saveasteading

Hornby are based in Margate. Regularly in the local news either about to close down, or having a mini boom, and I don't think they make stuff there. The HQ is not impressive/

I am pretty sure you don't get this in England unless you can demonstrate an urgent need, and sign that you will not break copyrights. Perhaps they can show you the EPC elements in their offices, or tell you who did the assessment. I recall being told I could not see the file on the table, then the BCO said he had to go for 10 minutes and pointed at a photocopier adjacent. That was more for the purpose of building adjacent though. You might be better getting another epc. I think 90% are nonsense figures anyway.

I read through the entire Standards document this week, and noticed this for the first time. It makes sense now that we have to stay inside a sealed box. Even with an air recycling system or vents,, there must be a risk if they don't perform or are blocked. The mains connection seemed onerous, but otherwise batteries will fail and not be replaced. CO2 sensor in bedrooms to indicate oxygen running out. CO in rooms with burners making poisonous, odourless gas. I wonder if there are figures for deaths due to these issues, or is just a 'good idea'. How many people go to sleep well, and don't wake up again due to CO2?

Exactly so. And the report simply has to make this clear. A small house in the middle of a flood plain is not a problem. Whereas as an infill in a row of housing in an overflowing river, it might block the only way for the flow to escape.

I try ever so hard to treat planning and BC officers with respect and give them full and accessible information. If that is reciprocated then everything goes smoothly. I have no problem having errors or better ideas pointed out. But I fear it is not the norm and they expect errors, omissions and tricks in the applications and are wary. Some BCOs don't like Engineers as they think we are tricking them with numbers: yes one boy inspector told me that. I once said publicly to a head of planning that we would continue to include access statements as it was an essential part of understanding our design...if we could not explain it then we had not thought about it...He paused his presentation to write that down. Later he told me that he viewed our applications with respect and allowed some freedom of thinking. If only that was the norm. BCOs can be egotistical and vindictive for some reason. Perhaps looking tough is supposed to impress management. The best explanation I can reach is that usually (?) the architect or builder just accepts what they are told by BC....make that joist bigger, dig that hole deeper, so when I ask them to justify it, they resent the challenge. To their defence, one told me that they come across some awful quality control. Example: big new shopping centre...where is the reinforcing mesh?......it is coming. He returned 2 hours later and the concrete was poured with no reinforcement. Little subby but working for major contractor. So perhaps BCOs paint us all as chancers.

We are the current custodians. A lot of people in listed buildings are not happy to accept that.

Too early to say, as finding the source is the best solution. Cavity ventilation???

Nonsense. The heat loss from a hot tub is much greater than from a cool tub or a cold tub. That is an excuse for keeping it available at all times, so you can use it when you want.....which would be a better explanation to keep it hot. Anyway, they lose their appeal after a while so the cost is not permanent.

Thanks. As I thought. I am open minded about it. We are not rebuilding in stone, although there is plenty in the wall to use again. But the local masons are in short supply and doing well with patching and pointing. We wouldn't get a gang for a year, and then it would be expensive. Aesthetically a modern face will work well in this rear position. Planning have given a blank slate, so we could build it in log cabin, pyramid, or Taj mahal style if we wanted. We are keeping the main facades (3/4 of it) old and 1/4 will be new with timber cladding and metal roof. The timber will be stained to keep the fresh colour permanently. Structurally, the area is pretty well a whole wing, and junctions will be at corners and it wont cause undue stress. Even with lime the block wall will move less than the rubble, which joggles to suit. But we will match the footing depth, and allow 'soft toothing' my new term for......not sure quite what yet...perhaps a construction joint with cladding over it.

No only one, for 3 projects in very central Scotland. It was the easiest process ever because I signed off my stuff and another Engineer signed theirs, and nothing was questioned. My English experience is for 100 + submissions...hence my query.. Some councils and their BCO's were not tough enough. I welcome any sort of quality control and they were not asking the right questions so some horrible stuff must have been going through elsewhere. Some were over tough, esp London ones, who still wanted to use their old manuals and hated Eurocodes. Big arguments with them, but the full volume of building regs on the table was enough to make my point. A checking Engineer even said he didn't like Eurocodes and could we redesign a whole shed to BS. NO. And many an argument about interpretation of the regs. Is a timber stair flammable if it is encased in plasterboard? So we switched to a private 'Approved Inspector'. Same man every time, any location, and he trusted us, but was firm if he didn't agree. Which brings me back to the point. I think Sole you are saying that they will always ask questions because that is their job. therefore don't worry about the perfect application, as they will still ask questions, perhaps with invented problems.

