saveasteading

Your ward councillor is allowed to support you, but may have to abstain (depends on the council's own rules, which she likely doesn't know). Not wanting to is a downer. So, you are supposedly entitled to a councillor's help and yours refuses so, yes, ask the next one. If they don't agree with your proposal then that is another matter.

Sometimes there are other clues such as front wall and gate positions, and old fences down the back garden. Look, kind neighbour, the boundary goes from here to there and the fence is wrong, but hey I wont make you move it and you allow my gutters.

Good suggestion as it is also water resistant/proof. If in any doubt you can plug and screw...even just at corners to hold it tight. If knock-ins means hammer fixings then that should be fine, but I find they don't always pull as tight as plug and screw (prob if into mortar)

He replaced the boundary which was yours. He had not complained that the gutter was over the boundary before, therefore we can assume it was not. He has attempted to extend his land onto yours, to the extent of being under the gutter. Therefore ask him to move the fence back to where it was.....or let it be.

If I haven't explained properly, tell me and I will try again. But I would do 2 things. 1. If you have graphics of how little this will affect the street scene/ neighbour, ask the planning officer to display it during your presentation. Just one definitive picture, not a slide show. 2. Lobby your own councillor as they have by far the most credibility. Give them a precis and pictures that make it easy for them to understand and explain. They can talk almost as long as they like. They will also ask another councillor to support the motion. I remember the last time I did this, the supporting councillor simply said ' I know the village and the passion of the parish council, and if they say that this will spoil the village then I support them.' and sat down. The rest of the councillors will tend to go along with that proposal, as they don't care much, but will want similar help themselves some time. If it goes your way, the planner then agrees a form of words on the spot.

This was in England so I am only answering re England. Having spoken in several planning meetings on behalf of a client or the Parish I can only answer re those Borough or District councils I have been involved with. (I have attended many more meetings as an observer and heard the process) There is only 3 minutes to speak, therefore you are making it clear to the councillors who have not read the documents (they haven't) that the case is good. When speaking for the parish, you are effectively speaking for many people. If we weren't making this statement it would look as if we didn't care. However the main point is that it is before the committee because we asked for it to be, and it is essential that a councillor proposes acceptance/rejection on your behalf. I have often heard it said that councils/ enquiries take the presence of locals as a given, and a lack of attendance shows that they don't care enough. In summary the Parish Council has a say, but it is not a given and they have to support with evidence, not just vague statements.

The planning officers generally work to the rules laid down to them, some of which are subject to interpretation. They report to the council who can allow a delegated decision or get it 'called in' to the full committee. This is dealbated and councillors vote. I have been to many meetings and seen councils overturning the planner, and the planner doesn't take it personally , that is the system. I don't agree. Been there, and had planners' recommendation overturned BUT you must present a solid argument and MUST get your Borough/District councillor to speak for you...they get a mate to second it and the rest usually don't care much. If it goes to appeal, it gets a quick assessment from some consultant in Bristol and tends to be reversed and go through. Council gets another windfall development towards their punitive target. Re the tree photo above. Councillors and even many planners are no good at reading drawings or imagining. As above, submit a rendered photo combining the view and the proposal. I have done that many times and you can feel the relief among councillors when they understand the context for the first time. If you can't see the building at all, still put in the photo 'Look you cant see it.'

So don't be stressed out as that doesn't help. Even those of us who have extensive experience can get in a fuddle about all the options. If you think you need an architect then you probably do, so start there. Get recommendations, contact a few who do this sort of work* and see who you like. * Architects generally take on any work but you need someone who can do it well and simply, with your budget in mind.

Off-site manufacture (Modern Methods of Construction/ MMC) has been marketed as good value for many years. In fact it is costly but justifiable if the client needs simplicity and speed, You are paying for their factory and managers, plus a margin on everything. You can probably half their price if you can manage efficiently, and of course find good workers with lots of skill. A very big set of IFs there.

