saveasteading

Re the padstone and bearing. There is no bonding over the lintel, and then the padstone is supported on a skinny stack of cut blocks. The load will not spread properly through the wall, but tend to go straight down, and the skinny column fail in buckling. I wouldn't lose sleep over it either, as it isn't going to fall down tomorrow, but it will crack soon, and then crumble and maybe fall down. Rebuilding must include proper bonding above and into the rest of the wall.

Best draw a cross-section and the gaps become more visible, and also more readily resolved. Whether you close off with tape or something bigger, it is often worth stuffing the junction area with compressed fibreglass. This insulates and reduces draughts. Could you draw up what you have described above? i a too buy doing my own details to do yours, but checking is easy. Basically protect the steels (primary and secondary) from the outside weather.

Have you ruled out a gravity drain? 500mm fall over 50m gives 1:100 which just works. Putting in a pressure pipe will be cheaper then a gravity drain, and overcome obstacles and topography, but the pump and any storage capacity (in case of brakdown) can be costly and needs maintenance.

Thanks. There is now no doubt. Delete catch pit idea. A very messy idea. If these levels are negative (there is a - which might be a spacer or a minus,) then there is a drop of 0.5m. If positive then there is a rise of 0.5m. I don't think it matters how much it snakes up and down unless the pipe runs empty for any reason. (which it might if running downhill to the outlet.). Pump spec. therefore to be suitable for the horizontal length and 0.5m rise (or is is fall?) . If it 'just' manages then the pump will be straing and the liwuid willd ribble out. I dont know how much you dare go over. I have found local specialist pump sellers to be very helpful: I guess this an important part of their role, and there is usually one for every area.

The point about the pressure of water is correct. an uncontrolled release into any chamber will splatter everywhere and possibly erode the chamber. 2. is easier and cheaper, as long as the pump is ok with that length. The extra length will reduce the flow somewhat which may be a good thing. how about a) a catch pit, instead of IC, so that the bottom is permanently full of water and the pipe outlet is pointed into it and is slowed by the standing water. or b) pointing the outlet pipe along the gravity pipe. c) a pump that has enough oomph but not too much.

You are right of course. The high quality buildings are sealed at all joints and have a solution at the eaves etc to ensure reasonable airtightness. Lesser buildings used to leak at all joints, then sometimes added a dpm in the roof. Columns outside buildings, fancy steel entrances linked to the structure, parapets etc are challenges. In a huge shed, any such problems are less important overall. I don't know the full circumstances for the OP here. It appears that there will be heat loss, and it is a matter of reducing it.

Agreed. Also with many other of the comments above. Ignore the existing footprint, and start new. Save the vat and much cost through simplification. Your design is similar to the examples but they have an elegance/simplicity that yours doesn't. Overhanging eaves, or at least boxy features seem to be a theme, and will make yours less monolithic, and more practical as I don't know how you get the white wall all the way to the roof. Then when presenting next time you can make it easy for the planner by pointing out the 'themes' that are consistent with local precedent. Even add the pictures above. There you are then: a pointer by the planner and all of us as to what will be accepted, no neighbour opposition, save the VAT on labour and materials (£60,000???). Save more by simplifying.(£20,000). Also be aware that the planner might not have looked at other issues yet. Make sure you have sustainability covered...if well designed and integrated (not stuck on later) it saves money, in capital and running. Good luck.

IanR what did you do to overcome the 'certainty' of condensation? I was only addressing the comment about condensation under roof insulation. It may be a 'certainty' in theory but seems very unlikely to me and never happened in reality on my projects. Lucky 400 times perhaps? It happens, of course on non, or poorly, insulated roofs with humid interiors. How many metal roofs on retail parks and supermarkets have condensation? It would run down to the next purlin, then to mid span and drip noticeably I think. As you say, the junction of freezing cold columns to warm rafters would be big heat loss and a problem. Encase and insulate the columns?

