saveasteading

When we converted this house about 30 years ago the system was different, and any conversion was a low band (C? from memory) , presumably to encourage change of use and retention of buildings and we have benefited all that time.

No, I'm not against this. I'm just considering that the average person perhaps does not have £300 to invest (which is what it is) and the space, and the available socket to spare. If we were to add interest, labour and a lifespan cost the numbers wouldn't look great. But if every developer fitted an automatic one (linked to detect the optimum times to charge/discharge) then the cost would maybe be £300 all up, and it works x the number of units. New houses 10,000 p/a??? .. a lot of power used more efficiently, and we turn off a gas turbine.

That's good and also a tidy sum due to scale. But would you bother for £60 a year? To which apply that it takes space, needs funding which not all can afford, and of course the risk of failure. But perhaps if all new homes had one fitted as standard that would be 1. Cheaper, 2. A big deal on the national scale.

A couple of comments. Thd article says a £300 battery is sufficient to run a fridge for 2 days, and pays itself in 3 years. But this month's which magazine says a fridge freezer costs £30p/a to power. Does not compute. 2 fridges cost £60p/a. 5 years. So a decent return but not ground breaking due to the small scale. Add financing the £300 and it's not great. This also assumes that it's all automatic. Recycling. I understood that I take batteries for recycling rather than for safe disposal.

How high will these new trees grow? You won't be seeing that sunset for ever. Are they fruit trees or other? May I say it all looks great, but when I first saw your pic of the kerbs going in on 1/2m of concrete base, it made me think of a bobsleigh run. all rather splendid now.

Not a blog, but a few words would be interesting. Then in a year you can reflect on those notes and realise everything is fine really.

The house building itself is ancillary and a bit of a nuisance. Buy land, get houses built, sell houses. The money will be made by getting the land at the best price, then squeezing more houses onto it, combined with rising demand when there was some. Would the developers take turns at getting the land so as to keep the price down? I wouldn't be surprised, but the chances of proving anything would be very small. It will have been doe by some 'understandings' and nothing in writing. Only very big developers can do it because there are a lot of funds tied up for a long time. Thus it will really be the lenders who are doing well. At present there are developments around here that are on hold because they aren't selling. 3 year old houses on the same estates are selling at 10% less than they cost. There are too many units available and also some doubts among potential buyers about the future. The land and building cost the developers too much during a boom period. Then the subsidiary of an arm of a contractor can be allowed to go out of business while the ownership and profits are already elsewhere. But if the price rises then they do not spend more on better quality, but keep the money. But still there are big sites getting planning permission.

Half a brick one planner told me. That was logical for a brick house, and a half brick each side of a door would then apply and becomes one brick. I wonder how many people deliberately make a house bigger than drawn. There's plenty cheating on other things eg a "garage" without ramps or an "attic" that gets skylights.

Agreed as above. All of it. Building is difficult. Someone with knowledge has to be in control. That has a cost. When you say 'planning' , what stage are you at? Presumably you have some set ideas on layout and budget. Underpinning! A horrible, messy, expensive job. Recently there have been some technical ways to support the building rather than the old ways, but I haven't researched it. You should do that and perhaps there is knowledge on here. Perhaps do the underpinning first and preserve the building before starting to knock holes in it and excavate around it. After that you'll know what budget remains and a bit more about your building. If you have pics or reports of the structural issues then we can maybe help.

That's the excuse of the less well informed that you are repeating. The vast majority of scientists are too busy being scientists (knowledge, analysis, complicated stuff) to get involved in politics. They are not inclined to lie or push propaganda either. They will also say' it isnt that simple ' unlike the worst of politicians who say what the audiene wants to hear, Those who don't understand science are often disinclined to believe just how clever some other people can be. If you excuse me I will exit this otherwise useful conversation: we self builders are designing with climate change in mid after all, and maybe become old if we can keep indoor temperatures in control. after passing some rather tricky exams at school . It's much easier to not understand and to assume it is bluff.

Because it has been blotchy for a while so not rally 10 years aesthetically. thanks for the names, Ill read up a bit incl Hammerite. Rustoleum I know the name, but the others are new. Only one typo is good going with my fingers. I dont fancy taking it down as it is probably 70 years since it was last fitted (we are told that the roof was originally shingles but didn't last long.) and will be 25 years older than that. Just the steel brush perhaps, then whichever paint seems to be the stickiest.

Relax. The planners are well aware that the complaints were vexatious. if there are more then they will contact you. I've had such complaints and as long as you aren't deliberately cheating then it goes away or needs a simple resolution such as retrospective approval.. eg. to high? above what? they don't know. Too wide? an inch is not remotely significant. and so on. If you've added a wing or converted an attic without permission then that's different. Come back to us if there are any more contacts though, of course.

Looks like I need to do my own research.

I wonder, with many insurances being via comparison sites and tick list questionnaires, how often people tick the nearest description to theirs. This could result in a claim being refused. Insurance companies vary with some being fair and others being cynical claim deniers. I overheard a manager of one insurer (it happens that I'm seeing their name all over the place at present) saying proudly that they are by far the "most successful" in avoiding claim payouts. There appeared to be a league table of who kept most of their premium income. I think he said "we only pay out 40% of income." That was clearly a target. Ticking the nearest description would be an easy one for them to refuse on the grounds of inaccurate description.

Doesn't read like an ensuite door.