saveasteading

Agreed. The tech document being in simple form is very useful. Easily resolves the argument, but doesn't make the client happy who wanted it both ways.....or to avoid paying. Or as likely was being misadvised by consultant.

Planning rules are there for a reason. Also, what about building regulations? Presumably not applied either, and could be dangerous. There are plenty of 'something should be done about it' complainers and too few, like you, who do something for society. I'm pretty sure you can retain anonymity. I guess, if nervous, you could send an old fashioned letter with no details. It is perfectly possible that planners could routinely look at sites of refused permissions, just to make sure....I know I would if passing.

Dangti6. High reach, say 10m or more, with skinny stock pickers, is where the floor might need to be ground flat. In 300 new commercial buildings we only did that once. You are probably ok, but try my suggested tests. Racking bends to suit, and there is as much variation at every joint as in the floor.

Ahh. firstly I see it is a garage, so not exactly warehouse spec. The powdery top is a surprise. The 'fat' that comes to the top should be very hard after few days, not loose and powdery This looks to have been a very wet mix. Builder should at least brush then stone rub this back to hard surface (not yet) The gap under the door happens a lot, and is a nuisance. I have had scores of loading doors put in and this is a tricky thing. My solution was to have the slab on a slope at that point so the water runs away. Too late for that. option 2. stick some softer rubber under the one supplied, so that it can squeeze to shape. option 3. fix down a threshold, so the water stops outside, and mastic at the edges...

You might be surprised how much variation there is in levels of big commercial slabs. eg in a retail warehouse it may look very flat, but very likely would hold large puddles if wetted. There is an official test for such buildings in which a 3m straight edge is laid anywhere on the slab and there should be no more than 3mm gap at any point. There is then some tolerance on how many such can be acceptable. To get better than this you need to grind the floor down after, and it is not normal, as hideously expensive.. Other building types allow bigger variations. I have not seen your floor, but do not panic, it is probably fine. 3 tests for your own satisfaction, best when builder not around. 1. throw a pound coin into the puddle. If the top sits dry above then really, is this an issue? 2. gently roll a golf ball in different directions and see if it deviates a lot. Expect it to curve this way and that, but not to accelerate, or to spiral into a low spot. 3. try the straight-edge test but first you have to find a really straight edge. I have been talking above about buildings with vast open floors. Presumably you will have smaller rooms, and the variation won't matter so much. and floor coverings also reduce the issue

Flooding is very serious in some areas, and so is taken seriously. Rain falls much faster in recent years. If there is no puddling in the garden then it is either running away, which could cause issues, or is soaking away. If it is soaking away easily then you will get a good percolation test, and can use a soakaway.. Soakaway crates also need a throttle for slow release. Either spend £1,000 or more or design a simple, but controlled, overflow.

Anything that reduces water flow will help, but perhaps not much in extreme or long duration storms. Harvesters are easy enough with newbuild but messy with retrofit/rebuild. They reduce all flow to drain because you have the same rain but reduced bought in water. As Ferdinand says, rainwater butts are easy. They are also a recognised solution in new developments where there not be another solution, or simply as standard. If already full, then they don't help much. But you could do what I do, to take the load of my old drains and soakaway in the garden. In summer the several butts are used for the garden, but in winter I turn on the tap slightly and let it dribble to empty over a couple of days, thus doing what a complex storm system does, and slowing the flow to downstream problem areas. Anything can be presented formally as a solution, and if well presented with logic, has a chance. You might need a lot of butts though.

Kevin McCloud's Swindon project didn't go too well did it? Maybe he only allowed for the build cost. ... urged to apologise after people who bought bonds were told the “best case” scenario was a 74% loss.

I respect the difficult job of the overstretched planners. So I suggest make an impressive and easy to understand schedule of why a plastic chimney is a bad thing. Carbon, weakness in structure (drawings of extra work) , maintenance (what is the life to replacement or repainting the faded bricks?) , and of course pastiche. Throw in 'vernacular' where you can. ie make it easy for the planner to agree with you, and difficult to answer each of your points. You might, for balance, also state why it is a good idea.....because the planners may like the roofline. Any precedents? 20 years ago, housebuilders were adding fake Elizabethan beams, screwed onto block walls, and using new bricks stained to look like recycled. Again the planners were strangely unaware that these were pastiche until told. Have these fads passed? I found that most people , including planners, favoured the roofline effect, but had no idea that these were dummies. The use of the terms 'plastic, dummy and fake' helped the argument. Planning officers are especially skilled at understanding the rules and in diplomacy. They are not usually so good with drawings, architecture or the practical side of construction. Vernacular architecture is described as a built environment that is based upon local needs; defined by the availability of particular materials indigenous to its particular region; and reflects local traditions and cultural practices. Does a plastic chimney satisfy the above? No re materials. No, re local needs and No, re cultural practices (of having a fire) But, you presumably have an infinite amount of time to complete the house. Maybe the plastic chimney can be stuck on a bit later, when you have found one that meets your standards.

useful pic. may or may not go deeper, and may not even link to a useful soakaway. when damp and dirt were everyday things, a slight improvement in the outdoor puddles situation might have sufficed. looks like someone has painted the bricks in bitumen to keep the worst of the splashing off. I am tending towards putting as much modern drainage away from the house as you can. If this, possibly, French drain works then is a bonus.

