saveasteading

They exist, but they charge a lot more. Energist for one. You can talk to the assessor, argue your case, provide details and they will include it if it helps. They also point out any reason why your assessment is worse than you thought so maybe you can change a detail. Not all that goes into the BRE assessment programme is logical, but they have to use it, hence you can choose to do what is best for the job or the rating. But they of course charge a lot for their input. I'm sure they will discuss your aims without charge, and probably enjoy it. There are other similar companies too, but not tested by me.

When footings are poured, there is often a 'stop end' to make a clean joint at the end of the load. It isn't normal to put any dowel to link to the next pour. Therefore I don't think you need to either. The loads are not complex, just down and perhaps some upwards for a light building in a hurricane. These loads will spread across your joint. Just make sure to clean the existing concrete, so that there are no gaps.

Yes we discussed that here. Perhaps it is difficult to measure oxygen. So to monitor the possibility of oxygen shortage it is easier to register that the breathed out gas is increasing. Then when CO2 is higher, O will be correspondingly lower ???? At some stage there won't be enough O. Perhaps healthy people wake up in alarm, while vulnerable ones might not. 24 hour record in the master bedroom. Wonder how often it is read? Then action stations to untape the ventilation again. Otherwise what is the point?

As long as you fill the holes with filler or paint, there wont be any air. This isn't the same situation as yours, as your floor is very dry.

An update I asked SEPA by email for clarity. I asked at what stage a discharge licence was sought, and whether I should send the drainage proposals to them or simply with the Warrant application. Have had a helpful response which I will paraphrase. Some Local authority Building Standards may consult SEPA for comments, some will not at all, some will advise applicants to contact SEPA with details and to provide our comments to them. The requirement to register the discharge with SEPA is prior to it taking place, as it is the discharge from the system to the water environment, that requires authorisation. Specific details such as how the ground investigations have been carried out, location, design and sizing of system are really the remit of Building Standards rather than for ourselves. Esp re the last sentence I am taking this to say, don't send anything to us if it is straight-forward as the BCO should handle it, and we do marginal and complex stuff. And no licence until the proposals are approved and the treatment is about to be used.

Quote of the day so far. They will charge for copying. Better to ask to see the files, explaining why, and then get copies of what you need? Or could you simply note it?

That is different, and to be encouraged. However I have seen many examples of suddenly trained and approved assessors making terrible assessments. I think it was a 'race to the bottom' with some people getting the business by promising a certain rating for a very low price. For example I did a commercial refurb once, to an appropriate standard, that would have got a C at best. Landlord got a good B certificate for it, without air test. I saw the papers and there was little to no assessment, just a nice certificate to tick a box and help rent the building out. Perhaps the charlatans have now gone? Likewise big developments where many houses are underperforming, but the air tests were done on the few pre-selected and well sealed units. That is why I doubt the accuracy of many EPCs Interesting to see the Mail article. I wonder who stands to gain from dropping epc? House developers could reduce standards but it seems rather trivial. More perhaps of the right wing demand to remove standards on principle? EPCs make no attempt to measure the carbon impact made during the home's construction, True , but breeam and other systems are also rather approximate. To some extent the builder choosing the best construction will do this anyway. Some assessment is better than none Re access to approved designs this is a tricky one. If I have done a clever design, or managed to negotiate a relaxation, or done a particularly good presentation, I don't want someone else cribbing or even copying it. It is commercial information. In any new area or with a new challenge, wouldn't it be great to crib off nearby completed projects? I admit doing this off planning applications, to see the sort of presentations that a particular council appears to like, including the amount of detail, or fluff and any buzz-phrases. Might the solution be to allow you the name of the original EPC assessor? If they have ceased trading, then the document could safely be released.

In the old days if you spoke to a planner about this they would probably say that you should not have asked. As long as all you say is correct about the absence of any planning constraints then you can do it. It might be prudent to tell your neighbours your plans. then if nobody complains there is no aggro. A change of brick size is common enough with any old building, as long as you get the colour right. How will the slips be fixed?

I will not join this discussion unless needed. Have designed and manage a lot of steel cladding. Let me know if anything is still in need of input.

1.4 is stunning. I don't think anything below that makes much difference. When it is that low it is not possible to get the fan operator to let you look for any flues etc left open. probably just a fan outlet or something similar.

CO2 monitoring equipment should be provided in the apartment expected to be the main or principal bedroom in a dwelling where infiltrating air rates are less than 15m3/hr/m2 @ 50 Pa. You are right!! Parents live and others may die. I suppose the point is that an overall issue is discovered and dealt with in every room, and the parents get woken by the false alarms.

Seems to be correct, about 5 years ago. difficult to find anything newer.

Ouch. We need to reduce the number of bedrooms. Nothing in the budget for this. Screwfix list CO2 alarms quite cheap, but then it seems they really only have CO. Please let me know when the price tumbles.

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?