saveasteading

Quite right. Choose a good make and the batteries can be used on most. We bought mains power for cement mixer, table saw and chop saw. The rest is battery.

i explained it badly. in a traditional stone building there are major stone elements for lintels, door openings and at corners. There is commonly a twee reference to this by rendering a new house, but applying these patterns in a different colour of over-rendering, to look like lumps of stone. Having said that, I cant find examples, so perhaps it was a short term fashion, stamped out by planning, and removed form brochures. Found one.

I have skimmed, and agree with most points. 1. Don't try to be too clever, as VAT is horribly complex. Don't assume your accountant understands it...there are special advisers who charge an awful lot for their VAT advice. I have sat with them (for a probably zero VAT client) and realised that sometimes the VAT people don't know either. You can't choose to be a business, then not a business. An individual but also a company. VAT rebates only apply for domestic conversions, with zero business connection. If you avoid tax inappropriately (evasion ) then you will be penalised (severely fined) as well as have to pay whatever is deemed appropriate. Then they will send other inspectors to examine everything else. It is so complex that I will not give more advice on this. Get advice, read all the documents yourself and then get more advice. If the accountant doesn't agree to be liable for any liability then make your own mind up. 2. For breaking out a slab, hire a good breaker: one of these They seem too lightweight and quiet, but they exude breaking power rather than noise and vibration. 3. Drills, saws, cement mixers..buy good ones. 240V. you can have an RCD to keep you safe. 4. CDM isn't a game. People die and are injured far less than in the past. This is due to expectations and Human Rights, but also through the rigour of thinking through safety, and formalising it.

It's huge. So glad you are researching lime. Since we got interested it becomes obvious how many buildings are being patched with cement. I like the touch of the 2 black cars. Very appropriate. Prodave says don't consider ufh. Perhaps considering is OK, just don't assume yet. What is the ground floor construction?

Absolutely. It is your and others' interest that made me look at the topic properly, which I had skimmed, being about pump sizes. The original photo showed the extent of the problem. The tech drawings explained better than any words. The variety of expertise on her helps a lot too. Different slants on a subject.

Which was the question. The drawings were what sent me back to the question. I hadn't read the previous 5 pages. Helps that I've done a few basements and reservoirs.

The painter is a good example. You can imagine a cash guy who takes on any job, with little equipment and little experience. Not just that, but they send out a lad to do it, without the right equipment. Compare with the skilled painter with all the right equipment. The good one sends along skilled and experienced workers with the right access equipment and tools. In 5 minutes they could adapt their risk assessment to show the risks of the job and the equipment to do it. If you can think it, you can write it. Standard method statements can be short. In fact they should be short and relevant so that they can be read, discussed and become policy. Proportionality: an example. My business was supplying the superstructure for a big retail shed, working for a major contractor, now long gone. I was in the site office with the site manager, just doing our own things. In walked HSE unannounced. He asked the manager what was going on today and any particular risks. He just pointed at me and deflected the subject. HSE chatted to me about our role, what was going on today, by what means, and then asked for the relevant part of our documents. I handed it to him and he flicked through it and said it was perfect: relevant and understandable. (It was about 20 pages and job specific). Then he went back to the site manager, and asked for the equivalent in his documents. He pointed at 3 huge lever arches and said 'it is all in there somewhere'. HSE subsequent inspectors have reluctantly suggested I bulk it all out a bit, for effect, but keep the relevance. I never got criticised for anything in the manuals. Moral: write down what is the job and what risks there are. then what you are doing to avoid the risk. It follows that there won't be an accident anyway, because it has been thought through. But if there was, any show of care and thought will go a very long way.

Ok, that crossed my mind. Re hydrostatic loads. There are a lot of basements in the country. Many are damp, but few have water gushing up. Most don't have reinforced concrete, but you do. . So intuitively I think you are over-worrying. The SE may be happy to help on this, esp as you won't be claiming against them. What method is used for the tanking? Does it enclose the courtyard? I might be a cheaper job than the pumping station you are looking at.