We are told by a local builder that cavity walls are not done in Scotland. (Perhaps 'up here' just means in the area) We have a section of stone wall to replace, and had drawn a cavity block wall onto which would go external cladding. Drawing of breath...you can have that if you want but it isn't how we do it, and it would be expensive. So they propose a single skin, thick block, structural wall. Small gap then stud and insulation inside, the same as we are gong to do to the stone walls, and clad outside as planned. To my mind this is not cheaper, slightly less strong, and loses the benefit of the insulated, water resisting, cavity. But I am open to their advice and we don't want to have them learning new techniques on our money. Any comments to confirm or deny this is the local way.?

I have met very few people who understand the movement of water, and it is especially worrying when, for example, roofers don't understand the basics of lapping and sealing. The problem is usually simple, and a surprisingly small hole, possibly far from the final problem. OR coming up from the ground The solution is usually NOT mastic, or paint sealing. Without me reading the whole discussion again, can you remind me is the external render/paint breathable?

That should satisfy the requirement that your house is not flooded itself. It still remains to show that your house is not increasing risk elsewhere, which is presumably the case. You can quote that as precedent, but it should be easy enough to show why your building causes no change in flood risk I suggest you look at the planning app for the canal-side house and see if they included the flood risk assessment with their app. This is not simply yet another report as an onus. The risk of flooding is very serious and increased by new development. Yours appears simpler each time you tell us more, so should not be expensive. The architect should perhaps have spotted the matter earlier and dealt with it in the original app. Maybe they could now do a simple statement that will satisfy the planners.

A lot can go wrong with gutters. too small blocked in gutter or downpipe or drain not level or not sloping to the outlet. dipping at the wrong point not at the right level high flow at valley too few outlets. How the water gets from the eaves to the lower floor where the problem is seen is another matter. It is possibly coming down the cavity. with the bead fill helping it to channel, then hitting an obstruction which makes it wet the wall at that point. the amount of water that can cause that level of dampness is surprisingly small. Not buckets but mugs. Gutter observation first, in all levels of rain.

That would need very deep timbers, but just about works. Someone else may have span tables to hand. BUT it is unlikely that you can just put them on top of the block wall. The wall has been built for a purpose and that seems to be just to create an enclosure. So the wall wont be thick enough and there probably isn't a strong enough footing. Plenty people just do what you are suggesting, and sometimes it works. It is a severe risk to you above and anyone below. I suggest a proper design by an expert , planning permission and building control. You will probably have to thicken the walls, perhaps build new foundations, and put in a stair. OR build a mezzanine independent of the existing structure, and that is my suggestion. There are 2 price levels. One will be half the price but you will have 6 columns along the middle of the ground floor. and others along the side walls. The other will only have the side columns. . All on new pad foundations. A mezzanine company can also provide the stair. OR you can buy it in and do it yourself Planning and regs may still apply

But that isn't the point. 350 watts of radiant heat directed at just you is very warming. Feels like 6 C warmer. and another pointing down for £120 and you are sorted.? Infrared would have been my suggestion, but that heat exchanger is worth checking out.

That is so interesting. If it works then it is ideal, 3x efficiency heating and also cools, which may be an issue in a hot hut in the summer. It is a refurbished model, but I see they have new for £700. I'd like to see some reviews. But also insulate thoroughly.

I admit to having a bias against GSHP as 1. There were once so many charlatans, possibly the companies that previously touted little wind turbines. 2. I helped tenants of 'affordable' housing where the GSHP did not work at all, and eventually got some of them changed to ASHP. It was clear that nobody understood how it worked. Should never have been used 60m deep in clay, too close together, and shoddy work. In half the houses it was ok. I was impressed by the smallness of the pump in the broom cupboard, whereas the ASHP was a major nuisance in a small garden. 3. same point. '.nobody knew how it worked'. Various parties said it would work, drilled the holes, put in the kit, fixed the pump, chose the wrong radiators, denied any problems. Are any of these parties still in business?

Unfortunately you are in Zone 2 and 'near to zone 1' makes no difference unless you can show that it is a matter of millimetres height difference. This flow chart is helpful. It is a matter of showing the planners that your proposal is not a concern to the community or your own building. I hope your architect has covered the second part by raising your floors above the zone 2 flood level. As the table above, you do not need the Exception test. Their job to question it, and rightly so, and is your task to prove safety. This should not be onerous, so get expert help. The priority is a report that does the job, but I would probably charge you £2,000 with some caveats about level of detail, and extras for further detail if required.

