saveasteading

Good design does not have to be expensive. But it is usually based on many years of learning and experience, so to give it away too cheaply can also be wrong (if it is your living). Expensive design is not necessarily good design. It takes longer to do something when less skilled. Some clients want and will pay for vanity projects (usually with someone else's money (churches, banks, universities, government), and just a few normal people. Most people want a box that will keep the weather out, last many years with low maintenance, and be a pleasant space to occupy, and cost as little as sensible to build. Thus there are those of us who need everything done by Architects*, or those who need Technicians, and those who pretty well know what they want and welcome some expertise. * who don't of course do 'everything', or necessarily understand costs or building science, though many of course do. And then there are those, sometimes on this Hub, who think it is all easy, don't agree to rules, and either suffer themselves or make the rest of us suffer. What was the question again? Ah yes, why do some people not appreciate me and pay me more? The answer in summary is that there are good and bad designers as well as good and bad clients.

What is under the 300mm of rock? I assume you also need to break the rock for a soakaway. The ground beneath needs to be permeable or it will not work. If getting a pecker in it is worth doing more work at the same time. I agree with the the recommendations above. Big machine and a pecker. Even if it was blasted first I am guessing that the rock would still be tightly in place and need a lot controlled force which a hand breaker will not have. The pecker may do it all in a very short time, but to try with a small breaker will take days or even weeks. This is not a diy job, so it is worth talking to your local hire company or contractor, who should know the ground and the best machine.

The rules have been relaxed. If you work to them there is no need to go back to any more theoretical documents. Whatever the rules say, it is best to put in chambers at intervals, and as shallow a change of direction as possible, to avoid or clear blockages.

Good idea. Is this a box-out and if so what material for framing? Anything else inside the box you are creating? If left void, the air in it will be very hot, and so will whatever structure you are using to form a box-out. I prefer to stuff the void with fireproof rockwool so that the heat goes away and doesn't affect the boxing, as it could distort then leak.

It is normal that there is no charge for rainwater that you keep on site, but you have to ask. Can that apply to you? The sewage rate usually includes an allowance for rainwater, so is reduced if you can show that you keep all yours.

Agreed re catching the junk at the bottom of the downpipe on a grille. If worried about splashing the walls you can build a shield around it, with or without a mousehole opening , just with a bigger piece of pipe

A big change of strategy for us. The neighbour who shares the supply is keen to improve it, so we are working together. In case of too low a flow in the summer we will both have storage thanks of about 3m3 and then take the water to the house by pump. Have not looked into treatment yet but it is clearly fairly normal. Very fortunately a near neighbour uses the same source and is in the borehole industry. I have done rainwater harvesters twice, but not for drinking. The water appeared perfectly normal. I didn't like the idea of 10% bypass to get rid of bits, so put a settlement chamber before the harvester. It was remarkably clean (top and bottom) when I checked. Obv would need a uv treatment to kill anything. Any particular queries?

The intumescent varnish is rather thick and can be noticeable. It is essential to do this properly, I have seen a fire test on a wooden faced wall and it is scary how quickly it flares up and smoke fills the room.

That document you referenced from SPAB is excellent, and recommended reading for anyone with an old property. It is short and well explained, and I have learnt more than I expected. (esp how water gets in through cement but not out again). https://www.spab.org.uk/advice/breathability-and-old-buildings

Glass I would think, but have not checked.

And they have lined the insulation face up, rather than push it back to the wall?

I design drainage with a 'what if' condition. What if the soakaway blocks/ water table rises/ drains are full locally etc? For example if the street drains were running full, then your rain-water will either back up or burst through the lowest escape point. So ensure that there is an escape and that any water coming out of it runs away with least harm. For your sewage, where does the flow go from the digester. The quantities are very much lower of course, and it will be near to clean.

Thanks for that link. Looks good and I will read it in detail. I have read, only today, that cement mortar carries moisture rather than being impervious. Will re-read that part. The document is splendid and deserves detailed study https://issuu.com/hspubs/docs/guide_for_practitioners_1_-_rural_b Rural Buildings of the Lothians: Conservation and Conversion, A guide for Practitioners. The main difference re geography is the stone type. We don't seem to have any cement where it shouldn't be. All lime. If the Building Officer decides to ask for holes I will need some proof. Ahhh. We have to move faster than that. However, when the roof and gutters are done, the wind that whips through the openings will dry it quite fast....and then there will be the scorching Highland summer. Many thanks.

I stand corrected. Good to know. Well done the marketing team that called it Aquapanel. As they only mention it as a substrate I assume it isn't rated as a fire barrier in itself.

There are wall ties with spacers, so it should push back. But there seems to be a change in block line or thickness, where the insulation starts to bridge the difference. Prob too late to change at your own expense, so ProDave suggestion prevails. But see if you can push the slabs back and fix with the red spacers first.

