saveasteading

Single skin metal with insulation and ceiling below will also be fairly quiet. I've found that people prefer a slight rain sound rather than silence. Not for a voncert hsll or recording studio obviously.

It would be an awful lot worse without.

Suspect is generous. I was involved in proving the failure of an inappropriate gshp situation, and getting them replaced by ashp, so i studied it in detail and spoke to many. that was perhaps 10 years ago, and there were many companies giving the industry a bad name, through inappropriately promoting the principle in the wrong situation, as well as poor installation. I also spoke to many of these contractors and it was shocking how little they knew. I teased them by asking for quotes for sites with deep, heavy clay, and getting their recommendations. Meanwhile the good companies were suffering from the overall loss of confidence in their industry. One at the very top of the industry was openly proposing that the summer recharge of the ground was insufficient , and that the earth had to be heated by reversing the flow, or adding solar heating and 'storing' it in the ground. That was to apply to boreholes and also 'slinky' systems. So I'm thinking about the original question. Was it ever a good and efficient installation? is it worth repairing? It sounds like a simple case of repairing the pipe locally. But how good would it ever be?

And the instructions say what? I'm a fan of single part floor paint. Even in heavily trafficked areas it wears well , and just needs a touch-up occasionally. Never had complaints from commercial garages or earehpuse clients, but they loved the saving and the diy maintenance.

The planners are not Engineers, and should accept a proposal from a suitably qualified one. This is Civil Engineering with a geotechnical / environmental slant so you'd have to ask around.

A desktop search of mining can bd rather approximate. Maps can show pits and shafts in completely the wrong place. Just 3 things to suggest. 1. Is the ground suitable for supporting your building? Engage an SE to consider what tests are necessary: no more than necessary. 2 contamination. Assume the worst in terms of gas and chemical attack. Protect the building using radon barrier and venting. No need to test. 3.Plus soil tests to see if contamination is present that could harm children or pets or get into vegetables. Replacing soil would cost a fortune, so best find out promptly, then most likely, relax. Fees ? Plus some 6m bore holes. £4,000?

Not too late to become an investigative journalist! As it happrns i was thinking about this. How come i can find that july, detailed statement online in 20 minutes, whereas so-called journslists simply spout a story handed to them with no further research. And why is it news now but wasn't before?

I'd think so. If you wanted you could do all the stuff inside your boundary to get a tap where you wanted it, well away from the building. ready to connect to the house later. Thames are a bit big to be watching you, and you're doing nothing wrong anyway. Just keep paying the bills.

It is the builder's responsibility/ fault, or their designer. BC do not do detailed checks of the design, otherwise they would need a lot more staff, who happen to know absolutely everything, and many times the fee. They do an overview of the design*, and sampling checks on site. They can't even do spot checks without an invitation from the builder. We're all guessing about this project, as it could be any of many things. Error in the soils assessment. A recent change in the ground condition. Design error. Change of design by the builder. Construction faults. Construction quality. Has anyone noticed in the blurb, why they changed to a in-situ suspended slab? Or how this is done for a ground floor? This appears to have been quoted as the problem. I'm not aware of an economic way of doing this, ie in getting the shuttering out again after use. So perhaps it was poured on the ground for ease, and isn't actually suspended. I'm speculating again. * A Structural Engineer may do many days of detailed consideration and complex design. BC would need to have an SE in house who specialised in that ( or those) aspects of design, or they have to commission another SE to do so. They do NOT go through all the calculations. They look at the principles, and take a view on whether the output/ proposal looks about right. Anther important aspect that often isn't understood is 'Building Notice'. In the English system it is permitted to submit designs as the project proceeds. This is higher risk, and can lead to projects not being considered holistically, and construction proceeding in advance of stage approvals. As a designer and contractor I preferred this, as it allows an earlier start, and I know it is my risk. A 'Full plans' application needs all the detail and I think is unusual for big projects, because of the time delay for approval. Which is better? It depends on the contractor's skill and attitude to risk. In Scotland there is no option. Having recently worked with the Scottish system, we had to wait a very long time for the warrant to be issued. It is a serious offence to start without approval. Much as the wait for approval is frustrating, it did allow additional details to be submitted or even changes made to ensure the bco's approval. They pointed out some issues that might have been contentious, and they were resolved before commencement.