Good pictures thanks and tidy work. I had expected a scabby old wall. I agree that the first suspect is the roof overhang. In heavy rain the water will chute into the gutter, and probably work ok. This is easy to check but you will get wet looking. in gentler rain the water is likely to 'curve' back towards the wall as it dribbles over the edge, and may miss the gutter. Then it may run onto the wall and in. it doesnt take much water to create a lot of damp. If that is the case then there may be an easy solution, just tucking felt under the tiles and into the gutter. Do please stand in the rain and see what you can see.

A draftsman used to bring in a bag of 'mis-shapes' every month or so. I suspect his aunty knew what caused this mishap, but omitted to advise the management. After 10 of them they lose their appeal. £1 for 5 in Pound shop anywhere in GB now, so losing their image a bit.

Me. Have done this in England twice and also handled existing reports for a bigger project. The fundamental point is that you should not build in such way as will increase flooding generally, or have damage to your own building in flood unless there is a very good reason to build exactly there. So the test is if you have tried other places, and found there are none suitable, and why your project is so important that others are put at increased risk. It is one of those things that follows a logical pattern. Brief, issue, background, proposal. etc., and you can probably find someone else's on the local planning portal. that will have the advantage of having similar issues. Then you can contact these consultants or be inspired yourself, or see why to give up. Mine took about 12 pages, arguing why this client was a huge asset to the area but had to expand next to the very big river or move away. Plus the facts of the project, the effect flood would have, and designs that avoided damage to the building in a metre of river. He had 'looked at the other sites but they are all in other towns' blah blah. Our client had to sign a form that he realised that his factory might flood, and no claims would be made. He had a plan if a flood was forecast but not for accidents. Another by the sea for an infill. This was very difficult to justify, and wasn't tested as the client pulled out. Meanwhile I have seen reports maybe 50 pages long. Whether or not this was necessary I can't say, but the planner seemed impressed by the thickness of it. It is unlikely to be a diy. Cost will depend on the attitude of the planners (is it box ticking or do they really need convincing?). £3k to £20k for a single small site? that might not be the end. One client had to get the flood modelled by computer to show what effect the river would have. Add another £20k for a big, very specialist consultant. In summary, I suggest you first discuss with your Architect if there are clues from the planners about the seriousness level of this, and local precedents.. Then find a local Civil Engineering consultant who has done this successfully and have a preliminary discussion before committing to them or to proceeding with your project.

I bought the standard stuff in a plastic pot from, I think, Travis Perkins, In it there were more containers: a bag of gritty sand, a tin of resin and a tube of hardener. Once mixed (which needed a mixer, I used a bent wire on a hand drill)) there is a limited time. I ended up doing this myself with a groundworker, as I would have been there saying which holes to do or leave. Maybe 100 holes? This was an industrial concrete floor with lignite that had floated to the top (small print says so no guarantee against lignite in the mix) The holes were between 5mm and 25mm, and I think only epoxy would have stayed in there with forklifts and trolleys. For domestic / gentle garage loading perhaps a ready-mixed product will suffice, but it needs to stick hard.. I think that the pinholes will fill with your paint, especially if more than one coat, but will you notice? The crack at the joint is commendably small. Very difficult to patch this, but it is a tiny shrinkage crack and shouldn't move again. You could scratch a V out of it and fill. Or put a skim over it like in plasterboard skimming. I think a preliminary, extra coat of your floor paint along the joint may be the best cover.

I would be interested to hear the latest views on GSHP from a slinky setup. I have seen slinky heating in action at Mitsubishi HQ (Watford not Japan) and it clearly worked. Yes or no to the following? My understanding is that this is heat from the sun hitting the ground, and air touching it, so the thermal store from summer (less what is used for water) is the heat source for the winter. Relatively no heat comes from the ground itself unless water flows through it to recharge it. Warm rain soaking through will help and cold rain will hinder. No use if shaded. If you can recharge it in summer from cooling the house, then there is something wrong with the house, to get so hot. A lot of power is needed to circulate the liquid. The elegance is in not having the ashp whirring outside. Picks up heat from a big area of ground, if the heat is there. Better in very cold spells of weather. Good in granular ground.

How is the cost compared with ASHP?