IanR

Sounds like you should park in front of your garage, until you get hold of the Title to prove access rights. Assuming the Garage was there when you purchased the property, it would have been your Conveyancer's job to ensure you had Access Rights.

What is it you want to do with the CAD software? If you want visualise the staircase within it's environment, then a lighter-weight software such as Sketchup will be quicker to learn and it's polygon/tessellated database is sufficient for the task. If you wanted to create photo-realistic rendered images of the staircase then Blender is a good option, and completely free. If however you want to create an Engineering 3D model of the staircase, with accurate models ,thicknesses, fillets, holes with the ability to build associated assemblies, with a catalogue of stock hardware (bolts, nuts, screws, rivets etc.) and sub-assemblies where global changes to the staircase automatically update through to all parts in the assembly and the ability to develop blanks of folded brackets, cutting lists, weld details and associated 2D Engineering drawings that update when the 3D model changed, then you need a NURB/Bezier based CAD system, which will tend to have a steeper learning curve. If you are wanting to create something that was going to be manufactured from, at a fabricator, then I'd be looking at a mid-tier CAD system such as Solidworks, Creo, Solid Edge etc. most of which can now be leased monthly. Free for 6 months is OnShape, which gets close to these systems for the basics. However, if you're going to just do this once, it may not be worth the trip up the learning curve, there's a lot of content in a design like a bespoke spiral staircase if you want to fully define it "in CAD" and have a workshop manufacture it for you. In this case I'd suggest a seasoned professional.

I don't know of the Internorm "thermoplastic insulated threshold", but the image above shows it taking bolted/screwed fixing so I'd put the brackets on to the threshold and suspend the lower portion in air, where you are going to cast the raft. Put some threded bar through the holes in the (initially) unattached end, using a nut either side to hold the threaded bar in position, then cast the bracket into the raft. You'll have to temporarily, externally, back up the threshold so that it doesn't move during the pour.

While the Plan you attached is "to scale", it's incorrectly called out as an A4 sheet size. Image below shows in the bottom right hand corner that I have set the scale in Acrobat as per drawing 1:500. Units are mm The 50m scale on the drawing measures 49,920.09mm However, the above is directly off the digital file. If you do as the drawing states and Print to A4 it won't be to that scale since the sheet size is actually 594 x 841 (A1) not 210 x 297 (A4), as defined in the file's properties: So, while your Architect has made a mistake, the Council are being a little picky. All dimensions they require are called out on the drawing. They don't need to "scale" anything.

Yep. I don't know Greenraft. The image on their website appears similar to Isoquick, but without the bespoke insulation pieces. I'd recommend Advanced Foundation Technology, and use them as a baseline to compare others to. He doesn't specialise in insulated rafts, he shouldn't be upset if you choose to use a specialist.

Yes. Isoquick is an option, but they are not optimised. You'll pay more than you need to for steel and concrete and you'll have more mass to heat up for the UFH.

You'll need to be worse than 3m³/m².h@50Pa, with trickle vents closed, otherwise BC should require you to have a mechanical ventilation system. Without mechanical ventilation you will need trickle vents in windows. There's no payback directly on MVHR, but, MVHR enables a < 3m³/m².h@50Pa infiltration rate. It's the low infiltration rate that provides the payback on the MVHR. ie. the reduced energy loss from, say, having a 0.5m³/m².h@50Pa infiltration rate pays for the MVHR.

Have you got the install instructions for the FCU you have imaged? Does in not install 180º from the way it is pictured, inlet at the horizontal and outlet at the vertical? You mention keeping above dew point. What kW of cooling are you expecting from a 14°C water feed? They're really for single room recirc. My loft is the warmest place in the house, often around 26°C. I think you'll be warming the bedrooms below rather than cooling.

Thinking about it, but not done yet. Have you got a reason for wanting to take air from the loft and circulate it to the room below? Typically you'd recirculate the air within a closed off room, ie. inlet and return into the same volume. It's not going to be powerful enough to cool/heat the whole house with a single unit.

I'd assumed it was PV array area. Max height 4m and 5m distance from boundaries. Mines not going within the defined domestic curtilage, so I'm going to need planning anyhow.

Only "theory" not put into practice. Typical PV panels could be installed for the same or slightly less, using S5 bracketry and avoiding a full frame. https://www.s-5.com/products/solar-panels-on-metal-roof-pvkit-2-0/?_gl=1*e60zsa*_up*MQ..*_ga*NjE4NTUzMDA2LjE3NDExNzkwNzQ.*_ga_PCT1SK6CMV*MTc0MTE3OTA3My4xLjEuMTc0MTE3OTA4NS4wLjAuMA.. I agreed this wouldn't effect warranty with the roof installers before the standing seam was installed. I also looked at flexible bonded PV panels. You can get them preinstalled on steel trays, or retrofitted onto other standing seam materials. I looked at retro-fitting. Costs were higher, performance less efficient, and they had no rework plan should you want to replace the 25 year life PV on your 60 year life roof. https://bipvco.com/flextron/ This is the one job I have procrastinated most on and have now decided to go with a ground mount array.

It would be better to not think the negative response you received was due to corruption. That would leave you under the likely misapprehension that it will be easy to counter once others are considering the details. Mistakes do get made and maybe this is one of those occaisions. You would need to set out your application to counter the issues raised by the officer. The Consultant you used should explain to you why they feel the Planning Officer's argument cannot be challenged. Ask for a face-to-face meeting, and keep asking questions until you understand his/her new point of view, or until they have accepted yours. It's unlikely to be black-and-white, It may help you understand if there is a way around the Planning Officer's arguments against development. If you still can't understand the Planning Consultants view, then perhaps get a second opinion. Planning applications, and their appeals are long and drawn out, you need to be sure that you have understood why your opinion is different to the Professionals.

Pretty sure everyone would agree the position of the rebar within the beam should be where the SE has shown it in his section, that's why the OP has opened this thread and I have contributed with a means of doing so. If you believe I have said something different you need to go back and re-read my post.

You're over thinking it.

Tie in some short rebar pieces horizontally and vertically. Push the pieces a little way into the EPS. Spacing sufficient to keep the longitudinals robust for the pour.