Bancroft

The drought has also had me thinking about this and I've been playing around with a pump and diverted shower water. Setup - cheap submersible pump, a long length of hose, and an large old plastic dustbin at the bottom of the garden, next to the greenhouse. I diverted the shower water outlet to a holding tank where the shower drain exits the house, put the pump in there and attached the hosepipe. Simples. Results/comments I thought showers were good for using less water but was surprised at how much still gets dumped each time. I know a shower uses less water than having a bath but it still seems a lot. Two showers and the old plastic dustbin is full. Even using natural shampoos/soaps the soapiness of the water seems strong and there's a lot of scum. Makes me unsure about putting it on the lawn/shrubs - never mind anywhere near vegetables (which apparently you can do with some caveats/caution). This seems like a huge waste of water with few secondary uses unless put through some sort of filter/centrifuge system to clear out teh gunk. We will be setting up a proper rainwater recovery system on our outbuilding using some IBCs, but this was an interesting experiment to keep me occupied for a few days. Also got me thinking about rainwater recovery being the wet equivalent of solar power - the time you really need it is when there isn't much around!

Any idea why roof tile battens were used as opposed to 'normal' battens? Also, is that Jackon ICF - looks very similar to ours? If so, any top tips on securing to it internally or externally?

How do more options make something into an 'issue'? Every build system has pros and cons but, after a lot of research, we decided ICF fitted our use-case best. I think the reason ICF hasn't been adopted by housebuilders is probably because that's not the way they did it in the past... Plus, at the moment, there are probably more brickies than there are construction workers who can spell ICF.

We're using Jackon - or BEWI as I think it's now known. Just done a quick check and it looks like it's metric. Each strengthening plate is 10mm from the surface, 50mm wide, 100mm gap, then another 50mm plate etc.

Like the idea of the osb across the top as a base for the wiring to route out of the room. If I do go for option 3 i have an intention to use osb/plywood backing in areas where heavy stuff will be secured to walls (eg tv, kitchen cupboards etc) And if using battens I'm planning to use 20mm as standard (reduced space loss and £££) and only go to 50mm if necessary for pipework or to encompass additional strengthening

What's the best way to secure plasterboard to ICF internal walls? Option 1 - I've seen some people talk about screwing it directly to the strengthening plates in the ICF. Seems like a quick and logical solution but I presume it means having to chase conduits into the ICF to allow for electrical/plumbing runs? Not a major issue, especially with one of those heated wire tools and the cables probably need to be sheathed in plastic/metal protection. Is there an issue regarding a lack of ventilation between the plasterboard and the polystyrene? Option 2 - dot and dab. Well-known/popular way to fix plasterboard but how well does it stick to the ICF polystyrene? Also seems a bit old fashioned for a modern method of building. Option 3 - 20mm battens affixed to the ICF strengthening plates and plasterboard affixed to the battens. Leaves a space behind for cables without cutting into the polystyrene but reduces room size (marginal and also happens with dot/dab) and adds cost for battens. I'm tempted to go for option 1 or 3 but would like to hear from others about what they've done and any other pros/cons people can think of.

And the quote from Jean-Paul Junkers - "Every politician knows what they should do. What they don't know is how to get elected again afterwards".

Much of this is due to electric taking the majority of the tax burden - away from gas. It always strikes me as odd that successive governments want better energy security (including not importing gas) but continue to hit electrical supply with the burden of taxation in order to make gas cheaper. And then spend millions on offsetting wind farms for not dumping electricity on to the grid! I presume they don't want to lose votes from people who still have gas boilers... But, if they switched the subsidies/taxes around that would be a prime reason for people to start moving to electricity over a relatively short period of time as they got stung by higher gas prices.

Is the JACKODUR Atlas Foundation System a similar set up? We haven't used it ourselves but our ICF builder has used it and seemed happy with it.

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.