Jeremy Harris

Before going too far down the path of looking at massive cables, do a quick diversity calculation. It's very unlikely that you'll be running all the high current loads at the same time, especially if there's only one or two people working in the workshop at any one time. If I add up all the loads in my workshop, and assume they can all be on all the time, I'd need a cable three times bigger than the one I ran down there. Normal diversity rules aren't really suitable for a one-man workshop, so what I did was work out the highest possible load that could be on at the same time. This turned out to be the compressor, a room heater, all the lights, the metal bandsaw (which can be left running when cutting big lumps of stock) and my big pillar drill. The load then came down to around a third of what it would have been with everything on. Even then I think I was pessimistic, as the compressor could only run for a very short time if I was busy cutting and drilling, so I could probably have safely taken a small hit on voltage drop and assumed around 50% of the compressor load.

I find our cordless Makita mower OK. It's not massively powerful, but does a pretty good job if you remember to cut the grass often, so it doesn't get too long. I like the fact that it uses the same battery packs as all the other Makita tools I have, so I could just buy the bare machine. The only snag is that it uses two battery packs, so I really need to get a twin pack charger.

A quick, and relatively cheap, percolation test would seem to be a good place to start. Once you have an idea as to the permeability of the underlying soil you'll be better able to focus on how to deal with the run-off problem. We fitted a rain water run-off surge storage "tank", 20 Aquacell creates wrapped in terram and buried under the drive. This porous "tank" holds just under 4000 litres of storm water run-off, and allows it to drain away slowly over a longer period, so avoiding any surface water from running off our land and across the lane into the stream. The water ends up in the stream, I'm sure, but because it just seeps away under the lane it's not visible and so complies with the rules.

I agree with the above, and would add that during the one year delay we incurred between making an offer on our plot and actually completing the purchase I had to do a lot of work to satisfy the drainage requirements. We were lucky, in that the nearby stream could be used for the discharge from a sewage treatment plant, but we were prohibited from allowing any rainwater run-off from entering the stream (our site is higher than the stream and the lane). This meant a fair bit of work, including a flood risk assessment that was initially estimated to cost between £4,000 and £6,000. Luckily I found a loophole; there is no requirement for anyone doing a flood risk assessment to demonstrate any qualifications etc in the subject, so I was able to get hold of a lot of public domain information and write one myself (it probably took a month or so to do, though). The planning permission for the proposed house on our plot could not have been built, as the drawings were seriously in error and the site plan boundary errors were massive, showing that a part of the approved house would be on the neighbours land. Had we not spotted this, and had the boundaries corrected prior to purchase, we could have been left with a bit of land with worthless planning permission. Finally, it is very likely that South West Water will not allow a combined sewer connection. They will almost certainly demand that any connection to their system be foul water only, with no rain water run-off component. This means looking very carefully at the ground permeability and making sure, beyond any doubt, that you can make a soak away solution work, one that will handle the higher than normal flow rate that has been mandated in the planning condition. If the soil is impermeable, such as clay, there may well be no way to meet the soak away requirement at all, making the planning permission impossible to comply with.

The leads lock both ends. The charge point end, which has a larger IEC62196-2 connector, usually locks under a flap on the charge point, with just the cable coming out. The car end, either another IEC62196-2 connector, or more commonly a J1772 connector, is lockable, with a release latch that can be locked and so made secure. Someone could cut the thing off with bolt croppers, but the latch is secure enough to prevent pranksters just pulling the plug out. The latch is also the signalling device to turn the charge point off mid-charge. Pushing the connector release latch down (after unlocking it if it's been locked) sends a signal to the charge point to immediately operate the double pole contactor and turn off the power. This is so that the connector is always unpowered when it's plugged in or out.

I don't think we can rely on the accuracy of any BBC report, as they've played fast and loose with facts too many times in recent months to be considered as a reliable source.

It looks like there may be corporate manslaughter charges: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241 Not the most satisfactory approach, in my view. I believe that the individuals involved in making the key decisions that led to the fire should be held personally accountable, and not be able to hide under a corporate umbrella, and so be unlikely to face a prison sentence if found guilty.

