Mulberry View

They look neat, but what stops the rainwater going in?

I know Dave, as would I. My Father-in-Law is mid 70's and the guy they sent to discuss this was somewhat of a 'Salesman'. Everything will be OK, nothing for you to worry about kind of guy. It's a good job he's given up his caravan as there'd be no hope of getting that in there now, but I'm more worried about when it comes to selling the house, can you imagine that being your first view as you arrive to view the house?

I'm trying to help my Father-in-Law out at the moment. He has an Electric Pole in the entrance of his driveway, it's stood there since before they were there, but never really caused an issue. UKPN sent a friendly man round to talk about replacing the pole, which he thought nothing of and agreed to, because he's a lovely man himself. The trouble is, not only did they move the pole a fair way out from the fence that it previously sat hard up against, but they also fitted a HUGE replacement pole (280mm diameter). The net result is that he has lost 500mm of what was already a fairly tight driveway. We've been arguing backwards and forwards since June last year. I asked them to relocate it onto the pavement on the left of the concrete post in the photo which they won't do and we've pretty much reached stalemate. They do have a legal deed for the pole to exist in his land, but not in that exact position. I've tried asking them to put it back to where the deeds show it (on the opposite side and further down), but they want to put it into a metre-cube, which would destroy the neighbours hedge that runs down the right-hand side in the photo. Would you put up with this? Am I making a fuss over nothing?

The whole RPA thing drives me crazy. We had to install a £10k Geocell driveway before we were permitted to commence, but the Garage demolition that formed part of the approved plans (and thus the commencement) stood in front of everything with no route past until it was demolished. We just got on with it, we had no choice. We were told that we would have to hand-dig our multi-service trench which sat in the outer 5% of the RPA of a pair of unprotected Scots Pines and we have a 70foot Hornbeam with a 10 metre radius RPA that has controlled the entire size and shape of the house we're building. We're not allowed to store any materials within that RPA and even a 1-tonne digger would need an engineered ground protection solution before being able to pass over it. Meanwhile, Cadent have carved a trench 2 feet away from the trunk of an ancient (200 year old I'd guess) Oak tree beside a road near me and in a City Centre urban furniture project, they were diggering up to and around all the mature trees with a 5T machine, with only the trunks protected.

The 4 vents in that photo will all be affected, as the area was planned to be level with the large front door opening on the left and be some sort of hard standing falling away left-to-right... Providing I can use some rectangular ducting to 'periscope' them up another 150mm, buried in the EPS, then I think that's the way I'll go. I'll put it down to another failure by my expensive Architect.

Yes, in a nutshell. If you looks at the side-on photo and imagine a hard standing area (for example) level with the front door opening and falling away from left to right, all of those vents are going to be tricky, even the furthest away one will probably still be close. Luckily, with the building having a 68mm outer layer, I could bury a sleeve in the EPS to effectively move the vents up 150mm It's a bit of a bodge, but it'll be buried behind the brick slips, so I think I'll just suck it up and get on with it.

I can potentially still remedy my situation if needed, but I'm trying to see where, if anywhere, I've gone wrong.

We have a 'courtyard' area in the lead up to our Front Door. There are a few vents in this area. This is the approach to the Front Door... This is the side-on view. I'm pretty sure I'll lose the vent closest to the door, but they are beneath FFL so the whole area cannot be a level hard-standing.

Yes, so although I don't have a DPC in the conventional sense, that's in essence what I have. So, back to my original point, how would we provide a paved level access around a front door area if there are vents that sit level with internal FFL? In the picture you've posted, you patio area is presumably 150mm below the internal floor level?

In the ever-growing list of c'ockups, I'm fearful of another. This is how our Architect detailed our Foundation build-up, I'm specifically thinking about the sub-floor vents at this stage. Is it normal for them to be positioned at this height? (i.e. the top of the vent level with FFL) We have various ground-levels around the building, but that's the height I put all of ours relative to the levels in that part of the building. So, what is the intention where level access is needed?

That's quite cool. Is it an alternative to a crated soakaway or something completely different?

I don't have the crates yet, I didn't realise they'll supply this?!

We've gone for Norrsken Alu-clad windows for the majority of the glazing for our 200m2 build. We're not Passivhaus, but hoping to get near that level of performance (sub 1.0 air-tightness ideally). For those that have them, did you go for the 2 gasket profile (P31a) or the 3 gasket profile (P41a)?

I'm hoping to start digging my 20m3 Soakaway this weekend. I'm going for 6m x 3.6m x 0.84m. 1. Pea Shingle or Sharp Sand to surround the crates? 2. Geotextile wrap for the crates yes, but should I also provide another separation layer between the backfill layer and the surrounding soil? I'm grateful for you guys, so any help here is appreciated as always.

