Stewpot

It seems a curiously anti-self build regulation. I'm planning to do my own building with my own two hands - I'm a slow worker, an old geezer, and money will only become available over time. I'm reckoning at least 5 years building time, maybe 10. More fool me, but I didn't discover this strange Scottish peculiarity until after I'd bought my plot. I spoke, briefly, to an architect about it - he seemed to think that the renewal is discretionary, and only for (I think) a year, but also thought that you should be granted one, possibly two renewals without difficulty. After that, he was of the opinion that things might get more difficult, especially if the building regs. have changed since the original warrant - you would then have to apply for a new one, complying with the new regs. Quite what happens if you have the shell completed, but the regs. change regarding the foundations, I don't know.

I would not do that. I deliberately haven't in my own application. My reading of both the Caravan Act and the Town & Country Planning Order is that they categorically permit you to put a caravan on site to accommodate people working on the building. Further permission from the planning department is therefore unnecessary. However, if you do include them in the process, they can then put conditions and restrictions on it, so the less they know about the caravan, the better, I'd say. One thing I'm not clear about is whether PPP is sufficient, or whether Approved Matters have to be granted - both acts state that permission has to be granted before a caravan is permitted, but the wording seems open to interpretation regarding the level of permission. If you want to keep the planners ignorant of the caravan, then, ipso facto, you'll have to wait until you have full permission, but apparently few planning departments are doing site visits at the moment, so maybe PPP is adequate. A touring caravan would certainly be easier to get onto site (and remove for a while, if it seemed prudent to do so). I've also considered having two cheap tourers and using one for sleeping and washing, and the other for living and cooking - but I can see that some neighbours might be uncomfortable about an apparent encampment suddenly appearing.

More to compare notes, rather than to offer advice, I'm wondering why you say that? What is preventing you doing it now? Is it a planning issue? I am thinking about doing this myself, and currently there are several likely caravans for not much money available in the area. I'm pretty sure I know what the rules are about doing it (Caravan Act, and Town & Country Planning Order both have something to say about it), but am interested in others' experiences.

Thanks for that. This'll be Scottish Borders area, so I doubt your man would be the one to go to. I anticipate that I'll have to position the 'van myself, so I'm really just after a basic pick up and drop off.

Yes, I've seen them. There is, of course a premium on the ticket price because of this, and if it's traveling a long way, this may make sense. But you can often find 'vans very cheaply, and maybe not so far from the site, so it would be interesting to know how much I should allow for transport costs, so I can compare the overall outlay. That may be another problem to consider. Any idea what he was charged? I anticipate this - it may not, at this stage, be possible to get the truck onto the site, but I think the local farmer and his tractor my be good for helping with that.

I'm guessing some people on here are living in a mobile home on site during their build, and it's an option I'm looking into. Suitable caravans are frequently available in the small ads at prices which would make sense, but so far I've been unable to find out how much it may cost to transport one. I assume transport charges would be a combination of an hourly rate and a mileage rate, subject to a minimum charge, but transport companies themselves seem very coy about their charges, and only want to quote for a specific job - at this stage I just want numbers I can approximate a budget with. I've tried a couple of sites like DeliveryQuoteCompare.com to get some examples, but they produce absolutely no results. Could anybody give me some examples, citing mileage, time and overall costs?

There seem to be no end of theories about how to do this, the most contentious of which is whether to use a semi-perforated pipe with the perfs. up or down. My logic says perfs. up, otherwise the water will just drain out again at the first opportunity, moving the problem down the line a bit, rather than properly draining it away to a soakaway or ditch, for example. However, they all seem to agree that non-woven geotextile is the thing to use. The woven stuff is tougher, but I think it is more susceptible to fines and possibly roots getting through, causing blockages in a few years time. Otherwise, I'd go pretty much with what others have said. The slope you use may depend upon how long the run is, and how deep you can go. You should be able to get away with 1:100 if you have to, but try to avoid sags in the pipe.

If it's able to absorb carbon dioxide, then yes, I think that must be right (CaH2O2 + CO2 = CaCO3 + H2O ie. calcium carbonate + water). As I say, I've never used hydrated lime as the binder in lime mortar. People say you can use it, but it is coarser and less workable, and gives less satisfactory results. I don't know why this is, but I wonder a couple of things:- Is hydrated lime able to absorb CO2 as readily, and maybe the particle of the powder is different, and less able to mix and bind together as well. The advice is always to make a putty out of it first, but notably, whereas non-hydraulic lime needs soaking under water for months, for hydrated lime they say only a couple of days - there is no benefit leaving it longer. So there must be some difference there. But really, I think the areas you are doing are quite small, and even using an OPC mix, the risks may be pretty insignificant. If it was a large, load bearing wall, that'd be different. And also, I think you'll struggle to match colours if you change the materials.

