NailBiter

That would be great Moonshine thank you.

Which ICF system did you guys go for? Hopefully it's something simple for you guys like humidity vs seepage. We would be going for a system like this and I guess if we were to go A+A possibly a spray on system before sticking it on? I'm concerned by all the extra effort that will go into using a Type C system even though they are impressive in that other than silting up with lime (which can be present when throwing around a lot of concrete apparently) there aren't many catastrophic failure modes and most of the system can be tested (e.g. a floor flood test). It does present some requirements for maintenance too and rodding access is required at any change of direction. An internal moat doesn't sound appealing to me. It seems that the guidance allowing A+A systems was published in 2019 and hasn't disseminated fully yet.

On Page 5 titled More robust waterproofing solutions https://www.riw.co.uk/uploads/whitepapers/RIW_BS8102_2022_WHITEPAPER.pdf It states: We are using Nudura XR35 externally and Nudura one system internally and the walls are linked. For this reason I'm being told I need a Type A system (agreed) and a Type C system including treating internal walls. I can see the logic in this but I'd much rather have my waterproof perimeter on the exterior of the building even if it requires two systems. It seems in the most recent version of the standard allows for a Type A + A system as long as the mechanical properties of the systems are different. Is anyone taking this approach? We would of course still have drainage to the outside as per Nudura's documentation.

I'm no plumber so again massive pinch of salt here but it might matter how you connect the vents together. You don't want two exhausts blowing air at each other, you want them both joining together smoothly and pushing the air to outside. Think sanitary T waste pipe fitting vs a straight T.

This is an interesting reference point: http://constructionblog.practicallaw.com/does-the-no-notice-no-act-party-wall-decision-leave-us-in-a-no-win-situation/ I'm not a lawyer so I'm not even going to try and interpret that.

I'm sorry I don't really understand what happened here or what the question is, some clarity might help others too. You were planning to build an extension. Neighbour planned to build an extension. You decided to save costs by sharing the foundation for the party wall of the extension Neighbour now cancelled their extension but you will still build yours. Neighbour now wants party wall agreement. Is that correct so far? I'm pretty sure party wall agreements are mandatory so what other choice do you have? Are they making any unreasonable demands?

I think maybe there are two figures here: 1. How much air you can push through the intake / exhaust vents without creating too much noise. 2. How much your current MVHR pushes through them. It might be a different value.

Probably best avoided, both for your pocket and the planet. Can you give us some more info, e.g. rough floor plan (simple sketch is fine) and where the MVHR is etc? Total area to cool would be a useful metric too. I'm wondering if you can't take an input for an AC / Heat pump from the same place the MVHR does and exhaust to the same place it does (to avoid holes in the wall). You can then hydronically link the main unit to any blowers you need just like running radiator pipe but for cooling.

I'm well out of my comfort zone so I might be chatting bollocks but presumably a hydronically linked AC system like the Panasonic M Series with blowers would be an acceptable solution and not a waste of good water?

Yeah that is probably it but wow stuff has been cut right back to the bone. At the same time the unemployment rate is still low so what happened to the other designers / people at the firms? The wider building industry (architects, surveyors etc) is horrendously inefficient and disjointed. Digitall proficiency is also low and a lot of work is unnecessarily repeated multiple times or subject to productivity sapping on site changes. There has to be a better way of doing things involving a lot more automation and a lot less repetition. A rule based planning system would help too!

For example I spoke with BPC Ventilation last week and they are down to one designer and have a multi-week lead in time for designs. They don't seem to be an isolated example either. Has anyone else noticed this? What gives?

I think the https://bbc.co.uk is a really good example of how less can be more with this type of design. The goal is to convey information clearly at a glance vs having to squint. It is much easier to use for those who see well and is the difference between something being somewhat usable and totally unusable for the visually impaired.

For me that background and those colours would be too much. To each their own though.

Why don't you want LED light?

