• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Neutral

About Randomiser

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. One of the points that has just been made is that the warranty company is likely to need the information from the Phase 2 survey so they can get comfortable with the pile design. I see from your blog you are using Protek for your warranty, have they raised this?
  2. Did the geotechnical survey give you an estimate for the depth of the piles? If so, was that reasonably close to the actual depth of the piles in the end?
  3. OK, so essentially it is risk mitigation. Piling could go ahead without doing it, but that would mean having much less idea of what the total cost would be. Having it done won't change the answer, but it could stop you going ahead with something you can't afford / is uneconomic.
  4. As mentioned before we are likely to be using piled foundations, so I am hoping I can sense check a suggestion being made to me. We previously engaged a Structural Engineer to do work on the foundations for us. As part of that they wanted us to get some basic analysis done on the soil type, water table, etc. which we did. Having had this input the Structural Engineer prepared a piling plan with a required resistance (not sure if that is the right term) for each pile which we used to get quotes from various companies for piling. We have been on pause for a while for a number of reasons, but now getting back on it. It's no been suggested that we should get a geotechnical survey done. But I am confused as to why this is required if the piling plan is already done. I wondered what experience other who used piles had around this, did they get geotechnical surveys done and if so what information did it give and how was it used? Thanks in advance.
  5. I think it would be really risky. Isn’t 6m the increased PD limit for rear extensions on Semi Detached houses? If so, planners may see that as an important ‘break point’ and going from 6.0m to 6.3m maybe a lot riskier than going from 5.0m to 5.3m.
  6. OK, with a willow that close even in the best of conditions you will need some pretty deep foundations I suspect. You could use the calculator link to here with your specific information to give you an idea. https://www.labc.co.uk/news/trees-and-foundations-foundation-depth-calculator
  7. If the only reason to go piled is because of the wall next door I would have thought a new retaining wall with traditional foundations would be much cheaper than piling. Are there other reasons for piling such as ground conditions? If the piles will be driven only a metre from that wall is that not a risk as well due to vibration?
  8. How significant would the increase in height be, half a metre? Why not have an informal chat with planning and see if that would be a big issue, they may accept it given the reason.
  9. I have followed this thread with interest, much of what I would have said has now been mentioned. However, I would reiterate the point that cost is not just a function of size but also complexity, for example, you may well find that by bringing that external gap between the two main bedrooms inside the fabric of the house you actually reduce cost. You have also just answered one of the main questions I had which was about how frequently you would have the visitors you mentioned as you are giving over a lot of space for them. As it sounds as though they are quite regular then that may well be the right idea. You mention that you discounted a second floor because you would not be able to help keep things clean and tidy, but what about a lift? Yes that will cost you extra money, but again you may find that the cost of building a smaller two storey house with a lift is less than a single storey house with its footprint and roof that, for the same square footage, will be twice the size. If you stick with single storey the only other thought that does occur to me is the potential for flexible space. Could you incorporate moveable partitions that can be used to enclose part of the space for a guest to sleep in, but be used as living space when there is nobody staying. Maybe something to explore. I wish you well in arriving at the best possible design for your needs.
  10. Your experience is similar to mine. I served notice for removal and they have applied for a necessary wayleave. They put this on hold for 6 months as they told the Govt. they were in negotiations, which was not true at the time, in about a month's time the period of deferral will end and I will tell them I now want to move to a full physical hearing which they have tp pay all the costs of and have to hire a barrister to represent them, there is no scope under the law for them to recover those costs. I hope this may actually force them to behave more reasonably. They have never had a wayleave for their equipment on the land I own so at some point just erected it without any permission. I am not confident I would win at the hearjng as it could mean cuttjng off power to a few hundred people. I just hope the prosepct of the cost of the process will be leverage enough to get them to the table. My ikpression is that they are being a lot tougher these days than they were in the past.
  11. I know somebody that had issues, but IIRC it was more the surveyors used rather than Protek itself. At the end of the process issues with much earlier surveys came, up that they had not raised before and which were difficult to rectify when the build was finished. In the end Protek were pragmatic and helped him sort it out.
  12. Not sure, I would worry it would become misspelt as Corpse Corner!
  13. Following your son’s suggestion how about shortening that to Thunder Box.
  14. Would it cost more to go across the back of the house? How wide is the house in total, about 6m? Assuming that 6m with the Utility 2.5m wide by 2.0m deep and you go across the back you would add c.7.0m2 versus your current plan adding c.7.5m2. Plus you would have to build less new wall, your plan needs you to build 8.5m or new external wall, going across the back would only require c.5.5m. Yes, if you open up the back of the existing house you will need to add steel to support the wall above, but overall I can’t see it being dramatically more than you existing plan.
  15. Presumably the poles they attach the cables to are in excess of the minimum required height. If that is right I guess the only way they will below the required height is due to excessive sagging or topology, i.e. the two poles the cable runs between being in dips with the land in between being higher. Does that make sense?