I wonder what they mean by 'porous limestone'? Presumably ground down to a fairly fine aggregate, but do they mean limestone straight out of the ground, that hasn't be processed in any way, or do they mean some sort of reactive lime to complement the lime binder?

Sheeesh... Don't say it so loudly - this is a public forum, you know. But I was thinking the same. Also, you could try making the mix very dry - think the sort of consistency you make sandcastles out of. This may help prevent shrinkage a little, and if you work upwards, making a bed, setting the flints, packing around, etc. you might not suffer any slump.

Lime is a fascinating subject, and I'm only in the foothills of the knowledge base. The lime cycle is a thing of beauty (to a simpleton like me). You start off with limestone (calcium carbonate). Then you heat it up, which causes carbon dioxide to be released, leaving quicklime. Slaking this with water results in calcium hydroxide and a lot of heat (it can be a violent reaction). But then, slowly, it begins to re-absorb carbon dioxide so the material turns back into calcium carbonate. In other words, you dig a type of rock out of the ground, process it into a workable, sticky substance that you can glue bricks together with, and then, magically, it turns back into the rock that you started off with. And as it re-absorbs the carbon dioxide that was given off when you burnt it, it doesn't do nearly so much damage to the greenhouse that OPC does. But that means it cures over a fairly long time. I've heard that in very thick walls (I guess we're talking castles with 6 feet thick walls), the innermost mortar never gets enough exposure to air and moisture to fully cure. Keeping the mortar moist for a while is an essential part of enabling it to fully carbonate, so you will see walls with hessian sacking over them, keeping them damp. Without wishing to sound too much like a nerd (but I really do find it interesting), hydraulic lime has impurities in it which gives it the quality of a fast initial set in response to mixing it with water, hence its name. In that respect it behaves somewhat like OPC, but it will then slowly continue to cure by absorbing CO2, as above. If you're going with OPC, surely use the same mix that you used for building the wall.

Outside my experience, but I doubt you can easily make an OPC mortar flexible. Plasticisers are about workability during use, not flexibility of the end result. I understand your concerns about the mortar shrinking away from the flints, but it looks like you have pretty small areas of flint infill - I wonder if you would get away with just continuing with an OPC mix. The thing is, it's pretty unconventional to mix OPC mortar with lime mortar - they generally don't work well together. Usually, someone who doesn't understand the difference will, for example, repoint a lime mortar with OPC, with disastrous results later. In your case, you are, in a way, doing the opposite, by covering OPC with lime. Maybe that'll work fine. Either way, I think it's a bit of a leap in the dark. If you do use a lime mix, you may only be able to get a close colour match by using mortar pigments, and experimenting. If you choose to use a lime mortar, it would probably be easiest for you to get hold of some NHL3.5 (Natural Hydraulic Lime, which has a strength rating of 3.5 - ie, moderatly hydraulic). There are several online outlets if your local BM won't get it. Mix it in much the same way you would OPC - no need to make a putty out of it first. I once repointed a stone wall this way, and found it easiest to use my gloved fingers to get a neat finish between the uneven stones, rather than a proper pointing tool. But keep the stone faces clean. Afterwards, keep the mortar damp - plant sprayer every day, and protect from direct sun - for a couple of weeks or so to aid carbonation and full curing. Also be aware that, whist quicklime is the most reactive form of lime, all types of lime are caustic - PPP is highly recommended. If you are using powder, a mask is a good idea, and in any case, gloves a must, and eye protection sensible.