Sadly there is no "universal" EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment). Currently there are three main systems, none of which are truly compatible with each other. The most common, and the one that's found on the vast majority of public charge points, is the IEC62196-2 Type 2, usually with either an IEC62196-2 socket, or a tethered lead with a J1772 connector fixed on the end. The next most common is the Tesla-specific Supercharger, which is unique to Tesla and not used by any other manufacturer. Tesla have done a good job of setting up Supercharger public charge points, but only Tesla cars can use them. As a backup, a Tesla can slow charge using a separate IEC62196-2 Type 2 connector, rather than the Supercharger connector, which means the Tesla is compatible with all the IEC62196-2 public charge points, albeit at a slow charge rate. The final standard is CHAdeMO, which is a DC fast charge standard, similar in some ways to the Tesla Supercharger (but not compatible with it, AFAIK), but it's not at all common here in the UK. If you're thinking of getting a Tesla, then look at getting three phase power in, so you can install a home Supercharger, but be aware that this will only charge a Tesla. If you want the closest there is to a "universal" solution, then look at installing an IEC62196-2 Type 2 EVSE, without a tethered J1772 lead and connector, but with an IEC62196-2 socket on the front. That should be pretty future proof. I would strongly recommend installing a 32A unit, which will allow home charging at around 7.3kW or so. The majority of newer EV can accept a 32A charge now (often colloquially referred to as a "7kw" charger), and it very much looks as if the IEC62196-2 connector is going to win out from the other AC charge connector options. Virtually all the non-Tesla public charge points that don't have tethered charge cables (so need you to provide the cable) use the IEC62196-2 connector - in fact I'm pretty sure there are no other AC EVSE sockets in use at public charge points in the UK now.

Three times now I've had to check connections for tightness, after a supposedly competent person signed off the work. I will quickly add that the electrician we used for the main build did a very good job, these three cases were other people. Pretty much every CU I've seen in the past few years has had a prominent notice on it about checking the tightness of connections. If manufacturers feel the need to spell out something so fundamental, then I suspect it indicates there is a widespread problem. The first CU I found with loose connections was by accident. I was playing around with the thermal imaging camera and it showed a hot spot in a small garage CU fitted in the meter box. When I checked it was a couple of hot terminals, where the screws weren't tight. I've since been around and checked and found another few loose screws in the second CU the same chap wired up. If that wasn't enough, I had the CU changed in our old house, as it was an old unit with wired fuses and no RCD, by a different electrician, and after he'd gone I checked and found several slack screws in that one as well.

Good point, if you think that the J1772 EVSE standard may change before you get around to buying an EV, then just putting a hefty cable in place is probably a better bet. In my case I already had a plug-in car, plus I'm pretty sure that J1772 will be around for another decade or so, so I fitted one standard J1772 tethered cable EVSE unit plus one fitted with an IEC62196-2 socket, as fitted to public EVSEs. The argument in favour of fitting an EVSE now, though, is that they are still subsidised. Whether or not that makes sense depends on how long the subsidy is likely to continue. If you want to future-proof, then fitting an EVSE with an IEC62196-2 socket on the front, rather than a tethered J1772 charge lead and connector, guarantees that the unit will be OK for the next 20 years or so at least, probably a lot longer, as the IEC62196-2 charge point infrastructure is widespread in the UK and Europe. Given that the IEC62196-2 socket has been adopted as the standard fixed charge point connector, if, for some reason, EV manufacturers decide to bin the existing J1772 vehicle connector, then the EVSE will still be fine, as the IEC62196-2 connector supports single or 3 phase charging at up to 32A per phase (but realistically, home charging is very unlikely to ever normally exceed somewhere around 7.3kW single phase, because of local grid limitations). 7.3kW equates to roughly 25 miles range per charging hour at the moment.

