Bancroft

After putting the 300mm thick concrete slab down we started building up the ICF walls - only for me to note that a SVP was in the wrong place. It comes up about 500mm out of position and half way across an internal doorway... Neither the surveyor or builder have any idea how it happened but it did. Builder and SE are now scratching their heads to see how best to resolve the issue but I thought it might be worth getting some opinions from the experts here. It clearly needs to be moved but I'm wondering what will the best way to do it while still maintaining structural integrity of the slab and insulation? To me, there look to be 2 options: Option 1. There will be 150mm of insulation on top of the slab so the pipe might be able to be hidden within that. But, to contain the pipe within it, it would need a right angle bend and would result in loss of insulation around the pipe run. Option 2. Cutting back into the slab would mean cutting out quite a large area of concrete/rebar and through the DPM to add an additional piece of pipework to come up in the correct position, then resealing the DPM, and adding rebar and fresh concrete back into the hole. Would the loss of insulation around the pipe in option 1 be an issue once screed has gone down and UFH installed? This particular SVP serves the utility room so will only have basin/washing machine waste running through it so should be able to deal with the 90 degree elbow? Would option 2 penetrating the DMP be a point of future weakness, or would a good amount of mastic taping and sealing be sufficient to ward off problems? My feeling is we should fix this properly (option 2) but I can't help thinking that might be creating more problems for the future. Really not bothered about how much work it will be for the builder - it will give him time to reflect on the error of his ways while he sorts it out and (hopefully) won't do it again the future.

Would suspect the product is the difficult basket from the reviewers perspective, i.e. no idea what they are looking at. I suspect this is the key problem as the way they're dealing with it is a real 'computer says no' type response - they can't answer intelligently because they don't know what they're talking about themselves. They have emails from the SE saying that their design has taken into account the full geotech survey and been developed in accordance with NHBC guidelines for the soil types. They have the geotech report itself, They have the architect's drawings. What they don't have is an ounce of common sense.

Yes, that's what we're going on, along with the inputs from SE for drainage runs etc. We've got all the ICF manufacturer info (and have sent it to them) but that's just guidance for how to assemble/use the ICF and isn't a manufacturer's plan. Bloody frustrating.

We took out Protek insurance in January before starting the build. Their rep came and did his first planned visit in early June when we had all the rebar caging done just before the slab pour. No issues highlighted by him when talking to him on site but a few weeks later we've had some clarification requirements arise that need resolving. The first is that they want us to provide a '...manufacturer's design layout...' from the ICF provider. Speaking with the architect, structural engineer, and builder (who is an ICF specialist) none of them have any idea what this is supposed to be. Has anyone come across this before and, if so, how did you respond? The second issue is six months into the project they now insist on a site survey (now that the slab is down and the remaining garden looked like a re-enactment of the Somme). Protek didn't ask for this at the start, the Planners didn't ask for one, the structural engineer didn't ask for one (they were happy with the geotechnical report we provided), and Building Control didn't ask for one. I've asked for exactly what it is that they want but Protek say they can't answer my question because a) they don't provide any advice or guidance, and b) they're just passing on what the Auditor has asked for and have no additional information - but won't give me the Auditor's details. I'm loathed to go out and randomly commission another report only to find it isn't what they want. Anyone had experience of similar with Protek (or other insurers)?

Keter? I was talking about Paulk workbenches - Can make them pretty much any size you like. Agree with you about the number of holes versus number used. But, on that odd occasion they do come in handy.

You can actually buy work surfaces already drilled for 20mm dogs - I bought one as a spare for my Festool worktop. Relatively cheap and you can then add whatever legs you want. Alternatively, if you want to really up your game do a Google search for Paulk workbenches. You can get plans for them and make them as big/small/portable as you need.

Well, they don't care about copyright laws either so at least they're consistent!

Bizarrely, new houses are valued by calculating what they would have sold for on 1 April 1991 and then put into the appropriate band. That's because there has been no overall re-valuation process since that date. This is one of the issues with a property tax of this sort - any gains in property value are unrealised until you sell but, in the meantime, your taxes keep going up. And if anyone things the government will ever down-value properties you're living on the wrong planet!

