Bancroft

SSEN, our electrical supplier, came up with an overhead solution for our new 3-phase supply. Today, the sub-contractor they have assigned to do the actual work visited the site and has strongly recommended that we change this to an underground solution. He also recommended we source someone ourselves to do the 'contestable work' as it's likely to be cheaper than an SSEN appointed company. SSEN defines 'contestable work' as work that is '...necessary for the provision of a connection which can also be undertaken by an Independent Connections Provider (ICP)...' (In our case, basically dig a trench from next to the existing pole to where we want the temporary supply). They then go on to define an ICP as '...an accredited Independent Connections Provider registered with Lloyds Register, including its agents.' Does this mean we need to use a specific company (registered with Lloyds Register) to dig a simple trench? Seems a bit overkill as SSEN will still be coming in behind to thread the cable through the duct and do all the technical stuff. And we could demonstrate we have dug it to the right depth/put tape on etc though photographs etc).

+1

Is the garage flat roof or pitched? Could be space in the roof area for some kit. Also, general feeling on here and talking to architects seems to be that Planners don't care what happens after they've given approval (unless a neighbour complains) and BCOs don't care what the planners say, so...

Yes, planning on a Quooker (or similar) and, like you, don't have an air fryer but would like the toaster to be at immediate notice as opposed to inside a cupboard. My thoughts are to build an above countertop shallow cupboard with folding/concertina doors that can hide from view a toaster, tea/coffee, etc but still be ready/available at a moment's notice. Might also be a way of demonstrating the value of my new CNC machine to my wife! Agree with you regarding kitchen size too. Might be appropriate for a Grand Design or a house where open plan is a design feature, but for most people probably just a waste of floor space.

I did see an advert recently for a white induction hob - answer to your prayers!

That looks stunning - and would be a great opportunity for me to get the woodworking stuff out!

My wife could never understand how I could deploy in a ship for months on end and live, work, and sleep quite happily in an area about 2m x 2m, yet when I came home would have 'stuff' all over the house!

In our last house we created a utility room that required access both ends. To save space and allow easy passage I put 300mm units below a narrow worktop and 300mm units above as normal. Worked well though, if I did have a little more space, I would have gone for 400 or 450mm as some pots/pans/machines were just a little too wide for the 300mm units.

This is one area I've ben considering more and more. Just need to get the right balance regarding depth of drawer versus space available - don't want to swap horizontal access issues for vertical ones!

The 'modern' kitchen design has been around since the late 50s/early 60s when exciting things like fridges started turning up. Is it time for us to re-think things? Looking around our present kitchen (and thinking about our new build kitchen design) I can't help thinking it's an ergonomic and design nightmare. Low cupboards 600mm deep that require you to get on hands and knees to empty stuff out so that you can reach the thing you want. High cupboards that you can't reach/see into and which require you to lean over the aforementioned lower cabinets, thus shortening your natural reach. Kettles/toasters/coffee makers/air fryers that have to either litter the work surface or hide in cupboards and be brought out each time you want to use them. And, perhaps the ultimate design failure, never a suitable place to put all those plastic Tupperware boxes and old Chinese takeaway containers and their lids that cascade out of the cupboard like an avalanche of plastic - regardless of how carefully you stack them. I don't have an immediate answer to all these issues but they annoy the hell out of me. Hopefully, someone with a more creative mind than mine can offer some suggestions...

We too had to respond to a lighting condition in our PP. We submitted it and the planning environment officer came back with a load of vague comments such as '....this looks like there might be too many lights...' and '...PIR sensors might be used...' After some back and forth I sent a straight up email back to the planners to ask WTF they actually wanted us to do. They responded by saying that, 'on reflection' our plan looked fine and signed it off. Lessons learned: - Question the planners because that will make them have to think. They don't like doing that so may just capitulate. - Put as little lighting external to the property as possible (but do put wiring into areas where you actually want it). Get it signed off then use permitted development rules to make the house look like Blackpool illuminations just to piss off the planners.

To widen the topic... Has anyone had any experience of putting MVHR inlets/exhausts into a seamed metal roof? With our build, the most logical place to put the MVHR unit will be near a gable end closest to the approach to the property - so inlet/exhaust holes will be quite visible. Also, they will be facing into wind rather than downwind. One option I'm considering is to have the inlet and exhaust in low profile cowls on the seamed metal roof so that they can be in the lee of the wind and on the side of the house only horses will see. Apart from the obvious issue regarding waterproofing and insulation, are there any technical issues that might preclude this as an option?

+1 for this if you don't plan on re-developing it for yourself. I think people doing re-furbs would generally prefer to do everything themselves - that way they don't have concerns about how well/badly prior work might have been done. Also, they probably feel that they'll get it for a better price (even if they don't). Certainly when I've done re-furb work in the past I've always wanted things to be as stripped back as possible so that I can see the whole situation. Freshly painted bits in an auction property ring alarm bells!

