saveasteading

About half the price and half as effective.

Building a new one, about 20m away and at about ridge level. Can be any size as we are still designing it. From once having a rainwater harvester I am aware of how easy that was: the pump in it kicked in whenever a tap was turned on, and it was sheer pressure and no tanks.. On the other hand, the pump failed in 2 years, so the tandem idea is good.

Private water supply gurgling slowly to a storage tank. From there a pump, either to a header tank or hard into the system. 4m x 1.5m

You don't get RIBA lightly. 7 years and some rigorous exams that include contract administration and law. Somebody without it could be as experience but you would find out by reference. Re fees try this as a guide. https://www.bparchitecture.co.uk/downloads/arch_fees/RIBA_Fee_guide_Graphs.pdf I suggest probe hard re build budget and ask what is not included. I have known jobs that were double the client's fixed budget at tender. Oh but I didn't include services, other consultants, externals etc. One where I said the job was gong over budget, he relied that the client always finds more money..so I walked away. But yours might be wonderful, good luck.

Correct, thanks for reminding me. The designer remains the designer and nobody can, in theory, copy it. The owner can use the drawings for anything to do with the building, now or future, but can't necessarily build another the same...that would be interesting....or use extracts for another project. In theory designers are entitled to put their name visibly on the project, as seen at the centre of big Victorian bridges. But I have never had a client who would accept this.

A good Architect can see things better in 3d, but surprisingly few can. Yes, I have been called a philistine many a time, for questioning how something is meant to be built...physics or funds not having being considered. Can you do this for 2/3 or half the cost of the quotes we have received? Yes but we have to start from scratch, and we will not work with the previous team who did this for you....pay them off. With Engineers there is more interest and willingness to discuss efficient ways of doing things (my contractor half of brain) BUT it is great working as a proper team with a skilled and interested Engineer and/or Architect. Challenges can become opportunities and still look good, or better.

It is possible that at the end of a long, muddy, winter's walk, they are all used within a short time frame. ProDave has mentioned adding an inline heater for times of extreme use which is perhaps worth a thought. But I think we need generous hot tanks, and efficient shower heads.

Welcome. Sounds like you can tell us a lot from hands-on experience.

6 en-suites, 2 wc, 2 kitchen , 2 utility.

Interesting. These are new to me. Very tidy. I am guessing that the bulb is in line with the finished ceiling. If set back there will be some shadow. You need to draw this up showing light radiating down at whatever angle the bulbs say is their spread, to ensure even coverage. That would be at just above worktop. They must be over work surfaces not heads, or there will be shadows. Does that work if there are cupboards? You will have a lot of them. 1m centres? so 35 of them!

The design is yours. You commissioned and paid for it. Presumably you eventually got the drawings, but were they any use for the other parties? I (as Engineer and contractor) have had clients' architects erase all dimensions before handing over. Also many errors in both draughting and in being buildable. In any case we would always redraw in 3d as you have little idea if the drawings are correct. This was rightly an issue on our current 'Buildhub self-build'. Our appointed SE would not commit to using our Architect's drawings until seen. As they are Revit 3d he is now happy to do so, but I acknowledge his concerns. The whole point of detailed 3d designs is to share drawings and have one set of common information. The big companies do it and it works. Any consultant should be happy to share their drawings....it is a concern if they don't trust their own work.

Based on info on Buildhub I estimated a 15kW ashp, but a local specialist says it is not enough. Also the floor arrangement requires a secondary feed and manifold to reach the distances. The building will be in the form of a main building and an annex (for us old ones and b&b). Plans below shows the layout, with central courtyard. All the GF to be ufh. The upper areas (front and left wings in roof) to be radiator (headroom is tight). Outside is 21 x 19, inside 18 x 16 approx. Insulation will be very good, to new-build targets, although some trading off for practicality (esp headroom at existing doors), so the floor will be 125 to 150 PIR. Our thoughts are as follows. 1. 2 pumps needed so do they both feed the one plant room or 1 for main build and 1 for annex? 2. If the former, do they work in tandem or split to space heating and water heating? 3. Split the load as 2 identical pumps sharing the load, or large and small? 4. Best to have 2 water tanks anyway, for volume and to avoid arguments between the 2 spaces? 270m2 GIA ground floor, 110m2 upper floor. The plant room is shown, to the left next to the stairs. There is a roof void at bottom right that could house more plant. BTW the current favourite installer seems good, but it is early days and I like to understand and question. Any comments welcome, not just as my 1-4.

What do you mean by 'polished floor'. Some people mean a beautifully smooth concrete floor with exposed aggregate. Others simply mean smoothed and polished as in an industrial context, for another floor covering. What is the construction of the floor? Raised or ground-bearing? Your 0.4 PA would be right for a 10m x 10m building. If bigger this will improve, but if less square it will be less good.

Has he listed everything included? If he is Chartered then this is likely to be a standard schedule by RIBA. Plus you would want some explanation of his thoughts on your project. Beware of 1. lots of other consultants he appoints and you pay for. (SE, QS, Planning) 2. choice of contractors, as his favoured ones might be great for him and expensive for you. but that also depends on his/your ability to schedule and manage. But if he is good at all aspects, including value, then the fee might be ok.

I think they want to see the drain runs, ie lines showing the pipes to and from the manholes and gullies.

There is a large section of society who genuinely think they can do what they like to their own building. Some of them see rules and laws as unreasonable if it doesn't suit them. This extends to internal works in listed buildings, where walls are taken out without any permissions. 'My house so I can do what I like'. 'busybodies from the council/ neighbours. Of course some genuinely don't understand the first thing about structures/ heritage. Others understand but don't care. I see myself as the current owner of my house.