(other than self-build projects). more research needed. Experts help please! esp re Scotland for me.

Don't be rude about the planner....especially as this blog is googleable, and it will hardly help if this is seen. In defence of planners, they get attacked by all sides. Therefore they will stick to the rules. It is for you to find out what they are looking for (on behalf of their community) and make it fit. What you submit has to look right in the context, but neither will they be keen on pastiche, so the glassy modern look is fine in principle. Got any pictures of the area/ nearby houses, esp modern ones? Conceal the location from us by all means. The 'busyness' is fine in a way, and preferable to a great mass of building. Often called 'articulation' and desired by planners. There is just too much articulation perhaps, unless it is meant to look a like a modern terrace. On a positive, if they are only commenting on the appearance , then you will get this through at some stage. I suggest, speak or email very politely in reply, saying that you note their advice, will revise the design, allow an extension of time for the process, and would welcome a short discussion of what troubles them and what they are looking for. They have targets to achieve so cannot sit on this: they have to make a decision one way or the other unless you put it on hold, which I would advise. OR blast on regardless, as councillors may like it, or appeal process officers may like it. No, as above, talk to them.

I think both. There should not be condensation under the composite cladding, so MVHR should be irrelevant. I should add that I have found reps, even at exhibitions, to be rather ignorant of their own products, as well as their aspect of building. I expect this is because there are very different skills in selling and technical understanding, and they may not have been briefed on what doesn't suit in selling. Easy though if your product is wonderful. How so? The cladding sits on a steel purlin but then there is the layer of foam. The only link to the outside is the screw that comes from outside and into the purlin. On some cladding systems even that is partly concealed on the outside. Some very approx sums: About 3 screws per m2, and they are say 8mm diameter on the outside 50mm2 per 1000x 1000mm: ). 0.005% But heat on the inside is contacting the screw not the head, so even less. Composite is good. You can also use built up systems, where any thickness of fibre insulation can be added. This may be the only option if the roof is thick (and heavy) and there is no crane access. PIR is more idiot proof but more difficult at details. PIR is almost impossible to change if damaged by , say, a falling branch. On cladding: I recommend only buying top quality products. This may be an unfamiliar name but big on the continent, or a big name. The cladding you see in agricultural adverts is usually much lower quality, in thickness, galvanising and colour coating (product and thickness). Only PIR or rockwool type filling is suitable, and cheaper products may have a more flammable material. Also there is 'non prime' cladding': 'seconds'..don't go there for a house. For plain metal sheeting, some suppliers offer the best down to the worst.....depends what the client wants. More than you wanted to know at this stage perhaps, but important if looking at prices.

My understanding is that the grants are only for changing an existing boiler to alternative energy. So not for a new self-build or conversion. I hope I am wrong . Also, I have found in the past on similar government "deals", that the approved companies charge so much more, that you might as well use a non-approved company that charges less, and integrates it with the rest of the work. There are proper , experienced experts on here, that will know for sure, and I hope to be told that I am wrong.

The bituthene liner seems to be an accepted detail for a solid wall. I only found it in a blog by a self-builder in Aberdeenshire, and it seemed 1. to be a standard procedure and a great idea. 2. to be accepted by Building Control. We have not submitted the design yet, and welcome any comments from anyone who has done it or knows more. There seem to be several manufacturers and specification levels. As it is not a dam or water tank I think the thinnest will do fine. Adhesive is applied to the wall first, then it is stuck on to the bottom metre. it should overlap with the dpm at some stage, and underside of slab seems appropriate. This photo seems to be inside a water tank or retaining wall , and there is still a concrete slab and dpm to go in. The cheapest I have seen so far is "Hyload" £186 inc VAT for 15m roll, and including primer, so at about £10/m is a considerable cost. Probably tricky to fir to a masonry (not very flat) wall.