Also, the floor deck spreads the load over more joists, and acts as a very big top flange, taking compression as in a T beam.

Can you get 2 or more 100Amp feeds and split the functions?

'3 phase boiler.' from a quick search it seems that for over 15kW, electric boilers need 3 phase. Makes sense, as 220V x 100A is only 22kW.

For years I asked sparkies what was the principle of 3 phase, and they didn't know. This is what I think I now know. 3 phase is necessary for heavy industry. The 3 power supplies are out of phase with each other (peaks and troughs are 1/3 apart) (like pistons in a car, don't all push at once) ) so that the power is smoother as well as more powerful at 440V. Machinery also lasts longer, because of the 'smoothness'. But you can take power off each supply at 230V. I have no idea if fast car battery charging needs 3 phase, but iIdoubt it. So unless you need to operate heavy machinery, then it doesn't need to be 3 phase, and you can have a bigger, single phase supply instead. All gurus: If any of that is wrong, then please do tell.

The final figures: (However, why does this figure never include design or the other project costs? I Believe it is a deliberate, but unofficial, principle of some (mostly) Architects, to avoid analysis of their and other consultants' costs. It encourages the client to proceed at their fee stage. It also helps the project look like better value than it is, after the event (eg on tv and in references) In one such case, I pointed out the difference between what the client was being told, and their stated tight budget (the Architect was not telling him that he was only quoting the 'build' cost, and also not allowing any contingency). The Architect's response was, utterly shockingly, "the client will always find more money". I told the client and declined the project: their problem, not mine. Is there any way to change this?

Agreed that the 150 pipe is strange. The only reason for it would be that the flow capacity in the building regs required it for some high capacity that we don't know about. Or it is rather flat gradient (Bad). But a large pipe with a small flow will encourage separation, and blockages. It really needs a review. Check the building regs yourself I suggest, as well as asking your experts. (btw you can reduce diameter if the slope increases. but that would be in a manhole/chamber, not mid-run. ) Document H1, diagram 9. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442889/BR_PDF_AD_H_2015.pdf Also see the general principles of avoiding crossflow, as original question.

Perhaps worth investigating the large pebbles. positioned where they are. It is likely to be as a drain. and perhaps someone thought it was decorative and grouted it. The last similar I looked at was round pebbles at the top, then coarser below, but was filled with decades of muck. It would be a chore to rake out, clean and return, but would improve the capacity, and might make your options easier. Let us all know findings and solution please.

Check the latest rules always on asbestos. Assuming you are talking about corrugated asbestos cladding, it is usually a single skin, which is usually the lower risk material. An inner (flatter) secondary skin is usually nastier. If the outer stuff, it still all has to go to licensed tip, using a sealed container. A test would not be expensive. However , handling it is low risk and simple, if done properly. ie dismantled and taken carefully to stack in the skip, any broken bits wetted and double bagged. workers wear paper suits and masks and disposed in the skip daily. For that reason the job can be done well, but still not too expensive. It is dismantling, not demolition, but demo people should know. ie it does not need a very specialist asbestos company with breathing equipment etc ie not a 'licensed operation'. To do a proper job, ask where it goes and that you want a copy of the disposal cert. Also be aware that the neighbours will be watching, and likely to panic. so best explain to them. I found that showing them the HSE document helps credibility. Check I am up to date though, and I think this is the document from HSE https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/guidance/a14.pdf

Interesting, Bitpipe Bird droppings and aerosol. My instinct is that they are not greatly hazardous to us, most should drop to the bottom, any getting through is dissolved in 3000 litres then served in 3l flushes, so it will be an insignificant risk. But interested to hear otherwise. From too many experiences of inspecting gutters, it looks as if most of the muck will sit in the gutter and not reach the downpipes. It doesn't look as if UV treatment is too expensive, but that is only from a quick look on-line. I once used IBCs for SUDS on a rather large industrial project, because we could not dig because of contaminants. 5 IBC tanks linked together with tank connectors, and a single outlet. This was actually as flood prevention as we left the tap open, to dribble away over a few days. Compared to the planner's and Environment Agency preference of sedum roof and harvesting tanks, it saved our client many thousands. It is far from pretty, but well suited to that Dagenham industrial estate. Of course they can be used as cheap harvesting instead. Our client chose not to. Second hand IBC cubes are cheap, and just need an overflow, but may have nasty chemicals therein.