There are slates from Spain that are good value, but also concrete tiles that look reasonably like slate, and much cheaper. (double size, so good coverage). I had a tour of the local merchant and saw all this stuff. The quality and price vary a lot It seems that most new rural houses in slate areas are getting the concrete option, even though the planning drawings say slate. Be cheeky and look at planning submissions in your area, and what materials they show. The advanced search can include terms such as barn. For now you only have to describe the materials to the planner. But you want both to get permission and also to avoid committing to an expensive solution. One thing I read in design guidance was that planners hate render that has dummy stonework (also of render) at features.

But not into your courtyard. As above, I suggest that the design premise is wrong. The house has disturbed the natural flow of groundwater, but that can be resolved by diverting it around the house, rather than fountaining up in your courtyard. Just keep it out of the structure, and it will flow round it and back onto its original route. The flow will slow down too, because the natural water table will return. As my coloured lines attached.: the tanking should be a complete enclosure. (Not with a hole in it) Red Line. The same principle as not putting a hole in the bottom of a swimming pool. It can just be very local around the sump, the purpose of which would only be to catch rain falling in the courtyard, plus any from downpipes (which could and should be taken elsewhere). The water from the neighbouring acres simply stays where it is and dissipates where it always used to. You can possibly still do this, although it depends whether the tanking was just to the house or the whole structure...which it looks to be. It would be a permanent solution. The purple line of your drain can remain, simply moving water around so it can find a new course along the rock. If you must pump the groundwater then this can be another sump, outside the red line. That's my last shout on this, unless you want to consider this any further. PM me if necessary as I may turn this topic off. If your revised drainage doesn't work, it will be because of the sheer quantity of water, and then you can try my proposal. But time is passing, and liability is gradually passing entirely to you, although you appear to be taking full blame anyway, for reasons I don't understand. I can see that the designers might want to claim that you didn't understand the concept, or built it wrongly, and that they weren't Project Managers. Perhaps a risk of breaking the project down too much. But there is a fundamental duty from them, and when there are unusual circumstances and is high risk, the duty extends to ensuring that it is understood and carried out. Good luck with it anyway. Pump away.

No. I don't see why you think you are responsible. Or maybe I do. The Architect has chosen to build a basement, extending outdoors. It should be completely waterproof from below and the sides.. Presumably (please!) the walls and foundation are designed to keep water out, as a basement with completely integrated waterproof structure (like a swimming pool o reservoir, but inside out. Then the SE has made it work structurally. Then someone has decided to dewater the flooded tank using a pump, of another's choosing. I dont think so..Perhaps the reality is that they didn't think it through and thought that the pump is needed to dewater the patio, not the whole site. And didn't think of the water getting in through the patio doors. Back to basics.: this should not need a big pump, which by default is dewatering the entire area, except to take out direct rainwater landing in the patio. This could have been achieved if the sump was also sealed below*, and only the water from rain landing in the patio area. If I was a cynical person, I'd be thinking that the architect has told you it is your problem, not their responsibility. Hence you are going along with it, spending more and perhaps not resolving the fundamental design error. I won't nag any more, as perhaps there are other reasons we don't know about. You seem determined not to trouble your designers, and to take all the cost and disturbance yourself. And perhaps have an unsellable house. This can be sorted by someone else if you want. To me the design is wrong, it is the architect's responsibility and they should sort it. I would write to them, and also the SE if they were engaged by you rather the Architect. AND I would ask my insurer (and /or mortgager) to look into it as a claim....They have the resources and clout to get this sorted at someone else's expense. btw I showed your sketch to my wife, an accountant. She said immediately that the design was wrong and the designer should resolve. The easy solution may be this * .Break out sump, and rebuild with integrated waterproof barrier beneath, fully linked to the house tanking. divert the land drains away from the patio....whoever's idea was that?

Hence the house and courtyard should all be considered a basement....an inverse swimming pool. Then there is no need for a pump of any sort. This might be a fundamental design error, which would cost an awful lot to retrofix. So if it is your own work, sorry, and you cant be expected to know everything.. If by a professional then get them back.....or your insurers should be doing that for you.

