Alan Ambrose

Have a £K quote yet?

Most ditches flow somewhere, wouldn’t have been much incentive to dig it otherwise. Look at a detailed contour map and maybe take a walk or two and you should be able to see how the local area drains. Talk to the neighbours and they’ll add some more info on the history and behaviour over time.

Assume you’ve tried with an off-the-shelf pre-formed network cable?

Believe they’re always B for some reason.

>>> If you are changing materials you will need to go back to planning permission But only with a non-material (ta-da ) amendment.

Assume you’re talking wet ufh. The response time is largely due to the ‘thermal mass’ of the floor. Minimum screed and max insulation under - fast response. Huge thick slab and no insulation - v slow response. Electrical ufh on good insulation is v fast - a matter of minutes. Our wet ufh here (probably not on great insulation and not sure the temperatures and flows are set up right) is a day or two to get up from say 16 to 22. Response time may not matter - most people in well insulated set-ups just leave the whole thing running to temp 24/7. The make of controller doesn’t make much difference - electrical controller switching takes a second or so (most delay is app/wifi related), the actuators if you have them take maybe 20 seconds to open or close.

>>> And most were built by the landed elite, that also sat and made the rules for the rest of us to follow. Let me see, who benefits most from planning application approvals? The landowners. The system is still rigged to extract the maximum amount of wealth from the lower & middle classes and hand it to the landed elite. Keep planning approvals down by inventing an ever increasing number of hoops to jump through thus restricting supply and keeping profit from planning approvals (which goes into the landowners pockets) at a maximum. Plus ca change.

Maybe split the job into tasks if you can. Let them do one bit first (blockwork maybe) and if both parties are happy when that’s done , you can go on from there or switch horses.

In your experience, is the SuDS requirement a planning, BC or EA demand? Also I remember reading about some new organisations that were going to police SuDS?

My hairdresser remarked recently that in Japan (she’s Japanese), with the exception of some historic buildings, they plan for 50 years lifetime for dwellings and then expect to re-build. The epc calc should be open-sourced (code and calculations) and put up as a free web app. Trying to meet government targets that are both mysterious and flawed is complete and utter nonsense. Imagine if the tax laws worked like this.

>>> What is really needed is a mechanism to make poor EPC houses genuinely be worth less than good ones. I suppose an easy way is to point out, say in the EPC docs or on the .gov epc site, how much it'll cost to run vs. a well insulated house. Capitalise that annual amount to a lump sum today i.e. extra annual expense / discount rate. So, if the discount rate is, say, 5% then extra annual expense x 20. e.g. 'This dwelling is estimated to cost an extra £2K a year in heating bills to run over an identical house rated as EPC B. That will be £40K total lifetime cost and therefore it should be £40K cheaper than if it was insulated to EPC B standard.

@garrymartin >>> The balance is whether the harms "significantly and demonstrably" outweigh the benefits. So, you're happy with the system? Could this trade-off between (as I understand it) sustainable travel vs. a new unit of housing have been decided in a quicker, simpler, lower cost way? Is this the best outcome for society?

@SteamyTea >>> Maybe a big tombola with geo coordinates as the prises. £10 per ticket and a daily draw. If you win, you can do what you like with the bit of land. Most of the buildings we love now, listed and otherwise were built before the planning system began in 1947. We admire them for their idiosyncratic styles, over-the-top designs and budgets, quality and innovations in materials and building methods, prominent positions in the countryside, generous proportions etc etc etc. That is, 'they did what they liked with their bit of land'. And that's exactly what we prevent with our current system.