Yes you do, the UDR is a managed switch isn't it? No but you are routing data between the Sonos speakers over the LAN ports of the UDR and then STP can (expletive deleted) your day up. I'm not sure how the traffic would flow if they are both locked to the same AP sorry I can't help there. It isn't a solution it's a work around but it is effective. If you have the energy to find a better solution good on you. Please share if you solve. Would this be in a location where it can be hard wired? It doesn't matter which device is hardwired.

Completely agree, it isn't bad but it isn't good. It depends what you are used to. FTTP can get as low as 2ms so even at their 20ms target (which isn't far from the theoretical limit they can achieve) it will have 10x more latency than a fibre connection. Right now it is approximately 20x more. I use both a Starlink connection (build site) and a FTTP connection regularly and you can feel the difference. You can also hose the upload bandwidth fairly quickly if you aren't careful and that degrades the performance for everyone. In the past we've used a shite FTTC connection for latency sensitive stuff / uplink bandwidth and Starlink for the downstream bandwidth. There are some tools that make multiplexing a connection like this easier e.g. https://www.openmptcprouter.com which also has the benefit of avoiding CGNAT.

Download speed is perfectly decent, upload speed is a little ropey but that ping is quite high, there are probably things you can do to reduce it.

Starlink kicks arse and it is improving all the time. The latency is still quite high but they are targeting sub 20ms which would be great if they achieve it.

I've bashed my head against Sonos and Ubiquiti equipment on a number of occasions, feel for you mate. Are any of your Sonos devices connected via Ethernet? You may be bumping into some issues described here: Read the linked Unifi document but also read the top comments on Reddit thread above, some good explanations there. Like you rightly say the Soundbars are rock solid (as are the subwoofers) so we use those. We've also switched to using OG Homepods in stereo pairs instead of any Sonos speakers for music. A shame we can't take advantage of the subwoofer though.

Yeah that sounds like a much better idea thinking about it thanks guys. Also decouples the smart bit (more likely to fail or need upgrade but also cheap if only being used to switch a contactor) from the more expensive and longer lasting contactor.

The Sonoff device is likely already using a contactor as it's rated up to 20A. I can't find any explicit documentation though. Teardown (20A version): https://youtu.be/O1HvycrP4s4?t=457 You can also get big monsters like this (switches up to 5500W): https://tech.scargill.net/sonoff-powr3-powerful-controller/

You need a Wi-Fi (or Bluetooth / Thread / Zigbee / Zwave) relay / contactor capable of handling the load you are putting through it. Something like: https://shellystore.co.uk/product/shelly-plus-1/ (but only rated up to 16A so be careful) or https://itead.cc/product/sonoff-pow-elite-smart-power-meter-switch/ (one of them is rated up to 20A) Personally I'd flash ESPHome on whichever device I chose (super easy to do) so I knew they were secure. You can also program the timer at the device level so even if Home Assistant / ESPhome is down the timer will still run fine locally on the device. There are various ways to make this nicer to use e.g. using the screen to display auto / manual mode, next timer run and current time

The above worked out fine and has been accepted by our building control company. If anyone needs help with it in future tag me.

Ok so I filled out the "Appendix B: Model form connectivity plan" from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1119957/ADR1.pdf On it we put: 1. Location of proposed ducts to carry future fibre and entry point into dwelling. 2. Likely location of street pot on property boundary for future fibre provider. 3. Evidence that BT do not currently supply FTTP. 4. Communication with two fibre providers that cover the area but not our property stating they can't serve us. 5. Screenshot from BT Wholesale checker showing our neighbours BT line and the downstream handback threshold being less than 40mbps. 6. Screenshot from Starlink stating capabilities of the system exceed capabilities of the BT FTTC offering. 7. Screenshot of the active Starlink account. 8. Screenshots from other major suppliers (Virgin Media, City Fibre) postcode checker pages. 9. Noted that the property is also served by 5G. I think that covers everything off so will wait to see what they say.

Yup I've got Starlink setup at the address already and that is very much our experience too. Latency is much improved recently.