saveasteading

I had never heard of these, or the need for them. Is it a genuine concern? Are they much used? Or just required in risk assessments and not used?

Yes. but inset it before completing the internal wall, and cap it as well, and its minimal. It's just that I've come across some very poorly fitted resin bolts in concrete, and brick is weaker (dust/ too smooth a surface/ too thick resin/ not deep enough /not mixed.properly/ glue absent due to pushing the bolt and not turning it.). 1. 24mm foundation bolts pulled out upon tightening the nuts. 2. a hoist fell over with a lorry on it.......neither installed by me or any of our people! Managing our own works I've found all the other issues in good time. BUT I do favour resin anchors IF properly supervised.

Yes. You get lots of shots at shaping it to suit.

Or more often as bike storage. I like the old fashioned nut and bolt method where its possible. Resin anchors are often fixed without care. Not in this case obv, but when left to other parties..

Under the walls is a good idea, but still fill them with flexible filler. 2 layers of mesh is unnecessary.

This got my interest. There's loads online. There is a mention of an 'agriculture mix'. It appears to be high cement content to resist urine. That will cost just a few £ more. Come back for info on laying and crack control.

If you use weatherboard or t and g it shrinks and distorts. If very well seasoned that can be minimal, but the slightest gap looks bad. Hit and miss needs regular gaps and quite wide, to make variable shrinkage a small proportion of the gap, hence not noticeable. A black membrane behind battens is effective and perhaps paint the battens black too. Using big overlaps work too but is expensive. I've tried all these, once having to strip and redo. No problem ever with insects in the ventilated gap. They do however love pir which they excavate to make a nest, but that shouldn't be accessible.

Fibre additive is good value and good for anticrack. Will then need a few sawcuts (later discussion). Steel mesh is more advisable if you think there may be some inferior sub base as it can bridge the problem a bit. Otherwise fibre is good. Only for horses? No vehicles? Strength isn't an issue, but quality is as it should not have cracks. So a standard c30mix, with fibre and plasticiser. Absolutely don't add water to the mix supplied. If the base is flat and hard then 100mm minimum thickness will suffice. But if its a rough hardcore allow 150mm. Then there are drainage slopes to consider. Laying concrete is a skill. With fibres it is also harder work. Re strength again.. would a horse fall through the stone base? No. So it won't fall through, or break, the concrete above it even without steel or fibre.

BRE was privatised. Then it changed from being a national service to a business. They introduced air testing but only they could do the tests. Then along came epc and it was again very restricted. I met loads of their staff on both occasions. They were nice pr people with no tech knowledge. So we can only assume that back at hq they don't know a lot either. I was so constantly critical but few people accepted that BRE could be wrong, so I passed one of their exams.....which they charged a lot for. Multiple choice., mostly obvious. 4 hours study as compared to the many days they suggested.

It is always thus. I see things on old projects that still bug me, but nobody else ever noticed or notices, because they aren't looking. Hypnotism must be the answer.

We designed and built our own office building, thinking of it for value, comfort, future proofing, running cost and also as an advert for sustainable design. That all worked because we got awards for it, but not necessarily the right things were appreciated. It was rated D, 15 years ago (which was considered great at the time). We had it reassessed last year and it got a good B without any modification. Most of that was because ashp is now 'good', whereas then it was 'bad', such was the knowledge level at BRE. I assume a lot has been improved but equivalent nonsense is still likely to be in the box.

So long ago...and it was always vague anyway. We weren't cheating, simply trying to avoid nonsensical penalties within said black box. It also allowed us to design a building that we knew would pass, tweak insulation if necessary, and avoid shocks at the end. Our EPC assessor would discuss these things with us, and we could share our disdain, but they were very strict and professional: I think there are other types available. Solar panels to the roof that our client would fit...later. Boilers were rated wrongly...we reckoned they had inverted the adjustment factors from worst to best. Air source heating was assumed to be used for cooling in summer whether likely or not, greatly damaging the electricity use figure (which was considered to be bad energy by BRE at the time) Very dubious assessment of solar gain. If I remember more I'll come back.