Disclaimer: I am by no means a lime expert, but I have mucked about with it over the years, and intend using it in my build (if I ever get the PP sorted). But, I fear you may not get the results you want, by doing this. The first question is, why are you trying to make a lime mortar when you seem to have used a cement mortar for the rest of the wall? More fundamentally, hydrated lime really isn't the thing to be using. Lime terminology is confusing, but at a basic level, there is hydrated lime, hydraulic lime, and non-hydraulic lime. Guess which is referred to as NHL? Answer - hydraulic lime (as in Natural Hydraulic Lime)!. All these go through the process of 'burning' (heating) to turn them into quicklime (which can be is quite hazardous to handle). Hydrated lime is quicklime that has met with just enough moisture to set off the initial slaking reaction. The heat of this reaction drives off excess moisture, so you are left with a dry powder again. In this state it is safer to handle, and is usually used as an addmixture for mortar made with OPC - you'd use it instead of plasticiser (or washing up liquid). As the main chemical reaction has already occurred, it will be less effective as a binder on its own. People say it can be used, but is often less than satisfactory, and should be soaked in water for a couple of days (at least) to make a putty (see lower down) before use. I've never used it, so can't vouch for it. Hydraulic lime is the one that will behave most like OPC, in that it has a quick initial setting time - depending upon brand, this can be as quick as 20 minutes, to 24 hours or so. This is because it has, either naturally, or added to it, impurities in it that cause a fast initial reaction - they are called pozzolanic additives. It typically comes in three different strengths. Mix it up much like OPC, without any other additives - sand, hydraulic lime and water. Like OPC, this stuff can even set under water. Natural hydraulic limes all seem to come from France. Alternatively, you can use non-hydraulic lime, preferably in the form of lime putty (eg. www.limebase.co.uk/lime-putty/singleton-birch-lime-putty-21l). This is quicklime that has been fully slaked (a violent reaction, so be careful if you do it yourself), and then left to sit under water (to prevent carbonation) to mature. A couple of months may be enough, a year will be better. Or buy a tub of it ready aged. For mortar add it to sand at a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1. You can also add pozzolans at this stage, to speed things up - brick dust, apparently, works, though I've never tried, so wouldn't know how much to add. Don't add water when you first mix the sand and lime - the lime putty will work up with the sand and become more pliable after a bit of mixing. Add water later if it is not usable enough. It's also important to realise that lime fully cures by absorbing carbon dioxide out of the air, and needs moisture to keep this process going. It can take a long time - months, even years - before full carbonation takes place. To an extent, you have to take loving care of a lime mix, especially with render and plaster. In return, lime has the property of being self-healing if the building should settle - if carbonation isn't yet complete, any cracks will re-seal. And it is vapour permeable, allowing wet masonry to dry out better. And produces less net carbon dioxide that OPC. Plus, I think it's lovely to work with.

That may be just a catch-all clause to cover themselves if the way you install it doesn't meet requirements, or if there are special circumstances pertaining to your site. I can't see how any manufacturer would hope to sell any units if they didn't make them to meet the requirements. You will need to get Building Regs. approval on your intended installation, and, depending on how you intend to deal with the outflow, you may need to consult with the EA, too. Just to add, my Architectural person recommends Marsh Ensign or Klargester Biodisc - from my research, the cheapest or the most expensive.

The worms seem to be intended to unblock a soakaway, rather than as a sewage treatment process. They say their non-electric plant uses bacteria and enzymes, as would any other plant, though it uses 'worm' graphics to illustrate this. The first video that I looked at (www.septictank.co.uk/ecosystem-non-electric-domestic-sewage-treatment-plant) doesn't seem credible, but I'd be interested in what others who use treatment plants would have to say: The chap's five year running costs for a 1-12 person electric treatment plant (most people would use smaller): Electricity - £3,750 - £5,000 (this equates to over 500W consumption 24/7) Servicing - £1750+ Repairs - £1500+ So, a minimum of £1,400 per year running costs - nearly £27 per week. He then compares that to a non-electric plant, which he tells us would cost £5 per year (a £25 bag of bacteria every 5 years). He is, of course trying to sell his own brand plant. I get the feeling that in another life, he would have been selling pyramid schemes, but that's not to say the treatment plants themselves are no good. But the prices take a bit of, err..., digesting: 1-6P £11k + VAT + delivery (reduced for Covid to £5K + VAT etc.).

I've been researching the same thing. From my notes, here are a few to be going on with: https://www.wte-ltd.co.uk/vortex_sewage_treatment_plant.html https://clearfox.com/domestic-wastewater-treatment/ www.premiertechaqua.co.uk/products/wastewater/conder-asp-sewage-treatment-plant.aspx https://webuildit-ltd.co.uk/bio-pure-1/ https://biorock.co.uk/ https://www.graf-water.co.uk/wastewater-treatment.html www.kingspan.com/gb/en-gb/products/wastewater-management/domestic-sewage-treatment-plants https://tricel.co.uk/sewage-treatment/sewage-treatment-plants/ https://marshindustries.co.uk/products/ensign-ultra-sewage-treatment-plants/ https://www.clenviro.co.uk/index.php/matrix-sewage-treatment https://harlequinplastics.co.uk/product-category/wastewater-treatment-systems/ http://clearwatertanksolutions.com/ https://www.wplinternational.com/product/wpl-hipaf-compact-hpc/ I'd be interested to hear more about the ones with worms. Have you got a link|? I can't imagine that any of these are not EA approved.