Good info. If you have access to local news , then keep us informed if you learn more please. Esp any pics of the cracks. They'd probably rather just knock the lot over, but are being watched. Claiming to be the best at sustainable construction makes them have to salvage what they can. Anybody know the build cost of a house like this? I'm just guessing £150k. 150 x 88 = approx 13M. Add demo, admin, loss of sales, doing it properly next time and legals: A £20M hit. MD might not get the £2M bonus this year. My main concern is that this has been kept quiet for so long? Its the first I've heard of it. How much influence do these developers have. If it became more public then perhaps there would be more scrutiny of quality.

Found it. It's all in this report from July and worth a read if you're into ground heave. https://darwingreenconstruction.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/ In principle though. There has been soil heave due to the high plasticity of the ground. Phase 1, had beam and block suspended flooring and seems to have resisted, or joggled with, ground movement. Phase 2. is in-situ suspended concrete floors, which has 'not allowed for' the heave, resulting in cracking. I also notice that the Buiding control was by NHBC, and there is no comment about inspections. And that the Environment Agency are against further development as there is insufficient water supply, and it will deplete the aquifer.

It will rust, but I expect it will last as long as the panels etc, but a coat of paint will add a few years..

Rather an assumption! Maybe it was they who noticed the problem. They are not normally entitled to do spot checks. I've seen a similar case where depth for trees had not been allowed for, BS demanded founds to be exposed, then down they came. I wonder if we can google to find the actual issue. As we are speculating here, my guess is that they did the standard 1m deep footings whereas they needed to be deeper and wider for poorer ground, or as said, 3 storey load....due to absence of skilled supervision. David Wilson is an upmarket brand for Barratt. hmmm. you're right , but this could presumably be resolved very quickly if they are allowed to explain the issue. Sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Likewise. It didn't make sense to me, so I assumed this was more a specification/ guidance than showing real life detailing.

Through a scaffold tube, for an easy bridge?

Quite right. PM would be the better contact. In his case though, it isn't an alias, so his website and number are readily available in a search. Unless of course, it is all a cover story and that isn't his real name. I don't think it would take MI5 long to work out who anybody on here is.

But leaving big gaps for air admittance.

And cost the sum of £200. A proper assessment takes many hours and costs a lot more than that. Reminded me of the old days of being able to buy a dodgy mot or electrical sign-off cert.

Pumps up to 7 meter vertically or 60 meter horizontally NB the word ' or'. This is a basic model though. 35m and 5m could just work. You need to see the graph showing both.

Officially, you need a pump station. That includes a biggish tank. Unofficially, a saniflo will work, subject to distance and height difference. We used one successful on construction sites as a much better alternative to chemical toilets. Only when there was a sewer obviously. As they work in basements, getting 2 to 3m height lift is obv OK. Need to check your circumstances v the different models.

Meaning composite panel? Steel outer and inner, filled with PIR. Avoid the cheaper polyurethane versions. They burn and are rightly uninsurable.

I think it is simply writing down the number of your choice, within the bounds of possibilty. I did a fairly ropy refurb of an old shed once, making it clear to the client what he was asking for and getting. He then let it as an office. He got an epc done. Would have been lucky to get E but it was B.

Not far to the fire exit.

I think there are rats in the roof space, judging by the sounds, so yesterday i got out the old ice cream tub where i keep the bait, from a wall cupboard. I found a small hole in the bottom of it and an empty sachet that had been blue wheat. The only way into the cupboard is via a cable entry. I'm going to measure it for interest. I stopped using catch and release after i once forgot.

I think these are craned and forklifted the same as the obviously strong steel ones. The reason for selling them off is presumably the chiller being at end of life...or the door, which must be insulated too.