Russdl

That's it - it's out in the open! Here's my post to @Dreadnaught to add to the debate. ~~~~~ Hi Dreadnaught. So as not to drift the thread too much from the 'house cooling ideas' I thought I'd message you directly. Are you doing the PHPP yourself and if so, how are you getting on? My first dealing with PHPP was with an 'expert' who was a complete clown so I bought my own copy of the PHPP and started entering the data myself - and, if I'm honest, I've been struggling with elements of it. After a while I went to see another 'expert' who agreed to review my attempt, he was definitely much much better but he'd still missed some school boy errors that I'd made, which I discovered after learning stuff from my meeting with him. Also he was going into minutiae that I hadn't for one moment considered. For example, the timber frame company we will most likely go with use nail plates to join elements of the timber frame, his modelling of this in the PHPP proved that the claimed U value was incorrect (if you factored in the amount of timber in the walls and the metal nail plates), so I've taken that on board in my PHPP but not even started on the roof construction! Despite that I've managed to get my overheating down to zero using awnings on the southern elevation of our planned house, but I wonder, have I? What else have I missed... I'd appreciate your thoughts. Cheers. Russ.

Thanks @Simplysimon & @PeterW, I’d found those sorts of things but I was looking for something much older, I don’t really know but maybe a circa 1960’s - 70’s one (or much older) with a few more curves and maybe a bit more character, they’re probably out there with the old post boxes and telephone kiosks but I’m buggered if I can find any. Failing that I think I’ll probably plagerise @MikeSharp01‘s design.

@Simplysimon (right, lets see if I can do this, quote from another thread that is) In another thread where I asked about Service alterations prior to demolition @MikeSharp01 posted pictures of a 'block house' he'd built on his boundary for all his service, and IIRC from @JSHarris's blog he did something not too dissimilar, but closer to the new property. I 'm leaning towards @MikeSharp01's solution for my own plot and was searching eBay the other day seeing if I could find a second hand roadside electricity enclosure, those big old green metal things, and make that work, but I couldn't find any perhaps because I don't really know what there called. Any way, here goes with Mikes picture. (Crikey it worked!)

@PeterStarck as Nick say's "thats a very long time" but does it present any issues in use? How was living with the Genvex through the winter?

That makes sense. Thanks for that.

Ah, I think I've spotted where we are diverging here. My theoretical system is a: Genvex Combi producing hot water at a suitable temperature for the UFH whilst also dealing with the MHRV requirements of the house. Sunamp being charged by Solar PV and off peak electricity. The Genevex providing pre heated water to the Sunamp (instead of a cold supply) so that the Sunamp has less to do to get the temperature up to that required for DHW. Is that what you understood by my original question?

@Nickfromwales Doh! Thanks. @PeterW But would it need a massive heat output as the Sunamp (in my theoretical set up) would be boosting the DHW temperature?

Sorry @PeterW, 'small mono' what is that?

Thanks for that information @PeterStarck. Good question @Nickfromwales. If a Genvex Combi feeding a Sunamp isn't a ludicrous suggestion it seems to me that it would be quiet an elegant solution to all the DHW and ventilation needs of a home.

Back to Sunamps (ish) and working on the assumption that the only stupid question is the one that wasn't asked ? Would the combination of a Genvex Combi and a Sunamp be ridiculous (price alone?) The Genvex prioritises hot water with the heat pump and then gets on with its MHRV job, as I understand. Can the Genvex hot water temperature be dialled down to make it more suitable for UFH and as a pre-heat to a Sunamp and if so what are the reasons why such a set up would be ridiculous (price alone? I bet there are more) I guess the Genvex would have to go to a higher temperature every so often to prevent Legionella? Standing by...

So it seems my mind is made up in one aspect; rodding access from the start of the drainage run, but can I ask (especially you @epsilonGreedy) how exactly did you do it?

? Two very good points there @PeterW along the lines of my concern over the pong but much more tactile. Outside rodding it is!