This is nonsense. As stated above there are difficult details but the roof is not one of them. I have experience of exposed double skin, and composite roofs, in buildings for people use. Never had any condensation, Theoretically there is a cold bridge through the screws, but this is a tiny area and contact. Even used in a swimming pool, and had no issues...as long as the environment is in control it will be ok. Steel columns go into concrete and cannot have a thermal break. All you can do is insulate the steel itself, and the losses through steel then concrete, then earth are small, to negligible. You could calculate it and see how little it mattered. If concerned you can expose the outsides of the pads and insulate with polystyrene, but I wouldn't bother, and the money is better spent elsewhere, especially on airtightness, and especially at joints and junctions.

Photo?

It doesn't matter what buildings the neighbour has, as they could build nearer to the boundary. From inside, will we see plasterboard on your walls? Will the columns be visible? btw it is very unlikely that the foundations are big enough for the new-build rules...they are huge. But the SE can probably see that there is no real risk, so has sensibly let it go. I was told, by national experts on fire, that the rules for protecting steel are way over the top. The concrete lobby was trying, with some success, to get the steel industry to box every steel member with concrete, to make them less competitive. So the steel industry came up with these relaxations....which are mostly unnecessary. Basically if you have a solid wall that is non-combustible from the inside, then the risk of spread to the neighbours is gone. Also your 4.5m allows any fire through windows to vent to the sky. If the neighbours ever build close to the boundary then they have to protect you. Visqueen: would have to see more details. Do you mean the bitumen sheet that Visqueen and Bituthene make, or polythene? On my project there will be polythene under the slab and bituthene for a metre up the wall, to compensate for there being no DPC in the existing wall.

They break, it they fix it, promptly and properly. Otherwise where does your sewage go? If it isn't suitable for your new project then that is an entirely different matter, and not their problem. Would need to know more to help with the suitability for your works. Any clues about why it is not appropriate?

I know about new steel buildings but not if these rules apply to conversions. If it was new, then it has to be built such that it does not allow the spread of fire across the boundary. For that, it is necessary to either: 1. protect the whole steel frame with either intumescent paint (very thickly and probably expensively, or plasterboard/masonry/whatever. OR 2. Use an extra strong column and very big foundation so that it stands in place* whatever the fire condition. AND fire-proof the wall internally on that face. ie your building is allowed to collapse internally but one wall stays and the neighbour is protected. A few openings are allowed, depending on distance to boundary. Option 2 is pretty well impossible as a retrofit, as the steel is lighter weight than required, and there will be normal or light footings. Assuming it is an agricultural building, it will be much lighter steel than would be required if it was new for domestic. So anything partly towards this is a compromise. If your construction is a fireproof box within the structure, and you can't see any steel, then that may suffice. Jargon for the discussion that BI may throw in. Boundary condition, Constrado. If the BI lets you have any relaxation on the above then that will be good news. However, if I was your Engineer or BI I wouldn't be terribly worried as it is single storey. Depends a lot on the construction. *This is not to stop your building falling into the neighbours. That does not happen as steel buildings soften and collapse vertically or crumple inwards. It is to keep the wall standing as a fire barrier.

Touché.. I never thought of that!

Sorry: I am confused. The drainage you show from the garage: is this a toilet? For that you wouldn't need a big pump, just a saniflo. The house drainage appears to go direct to the treatment tank, but you mention that the pump takes house water, from 'further down the line'. Why?

Pedantry or precise use of terms, as you choose but: It is not an expansion joint, but a contraction joint. All concrete and screed shrinks when it cures. More or less according to water content and reinforcement. Expansion joints are for use outdoors where it may heat and expand (back to where it started usually) If in doubt, movement joint covers everything. I would tile under and either side of the appliances as suggested above (in case of any leaks), and tile to the feet of the other units. Then plinth goes on top of tiles, covering up feet of units. You can even use cut or other old tiles under the appliances. BUT if you change the kitchen there might be awkward gaps. Unless silly expensive, it may be worth tiling the whole area. There is a bonus to doing the tiling first: the kitchen fitters will put the worktop at the right height, and the legs are all much the same height.

