saveasteading

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.

That has already been propped up by some very rustic brickwork. First question....does the chimney stack continue down through the rooms below? They are often removed (with fireplaces) to make more room space, but without proper replacement support in the loft, this is what would happen.

re In my experience, (suggesting that all fake chimneys be removed from a 40 house development proposal) planning officers had not previously questioned that fake chimneys were a silly idea, but were then happy to consider the subject. You can help them in their decision. Architectural taste.....how can the use of a plastic, pretend chimney be of any artistic or historic merit? (I particularly dislike that you can see the same brick pattern in every one.) Sustainabilty....a useless and pointless piece of plastic, plus additional framing. (wasting a lot of carbon) Design integrity.....the useless thing requires a hole in the roof , then flashings, and so increases the chance of leaks. The fake chimney has weight, but onto a normal area of roof, and catches the wind, so there is a considerable chance of it moving and leaking into the void below it. That links into maintenance and longevity. It will save you quite a fair bit of money too, including hoisting, but don't mention that.

It looks simpler on the plan than it is in 3d. You have the advantage of the building in front of you. If you have the pipes and fittings on site, can you hold each in place and see how they would fit, and that the flows are smooth and don't clash? An additional junction might be all you need to keep it smooth, subject to enough space.

I prefer the original arrangement. As there is a horizontal pipe joining at the bottom of the vertical ( have I got that right?) there would be excessive turbulence when flows collide. Also the vertical is splashing into your big and gently sloping 150 horiz. and could run upstream. Water comes to a stop , solids settle, blockage. Perhaps this could be lessened by a) using large radius connector at A, or first converting the vertical to horiz, before joining, or the vertical drops further and B to A tumbles into the vertical before bending out. ie separate the junctions. there doesn't seem to be space for all this plus rodding points, which would have to be accessible. I suggest 'revert'.

Don't underestimate how much there is to know about structures. You ask some questions as if there are simple answers, but context and site inspection are essential. Please get this designed by a qualified Engineer. It won't cost a lot, and it sometimes even saves you money. Building regulations are necessary too. Then you can relax that the fixings won't fail, or the walls crumble, or that the new stairs are legal etc.. When you come to sell, you will be asked for the proofs, permissions and sign-off, so you might as well do it properly now, then relax.

It isn't the weight of the car compared to glazing that is the issue, but that the building should stay still or move consistently. My house is built on 300 footings and moves a lot seasonally, but is made of wood and moves to suit. But it is not ideal. If your garage moves but the door threshold doesn't, then you get a cracked garage floor and no worse. If the same happens in the house you get cracked glazing, or gaps, and it matters more. This matters especially when building on clay and near trees. Clay shrinks a lot when dry and expands again when wet. At 1.2m deep this is reduced as the ground remains damp, as well as being denser, usually. Buildings go up and down seasonally, but so does the ground around. The beam solution would need a proper Engineer's design, and would cost more than the mass concrete. Your builders will be much happier with digging a hole and filling it.

If inclined, break it up with a fork, perhaps wetting first for ease. To the topsoil add plenty of manure or compost, and worms will do it for you, over a couple of years. Henley-on Thames I see. Lots of horses around there?

Tempting to think that you have only to 1. support the glazing, not the house. 2 keep the frost and weather out. If you use a less deep footing, it could move differentially to the main house (which may settle with load and rise and fall seasonally.) So I don't think that a slab deepening at the perimeter, or a minimal footing is appropriate Unless you are bearing on natural sand/gravel. But with 1.2m depth that sounds like pretty ordinary ground. If it was a narrower gap I would suggest building a beam that bears onto the two existing footings. Could be done with bars drilled into the concrete, and a fairly heavily reinforced ins-situ beam. That would also need some calculation. BUT you have 7.2m span so that would need intermediate bases, 1.2m deep. So by the time you have dug 2 end pits, one or 2 mid pits to 1.2m , and the rest to frost depth , drill ends, reinforce and prove it to BS, you might as well dig it all out, and use mass fill concrete and then finish to underside as appropriate. I started writing this thinking we can be clever here, and ended thinking, dig it out and mass fill.

Don't use it. The chemicals are on the surface and deep into pores, and are there to kill insects and fungi. Not good for humans either. Arsenic is no longer an ingredient but the remaining chemicals will cause harm if breathed. "Active ingredients: 16.1% w/v (12.4% w/w) copper (Cu) present as a cupric carbonate ethanolamine complex and 0.64% w/v (0.50% w/w) tebuconazole. Do not burn offcuts and waste in domestic fires or barbecues. Burning of these wastes in industrial facilities may require specific consents."