@PeterW I like the idea of a rodding eye on the end of the main run, however it would appear simpler to having a rodding access point at the base of each stack. Apart from ensuring they were easily accessible what are the draw backs with such a solution? (Stinking the house out when it comes to rodding just sprung to my mind). Any other reasons why the rodding access shouldn't be inside the house at the base of the stack?

You've clearly had plenty to deal with in the last two weeks Vivien and kept things on track. Well done you. I may well be free on the 30th & 14th, if I am I'd appreciate the opportunity to visit when the foundation is started and the frame arrives. Russ.

@MikeSharp01 No problem! It got me looking at things I hadn't properly considered and hopefully my interpretation is correct.

@Temp Thanks, another thing that had been on my mind.

That would be the plan. I think I got the idea from here, did you post a picture of your rainwater solution? If so that was my inspiration but I also don't know if its acceptable for foul runs. Failing that then i would plan on access at the base of each stack prior to finished floor level. Neither of those solutions have been properly thought through yet... That wasn't the driving force for me but would be an unintended consequence if I opted for my blue route. @epsilonGreedy Pointed out the obvious requirement for the rest bend at the base of the stack - so obvious that I hadn't taken it into account. The remaining fall could start to get tight now and the shortest route may be the only option (apart from all the other options that I have no knowledge of!)

Of course! And the architects route would need at least 3 IC's for the same reason, plus 1 more for where the two drains meet and yet 1 more for the max 11m run (if that is the limit) So assuming @MikeSharp01's correct r the max 11m (I'll get on to checking that right now) the IC count would be: 5 for the architects route 3 for the developers red route 2 for my blue route If the 11m rule is correct, all plans will have an IC some point on the lawn between the hose and remaining drain. So on the IC count the blue route would win. Any other views on running foul drains that far under a passive type slab construction? ~~~~~~~ According to Approved Document H, if I've interpreted Table 13 correctly then the stack to the first IC can be up to 22 meters (or bananas, it actually doesn't mention meters anywhere on that table) and then from IC to IC/Manhole maximum 45. So that would reduce at least 1 IC from all the options. Doc H does say "The layout of the drainage system should be kept simple. Changes of direction ... should be minimised" The architects plan does the opposite. Ant thing else I'm missing?

So far it seems like the architects plans or my developer friends plans are winning. The developers version seems much simpler than the architects, any ideas why the architect would have chosen the long way round save for some comments already posted?

I'd considered that, and the first IC would be under decking/patio and disguised as such. I hadn't considered @MikeSharp01's comment about the max 11m run, which would indeed place an IC chamber in the lawn or a flower bed so your point is taken, thanks.

@MikeSharp01 Another good point that I should probably have been aware of, thanks!

Good question, well phrased... I think it was to get everything pointing in the right direction, i.e. heading towards the existing drain and keep it simple but I take your points re minimising long foul runs under the slab. Thanks for the input.

I'm after your collective wisdom again! On the attached image the architects foul water plan in dotted lines (I hope the quality is good enough to see it) goes clockwise around the outside of the proposed property to the existing sewage connection. A developer friend of mine suggested the route marked in red from the two stacks, the opposite way round to the architect. I'd considered the route in blue on the diagram (the red and blue lines converge where the stacks will be) It would be under a passive slab foundation and the width of the slab is 7.5m. The Invert Level of the existing drain is 60.66m OSBM and the finished floor level needs to be 61.88 OSBM, so, takeaway about .450m for the floor and slab leaves 61.43 OSBM, or .77m fall between the underside of the slab and the existing Invert Level. On my blue lines the longest distance between stack and existing drain is about 25m so (if I'm right) there is sufficient fall. I hope I've used all the correct terminology... Are there any reasons why one proposal trumps the other?

Excellent, I shall relax - slightly - again.

@ProDave Ok. I'll obviously be getting an electrician on board (it would seem sooner rather than later would be the order of the day). My preliminary plan would have the new supply about 12m from plant room where the supply would emerge in the new build.