Council officers tend not to be vindictive. Assume they are being fair, but don't know the circumstances. Don't pay anything but do write, politely, and reasonably and urgently. Old fashioned copy in the post with recorded delivery. First: you don't believe that there is any tax to pay. Explain the timescale of your ownership, at what stages and why it was uninhabitable, esp roof off. and that you are happy to discuss further and look forward to hearing from them....and meanwhile are not paying anything.

OK. drawings very useful. I should emphasise that I have not reviewed the previous 6 pages, so please excuse if this is already covered, and tell me. You have a basement which should be watertight....a complex and precise construction. You don't then make a hole in the bottom of it to allow water into the house, then pump it out again. The perimeter drainage needs to go away from the house. then there shouldn't be any need for sump or pump. If the building has been designed for you then the designer should be resolving this....or the contractor.

From my experience of pumps, the pipe at full flow with a strong pump is in danger of destroying the manhole it sits in...a powerful jet. 'at a fair whack' doesn't sound like manhole destroying force. Also, I suggest wait and see....the groundwater may have been building up, and your pump may be reducing it to natural levels, and will then slow down. Yes, you may be dewatering the whole area, which is another issue for another day perhaps.

Allow 10% for unknowns at this stage. Why not draw up what you fancy as the next stage, then put it on here for suggestions?

Just to answer your question, but demonstrate that this is not your priority. Complete guess £20/m2 difference on the slope area.....with average steel spec and average slate spec. But they could cost the same if comparing standing seam metal with lower grade slate.....but even then this is one of approximately umpteen variables. You won't be best pleased if we suggest £3,000 / m2 for your project and it ends up below your expectations, or more expensive. Or that cost is too high and you cancel unnecessariy. As Buzz and Bozza suggest.....you go first. area? budget? diy or contractor? architect? plus ground flat or sloping ground conditions mains available?

It shows that some neighbours have official 'crossovers', but I can't see if you do, and next-door doesn't, but then has no drive and doesn't need one. These need permission form the council and have to be put in by an approved contractor, the reasons being that it is altering the highway construction, and that footpaths are not built strong enough for vehicles. They are very likely to approve but it is fairly costly.

That looks fun in the snow and ice. I think, but have not checked, that you can do this without permission. But you must use permeable material so that it does not cause any extra water flow. There may just be some rules attached to your house, by covenant or planning policy, to forbid anything behind the house, so check your details. This is the right thing to do anyway, Your current drive would not be allowed if applied for now, because it allows rain to run onto the road. A polite word with your neighbour may avoid panic on their part, and any fuss. The photos don't show, but is there a proper crossover, with special kerbs down to road level? If not, the arguments above are not correct, and a crossover permission is the first thing.

Welcome. Just start asking. The heading is important so that you get the right attention.

We don't want to be sued by big companies, or local authorities, or approvals agencies. What are you / others doing re fire cover? Excluding risk in your contracts?

If i was contacted with this question I'd be giving the same answers, free, on the phone. If it really is a caravan, not a house in disguise, then prop on slabs or baulks. If it moves, it can be adjusted. If not really a caravan, then it is has to be as a proper submission, or I decline to be involved.

Good points. But my point is that the rain from any new build should all stay on site. A harvester is one factor but permeable paving, soakaways, barrels and ponds are grossly underused.

I reckon that the insurer sees no extra risk to them in you doing both SE and PD. Perhaps the risk is reduced, with an interface gone. I remember 20 years ago paying £20,000 a year for PI as contractor/pd/ 10% designer. Then that halved as insurers entered the lucrative market. Mostly I think they assume they will fight and avoid any claim. Now it has rocketed because many insurers have dropped PI, due to Grenfell. Re fire design, the bco used to accept good reasoning and risk assessments, but now wants everything to be exactly as proven fire tests. I can see why, but a dodgy test was one of the issues with Grenfell.

For a caravan?