You must really hate reading the news then, as there is a lot of poor writing about, especially in the online news sites where they spread the story through the adverts. It is a bit of a technicality here though as he clearly has foundations beyond the wall, and used the cemetery land for scaffolding and work.

It is a few years since I used them. They were wary of blurring the line between trade and customer, and it is best to be straight with them. If you explain the relationship they may then tell you if there is any further discount. Not the sort of thing to shout out to the whole shop though. They used to have 2 different price books, so the professional could hide some margin (or realistically allow a sensible margin and risk). That may have changed. Also I once found that there were sudden changes in the discount structure, for example adding a £20 plinth (that I didn't want) caused a jump in the discount applying to the whole order, and the price dropped a lot.

The current owner, from Oregon, as described in the article. ProDave, do you think someone will buy that with building and negotiate with the council? Or someone will buy the building 'as seen' dismantle and take it away. Do you think £150k represent the value of site and the building ?

What a surprise that must have been The opposite presumption tends to apply re Inverness. The rainfall is "low" at 750mm p/a. Hang on I shouldn't be encouraging people.

There are planning applications and long term outline plans for many thousands of houses around Inverness (population 50,000). I asked who was going to be buying them, and the answer came: 'English'. I don't doubt it as the cash benefit in selling the tired 3 bed semi in the SE and buying the same new is hundreds of thousands. Plus you get to live in a much friendlier area....and the countryside...and.....

I wonder how many people and companies have been involved with this, but who have said nothing. Agents, lawyers, builders. Who sold the land and then 'didn't notice'? It appears to be a kit set on timber baulks so perhaps no founds and can be removed or even sold on. Then nature will reclaim the road. Had a quick look for the sales info but can't find any . Again, didn't the agent ask any questions?

I know everyone is interested in planning refusals and tough rulings. I hadn't seen this before so is probably new news. Highlands house with no planning permission has to be removed. I have cut and pasted this from the Mail website so you don't have to go in there and turn off all the ads. An American businesswoman who built a £200,000 eco-home in the Scottish Highlands has been ordered to tear it down after breaching strict planning controls. Developer Eve Wilder, from Oregon, had the wooden property constructed on the banks of Loch Migdale in Sutherland before putting it up for sale on the property market. Described as the 'ideal' Highland getaway, the one-bedroom eco-home was built to the 'highest standard' and every material used was 'non-toxic', according to a sales brochure for the property. However Highland Council has now ordered Ms Wilder to have the building demolished within four months after the 'unauthorised development was carried out without the knowledge or permission of the local planning authority'. The eco-home was put up for sale by the developer before being removed from the property market when the demolition row emerged. +5 The £200,000 eco-home (exterior pictured) was constructed on the banks of Loch Migdale in Sutherland, Scotland +5 The property's owner Eve Wilder, from Oregon, has now been ordered to demolish the site within four months. Pictured: The interior of the property The council have also said the development affects the natural scenic beauty of the Dornoch Firth. A council spokesperson said: 'This unauthorised development was carried out without the knowledge or permission of the local planning authority. 'The planning authority believe that the unauthorised development was completed whilst the appellant was residing in the United States of America, therefore it can be reasonably expected that the development be removed as there are no guarantees that the appellant will return to the UK and therefore the unauthorised development would remain in situ for an unknown period. 'That being said, the planning authority are keen to have this matter resolved and would be open to the appellant providing a detailed plan of the timescale and works to be completed for the removal of the development as required by the enforcement notice.' Ms Wilder was initially told she would need to take down the one-bedroomed property within three months but after appealing the council timeframe she has now been granted four months. +5 The eco-home is described as the 'ideal' Highland getaway and every material used is 'non-toxic', according to a sales brochure for the property +5 The council said the development affects the natural scenic beauty of the Dornoch Firth and construction was 'carried out without the knowledge or permission of the local planning authority' +5 The one-bedroomed property in the Scottish Highlands will now need to be take down within four months She also claimed the issue could be resolved by altering plans and seeking retrospective permission for the house. An appeal letter on her behalf read: 'It is considered that the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control or indeed any injury to both immediate and wider surrounding amenity caused by that breach. 'In this regard, the site property could be physically amended in design terms to meet the policy design requirements of the planning authority and, as a consequence, such matters could potentially be resolved through a retrospective planning application as opposed to serving a notice requiring total demolition. 'Given the appellant's residence, it is considered that it is unreasonable to expect the appellant to comply with the terms of the notice within a three month period and falls short of what should reasonably be allowed. 'The appellant would suggest that a six month period would be more appropriate given the logistics of instructing and managing such an operation at distance.' Government reporter Steve Field said: 'I uphold the enforcement notice but allow the appeal to the extent that I vary the terms of the notice by changing the time period for compliance to four months. 'I have considered all the other matters raised but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions.' Unfortunately it is necessary to do into the daily mail website and turn off all their avertising but her it is: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10328871/American-businesswoman-built-200-000-eco-home-Highlands-ordered-tear-down.html

Are there any cooker hoods with an automatic opening/closing shutter so that the pipe is closed when not in use? Like in some of the flashier wall extraction fans.

For clarity I think it is zero rated on new-build and 5% (reclaimable) on conversions, renovations and change of use. Also that if you don't tell the builder that this will be reduced rate, then it would not be fair to then insist on the zero rating as it is a big hit on their cash-flow and risk. You might argue that a concrete pump supplied by the supplier is part of the delivery, instead of the chute attached to the lorry. But I don't think I would try it with HMRC, unless the invoice simply showed supply of concrete.