Moving along with the subjects raised.....assuming you are interested......if not, please jump to question at the end. Is PIR better, hence used in cold stores? The steel buildings I worked with for 30 years were of superior quality with very low air leakage, even before it became a rule. Comparing to other buildings I have been involved with the difference was very clear. Steel buildings built without proper spec, by various suppliers and poor understanding or supervision , had thermal bridges, air leaks, squashed or missing insulation and more. Build quality and attention to detail is vital. It didn't especially matter what material was used as long as it was done well. Hence composite metal/PIR/metal as roof or wall cladding is not better but it is more difficult to do badly. Next matter: cold stores. They are insulated boxes within boxes. I have been on the ceilings (ie in the roof space, which can be spacious, and it can get quite hot up there. Also in the gap between cold-store walls and building walls: as this is a narrow space it can get unpleasantly hot. So the structure reflects a lot of the heat, and keeps the air and wind out, then the voids take a lot of the heat that gets through. The cold-store itself then has an advantageous start with no direct light, and moderated air temperature. The very big advantage of PIR for cold stores though is that it is used as a ready-made structure, with slabs standing full height from the floor, and then roof slabs sitting on the walls and also suspended from the structure. Any other insulating material would require additional structure. The PIR box could not work outdoors as has to hang from the ceiling, could not stand wind or snow, and would not be weathertight. Tinfoil on PIR or plasterboard. I have looked into this seriously, as it seemed too good to be true. It used to be said that the foil on plasterboard helped the insulation, but they don't seem to say that now. On PIR cladding sheets, the metal is 0.8mm thick, but is a strength, weather and abrasion skin, not for thermal reasons. If I remember correctly, a tinfoil skin, even sitting in the dark, will theoretically catch some heat, but then simply transfers it to the material it is touching. If hanging, and subdividing a void it works to some extent, but by creating smaller pockets of air. Now a question for you please. Back to self-build domestic. I see it written (here and in sales literature) that there must be a gap between the outer masonry skin and PIR. However one of the advantage of cavity rock wool is that it is full-fill. I am wondering why does PIR need the gap but batts don't? And is it written in regs or just acknowledged practice?

Thanks all. It turns out I knew this instinctively, but it is very interesting to see the theory explained. I have a place in Spain which stays cool indoors in the summer because of multiple layers of tile and concrete, and some voids, but in winter it is very slow to heat from indoors as the walls suck up the heat. It really needed both but there was no chance of convincing a Spanish builder. They do now sell insulation, but don't use lot. And I have built over 300 steel buildings, which have the 'caravan effect' whatever the u value (for about 2 weeks a year) It isn't a problem with high warehouse roofs but can be for normal room heights. There is a solution which is several air changes overnight, to cool the structure. Woodfibre looks an interesting additional possibility. How many days of unremitting heat does Invernesshire get? I know it gets hot, but not usually for long. The other aspect is of 50% more thickness with rockwool, and so another 100mm off the room widths. I am thinking that the higher roof will get lots of rockwool, 150? and some attic space, the walls and sceilings get 100 rockwool, and the floor is PIR, as much as suits ceiling height. I will consider further, while drawing up sections, let you know the (provisional) decision, and welcome different opinions.

You are forgiven. If you didn't burn it, someone else will skip it (lorry and diesel) and either burn it or dump it, so you burning is not a bad thing. Just never buy peat, and you will more than make up for that slight misdemeanour.

Brambles are the worst because they bulk up, are jaggy to handle and won't go well through shredders. Difficult to burn even. BUT as you have a decent area of land, if you use a small digger, scrape them up, with 6 inches soil and the roots, make a big pile, chopped and driven over as much as possible and leave them, they will mostly rot down to a fraction of the pile size in 6 months Bury in other compostable material if you have it. Then it is soil, and useful. Also you have got rid of most of the roots. Of course they will grow again, but in a small and controllable area. Depending on ethics and options: Spray until they give in/ turn the pile over/ bury in other compost. Should not need to burn, you will feel good about how little harm you have caused, and have a nice pile of soil.

Thanks. All good points. That Architect recommendation looks good. However with a daughter who is a Chartered Architect, and me Chartered Civil Engineer we hope to bring our own skills to this, Cash not limitless by a long way. But our business has been in 'design and build,' with finding solutions to problems a speciality. And with any luck we will find local builders who can make the tricky steading stuff look easy. This steading is better than most, and there is relatively little repair to do. The roof timbers look very new, and I haven't worked out whether they are, or it has simply been good maintenance. still a lot to do though, and box in box is indeed the answer.

