saveasteading

You are right and I wrote that confusingly. I mean that perhaps the planners' definition may be used to define a start on site for regs.

But they are not. I have found I can best explain it as two circuits which interact at a heat transfer 'box' in the building. A sketch on a blackboard helps but I'm not doing one. Anyway, it is 2 circuits passing through a shared box. Improvements or corrections to this analogy are welcome. Air source or ground source grabs energy from outside, heats up a liquid and this is circulated into the building. Once in the building, the warm heat supply has the heat taken from it in a plenum or a radiator or a tank by warming the internal circuit of liquid or air. 2 separate circuits. For air to air it is rather simple with internal air being blown over the heated pipes, either straight into a room or through ducts. Air to air.(but liquid moves ig around) Air to water. Ground to air (via liquid again) Ground to water. There are other circuits of air through the heat pump or replacement water flow in the ground but that might show as another loop on the sketch. Phew that was hard to write. Easier at a client's white-board. There will be some corrections or clarifications needed.

. I haven't done an English 'Start' for a few years. Last I did though, the client wanted the least done to keep PP. The bco was nervous about a token 'Start' ( such as a sign and a trench in the old days). We had to submit the design and build an actual part of it. Otherwise he said the planners wouldn't agree it had commenced. On that basis, these buildings have not commenced.

Small money to the developer. Lots of good hardcore. They should be able yo reuse roof trusses tiles, dingows, but will they bother? I'd be amazed if an SE agreed to the design change. More likely the money side of the company. What will save money? ( I have seen such decisions by unqualified staff). Maybe they'll start looking at quality and reputation.

In my view ( if I was the bco and interested in the subject), you should show how flooding downstream will be no worse than before, perhaps less bad. That is basically what SUDS is. But chucking rainwater into a ditch will likely speed the water towards its destination, and so would be 'a bad thing'. Can you slow its journey? Barrels, swale, french drains, lagoon, limited flow outlet to ditch? Cleaned sewage goes on a different loop and perhaps they join at the end.

Sorry, I see you had said already. 330mm below ground level Is very high but it took 6 days to fill. Great fun for foundations or even any site strip. I think do this again after a drier spell of weather. The water coming out of a digester is not in large quantities so maybe it can be made to work ( site specifics and pragmatic bco depending). But where will rainwater in modern vast volumes, go?

Don't assume that yet. What level did the groundwater rise to?

It would be tidiest to start your own thread on this I think. Perhaps someone knows if there is a way of copying it over.

From memory....there is a distance at which there can be an airborne spark, depending on voltage. Find that and draw a vertical line for no-go. on site erect a marker tape there. Inside that, nothing must be able to fall towards the power. Mewps must be very stable. Scaffold must be tied to the structure. Lifting zones must be worked out. Safe handling of metal parts must be studied and controlled. Your contractors will need supervision. I'd get them to write their own risk assesments. Right now get reading.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/gs6.htm

Electricity jumps a long way. How far away is it? Had to use fibreglass ladders on one project. Had interesting occurrences involving cranes a couple of times. I'm sure the rules will be very clear. But there is usually a solution, albeit slower or more expensive. Does the barn include steel? Are you reusing the structure?

I once asked a head of planning about their thoughts on planning consultants. He said they welcome them because they present the case logically and with reference to policy, making it easy to deal with. So I don't think that bullying logic applies.

Every time a young boy jumps into a pool etc....

In my experience they decide in a professional manner according to their interpretation of policy. However their experience is that often the appeal officer will disagree, and reverse it, hence they may tell you that. I've had a refusal overturned at appeal on the grounds of 'what else will happen to this brownfield site?.' That was, therefore, not based on policy in any way and our own consultant was surprised to succeed. The appeals people in Bristol used to be the top of the profession. Now I fear it is delegated to the lowest bidding consultant who then likes a quick fix. I further fear that they are influenced hy central government to encourage development...but I have no proof. But I have been involved in a couple of cases where council refused permission to fit with local opinion and parking problems but it was permitted at appeal. Hence my cynical opinion.

So a total success. 'Just' perfect as opposed to not right.

The planners don't want appeals. They take lots of resources. If you start off by asking if you can discuss it, you will determine their attitude. Planning is objective but you may have different interpretations so it can be discussed. A further step can be to engage a planning consultant to present your argument. That way the council sees what you would say at appeal and may be convinced or prepared to compromise.

I've built over big swimming pools. But always avoided building the pool itself because they go badly wrong so often. But then so do buildings, as you may have noted when they are closed for extensive repair. Condensation is the big problem. So even for an unheated space you need to either let the wind whistle through or have extensive insulation. Also ensure that any joints in metal cladding are sealed on the underside, where the lap will be the wrong way. Heating is usually only under windows to stop condensation.

Learning from each others mistakes. Beware the door. We bought one that opens only one way and isn't reversible. Grrrr. And some require extra width for the door to open to 90°.

I was writing the same as this was posted. The roof is only on one side to part of the length. A UC will resist this. A UB might need stiffening.

Ond reaso perhaps is: As you have a portion with roof loading to only one side, this puts a twisting load into the ridge which a UC will resist better than a UB.

Easier is to counterbatten, with packing to level.

Beware. Do you mind losing a friend? Some things will go wrong. As long as you pay extra every time it is requested ( and happily so) then it could be OK.

Yes. At a certain chunkiness they don't need any (or partial) protection. The one here for example is unlikely to need any. There is no occupation above it. At 300+ degrees it will soften a bit. @NandM Re the splice, and the rest, Russell is right. Ask the supplier for 2 options, in case it happens to suit manufacture or delivery costs (small lorry) But lift it in one piece. If the builder hasn't seen beams this heavy, he either hasn't much experience of beams....or some cash and no regulations clients have unstable houses. Either way, discuss the proposed method for lifting and fixing it.....a 'risk assessment'.

A pump drain ouulet is very easy as you don't need to keep to precise lines and levels. Usually the suppliers of pumps want to install them. But it is easy stuff. Obv the pipes in to it have to be to falls. I assume you need a day's storage volume in case of power cuts. When you install? I can't say, as you know the site.

Good question. The building regs may imply yes. The reality is it won't burn down until the rest is already gone.