Whatever happens, I think his comments have opened up the issue of how people pay for property. Homes in the UK haven't been re-valued sine 1991 and the top band is houses worth £320k and over. That wouldn't buy you much anywhere now. The two main options seem to be: Re-value everything and continue to use the existing system - perhaps increase the bands above Band H (eg, I, J, K...etc) to deal with the increased values, or Move to a Burnham style system. Both have their pros and cons. Sensibly, we should have kept re-valuing on a regular basis (some EU countries revalue annually, others every 2-3 years). That would be logical, might have kept a lid on soaring house prices, and would avoid the cliff-edge we might be facing soon. The danger of Burnham's system is the average property will probably double in 'value' overnight as it is revalued to 2026 from 1991, but the 0.48% will still be in play. Yes, your property goes up in value but it is an unrealised gain because you only realise the gain when you sell. So, someone paying, say £1500/year for a house they bought under the old council tax system could suddenly find themselves facing a property tax bill of £3000-£4000. How is that going to benefit the economy? And what happens when they can't pay? take their house off them? Put a lien on the property? Laws of unintended consequences...

All this Burnham talk about a 0.48% property tax has got me thinking about how much we're going to end up paying in council tax (or property tax...) at the end of the process. At the moment we live in what can only be described as a slightly posh shed (it has plasterboard on the inside - mainly - but doesn't have heating or insulation) so our council tax is minimal. Once the new house - on the same plot - is finished, we will be knocking the shed down and will move to the new one. And I expect the council will want their pound of flesh. What are other people's experiences of the council valuing their new house/replacement house? How have they gone about creating a value for it? Did the process seem logical or was it as obscure, overly bureaucratic, and nonsensical as the planning process that started the whole affair?

Thoughts from an amateur learning as I go... We're doing similar to you but on a bigger scale. We've contracted a main contractor to do the groundworks, slab and ICF build for a new house. Were now preparing for phase 2 - everything else. Things that have come up/been discussed with the architect and other thoughts: Check the Building Regs. Something this big may need a designated main contractor/duty holder. This could be you but be aware of what your responsibilities might be as a result. A main contractor will probably cost more but could save money by being more efficient and less stressful. If you sequence a plumber to come in on Tuesday after the electrician finishes on Monday - but the electrician doesn't - then you're left holding the baby. That will probably make you more likely to build gaps into the timeline which, in turn, will increase grief and nausea from the other half because things drag on so long. If you do use a main contractor be ready to have lots of discussions as to why you want the Heat Blaster 3000 heat pump while the MC insists on the Gentle Waft 5000 - because that's what he's always fitted. When I told a Tesla Fan Boy electrician I would not be having anything with the word Tesla on it in my house on principle his face was a picture of 'does not compute...' Boundaries and responsibilities - if you're going to get different people in to do all the different jobs, how are you going to get any of them to take responsibility when something goes wrong? The roof leaks and knackers your new MVHR - who pays for the new MVHR? Probably easier to get an answer if one MC was responsible for the whole lot. I think there are three key elements here - time, cost, risk and only you can understand the importance of each one. We're going down the MC route because of the size of our project but there's part of me that wants to be the one in charge - because this will be our forever home but, as far as any builder is concerned, for them it's just another job to be forgotten about in a few months' time. Whichever way you go throughout the contract, by all means delegate but never abdicate. As soon as you take your eye off the ball, or allow someone else to do things in ways you wouldn't, then you're opening the floodgates to ending up with something you didn't want.

I can't comment on your specific question but, more generally: We're in the build phase of our house so have taken out a warranty with a well-known provider. They did their first inspection recently and we were then informed of the outcome. The areas where we were 'non compliant/more information needed' were vaguely worded so I called them up. It took three "I'll just pass you on to my supervisor" discussions until I got to someone who could answer the questions. Even then they still couldn't actually explain what their own questions actually wanted. So we passed a load of information to them that we thought would cover their queries but then were told we needed a site report. Up until this point, no mention had been made about a site report. Planners didn't ask for it, the warranty company themselves hadn't asked/mentioned it. We don't have one because no-one has asked for it and nothing untoward came up from the geotechnical reports. But now it seems we're going to need yet another report. I explain all this to demonstrate/support your general point that warranty providers - like all other insurance providers - are both ineptly manned by uninformed people and will do everything in their power to avoid actually paying out a claim.

The person who invents an AI camera system to identify when a cat is carrying a 'present', trying to get through the cat flap but then shuts the cat flap will make a fortune.

I think I would have been happy to pay for additional pv to roof connectors so that there was one on each standing seam (as with @Russdl's setup). The asymetry od skipping one seam would have my OCD twitching every time I looked at them!

Sadly ours will be on the front but, I have to say, your setup looks much more dicrete than many. Have you had to take any anti-bird/nesting measures?