I know that another Buildhub correspondent was made to add holes at 1m cc all around the base. That was Highland region too. I don't want to. We plan to build an inner wall which provides insulation and damp-proofing. I don't know of another solution, and the existing wall will not be available. Yes : it will be a house and needs serious insulation. U value? And Architects and building inspectors? I'm only contemplating it because I have seen it required elsewhere. I thought it was quite clever, and I do understand damp, and that many people don't.

No, that wouldn't be a problem in the short term. Even longer-term the tank will treat sewage without power, just not so well. The sewage goes through usually 3 tanks. The first one separates floating and sinking stuff, then there is a maze of links between the sections and biology does its stuff. then when you flush 5l down the wc it goes in the mucky end and the same amount of nearly clean comes out of the other end. The bubbles or circulation system moves it around, mixes air into it and gets it going faster. Add Marsh Industries to your list of good manufacturers. Has a little air pump like a fish tank one so very little to go wrong.

Very few buildings are at right angles. It's ok.

Had a steel erector/cladder on site once who had steel bits in his eyes as well as swarf in his hands. He swore that he showed up as carrying metal when going through airports. That was in a different era, when scaffolds and nets were for sissies...."if it was dangerous I would be dead by now".

I would say yes. I wouldn't use aquapanel, especially closest to the flue, because it may have waterproofing resins in it, and is not designed for heat. Likewise sandtex which may have resins/latex/other oils. I made a flue surround in a wardrobe before it heads up through the roof. About 2m from the stove outlet. I built a box using lightweight steel angles and boarded it with plasterboard, then stuffed the void with fire grade rockwool, (about 50mm all round). Completed the boarding and plastered/filler over it. It is barely warm to the touch when in serious blaze mode. No smells, no cracks.

neither do I perhaps. Thanks for testing me on this. If you say it will be dry, why do you want to line it? I don't understand this. Because we have one chance, it is a recommended 'solution' and it seems a better one than making deliberate air holes in the wall. And because it is consistent with that drawing showing dampness to the base only. You also, correctly, mention losing the thermal benefit of the masonry. Your proposed scheme does exactly doesnt it? So you will surely need more insulation thickness that you could otherwise reduce. My proposed construction leaves the masonry intact, does not put holes in it, then has a necessary gap (I don't think anyone doesn't do this). Then an inner wall of 6 x 2 with breather barrier outside and airtight barrier inside, stuffed with insulation. The thermal effect of 600mm wall has been proven to be much more than the design programs acknowledge, hence not making holes in it and creating an air stream out of the gap. The wings of the building are narrow, so keeping wall lining skinny is an aim. My original plan was to use cavity batt hard against the masonry but I think the innovation would trouble building control, and the wall is so rough that it would be all over the place, Once the wall is dry and repointed properly, driving rain isn't likely to penetrate 600m. If conditions are that bad, render it. ? They aren't that bad, and a lot of it is rendered already. We will expose some of the prettiest areas for reasons of style and interest., and cross fingers. Render casts more of the water off immediately, but still gets and stays damp. At some stage we regard the risk as acceptable. As nobody has chipped in to say that they recognise the bitumen liner detail, perhaps it was only used in one area. Perhaps it isn't any longer. I cannot find the original source whch was a very useful blog, but didn't quite go to completion. The perimeter will be 120m so the cost saving without bitumen tanking would be £1,500 plus labour. a useful saving but not the end of the world in this important context, esp if avoiding the hole drilling.

You mean it isn't just me measuring wrong?

This is Engineer territory. Get the feasibility checked now before committing further. If I recall you are putting 2 storeys on instead of one, and the condition of the basement needs checking.

Except the strimmer with a plastic blade......the blades break too easily and the motor burnt out. I bought the new model which seems very much better. All my other Erbauer are great though (once you have the batteries, may as well use for all tools. For things like hedge cutter it is so convenient to just pick up without getting leads out. If I had to pick one brand regardless of cost it would be DeWalt (or Stanley which is same company), (excluding Stihl, Hilti and Fein which are too specialist) For certainty and value, nothing wrong with Wickes except small range, and I would buy more Erbauer (reads as German but made in China)

I didn't realise how good a chopsaw was until recently. Apart from convenience it does a much better job than I ever could do by hand. So recommended for anyone doing a biggish project, I have this one which is cordless so needs one or more batteries, and the bigger the better. it is handy being able to move it with the work and rotate for long timbers, and no cable trailing. No problems with this at all up to 4 x 2, except it won't go back in the box and takes up room. As far as brands go, I now avoid own-brands except Wickes which have always been powerful and reliable. Some of the lesser known names at SF and TS are actually proper companies so are ok.