Jump to content

Mulberry View

Members
  • Posts

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • About Me
    We're excited to be building our forever home on a secluded plot just outside Norwich.
  • Location
    Norwich

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Mulberry View's Achievements

Regular Member

Regular Member (4/5)

57

Reputation

  1. Yes, that's very true. Without wanting to turn this post political, the silly 50 quid fines are being used to distract from the real crime that's going in within the government.
  2. I just spoke with our local council, he tells me that any planning or discharge of conditions relating to drainage or surface water will be caught in this. We can probably squeak our non-material amendments through, but anything more than that is likely to also be affected. Happy days.
  3. Well, our current planning permission is for connection to a packaged treatment plant and the conditions relate to that. We want to put in an amendment to allow connection to mains drain, which we now realise is feasible but I think can wait. Even though we desire the mains route eventually, maybe we need to accept the treatment plant route for now and make the mains connection amendment much later on when all this shenanigans is over? We have a condition that we must submit a surface water drainage plan before we progress beyond foundation level, which we haven't discharged. Surely as long as we can show that our surface water will be handled via Rainwater Harvesting and Soakaways, we'll be OK on that? We have a condition that imposes the implementation of a packaged treatment plant prior to first occupation, which again we haven't discharged. We do not need to discharge it yet, so we can carry on as we are by the looks of it and submit the mains connection scenario as a later amendment much further down the line? Presumably none of our other amendments (window sizes etc) will be refused?
  4. I read over the weekend that the Long Stratton bypass and the 1800-odd new homes planned within the same project now hangs in the balance. Maybe that'll be a good leverage to sorting this mess out.
  5. Yes. We have a current condition to discharge sewage to a packaged treatment plant, but one of our amendments is to connect the property to mains drainage as a solution to do so presented itself. Our LPA verbally agreed with our approach, but I presume they will amend the existing treatment plant condition to be one relating to discharge of drainage. Also, we have a condition to submit a surface water plan before we progress beyond foundation level. Clearly these conditions won't be discharged, so does that mean we are actually unable to progress beyond foundation level or that we can proceed but at some sort of risk?
  6. We're also in Norwich. Our full planning application was approved last July, but we have a round of minor amendments to go in. Will this be affected? We do have a couple of conditions to discharge also.
  7. Any advocates of Rainwater Harvesting on here? I know some see it as questionable from an ROI standpoint, but for us it's not just that we're interested in. The idea of using rainwater to flush the toilets, to reduce limescale (we're in a very hard water area) is of interest. We might also like to use it for the washing machine. But being able to water the garden, specifically the lawn, in a guilt free way is the main driver for us. We would also benefit from some eco-friendly water input as our water consumption data is a little over what was specified in planning (105 litres per person, per day). But what size tank should we look at? We've got about 150sqm of roof space roughly 50/50 over 2 roofs. At the moment, only one roof is designed to go to a Rainwater tank, with the other is going to a normal soakaway. I'm wondering if we should harvest it all, maybe with a larger tank, or perhaps with a second tank? (one close to the house, one for the garden/car washing etc.) Any help is appreciated.
  8. Oh yes, I see. That's the 'Plus' product. I've sent them my plans, they're going to refer me to a distributor that can quote on the beams and their product.
  9. I've just spoken with Springvale about Beamshield and the standout disadvantage is the vulnerability of the product while completing the onward work. They ideally want the screed down as soon as possible, which is, of course, tricky if UFH is required (it is for us). The 'workaround' appears to be putting down a protective plywood layer (££££) until we're ready to get the UFH in and screeded. So this will have to be factored into the cost. I think I've understood correctly that the Beamshield system deals with the whole subfloor structure from inbetween the concrete beam up to the underneath of the screed, thus accounting for the 150mm 'Celotex' layer.
  10. @Russell griffithsWhat were your beam spans like? I gather 5m spans are at the limit? Our longest span appears to be 3.7m, so perhaps the Architect has already accounted for the known problems. I do find it strange that the Architect, who is highly Eco-minded, hasn't mentioned the EPS route though.
  11. That's interesting. So an EPS type infill instead of the concrete blocks? What's the downside?!
  12. We're in the mindset with the Pozi joists too as I'd heard they have a tendency to creak etc and that's one thing I literally cannot comprehend. Good advice, thanks for that. I'd have never expected the B&B to create a 'bouncy' floor, so I'll certainly be asking questions. We know ours is a challenging plot, the main access can only take a 4-wheel chassis, so a Minimix at best. We've had a 10-tonne 4-wheel tipper up here, but that's pretty tight. The price we're paying for what was essentially a free but so lovely 0.6 acre plot. So @Russell griffiths, can you enlighten me on how the B&B is installed please? Is it before the first wall pour?
  13. Wait... What? Pumped concrete for ICF? Dang, I missed that one. (a light-hearted joke by the way) I'm fully aware of the need for pumped concrete and have a 'workaround', but it is just that and not something I can overuse. We have to essentially deliver the concrete into the plot entirely from privately-owned land, so it's a great risk. I'll have permission, but I cannot take the pi** and risk them simply 'shutting the door' when I'm halfway through a wall-pour.
  14. Oh, whyso? It's a tricky site to get wet Concrete into, that might be the reason for limiting the need for it?
  15. It does say 'minimum', the Architect seems to ask for 225mm, is this more 'normal'?
×
×
  • Create New...