Good idea. I fitted two charge points, one either end of our drive, a 30A one at one end and a 15A one at the other end. Watch out for cost, though. There are many EVSE options, and Rolec products are good, and that supplier seems to sell them at a reasonable price, but more than Rolec sell direct for Also watch for zero cost offers, as these rely on selling your personal data via a data link in order to pay for the unit, and you may or may not be concerned about the privacy implications, targeted advertising, etc, that may be associated with this. Rolec offer a subsidised install that is good value: http://www.rolecserv.com/ev-charging One of the best quality, low cost, EVSE units are those based on Open EVSE (https://www.openevse.com/ ), a very nicely designed, open source, EVSE design that can be purchased in several different forms. I've purchased parts from this firm: http://evbitz.uk/EVBitz.uk/Welcome.html a few times, when building the EVSE units I use (I've made four EVSE's now - MUCH cheaper than the commercial units!), but their ready built units are too pricey, in my view. There are only about £30 worth of components inside an EVSE box, most of the cost is the case, cable and car connector.

Very true. In 1995 I was driving an XJ-S, that did around 18mpg on a good day. 10 years later, in 2005 I traded in my SLK320, that did around 30mpg, for the then car of the year, a Toyota Prius, that averaged around 56mpg. 12 years on I'm on my third Prius, but this one averages around 130mpg, and over the past few weeks of warm weather hasn't dropped below 160mpg.

Look at the government track record on stuff like this. We had the Code for Sustainable Homes - scrapped We had the Zero Carbon Homes target - scrapped We has big VED incentives for low emissions vehicles, with zero rates for a lot of very low emissions vehicles - scrapped and replaced by a far less incentivising scheme We were supposed to have fuel duty escalation, to increase the price of fule year on year to above the rate of inflation, to reduce emissions - effectively scrapped as it keeps being reset to zero every budget. We had the Green Deal, supposedly to incentivise the fitting of more efficient heating systems etc - Unworkable because it was far too costly and complex. We have seen how daft the RHI and MCS schemes are - neither incentivise reducing energy use, they just add cost to the consumer. I've probably missed a few out, but frankly there are so many dire government intitatives related to reducing emissions that I can't believe this one will be any different. Industry and the market have driven change, not government. Companies like Toyota, with their disruptive technology, in the form of the first very successful hybrid cars, have had a far greater impact than our government.

It looks interesting, very similar in the way it's constructed to an MBC frame, in fact it's almost identical, except for the use of I beams rather than twin studs for the walls. It's worth noting that the air test result was very heavily influenced by having a basement, though. Basements can't leak air, so they make the air test result a great deal better by providing a larger internal volume. The same house without a basement would have a lot worse result, just because the only possible "leaky" bit of a house is the above ground structure.

I once stood in as navigator in a Lancia Fulvia HF1600 on the Forest of Dean rally, when a friend of a friend broke his leg just beforehand. The engine was wonderful, the rest of the car disintegrated around us. By the last stage my seat had collapsed, and was essentially a load of bits of broken metal inside a foam-filled bag, so I was hanging on to the roll cage with one hand whilst trying to read pace notes held in the other. The driver kept telling me to let go of the roll cage, as he'd already rolled the car twice before previously.

I think this is one of the key advantages that Tesla had. They were not a car manufacturer, so weren't locked into the "platform re-use" cycle that dominates all major car manufacturers. This gave them the freedom to design from a clean slate, with the result that they managed to make a very "crash safe" structure, and enhance handling and performance at the same time. Until the major manufacturers get around to developing a true EV platform, we will be stuck with pretty nasty compromise designs, like the new electric Mini, probably one of the daftest ideas in recent years to come from a mainstream manufacturer, outside France...............

There are data in this publication that shows the relative energy consumption by sector: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/573269/ECUK_November_2016.pdf From that document, 40% of energy (in terms of tonnes of oil equivalent - the standard measure) is transport, 29% is domestic, 17% is industry and 14% is the service sector. This means that focussing on transport will give a greater impact than focussing on the domestic sector, which is presumably what's driving this headline-grabbing suggested policy. I personally doubt that the target will be achieved - it will probably be like the zero carbon homes target and be quietly scrapped when no one's watching.............

I have a 5m long aluminium deep section I beam extrusion, that I usually use as a strongback when building small boats, but it's been very useful when used as a straight edge to make a very long spirit level.