I can see that an end target makes sense. Otherwise the construction may never be completed. The intention of planning and building permissions is to get projects done and used, not sitting as unused boxes, and potentially eyesores and noise sources with a caravan on site forever. As ProDave says, there seems no trouble in getting an extension when there is any good reason. A complex project as a self-build may be one good reason. I am sure that they also have to be 'reasonable'. I am of the opinion that we will not apply for a warrant until ready to hit the ground running, but get on with preparation. ProDave, there is provision for partial occupation too, isn't there?

The other comments about pipe runs and inspection chambers are correct. Best read this for your own satisfaction, then to achieve approval. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442889/BR_PDF_AD_H_2015.pdf I can't cut and paste from it but see clause 2.13. The rules have been relaxed. It used to require a chamber at every change of direction horizontally or vertically. Now it says to avoid too many access points, but must still use them at changes of gradient. There is more advice at 2.19 and 2.20. This is good advice because chambers themselves can restrict the flow. However, you must minimise bends and keep them large radius. As others say, you can improve this design. 1.43 says you need a testing chamber. I think that could be anywhere down the line. Marsh sell them but advised me that they are easy to build on site. I am concerned that a building inspector might interpret the need for access and avoiding changes of direction differently, as it is vague At some stage I suggest you bite the bullet and get it approved before building and burying. I think I would own up to the issues, then stress that this will be cleaned fluid, free from solids, and in small quantities. Another worry might be the pump. What happens if it fails? If it is approved for the job and has storage then fair enough. I have a practical tip for later. However well the groundworker installs the pipes, there is a strong chance of a local error that slows the flow and causes a blockage. Using a laser level does not make it right. So after they have gone home, so that they are not offended or distract you, lay a golf or snooker ball at the top of the run. Give a tiny push if necessary. If it runs al the way you should be ok. If there is a problem, then this test is easy to understand and to be accepted when you show the groundworker. Don't hesitate to come back to the forum with your proposals.

Most houses don't have warranties, and many new houses do that don't deserve them. I don't know what the logic is on mortgages. Is it that an old house is proven but a new one is not? Mr Punter's idea is good but the consultant will not issue a warranty, and will have lots of conditions, eg have not seen the foundations. For perspective I saw 3 incomplete houses by a major developer pulled down, and started again, because the foundations were not deep enough (and they had not troubled the building inspector to visit). Their logic was that underpinning would have to be declared, and that would be a bad show on a new house/ mortgagers might back away. ie A building is a risk. I would sort this out entirely before completing the purchase, or get a big discount. Or find another way of borrowing...the land has value.... a bank loan may be available.

Sorry to hear of your problems. I think we know where the water table is! It is at the surface of your puddle, and the tank of course wants to float. When you pump it out does it fill again from the bank? The water table may rise when the hole is filled and in winter. Placing these tanks is difficult, and as ProDave says, it requires patient pouring in stages. That is a very big hole, and of course you don't want to fill it with concrete. This can be avoided by putting a shutter round the tank to keep the concrete to a reasonable thickness. If you have spare boards or metal cladding it can be left in sacrificially. Then you can backfill in gravel or earth, either concurrently or later. You can do the same shutter thing with gravel/earth. OR you could possibly use a very dry and stony concrete mix, and some shuttering, and shovel it in to place. That would also need some continuity of pour and perhaps bars to link it to the base. That right hand pipe looks odd. presumably that is a temporary arrangement. BTW I go to your supplier as my first choice , because I have found the product and technical advice to be so good, and have also used 2 other bigger names. Once the tank is in operation it is full of water and should be stable along with the concrete ballast, and a lot of backfill above. You then must be cautious if ever pumping it out completely, so best not to. If you need any more advice it might be best to tell us what went wrong, and what the current stage of construction is/ a photo of the drained situation. Do this privately if you prefer. Best not to slag any company on here as it is all searchable on google.