That's correct. My business got the software when it was a brand new thing, and we played around with it. The only way to understand it was to do dozens of variations on each project. Some tick boxes were beyond anyone's understanding or logic and BRE were not at all keen to engage in discussion. In so doing we revealed lots of inconsistencies, but also the easy fixes and bad ideas for a good rating. For example some choices which everyone would think were an obvious good idea, might make the epc worse, so we simply didn't show it. It was interesting but not worth the annual cost' once we had established the principles.

They would fit none or all, so that should be OK.

SFS is the manufacturer, 18mm the length. The cladder can get them from any good specialist supplier ( cladding or fixing.

I'm assuming that the clips are steel, for strength, and the screw tightens steel to steel. The steel screw to aluminium ridge contact will be miniscule but without a washer it might get wet. A tiny washer would be ideal. A squidge of silicon would help but not long term.

If they're cutting corners, try to check if the compression strip is installed. Just push a tape or pencil up the gap.

As well as being stainless, I'd think they should be self-tapping with a fairly large diameter or chunky thread. I'm surprised the manufacturer doesn't specify it. Also, check the centres these clips should be at. This detail is very vulnerable to wind and I'd expect fixings at 300cc or so if you don't want it to disappear some windy night.

If If electricity is about 30p / kWh, that's a 70p shower reducing to 10p. Not allowing pipe losses. All -ish. 2 showers x 365. So a useful £400 ish per annum. Cost saving might still be a hard sell unless these become standard and cheap. I saw this launched by a young (red haired?) chap at a Pas de Calais Chamber of Commerce exhibition. Maybe the same chap.

Sustainable drainage has to be planning led, but also seen through to completion. It depends on location but is vital in flood prone areas. Maybe that is included in 'neighbour issues' if it includes all downstream areas outside the local authority.

I saw this idea at a trade show in France about 15 years ago. It was a copper fabrication where the incoming cold was warmed by the waste. It was early days so I don't know if it succeeded. But it's likely to have been patented if it was deemed a new idea. My issues were location, access, extra plumbing and payback period. With a 2 minute shower I doubt if it has merit. With a 30 minute one perhaps.

Success. Got a clone charger and 2 batteries on amazon. Nails with gas from screwfix using £10 voucher. There were no instructions,so i couldnt get anything to happen. Youtube College showed how the gas tube is activated. The first attempt resulted in a waste of gas: easy the second time. Then it simply worked. POOM. So now it is worth investing in a storage case.

You could try simply telling them that sort of thing. Theyve given you the headings, so you could address each in turn, giving them something to tick. Any real numbers would be good. Your council may well have published some of their aims. One such might be called the drainage hierarchy... so if your rainwater is going elsewhere than drains or ditches, or being slowed, then you tell them what you are doing.

I say I'm questionning. Others may say cynical. At a self righteous presentation by one of the very big contractors, we were being told we must all be zero waste, like them. I dared ask what happens to stuff that can't be reused or recycled . After much waffle, eventually I got an admission that what they really mean is that they don't have any waste among what can be recycled. The rest is recategorised and omitted from analysis. Cabin rubbish is not construction waste. Mastic tubes and old tarpaulins can be burnt for energy. Someone takes it away and gives them a receipt stating its going to be cared for. They didn't mind declaring zero waste, and their clients accepted that. That company will equally have standard answers about other aspects of sustainability. The planners don't have resources to challenge it.

I actually agree that the planners require this, as at least it makes people think. The problem might be that planners are not technical people and don't necessarily understand the difference between the green-wash they are subjected to, and reality. So I agree that you try to find a previous successful write-up and adapt if to your circumstances. I'm especially pleased re water use. That is a big issue that is mostly being ignored but is sortable. Add sustainable drainage if that applies.