What is the usual process for ascertaining heating need? Does an Underfloor Heating designer take care of this? Or is it down to who specifies the Heat Pump? We have upped the specification of several of our thermal elements (Floor insulation thickness, Roof insulation thickness, Window u-Value and expected Air-tightness to name a few), I think I need to get my original 'as designed' SAP updated to include the changes so I have something upon which the heat loss calcs can be taken from, does this sound like the right approach?

Any further input on this? If I have to add, say, 100mm of material to an opening to reduce it's size, is 150mm of EPS too much to screw through to attach the windows? I could remove the original EPS closer and replace it with timber, before adding the additional EPS over the top, that would give a nice fixing, any implications in this?

Grrrrreat! Well, fingers crossed and we'll find out soon I guess.

I have limited docs from them, but they went from my job onto a multi-million pound project, I'm hoping that adds some weight to the theory that they must have a good insurance in place. I guess we'll know more once they engage with us, which if they do so within our legal timeline, is within the next couple of weeks.

This is what we need to know, I was discussing this with 'er indoors last night. Surely once we have put the insurance company on notice, they have to consider the claim? With car insurance, you don't need to stay with that insurer for the duration of the claim, similar right?

I have had what appear to be 2 decent Zinc installers here. I've learned, however, that they all hate each other and willing throw each other under the bus. Both of these installers claim to be working often on jobs that our installer has either left or c'ocked up. There is a terminal potential issue with the upstand height in our box gutter and, as that was the lowest part of the roof, if it is proven to be defective, the whole of that section of roof (half of the total area) will have to come off.

I do honestly think we'd reconsider the rooflights, but obviously the water is under the bridge. Ours are the sort that drop over the timber upstands too. I meticulously constructed the roof and installed the upstands to the absolute letter of their guidelines and well within the tolerances. It's a shame that all turned to you-know-what when the Zinc roofer arrived. We liked the idea of some sort of stack ventilation, we have an openable rooflight at the high end of the living room and in the double height entrance hall.

Ironically, we are to have MVHR. The opening windows were because we loved large opening rooflights in our last place, they seemed to let a lot of heat escape in the summer. HIndsight is a wonderful thing and if we'd known how much agro they would cause, of course we'd have done without them.

You're exactly right, it's a shower of shit. I know that we should have had Architectural support, but the installer absolutely should have kicked the problems back to me when they were realised. Instead they 'winged it'. Velux have offered some help, but they do not take responsibility. The hinges, if you ask me, are skimpy anyway (and with 3no M5 fixings each) and with windows that weigh 275kg each, they must have a good fixing. Especially because the window has to be pivoted up to vertical in order to fix the final bolt in each hinge, so there'll be 275kg bearing down vertically at that point. It turns out that the Vario by Velux windows run close to the upstands and moving the hinge at all from it's designed position could cause the inner edge of the window to foul the upstand as it opens. Both of the onward installers that viewed the roof say that it's not a straight-forward issue, but both have tabled something that might be able to be developed, well for the rooflight issue at least. But both of course state that I'll screw any warranty I might have on the roof as soon as they start to mess with it.

The issue began as being about the hinges, but more defects have been discovered in the time since. I think the installer has circumvented the compliancy process by not compounding out-of-scope elements. The Zinc manufacturer doesn't care because they only warrant the material, probably not worth anything in the grand scheme. For example, the longer of the 2 roofs is just a smidge under 14 metres. This significantly exceeds VM Zincs maximum tray length. It turns out that they gave special approval for it, but it doesn't look like the installer highlighted to them that, along with the long trays, there are also soldered seams behind the rooflights, which essentially lock the trays together. There is also no expansion tolerance behind the rooflight upstands, so these 3 points combined make for a risky roof. Lots of concern has been shown about the amount of soldering too, which is a big reliability issue. The need for soldering was not presented in advance and, apparently will require frequent inspections. The joined trays make this issue many times worse. How can we effectively monitor soldered joints on a roof that is 7 metres up? There's no way we'd have agreed to this if we had known. There are also possible signs of leakage which need to be investigated. I am tracking at least 2 wet patches which I have evidence of going through a wet/dry/wet/dry cycle.

Thanks @Nickfromwales. You may or may not know that we are estranged rom our original Architect and is probably contributory towards how we've ended up here. However, the Zinc roofer appears to have accepted design responsibility in proceeding to implement their own design to many of the details. I have another Architect on board now, we are trying to fill in the detailing blanks now, but this was not fully known when the roof was instructed. The Zinc installer was very bold in assuring us that they are very qualified to detail our roof, they had plenty to say about how poor Architects details are, but that we should trust them as an accredited installer. We have been trying since September to come up with alternative details to fix the main issue and one has not been presented that meets our needs and satisfies the warranties offered by the roof system and the rooflight manufacturer. I would prefer to reach an agreement with the original installer, but that ship has well-and-truly sailed. It's an ugly mess, but there does appear to be legal hope for us, we just don't know how long and at what cost just yet.