It is about banging your head and causing injury. therefore a sloping ceiling isn't going to do much damage but a beam would. Rooms where there is movement should have 1800mm though, and common sense should apply. The rules have been written by non-tall people, as 1.8m+ is very common.

This has been discussed before.

A very interesting table thanks. looking at 20p/unit as an example it is shown that upgrading from........... 100mm to 200 costs £4,000 and saves £ 920 per annum. An impressive return BUT from ...500mm to 600 costs £4,000 and saves £ 48. per annum A payback of 80 years. In normal times you could invest (or not borrow) that cash at say 3% and earn £120. Guessing what energy will cost in 50 years ....well I can't. Maybe it will be cheap or maybe humanity will be dressed in pelts. Also, it is simplistic to only allow the cost of the insulation purchase. In the floor, the structure is being heightened by that amount. In the walls the lengths of the walls are being extended or the inner space reduced,. In the roof, this creates a limit, OR we apply additional structure to support the extra. What this table does show is that the calculation assumes that the outer thickness of insulation is not doing anything like as much as the inner insulation. Which is what I speculated (no more than a hunch) many messages ago. Do you know what the assumptions are in these calculations? They appear to be more realistic than the manufacturers' or Building regulations imply/ assume. What an interesting table though.

Agreed. Undersized rafters (perhaps the roof load has increased if retiled) and the diagonal struts may have been added as a bodge, but are now bending under the load they were not meant to take. I would not adjust and leave it as is. Either fix new, deeper, timbers against the existing joists but horizontally, (lots of fixings) so that they strengthen them and also provide a level for the ceiling. (sistering, as above) OR prop up the whole roof and replace the joists and the struts with much heavier timbers. OR get an Engineer in. I think if you were just to board over, or fix a new level surface underneath first, that it might continue to deflect. Now looking again at the photos, I see the attic joists are lapped near the middle. Looks like several issues over the years and now is a bit of a mess.

So the doors were very high? Do you mean that you will cut out boards just enough to do the job? This is what most people do, and shouldn't be a problem structurally but just looks messy. theoretically the floor might move more at the cut, but the gravel is preventing that. what floor are you?

That is my point really. Doubling the thickness is deemed to double the performance and I doubt that it does. Not saying it doesn't all help, but will be diminishing returns. The suppliers aren't about to test this theory, so the literature and models assume that the second 100mm is as effective as the first 100mm

Food for life or finished floor level?

You tease! I was there in the late 70's, surveying tenements to decide if they could live or must come down. It was based almost entirely on hanging a plumb down the stairwell and noting the slope of the walls. Every 'stair' had a residents group who got to decide trivial stuff that kept them involved. There was always one woman who was the undisputed leader, and I think she was always called Big Aggie. How long to wait for the next pic?

We discussed this a few weeks ago, and I realised that the rules had changed. It used to be that you HAD to have an open vent pipe at the end of the run, but could have durgos elsewhere. The rules now do not require that end vent, but it is allowed. The advantage of the end vent is that it allows air both directions, so a big burp in the depths of the drains will have somewhere to release, other than through your U bends, or wherever else. So that is smelly and thus needs to be above the roof/ away from windows. You are right to avoid penetrations through the roof if you can.

Any opening. So the bottom standpipe would be up to the sink overflow level, which doesn't gain you anything compared to current, other than tidiness. the under-sink version has 2 diameters on the hose connection, and should be standard.

That works but must be above the sink water or it will pour out. there are sealed connectors for the purpose or separate standpipe as below, but it depend on circumstances.

Glad you know the reasons against this stuff.

If the RHI scheme is like the previous grants for solar panels/ turbines/ green stuff generally then the approval process costs a fortune and the approved installers charge accordingly and take the money. I'm sure there are installers who give best value, but they will be very busy. It was the same with lottery funding to schools and trusts....they had to use an approved architect to propose the scheme, which then generally ended up costing more than it would without the funding.

Good news then. Thanks for the update.

At what thickness do you think it becomes uncommercial? 200 my guess, and that depends on building size and soil conditions too.

Generally good people who would like to make the world better, but constrained by under-resourcing and politics.