Alan Ambrose

Thanks, I didn't know they had one, would have saved me some work... Maybe you've found the problem already. There are two or three debugging strategies for spreadsheets (a) look through the input data and spot anything wrong or missing (maybe compare yours with a known working example), and/or (b) track back the calculation from the cell that's giving you problems to find the missing data (likely) or bad formula (less likely). There's a 'view dependencies' facility in Excel to help with that. Another method is to take a known working example and then replace with your own data bit by bit - keeping a good eye on the results to spot something going wrong the minute you enter that piece of data. Relax and try to be Zen! (i.e. don't let your annoyance/frustration stop you from spotting the problem), try to be intuitive and assume it's going to take you and hour or two to find the problem. Or, use a 'consultant' to do the initial set-up for you.

You are the best judge of your lifestyle and likely use, so it's tricky to make recommendations. I'll throw these out: + have the kids TV in the kitchen area where you can keep an eye on and interact with them while you're cooking and put the grown-up's TV on the end wall in the reception? + does a lowering screen and projector instead of a TV help any? + replace the sofa in the kitchen with a couple of arm chairs, one can be used for reading/looking aimlessly out of the window? Could one of those swivel so someone can sit and chat to the cook? + try something other than 90/45 degrees for the sofa / dining table position? + do you really need 3 sofas? Which one will get used the least? + spend a few hours using masking tape to tape out the dimensions on a big floor somewhere to make it easier to feel/visualise?

Hmmm, yes in principle caught by 'designed-in CIL jeopardy problem #1', But I think moving windows (as long as they don't impact overlooking) should be a valid section 73. You can always submit a minor changes and appeal if you don't have anything to do for the rest of your life.... >>> part of the original approval was any changes would need a new application Possible to paste up here the text of that part of the decision notice? An informal chat possible with LPA about what is and isn't possible under S73 in your case? This jeopardy problem is becoming a ridiculous catch for self-builders and needs a political intervention IMHO. In hindsight for everyone else .... it suggests getting all the design and other changes in and completely approved before commencing under CIL.

I think the problem is that, unlike wood which can be custom machined in short runs, the aluminium profile that the window manufacturers use is bought in bulk and is only produced economically in long runs. It's literally extruded out of a die and the die manufacture and testing and whatnot is quite capital intensive. Interestingly, PHPP lists the possible aluminium profiles for passivhaus use, not just made-up windows. So realistically, I think the options are to either (a) find the closest thing off-the-shelf or (b) maybe see if someone will make you a custom design but using their standard profile.

My experience of the county court is that it is, like planning, a bit of a flaky enterprise and depends a lot on the individual judge. So, don't read a single data point as gospel. The judges are, apparently district judges (i.e. junior) (rather than lay magistrates) and therefore qualified as either solicitors or barristers. But a single person makes the judgement and they might not have any practical skills or relevant experience or know how to read a drawing. But...these are low monetary value cases, often with unrepresented members of the public or maybe one side represented by a solicitor, often done and dusted in 1/2h to an hour or two. They're most unlikely to go to appeal, so not much oversight. I think there's a lot of scope for the judge's personal opinion rather than a strict reading of contract or consumer law. Also, don't underestimate the impact of the 'final notice' or 'letter before action' and the initial court papers with shortish timescales for reply. Those concentrate the recipients attention and they therefore force the recipient to decide (a) do we want to contest and (b) do we want to invest the time, energy and money required to contest. I think that 50-75% of recipients will fold or negotiate a mutually agreeable solution at that point. Tick the box for mediation to demonstrate how wonderfully reasonable you are and how much you are trying not to waste the judge's time. And that's then another hassle for the recipient and another few hoops for them to jump through. Meanwhile you want to get your job done. Give the supplier one last opportunity to address the problem for free or cheap, then order from another supplier and start the court process with the original. Unusually for UK red tape, the process is about as painless as it can be. You can file your case in 10 minutes if you've done it before, 25 if you haven't. It'll take a while to conclude, 6 to 9 months, if it goes the whole distance - but it often doesn't need to.

Wow that's super odd - ours has been pretty much silent at all times except for the slight sound of water moving in the pipes. Now I think about it, even that seems odd. +1 to some actual diagnosis steps. Switch the Loxone box off for a minute, or disconnect the connection to the actuators and see whether most of the rapid stuff stops.

Thanks @OwenF. It's for a potential basement, hence 6m. I imagine excavations for the actual basement will be to say 3-4m. Goodness I still find geo a strange art - a module on soil mechanics in my engineering degree 40 years ago obviously didn't provide much enlightenment . To be clear, the SE asked for the list above, the £5K quote was for "track-mounted percussive window sampling rig, dynamic probe tools and equipment". I'm not sure why the geo quote ignored some of the requirements. I have asked them to explain and also to talk to the SE directly. Frantically reading Craig and also Atkinson but it's still black art heuristics to me, give me a clean CFD problem any day

Ah thanks.

