills the void between the internal VCL and the external sarking board. This is not only a reasonably good insulator (the U value is around 0.1 W/m2.K) but is also has a nice long decrement delay, so is a great aid to comfort and heat control and, being fairly dense, it's an excellent sound insulator, too.

If you make the new flat roof a fibreglass one it will practically last forever. I helped a friend lay one on his garage, using a kit from Cornish Fibre Sports (now CFS since they've been online: http://www.cfsnet.co.uk/acatalog/CFS_Catalogue__FLAT_ROOFING_21.html ) at least 35 years ago, and last time I saw him it still looked as good as the weekend we put it on.

I found that if you hunt around you can usually find a plastic tray that will be the right sort of size. The ones made for gardening like this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Garland-Garden-Trays-Various-Sizes-Types-Colours-Plastic-Hydroponic-Greenhouse/131800494006?_trkparms=aid%3D555019%26algo%3DPL.BANDIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20151005190705%26meid%3D1b04e6e4aff2486f848526df591e0ac3%26pid%3D100506%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26&_trksid=p2045573.c100506.m3226 are often a good starting point. You can usually fit a small tank fitting and run a drain from them or fit a water level alarm, as I've done in the water treatment plant shed, or do both, so you have a warning of a leak as well as somewhere for the run off to go.

If you follow the standard details given by the joist manufacturers, like these, for example: 04 Standard Details.pdf , then you can't go far wrong. Problems arise when composite joists like this are treated in the same way as solid timber joists, without regard for the differences in the way they need to be supported, both at the ends and when fitted over the top of internal support beams or walls.

In terms of the physics of stiffening a beam, ideally what you want to do is: 1. Increase the area moment of inertia (not easy, as with Posijoists 99% of this is determined by the section and spacing of the top and bottom members - the metal webs or any noggins make next to sod all difference to it). 2. Alter the pre-camber, to balance the compression and tension loads in the top and bottom members under the dead load. 3. Change the end restraints to reduce the freedom of movement they have. As a worked example, take a 4.5m long Posijoist of the same dimensions as the ones in question, and, using Beamcalc, look at the deflection under a fairly standard distributed load of 1000N/m for two different end restraint types: Simply restrained ends: centre deflection = 4.7mm, peak bending stress in top and bottom chords = 50%, average shear stress = 3% Fixed ends, both top and bottom chords rigidly supported: centre deflection = 2.8mm, peak bending stress in top and bottom chords = 50%, average shear stress = 3% So, just by making the ends of the Posijoists more rigidly fixed, we've roughly halved the centre deflection for the same load condition. This illustrates pretty well why the end restraint can make a substantial difference to the overall centre deflection and why it is is critical that this type of composite joist be properly fixed to the walls.

You can also pre-camber Posijoists to a small degree after fitting, by packing the ends of the lower members out by a tiny amount. A lot depends on the end fixings, but provided both the end fixings and wall construction are up to it then packing out the ends of the lower members, perhaps with an Acro in the centre to induce the pre-camber, should work. What this does is increase the compressive load in the lower Posijoist member, and so stiffen up the whole joist against bending loads. One key thing with Posijoists is that if you are going to use them near their design limits then the end constraints become more critical. The upper member is always in tension, so has to be secured very tightly to the wall so that is cannot pull away inwards under load at all, and the lower member is always in compression, so must be held tight to the wall or fixing so that it has no room to move outwards. We're talking very small movements here - a mm of movement at one of the member ends will be several mm of deflection in the centre under load.

Yes, it would. If the joists have been pre-cambered to the anticipated dead load, as per the spec (and I doubt they were), then measuring the static deflection in the centre of the room, i.e. the distance the centre is lower than the edges, should give an indicator. If the joists were pre-cambered then there should be near-zero deflection, if they weren't then I'd expect to see a small deflection, maybe a mm or two in the centre. The other point is the way the Posijoists are restrained at the ends. If they are fixed such that the top and bottom members are firmly secured then the floor will have a lot less deflection than if they are simple bearing on something like a joist hangar. The latter will allow the joist to pivot slightly under load and exacerbate the centre deflection under load.

We have 253mm (PS10) Posijoists at 400mm centres over a wider span than this and the floor is rock-solid. I suspect that you have mid-span deflections that are greater than predicted for some reason, possibly the way the end-restraints are arranged on the joists, possibly because the static load is higher than anticipated, perhaps the joists were not pre-cambered during manufacture to the dead load deflection (a common failing), or maybe the floor boards were not secured as well as they might be. I doubt it's the latter and strongly suspect that it's either the lack of dead load pre-camber or greater freedom at the end attachments (like using joist hangers rather than fixing both members of the Posijoist securely to the structure). Having them at 600mm centres will have exacerbated the problem.

Who on earth has put the rebuild cost at £500k? IIRC, the original build cost was something like £25k. Accepting that there will be a premium if they want it rebuilt more quickly than they originally built it, and that as it was made from "found materials" there will be a premium on finding close approximations to those materials, but there's no way that it can cost 20 times more to rebuild it than it cost to build. I sounds to me that someone has made an error. £50k would seem believable, around double the original build cost, as costs haven't increased massively since they finished building it.