saveasteading

Thanks @torre. I will have a read of the official government paper on this if readily findable. But I've seen this recently, ore than once definitely not happening quickly due to alleged loss of facility... they had to prove it was non viable.

You can see here at the window reveal, the stone as was and the amount of inner lining. there is clear air and dpm between the two elements. That loss of room width bothered us at first but there was no option really, and it's fine. There is heat loss through the stone of course but it is art and heritage in place of ultimate insulation and the BCO agreed it was a good thing. The rest of the house is fully insulated. The Scottish reg's allow pragmatism in conversions. Another factor is that, if you built a structural wall supporting the floor above, then it would need a footing.

Yes. the wall has stood there for hundreds of years, so keep it and use it. Our steading has 3 skinned granite walls. we kept the roof so that is a difference of course. then inside there is a timber stud construction for insulation and decoration and airtightness. Thus you are looking at a stud construction, not structural. It works a treat. Normal joinery. perhaps copying what is there, or otherwise, but local joiners can do it. For completeness, We had, and have, 4 sides and a central courtyard, with 3 retained sides, as described, but the 4th side had to be removed and rebuilt as if a new house. That was stick built.

Ask the merchant, if you know who it was, and/or the manufacturer.

As @Jenki says. The underground tank is supported by gravel or concrete as specified. If that tank is used above ground then the internal pressure is not evenly distributed or supported, and the tank will distort then break. So above ground it would be thicker material, and probably have fins within it. Plus the chemistry is different for UV protection, or again it will fail. It must be underground and built as spec. OR buy an above ground version at greater cost. Some tanks are made to shallower profiles and so are not so deep in the ground, and/or can be buried deeper and have an extended shaft up to ground level.

I'm afraid it is the opposite. Loss of local services. You will likely get opposition from locals, and then the council will want proof that it is not viable as a business , in any way or form. I would suggest that you start by talking to the Parish Council. They may well support you and that would be very significant. If they resist then you may have a long process of being seen to try to sell as a going concern. The complaints are often from people who never use the shop/ pub etc. OTOH If you have the community onside, then it will be easy enough.

Is the whole project a conversion? Presumably upstairs is accomodation already, and only downstairs is a conversion. On that basis a private buyer might leave the roof alone, or until cash allows. Otoh, the new owner should seek a VAT rebate on the whole project, not only half of it. I agree just sell. As @Nickfromwales says, the prospects for private or commercial buyers are very different.

I had to rush my 'send'. You have clearly stated that you intend to proceed so that clarifies greatly. Otherwise I was going to suggest that it might be an expensive battle. As all the good advice above, take your time but waste no time. Tidy your garden now of piles of stuff that will later have to be removed for works. That will give the newts an opportunity to relocate. Then keep it all clear of any habitats. There is no law against tidying the garden or cutting the grass. When the council visit there will be nowhere on your build area that newts could be living. Assume there will be objections and that the consultant they ask will tell the council that he needs to be appointed before and after, for several £k By that time you may have found a sympathetic specialist who supports you, or you will be expert enough yourself. Read al local applications and you will find a pattern to argue against. With your application you submit a long and attractive paper, in easy to follow form, with pans and photos, on what is there, what you are doing so no newts are harmed, and why there isn't even a need for a watching brief. You may include some new habitats away from the build area. It will read as a benefit, not harm , to newts. In fact you might start by saying how obvious it is that no newts can be harmed, but here is an explanation anyway.

There nothing wrong with having GCNs. They are a reptile that happens to be rare in some areas. Planners tend not to be aware of the easy remedies. Some consultants take advantage. Don't make them rarer by filling a pond of other habitats. Don't endanger them in any other way. I've dealt with them only twice. You may take confidence or otherwise. 1. A city Council which had a policy that most GCNs were in a pond in certain months. That was the only time to clear the site for construction. No other constraints. 2. I engaged a pragmatic consultant to give an overview of any likely constraints for a new client. He said that 70% there would be GCNs. So we had a choice..spend thousands to find if there were, and again to catch them and relocate them. OR assume they are there and only do work as in 1. OR in that case keep mowing the grass. That was accepted, I think with some reluctance. So it depends on your council.

Also generally for signs of dampness. Are any areas of timber darker, or damp or mouldy? Feel the floor too, which is probably fibre-glass. Do that from ridge to eaves as water can run all the way til something makes it drip.

More that the roofer fancies an easy life at the client's expense? A roofer who doesn't like heights? Many tradespeople have become a little precious. The plumber who won't drill a hole. I'd say find a roofer who quotes the whole job including access. That takes away the risks of 1. overkill, 2 you taking safety responsibility. They really should have a few access tools of their own if that is really what they specialise in. @WalterB When you do choose a roofer, insist that they take a picture of the problem close up, before, during (with failed mortar raked out and the area prepped) and after.

