the_r_sole

Members
  • Content Count

    918
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

the_r_sole last won the day on August 3

the_r_sole had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

234 Excellent

1 Follower

About the_r_sole

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. How long ago were the permissions obtained? Someone is going to have to redo the drawings and design to your specifications, it's pretty much starting from scratch unless you have the raw cad files to edit in terms of what information is needed for submissions, did they have an engineer on board already etc?
  2. Tbh I find that really strange... I'd always want to be involved from start to finish with any project, going through the technical design stage you are still making key design decisions on how things are put together, if anything this is a more critical stage for making sure the design intention is carried through to construction. Maybe it's just me!
  3. the issue you have is that you aren't commissioning someone to start and finish the project, you are only employing a series of sub contractors directly (and doing some of the work yourself) which lands you in a an uncomfortable space contractually, I think even the RIBA domestic one is set up for a main contractor. It really comes down to exactly what is acceptable to your lender, they may want a quantity surveyor involved to value the works for drawdowns etc...
  4. I don't think either of those contracts would be suitable for a "self build" as you really need a main contractor to undertake and be responsible for all the work and the work of subcontractors up to and post completion, insure the site, take possession of the site etc. The homeowner contracts might be more suitable for your purposes. You can't be client and contract administrator for minor works as it relies on a third party intermediary to make decisions, if you were employer and contract administrator you would certainly have a conflict of interests in any decision making relating to extensions of time or additional costs!
  5. Is that your house design? looks really sweet give us more!!
  6. You could do a non material amendment to your planning permission to do those works during the construction phase. If it's something that falls into permitted development then it shouldn't give you any problems
  7. You've framed that in a very particular way - first of all, I don't think it's ever used for "not adding sufficient insulation" - that would imply that the heat loss of the construction is unacceptable, however many people get to the point where the difference in heat loss between a 0.11 and a 0.12 wall isn't worth the extra investment in terms of the capital costs are never repaid over the lifetime cost of the building.
  8. Not sure they always appear on the portal? Did they get a confirmation letter from the local authority validating the application and confirming timescales?
  9. £1k + VAT!!? It would seem they might not have assessed the liability properly...
  10. I once had a very wealthy client install one of these (not a quooker but same idea) and it caused no end of problems, I'm not sure how much fizzy water a person needs but you could get a few years supply for the cost of the tap without worrying about adjusting the gas all the time...
  11. tbh, I'm not sure that would enhance anyone's portfolio! I didn't really get what the rationale was for the angles, they just kinda shrugged it off by saying it would be interesting to look at?! Your home made perfect drives me absolutely crazy, I actually stopped watching it. The people on it, always set this mind bending brief, where they want something out-there, a new way of living etc for 20k, then they pick the safe option which doesn't answer the brief they set! It happens all the time and I'm not criticising anyone for it, but the irish boy must get driven mad when he designs to the brief and gets dropped when they actually have to commit to building it...
  12. usually the engnieer will consult with SEPA to come to a solution for it, although discharge to a watercourse is generally acceptable to them so can't see what the issue is? The SEPA local offices are one of the few authorities who are actually straight forward to deal with, is this just a planning condition or is it on the consultees response to your application?
  13. Without the context of what you're trying to argue/prove its hard to have any discussion on this; yes it's entirely possible to build a house which burns down and complies with domestic regs, the regs related to fire are there to allow safe escape for occupants, not to stop the thing burning down - and the spread of fire ones are there to stop the fire spreading to other properties...
  14. Clearly I'm missing something here - the sketch shows the glass flush with the deck, and 150mm legs holding the decking to that level - why can't you use smaller legs and use the space for insulation without changing any of the levels on the sketch?