>>> Looks like they’re gonna get away with it No, they don't have to. The OP should at least (a) send them a firm 'final demand' kind of letter with a two week window for reply, (b) then file a simple county court case. If it can be reduced to a simple 'money claim' e.g. just claim a refund - then it can all be done online in 10 minutes. I don't recall that the OP mentioned a £ figure, but I guess it is in the £5K range? That generally means no legal costs ever awarded unless someone is being a complete idiot. A lot of suppliers will fold once they figure (a) they want to use a solicitor, (b) they will have to travel to the claimant's local county court, (c) they're risking their own legal costs. Of course, the direct cost of discarding a panel is only a fraction (30%?) of the customer invoice amount, so it's not such a big deal to write it off.

Call me cynical, but the original developers outwitted the planners by building first a big extension and then had it approved for split off to separate dwelling. I’m sure they made out handsomely. The PD restriction was possibly an LPA emotional response to being outsmarted. It’s not supposed to work like that, of course. If you buy that logic however, then the LPA will fight to stop a further extension to avoid any more embarrassment. i wonder whether you have time to submit a pre-app for an extension? From an architectural viewpoint, your potential extension actually seems very sensible as otherwise the back of ‘your’ house is a bit ‘shaded’. Hard to tell how much as I can’t see an indication of compass orientation on the drawings.

Thanks Declan, very interesting, and you're right - the SE has only specified to 6m.

>>> Mega watt hour. Good point

https://www.iflscience.com/deep-abandoned-mine-in-finland-to-be-turned-into-a-giant-gravity-battery-72835 ...It should be capable of storing 2 megawatts of energy.

@Moonshine - how did you do that measuring trick if you don't mind me asking?

Ah, my lowest quote £5K so far. The questions is - does it make sense to use 2 drill rigs?

The default set-up these days seems to be 'grid-tied' which means you can't use your battery when the grid is down. That may or may not be a concern for you? The 'non-grid-tied' / 'off grid' / 'island mode' is more complicated but could be more useful if grid power outages are a factor.

Hi, SE has asked for 6 boreholes - 2 cable percussion and 4 percussive window sampling. Does it make sense to use both methods? Whole spec below. This is on clay with sand starting maybe 5-15m down (from nearest BGS logs). Ta, Alan • Formation of 6 no. 6.0m deep windowless sampling boreholes. • Soil logging of all 6 boreholes. • SPT testing @ 1m intervals on 4 of the boreholes. • Undisturbed samples collected for lab-based shear box testing (6 no samples @ 1m intervals). • Disturbed samples collected for Particle Size Distribution testing (PSD) (allow for 6 no samples). • Atterburg limit testing on any fine-grained material encountered. • Installation of groundwater monitoring well (SI company to allow for 3 subsequent site visits). • Geotechnical report to document all findings.

>>> I needed a much bigger feed to the building Well I would check that out, of course. Maybe a third party EICR after the fact will help get BC over the line. EICRs are very cheap considering the amount of work involved.

OK you started my morning off well... >>> That's the whole advantage of loving in a PH spec house. Yeah, but you don't get to roll around on the sheepskin in front of the big log fire, do you?

It's fairly quick to re-draw if you know exactly what you want to draw. You can also clean up. You could probably get it done cheap on fiverr or similar - but specify exactly what package it's destined for. Your new architect may well send it out to a service anyway.

Or hire one of these for a day? https://www.screwfix.com/p/rothenberger-rp-30-pressure-testing-pump-30bar/83797

@TimL I would be very interested to hear your insulation plans. I'm struggling with the idea that a lot of retrofits need to use external wall insulation and in a lot of cases in towns (e.g. brick Victorian terraces) the planners almost certainly won't allow individual houses to use EWI and, say, render. So, I can't square that circle atm.

>>> with dead and live loads including the raft Ah good point, the 5 kN/m^2 I quoted earlier is the load of the building onto the foundation. The foundation will be heavy, so the load on the soil below the foundation will be much higher. Both numbers are important, of course, for designing the foundation.

For posterity, please let us know how it is to fit and how well it solves the problem.

Yeah, quite easy to do - just some simple geometry, look up the densities on ‘tinternet, divide by the floor area. Just take the bulky and heavy stuff, ignore the rest. Add some for live loads (defined in the regs somewhere). Even easier, your SE should have a rough idea in his/her head of the loadings from different construction methods. It won’t make that much difference to the work/cost of the foundations though. Are you building on soft ground with load limitations?