Leaf removal Particle removal A 3 stage filter including carbon filter This was all done by our pre-settlement tank. A standard manhole with pipe in high and out low, but not bottom. A leaky bulkhead across the middle, so that water settled in the first half, and particles floated or sank. After 3 years, it was still not worth cleaning out. All rwp had bottom grilles to catch leaves. No wastage, and no filters, but took up space and had a cost.

I have had 2 RWH systems installed, both for new office blocks. as one was for ourselves I can report in some detail. 1,000m2 office with 30 ish persons average The positives. The capital cost was expected to take 10 years to recover, but it was more like 4. This was because we bought hardly any water, with mains water being only for kitchens and showers. Bill was about 60 pounds (pound key not working, so now#) per annum including standing charges. in other words hardly any water. standing charge was reduced because we could use minimum pipe dia in. Also, sewage rates are based on purchased water consumption if you have mains too, then it will never run out, as it fills the last 10% automatically (check spec) some harvesters have a system that takes away 10% of the water to flush away leaves. we instead had a settlement manhole befre the harvester.. 100% of the roof water went to the tank. the roof was metal so none soaked into tiles. nobody ever questioned the water quality. it was utterly clean to look at. Negatives. capital cost. uses electricity to pump the water into the system pump will wear out. doubling up of pipework to carry rain/mains water to different appliances. If the pump fails, it is your own problem to resolve. if there is a power cut, you have no water, unless you add header tank. Size of tank. ours was huge (10m3 I think). this was on the upper side from forecast, but meant that it sufficed for a month of no rain. Depends where you live. For a single family, you may be able to control and reduce use in a long dry period. A bigger tank is not necessarily much more expensive. But if you have mains, you will never be short) Treatment. For toilets, garden, outside tap it requires no treatment. For sinks, taps, basins, showers, bath you have to use mains, or fit filters and UV. Is it worth doing? I will have no choice on a remote farm conversion. Otherwise there are lots of sums to do.

The building regulations do not tell you to build drains and soakaways, or that gutters are necessary . They do tell you to protect the building from water, and that any water must be disposed of appropriately. On top of that, planning may impose limits to outflow. If you can prove that your current, and proposed, building does not require any change then that may suffice. You may need to establish what happens to the water now. I am guessing that there are french drains to the perimeter, beneath the drip points, then that soaks away or is connected to a drain. However, with climate change rainfall quantities, it may be difficult to predict what will happen in heavy rain. Perhaps there is a compromise, to allow partial additional storage. 1. retain existing situation 2. for climate change, add swale or soakaway for that extra amount. Good luck in convincing a building inspector......some will welcome the innovation/common sense, some will resist.

The requirements, and solution, may depend on the local rules, especially in regard to flooding. Picking up several points, not only yours. The rain currently lands on a garden and presumably soaks, very slowly, into the ground or evaporates. When you then build houses with hard roofs, the rain is quickly concentrated into wherever you put it. Hence outfall to a sewer or ditch could add to flooding downstream. The crate solution is expensive, and still requires a constrained outflow and outlet. This is often the easiest option for a designer and planner, but at your cost. I agree totally with Ferdinand to try for a swale or pond first if you have space. It may be quite large but is very cheap, and can be good for wildlife. It then works by having the necessary storage, a large surface over the ground for soaking into ground and a large evaporating surface, especially in heat or wind. A longish swale often finds a 'leak' in the ground from previous trees etc. In my experience they have worked better than calculations indicate, probably due to plant respiration, and faults in the ground. It will need maintenance or it will gradually fill in. If the volume doesn't quite suffice then you could overflow to drain or soakaway. Flooding is very serious for those downstream, hence the imposition of SUDS practises, and every litre adds up. One test though, for any proposal, is where will the water go in extreme circumstances and overflow?

and this link https://www.bigbathroomshop.co.uk/info/blog/what-are-bathroom-electrical-zones/#:~:text=Zone 1 is the area,as well as 12V SELV.

I had misread the perspective of the photo, and thought that rough brick was under the corbelled stack. Thanks to your reply I can see that it is part of the party wall, which looks very rough work indeed., with too much mortar. I would have your Engineer look at that too, as a precaution. Agreed an Engineer has to look at this. There may be a solution using a standard component that is utilised when a chimney is removed beneath. I fitted one when I realised that my daughter's house had the chimney sitting on the wood of the ceiling. Building control were helpful too, as they have seen this before. So common an issue that the parts are at screwfix , but specialist suppliers online have more choice. Search for 'chimney gallows brackets'. It took me (Drill, bolting and quality control, and holding) and a bricklayer about 2 hours to fit the brackets , and then patch up the bricks. Yours perhaps 4 hours, including reoving and rebuilding the loose bricks? But context and site inspection is crucial, and a Structural Engineer will give the best advice. good luck...it should be ok as noticed in time. It would be good if your neighbour looked at their side too. You are jointly holding up the same great lump of brickwork on the roof.