In that case then I suspect that it may well be that there's been a misunderstanding, or there are politics at work within the local authority. Never underestimate the influence one or two people can have on the system - I've seen cases first hand where it was blindingly obvious that "undue influence" had been brought to bear. It shouldn't happen, but it can, and in my experience it is very difficult to prove that this is what has happened. A free resubmission, with a clear section included in your new Design and Access Statement that spells out, in words of one syllable, that the access complies with section XXX, paragraph YYY of the planning policy, that the road is category ZZZ or whatever and that the visibility splay requirements have been fully complied with, should do the job. However, as previously mentioned, check to make sure that every single reason for refusal is adequately rebutted. Again, the D&A is the ideal way to do this, as you can include photos, lots of text, etc, that makes it harder for the planners to refuse the application. I'm a big fan of writing a comprehensive D&A with an application, with the proviso that you need to take a bit of care to not make a rod for your own back by including things in it that you might wish to change later, as the D&A may well become a part of the approval!

I've seen that stuff used to repair workshop concrete floors, it's pretty impressive. I have a feeling that something similar is used to patch up concrete pavements, too, but I've no idea what the trade name is.

As an example of the capacity of water to move more heat energy than air, as @Crofter says, here are some numbers that illustrate this (with a bit of playing fast and loose with the terminology - but the comparison is still valid): 100 litres of water that is 20 deg C warmer than the room needs will be able to shift 2,300 W of heat into it. 100 litres of air that is 20 deg C warmer than the room needs will be able to shift 0.67 W of heat into it. To move the same amount of heat with air, rather than water, for a given temperature difference, means moving a volume that is about 3,400 times larger. This also helps explain why an MVHR system can't shift very much heat around.

Kytun is manufactured in Ireland, so should be readily available in NI. We used it, on the recommendation of one of the MBC guys, as I'd not heard about it before. Well worth it, as the finish is very neat plus the slates are secured from the wind at the verge.

I spotted this a few months ago:

It's very, very difficult to get double yellow lines, even when there have been several accidents at a spot that would have been prevented had cars been prevented from parking so as to allow better visibility. We fought for around 15 years to get parking restrictions imposed on the road outside our old house, to no avail. Even when a Discovery hit another car coming out of the adjacent junction and overturned the local authority still won't authorise a parking restriction, and that's despite several requests from the police that having such a restriction would reduce the high accident rate at the junction. Looking at the plans I can see the issue, it is that building to the South of the entrance, that is right on the boundary. The fact that you're living with your parents makes no difference at all, as you're applying for planning permission for a new dwelling, so the planner must assume that means a new family as well, as you could sell the plot as soon as you get PP (that's how they will think, I'm afraid). Personal circumstances very rarely have any weight when it comes to planning policy, you have to make the case within the policy that applies for your local authority area, plus the NPPF. In this case I think you stand a good chance at appeal, but an appeal has to be focussed on the precise reasons given for refusal, and must address those with evidence that will satisfy a planning inspector that the reasons given for refusal are not adequate. There is a presumption in favour of approval in the planning process, even though it seems at times that it's the other way around, so all you need to do is provide enough evidence to undermine the specific reasons for refusal that have been given. You may well benefit from paying for a planning consultant with specific experience of dealing with highways and access issues, as that could prove to be money very well spent. I rarely suggest, or support, paying for help related to self-build, but planning is one area where the inside knowledge that a good planning consultant will have is really worth it. Often planning consultants are former planning officers, and although this shouldn't make any difference, the fact that they may be former colleagues of current planning officers, and probably known to the planning inspector, does seem to make a significant difference.

That road looks pretty straight, plus the pavement looks to be pretty wide, so I'd be surprised if the existing visibility to each side wasn't pretty close to the requirement. Check on your local authority planning website for the planning policy that applies (there should be a reference to it on the Decision Notice), and see what they have to say about the distance from the centreline of an exit on to a highway for that category of road, then draw lines from the distance back from the edge of the road to the centre of the exit, at the distance proscribed, out to the edge of the road for the visibility distance and see what obstacles, if any, are above the minimum height allowed (often around 1m or so) along those lines, or between those lines and the edge of the road.