This post is focused towards new members of the group and based on my own thoughts/experiences... Since discovering this brilliant community I've been 'drinking from the firehose' all the really useful information contained. I started doing so even before we had our application for planning permission go in. Early in the process I realised I needed some way of collating all the useful stuff (more and more tabs open in my browser just wasn't going to work!). So, I decided to use Freeform on my Mac. Essentially, it's a digital whiteboard that allows me to put pretty much anything (text, web links, photos etc) on to one document and have it all there ready for me to refer back to. And it's searchable too so no matter how big/complex/untidy it gets it remains easy to find what I'm looking for. Now, each time I come into BuildHub and find useful stuff, I just cut and paste relevant text to Freeform and add a page link (so that I can easily go back and remind myself of the whole discussion). If there are a number of posts/comments on the same subject I group them all together under one 'yellow stickie' in the programme. And it's easy to move them around, group together with similar subjects, add/subtract extra stuff, etc. Just seems to work well for my way of working and worth considering as a way of keeping on top of all the useful info here.

One to keep in your back pocket, but have a look through any relevant previous planning applications from your immediate surrounding area and see what objections were made by the four now opposing yours. That will allow you to see what they said and how they were countered. It will also give you evidence of their Nimby-ness. I wouldn't go in with this as your main argument but dropping into the conversation that your neighbours regularly oppose any sort of development in the area might just put that element of doubt about their arguments/validity into people's minds. I researched a local councillor to us. She opposed pretty much every application of any size seemingly on principle. All except one which, interestingly, seemed to benefit her... Luckily I didn't have to use this information but in some ways I wish the opportunity had arisen!

Done. Would have been nice to have a final 'comments' box to input some personal thoughts on the process. I recognise that hundreds of complaints about planning departments might not help the core work but it could lead into other areas of study.

I'm far from being an AI guru and have yet to actually try DeepSeek but it does look interesting. I particularly like the way it gives you an insight into how it is 'thinking'. Most of the others just splurge out an answer.

In Africa in my youth, we often had garden pools that were only half underground. Basically, if you want a 2m deep pool, dig down 1m then use the soil you've removed and bank it up above ground to make up the other metre. Worked really well and might, I imagine, help with keeping costs down, avoiding a lot of reinforcing, and reducing the amount of water-proofing required for a fully dug out pool.

Speaking to an established (20 years +) off-mains sewage provider, I mentioned we were thinking of rainwater harvesting. He immediately warned against it. His experience of dealing with people who had systems was that staining in toilets was a big issue, as was supply pumps over-pressurising the internal home system and bursting pipes internally. Nearly everyone he comes across who had RWH fitting regretted it and turned it off. Reading earlier posts I can see how it might work in commercial properties with the whole system being actively flushed (pardon the pun) regularly due to high usage but domestically staining and odour issues seem quite common. Our plan now is to harvest for external/garden use only.

From a government perspective, they're not totally nonsense. They're there to trip you up, cost you money, and piss you off. Our build is being held up at the moment because one of the pre-commencement conditions of our planning approval is a detailed landscape plan. So, we can't put a spade in the ground until we have given them a detailed plan (down to percentages of hedge species and wildflower mix) - despite the fact that we can't landscape until we've a) built the new house and b) knocked down the old one. It's like an episode of Yes, Minister with our planning department.

Hi Gracie, not completed yet; architect working on it still. But what I have so far is as shown here.

For some reason I read this as '6 cats out to electric gate'. Was about to call the RSPCA!

Labour building 1.5m houses is all smoke and mirrors. They're not actually building any. They're hoping that private companies build them so that they can take the credit. If the private companies don't hit the targets then Labour can blame them. Welcome to politics. As for local authorities. They put a pre-commencement condition on our build for the landscaping. I queried why pre-commencement when landscaping has to be left until the house is built. No response. They then rejected our plan. When I asked them to state specifically in writing why it was rejected they then came back and said 'on further review we could not raise any objection to the landscape plan you have submitted as it meets all requirements of the condition'.

Interesting. Thanks for highlighting this. I was close to going with Protek but now may need to do a little more research. Even if using a main contractor, having the 2 year window just starts to make things messy and opens the door to 'not our problem' arguments between different insurers.

Two stupid elements to this government push towards ASHPs. First, ASHPs work best in well insulated, modern houses that can fit UFH. Most of the UK'd housing stock isn't either. Second, the price of gas is artificially kept low by heaping penalties on electrical prices. This is, essentially, to help the majority of people who rely on gas boilers and is a way of keeping their heating bills down (and gain votes as a secondary effect...). Ironically, if the price of electricity was not heavily penalised, more people would probably turn to ASHPs. Like tax on EVs, there will be a point at some time in the future when the government of the day decides to 'persuade' people to move to ASHPs and they will do that by switching the penalty structure from elevtricity to gas.