And the main thing is...most builders would happily use cheap harcore, poorly compacted and full of voids, then covered with a load of sand, some of which will gradually disappear into the voids. So any spec is better than that. As I said above, I'm used to designing and building for slabs with forklifts and racking. That fails if badly done. For houses the worst load is a sofa or the grand piano. Observation of new mass house building shows me that they get away with a lot.

yes, do it now. They might suddenly be able to do it tomorrow, if the door is a stock item. Or you agree to hold that sum too. And pay the rest.

Interesting. My logic is entirely the opposite. The building catches and disperses the rain landing on it, so no rain hits the ground under it. Water outside may run towards the building. Solid stone under the floor keeps water out , whereas an open texture encourages it in. A solid base of type 1 (or type 2) and just enough sand to smooth the last few mm will not allow any water to flow in and under the slab. A no-fines sub-base will allow, even encourage, water to flow right under the building, especially with the perimeter drain catching the rain and loading the open sub-base. Type 1 is close to being solid rock so there is absolutely no water flow horizontally through it, and negligible dampness within it. Single sized aggregate has about 1/4 void, which will fill with water, if the source is provided. Of course I agree with the gravel drain all around, and would want it to be provided with a ready outlet away from the building. In reality, the xps is thick and heat transfer beneath it will be tiny, so I dont think it is a problem, but even less with a dense and solid base. On the other hand, type 1 is a pig to handle and to lay, needing a whacker,especially around the perimeter. It is very much easier to lay no-fines or low-fines aggregate, and it barely needs compacting. And a thick layer of sand means that level control is easier. So perhaps that is the main advantage on a house sized project.

I agree. Perhaps I'm wrongly assuming that they aren't talking.

More drone films please. Is the timber placed for level control? Or is it a very long tamp? I'm not a fan of 50mm sand, but that's from a life with commercial slabs. Flat and level enough and reasonably compacted, is probably fine when the next layer is xps. Why is that please? It's all going to have a building over it.

It doesn't sound as if you get on well with them. It shouldn't be a win/ lose situation. You are not bargaining, you are being fair and reasonable. But if that's the way you or they see it, then trust may not be an option. My advice stands, but to your message add that you have proof they damaged the door. If you never see them again, you have the money for the works remaining. Is that for the best?

You withold the plumbing fund, as it is not done. You withold the kitchen repair value. You withold any other sums appropriate to odds and ends (snagging) unless there is a retention sum in the contract. You pay the rest, assuming completely happy. You tell them in writing that you are paying x and witholding y and z, and why. It's common for a business to invoice immediately. Ie might not be a try-on. It's standard for customers to agree and pay with appropriate money held back. In writing, courteously but firmly.

So I'm still learning. How have I not known about these? Is this batching supposed to be more efficient?

Isn't it always full? Whatever goes in one end, the same comes out of the other? @RossMcO it's right to ask the questions. But stop worrying. Any of the big makes will do the job for a full house. You only have to decide if you risk turning the air pump off when nobody is there. I would. Nothing will get worse and no liquid will come out. The only risk is of the crust hardening a bit....or maybe the pump forgetting how to work put it on a timer? Nobody will die and the kit will still work. I've only ever used Marsh products. I'm sure our clients don't look after them and they keep working. The old ones didn't even have air pumps, if I remember correctly.

The building inspector is not responsible. They do spot checks not supervision. The builder may still have liability. Check the contract. If KS now want a concrete surround, then that sounds as if these tanks are now known to need it. Their inspection is not going to be independent.

I've seen such a costing. It measured the main elements and put a £/m2 against them. That's what I would do too. Floor 200m2 x £60 Aluminium Windows 40m2 x £600 Etc Site setup sum £20004site managemrnt 40 weeks x £1200 And so on. The big unkown is what a builder adds to that for overheads and profit. Included or plus 20% or 40%. And risk...who owns it? A local might know the current marketplace better than someone far away. There are published multipliers for location but that's approximate. As a contractor quoting, these rates are all worked out much more precisely. A QS preparing a formsl document might have 3 times as many items for the same project.

It has about 2m3 in it, underground so will not dry out significantly in a year. Close all indoors plugs to keep the u bends wet and avoid smells. For tiny use, i'd be inclined to install a blower type, and never get round to putting the power in, maybe run a cable in the trench for later. It will work away in its own time.

Yes you might get technically too much heat gain. You have to find a way of passing reg's. In real life you find out if it is a problem and deal with it. We put big thick curtains in for the winter and they work for the summer. We fitted them to reach floor and ceiling, to keep the heat in that closed pocket.

That's all I've ever used. No careful management. The final effluent always looked and smelled completely clean, tho I never tested it. I don't think unuse matters..the contents will fester slowly until your return. Neither will it need much maintenance. Just allow for a sucklift every few years and a change of air pump when necessary.