A blacksmith or metal fabrication workshop may be able to make some bespoke railings that fix securely at the inboard end, but only need to rest on the surface at the outboard end - or maybe fix in a horizontal plane rather than a vertical plane. Alternatively, same workshop could fabricate some brackets to achieve your first idea.

Without doubt what they've done is, err... 'unconventional'. But first I'd suggest checking the measurements - looking at pictures 2 & 3, comparing the perps. to the joist spacing, they appear to be less than a block's width apart; the blocks look like they have been cut down narrower, so the joist spacing might actually be 40cm. Also, your calculations - if they have ripped 4.5cm off a nominal 20cm width, that leaves around 15.5cm, rather than 17cm. My tables don't list that as a size - anything less than 17cm effectively becomes the next size down, at 14.5cm. This makes things worse, and may prevent any solution that reuses the timbers. Presumably any solution will mean repositioning that RSJ - or further unconventional unsatisfactory work.

I imagine a freeholder of any block of apartments is being extremely cautious since the Grenfell fire - anything that could be construed as contributing to a fire risk will be blocked. It may even be at the insistence of the freeholder's insurance company

Have to say I'm surprised, as physics hasn't changed, and I would have thought that the lower volume of flush these days exacerbated the problem. There is a video somewhere of stuff getting flushed down transparent pipes, so you can see what happens. At a certain gradient, it seems that a build up of solids is a problem. We also learn that there is a British Standard Turd[1] used in WC design - one of my favourite pieces of useless information that I like to mention at inappropriate times. [1] Actually, a piece of plasticine, or similar.

There is a common misconception that steeper is better. But make the pipe too steep, and the water runs away faster than it can wash the solids down, leaving them behind. This has the obvious potential to cause blockages.

I don't know if it has any bearing, but some councils are outsourcing services to other councils. I was reading a document about this somewhere on the internet, and some planning departments outsource all or some of their functions. Usually this is to the private sector, but sometimes to another nearby council. Factor in homeworking by someone having to do work for two councils, and that may explain how the document is wrongly headed. Maybe. Or perhaps your council outsources to a private company which handles several councils' work, and there has been a mix up that way. But I would have said that your contract, if it can be described as such (you've paid a fee, so a contract must exist, surely?), is with your local authority, so any decision must come from someone representing them. Even if it does happen to be the same person, you seem to have had a decision from an authority you have no contract with, over a property outside their jurisdiction. However, your LA may be obliged to put the technical errors right, but that won't necessarily affect the decision.

If you're including a workshop, it will never be big enough. It simply won't. But three phase sounds like a good idea for both car charging and workshop machinery. Have SP given you an idea of how much extra it might cost?

I think there is another option before recourse to law, though Jack is right that if you do go down that route, it is your neighbour that you would have to take action against, rather than the contractors. If you do this, I would guess that there is very little chance of you co-operating together when you need to replace the whole roof - or indeed any other problem with a shared interest. Put the £1900 (regardless of who should pay that) towards the cost of a complete re-slate, at least of that side of the roof. This should be an equally shared cost, but it will solve all the problems of a mismatched patch, damage, and a roof nearing the end of its life. Perhaps more importantly, it will prevent you spending the rest of your life at daggers drawn with your neighbour, even if it does mean using some diplomacy at this stage. You may even need to swallow hard and forget whose 'fault' this is in the first place - your only aim is a satisfactory outcome, and if you both benefit from that, then that is the best out come. If things go to law, that has the potential to work out far more expensive than a new roof, and the only real winners then will be the lawyers.

Are we looking at your half of the roof? I don't mean to be rude, but it has to be said that it is in pretty poor condition anyway. I think the patch is the least of the problems. There are a lot of broken, cracked and clipped slates there. I couldn't say how long that can be kept watertight, but realistically, it will need re-slating in the near future. There may also be a good reason why the new slates are not sitting down properly - if the existing battens are in poor shape, for example. It may be hard to conclude other than that the builders did the best they could with a roof that is already in poor condition. Perhaps it wasn't so much that they damaged your roof, but that any disturbance to the old and fragile slates inevitably resulted in needing to replace some of them. As it's a semi, you will need the co-operate with your neighbour when re-slating, so making enemies of them is not recommended - ideally, you'll do it as a joint effort.