Excellent points both. ProDave: I am guessing that your domestic hot water is electric. ScottishJohn: we are considering the 600 th stone walls to be an extravagant weather-skin, much thicker than brick. Then we have a timber water and heat tight shell inside. the room widths become rather narrow but we are working on optimising that. The steading unusually has 4 sides so the floor space is quite large still, and the roof truss bottom chords are a good metre above eaves so this helps. Your mentioning the constant dampness of the stone is interesting. I think it must be less damp then brickwork because of the density and large proportion of stone as compared to brick and mortar. But we still must keep it out, and I think a breather membrane is to be preferred to a complete barrier. Yes french drains will help, ( I think a rubble drain was built as standard along the walls, but that is well blocked by muck now.) A proper gutter and drain system, instead of being chucked on the ground will help most. As a consultant or builder, yes I would tell any prospective client that it is cheaper to start again. As an owner, we will treasure the history, put in lots of time at no charge, and do the best we can. It is the unknown unknowns that are the biggest concern. Re damp, much as I prefer rockwool to celotex, the latter is waterproof and an additional barrier to damp, and air. I am comfortable with the theory, but there will be specifics for steadings that a) work well b) satisfy the inspector. If only I could see other warrant applications it would be easy. Both: do you know any clever way to Slap openings without the walls crumbling or, at least, being angled back excessively? we will minimise this but will be at least 2 windows required. I am thinking, do one side of an opening at a time and immediately rebuild the jamb in stone/block/brick. Perhaps use props and strongboys both inside and out. Then once the 2 sides are formed there is still a lintel to do, so do one out and one in, and never make a complete hole. Someone has done this before though, maybe a better way. Saw cut? Its great to have your advice. Tell me when you have had enough from me. I plan to do my bit for the website in answering other queries where I can add expertise. (Fire, drainage, sustainability without gimmicks). Seeing someone plan to spread intumescent paint as far as the tin would go concerned me yesterday, so I jumped in there.

Intumescent paint is tricky. There is a calculation to tell you how thick it has to be, and it likely requires several coats on these steels. Then it gets a seal coat on top. £60 does not do it. The building inspector should ask to see the calculations, and also check the thickness applied. So for this little job it is not worth the hassle. Plasterboard is easy and fool proof. In most cases you can use one layer of the pink fireboard or 2 layers of normal plasterboard. The latter is handy because any tricky/ untidy cuts in the first layer get covered by the second. It can all be calculated, but the BI is likely to accept either PB suggestion, and rightly so. If the BI does not know this, perhaps just do what he expects and use pink. There is very little chance of fire melting the steel from above, but you might as well do what is expected and box the steels. You can make a support of timber on or within the steel, to which the board is screwed, as that is automatically protected too.

Interesting, thanks. So the ASHP runs as standard, and slightly undersized, and the WBS is used when necessary for room heat Is that a wood-burner with back boiler, or a plant-room burner? logs/ chips/ pellets? What about hot water? I agree re noise, and it can be screened to some extent. I have been designing buildings for decades and had not heard of decrement. Reading to be done. Seems complicated, linking U value and thermal mass. Perhaps more important in hot countries, keeping heat out? I like rock / earth wool when it is the waterproof type as it fills voids tightly, whereas foam board is a bit approximate. Survey only by my daughter and her husband so far. Lots of photos and videos for me, and they knew what I needed to see from a joint inspection of a similar building. I am a Chartered Civil Engineer, and have been contractor for 30 years. Also we have done up 4 places before, so know the pitfalls, or some of them. Will need to see it all close up, and soon. Agreed re the floor and not digging. Would not want to undermine in the slightest. The floor is concrete, fairly modern and flat and clean. Therefore it will be left in place in lieu of hardcore, then dpm, ins and screed on top. Plenty headroom, and we could always trade off an inch or so of insulation and put it elsewhere: but I think it is ok for 4 metric inches. Will have to cut in locally for drains, and burrow under the walls.. I have read blogs where people have been told to break up the concrete and then put down stone. A lack of understanding or thought by the designer (?) not the Building inspector's problem, and the poor owner does as told. Not with my money you don't. Money, complete lack of sustainable thought, and unnecessary risk to the building. I was hoping to see more stone buildings in this hub, as there will be a lot of scope for not reinventing the wheel. For example, in one blog , I learnt to stick on bituthene to the bottom 1m of the wall, linked to the dpm...what a good idea, and probably standard. It's great that you, and others, run this hub. Oh one more thing. for a laser survey to produce a 3d drawing. In expensive Kent we pay about £600 to £800 but up your way it is over £2,000! Is that just lack of competition. We will get the tapes and level out. Thanks again. don't feel you have to answer all the above! Para 1 I'd like to know though.

Hello all. we are awaiting legal completion, so excuse lack of address and details for now. It is not superstition, but experience. Highland will do for now, and it is quite big. I am juggling my own experience in commercial projects with the more relevant experiences in your projects. Conversion of farm steading, not new, but will be airtight and well insulated. question 1 space and water heating. My thoughts are to use ground or air source heating but also have oil or propane as security, and as best capital outlay value. Plus a wood burner. I feel that most of you are going for AS with perhaps electric backup. in commercial buildings i have specified and used AS many times, but never GS as the ground is heavy clay where we live. AS is noisy though. And solar panels? I think underfloor is a given for a new floor, which we would have. I'd love to hear your opinions. question 2. rock wool or foam board in the walls and roof (see how I am avoiding trade names)? I was tending towards foam to keep it skinny, but I like good quality rockwool, and see it on some project photos here. thanks