saveasteading

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?

......they were often used in inappropriate ground and just don't work properly. Many installers didn't know/care and did it anywhere....they are gone. (I spoke to many of them about real projects, when i was learning...they all said yes. When I learnt of the importance of ground conditions i asked them all at an exhibition re a project on dense clay. Only one (of 5?) stated that it was not appropriate. Some good companies remain, tarnished by the others. It really should work well in the right conditions, esp with water movement underground. BUT our project is on deep sand, and GSHP still doesn't come out favourably compared with ASHP, as turning up with the boring equipment costs the same as the heat pump. In summary I think it is for big projects with ideal ground conditions.

Doing it for a client? No, don't take the risk. For yourself, go for it. Worst that could happen would be adhesion/colour change I reckon. Nobody dies.

Depends on the size and extent of the holes I would say. I would be inclined to make a stiff mix of mortar or just cement with SBR/Unibond in it as suggested above. But then I suggest it is a hands and knees job with a filing trowel. That way the stuff is pressed into the holes, and you clean the surface off as you go. For bigger holes, for example when lignite is in the concrete, I have used epoxy floor repair. That could be an option for you, but if the holes are miniscule you won't want the kind with sand mixed in.

2 issues we found Mains supply is a pain for retrofit outdoors. Haven't found a decent system that records continuously without having interconnected cables. We do have D-link cameras in and out doors, and they beep on our phones when there is movement or sound, but that includes insects and moving branches. That isnt great in the middle of the night on holiday. but might work for you. About £120 each, but needs electric cable. I looked at other systems but the star ratings from users seemed usually to be low.

What is on the other side of the wall? You say it is an outside wall, so could we have a photo please, even if you don't see any issues there. All the wall from ground to roof.

Check slipperiness and for abrasion. the hardness can vary massively. I guess you need very hard with a roughish surface. porcelain is potentially very slippy when wet too.

I was not being specific, just joining in the discussion on how much discrepancy might bother a planner.

I have used limestone tiling in a new bathroom, on both the floor and the shower walls. Very happy with it except that some tiles in the shower are looking darker because they have absorbed water. This shows more at the bottom, where most splashing occurs. Despite several coats of marble sealer, there must always be some tiny way in at grout, and then it is sealed in and takes several weeks non-use to return to normal.

That is a lot, so I would say don't push your luck. If no dimensions are stated then it would have to be within reasonable accuracy with scaling ('do not scale will not apply)

Great help thanks all. I am ok on the Engineering but sensitive about the application. Have done Building Regs apps; 100+ in England and 3 in Scotland (which were so much easier). I have learnt how different the authorities can be in how much detail they want, and whether they would rather stamp through the perfect design, or always want to show their authority. In the cases of drainage it just seems so vague about whether I apply to SEPA or let the LA do that. And for fire, are there written rules on risk and volume of water, or is it always 10m3 or up to the officer? For now I am taking the advice to allow 10m3 tank, and present a detailed drainage assessment to the LA.

I never found a planner who knew what, if anything, was the definition. Once or twice had heights queried by neighbours (there was nothing wrong) so had the discussions. 1. Don't cheat 2.. Don't worry about the odd 100mm as long as you can measure properly somwhere.

That is the plan, and my philosophy. the query was really that the size of the tank appears to be arbitrary. 6,000 litres is four fire engines worth and I would think enough for a modern conversion with compartmentation.. Therefore propose 6,000 and see what happens?? The jump to 10,000 is a lot, but I should probably take Mr Sole's advice........but they wont then ask for 15,000 I hope. Current plan is to build a tank underground (concrete, block and a liner if necessary), as does not affect the view or garden space. Also where proposed it could serve the neighbours' which I should mention. An underground tank also wins us 10m3 of sand which will find a use. Pond/ lagoon. This is not Aberdeenshire. That one fell through. There is no clay around, just sand and granite. Also, the rainfall is not high, and this summer even a lined pond would have likely dried out, so needed regular topping up. Plus the topography doesn't allow it, but you weren't to know that. Yes, I learned about puddling re canal projects in the Midlands. I have dug up and mixed and wetted and kneaded this sand and it just ends up as sand again. I think it is unusually pure sand, with a tiny bit of self-adhesion, and would have a decent value as quality fill. I take it you know of glacial deposits that are stickier, but working with ground made of sand it is a new material to me.