>>> You don't seem to like LPAs. @saveasteading Anyone's personal feelings are irrelevant regarding changes of policy ... but individual's personal experiences of the planning system are relevant in that they can illustrate problems although in a narrative rather than a statistical way. Take @garrymartin 's experience - he's wasted his time, energy and money pursuing approval on a plot that his LPA could and should have told him in 5 minutes they were never going to allow - simply because it is in the countryside. The LPA's excuse is some complex nonsense about 'sustainable travel' disguising their policy that they simply won't allow approvals in the countryside. That could and should have been made clear - probably before he even applied. Maybe an 'important planning policies' section on the LPA's website. The whole thing was a dreadful waste of his, the LPA's and the inspectorate's time and energy and demonstrates huge inefficiency. Do you disagree that the planning system should be swift, efficient, open, rational, equitable, predictable and proportionate. That's not what we have right now. It should be obvious that the LPAs and the Inspectorate should themselves obey the planning rules and also not mislead the public and government. The context as we all know is longer and longer planning delays, a continuing failure to meet house building targets, decisions based on badly-justified personal opinions. ATM we're playing a sort of very expensive 20 questions game - 'will this work?' - 'no, and we're not going to be clear on why and what you can do to make it work'. OK 'will this work then'. etc etc etc Biggest changes IMO are to (a) ensure the often 100x profits from obtaining permission are fairly distributed, (b) have a quick, collaborative, evidence & data-based decision system, (c) make it proportionate (that means far fewer rules for self-builders than larger developers), (d) consistency both within LPAs and between LPAs, (e) make it proactive for the LPAs (yes, get them to source land to meet their targets and figure out appropriate design guides).

>>> 8 effective hours is pushing it 3 hours of work on a good day + 1 hour going to the trade counter + 1 hour general chat + 1 hour on the phone to new potential and old tee-ed off clients + 1 hour on social media + 1 hour making an influencer video?

If you've got the bath already, there's an easy way to tell

Well as far as I can see they're both (as it happens): Resin: Alkyd. Solvent: Dearomatised White Spirit. So maybe ... otherwise you're doing a chemistry experiment.

Is there any regs requirement (or sensible reason) to keep mains cables separated from, for instance, network cables. I know you can't let them share a conduit, so it seems contradictory to then let them happily share the same bit of behind-plasterboard space.

>>> Woodwork next to maths is a bad idea Can't put the nerds next to the crafty kids? >>> wife may overrule me on this No appeals procedure in your house?

For starters, my list includes: + force the inspectorate and LPAs to publish full stats and don't let them play games e.g. taking 3 months to get to validation. Put the bottom 5% in 'special measures' without fail. + penalise LPAs financially if they're slow - return planning fees after 13 weeks, automatic approval after 20 weeks. + penalise LPAs if the pre-app advice they give is wrong. Allow recovery of resulting follow-on costs in the county courts (architects fees etc) due to erroneous pre-app advice. + force LPAs to accept paid-for meetings with applicants. + stop LPAs using generic terms without more detailed definition - amenity, environment etc. + allow applicants to nominate applications for planning committee review. + make single dwellings exempt from part O, SuDs, biodiversity, nitrate neutrality rules. + make LPAs suggest design amendments (in at least 3 rounds) instead of just blank refusal. + disallow LPA refusal using generic terms without evidence & substantiation. For instance if the LPA thinks the design is 'too big' they should justify why (e.g. floor areas of neighbours, average floor areas in LPA region) and propose a figure for an acceptable floor area. + for appeals, throw out the LPA statements of case (i.e. appeal automatically allowed) if the LPA doesn't follow the appeals procedural guide. + automatically award full costs (including applicant's time at a prescribed rate) if an appeal is allowed - right now, there are no repercussions for an LPA that wastes applicant's resources by going to appeal.

One thing you can guarantee is that the wheels turn very slowly indeed. Maybe apply for ldc first and see how it goes. The LPA have to ‘investigate’ complaints & breaches but if it’s not a crazy breach or you have not pissed them off already, there’s a good chance they simply can’t be bothered, will give you your ldc and it’s out of everyone’s hair. LDC, appeal, retrospective, appeal could easily take 3 years.

What do you think that means?

Suggest start with the overall sizing and economics calcs. It could be a quick comparison with extra insulation / airtightness would put it into context. Easy to get an idea of monthly generation per panel from pvgis: https://pvgis.com You’ll almost certainly need dno permission.

The ice and water thing is great btw, wouldn’t have another kitchen without it.

Maybe try out a little bit to check it doesn’t look horrible?