saveasteading

Efficiency of stacking can delay use til the next meal. That will save more energy, and water, than anything else. Apparently long, smart programmes are also efficient. I don't know what is smart? Perhaps how mucky the water is. If you get it fitted by the delivery guys, double check after they've gone and check for leaks. They arent employed for their plumbing skills. My last 2 have both leaked from the water connection causing great problems. In each case it was simply mis-threaded.

Love the drawings. Almost art. Making on the ground is normally far easier, esp for getting a vapour barrier on the back. BUT in a tight space probably not as it would be difficult to swing up.

Ok so I'm getting mixed up by the terminology now. Drainage field in the English regs is just french drains. So use French drains but call it a drainage field. They call it a drainage field for the small amount of liquid from an stp, but soakaways if it is rainwater. What I say still applies.

Because its confusing. Solar complicates the calculation. Without it, the tank water should be cheaper. With it? Will the team work to the required times? Let us all know your decision, with reasoning.

No it doesn't. It is a fancy option when a soakaway won't work. So you have good percolation figures. Too fast at one location which in theory means your treated water runs away too fast. 1. The stp manufacturers have long stopped claiming you could drink it, but it shouldn't be nasty so a soakaway will allow bugs to treat it further then it dribbles slowly to the aquifer, among the natural water containing worm and rabbit remnants etc. No harm. 2. If it ran away too fast it might open a stream and stop filtering it. So at that area of fast percolation, rather take drainage elsewhere or close the French drain off...use umperforated pipes to bypass it. 3. A drainage field would be pointless as your French drains are underground and self emptying. I think some people say drainage field wrongly, meaning a soakaway system. 4. As another current discussion, I like French drains rather than crates. They spread the water and are easy to lay. The gravel surround continues the treatment as any stuff sticks to it and is eaten by bugs. The formulae tend to be verrrry conservative. I can't suggest putting in half as i don't know your site circumstances. Perhaps build it in phases for programming reasons and look out for any problems.

I haven't done one, or had it done, for decades. Can you describe the ground? See the soil deviations in that nhbc guide. Is it clay / silt/ sand or whatever. Soft / hard? Use everyday terms

Idea. I have lights in some walk-in cupboards that come on when the door opens...but they are presence detectors, not on door switches. Another in the kitchen has the option of lifting off as a manual torch. They simply stick on the wall, so cheap and easy. I had a client once who made a contractual claim, including that the toilet light was always on. In front of the adjudicator, I asked if his home fridge had the same problem. Nobody quite laughed.

That's cheered me up.

I remember there being lots of kits on sale for this from b and q etc. We did it once and were underwhelmed. They haven't appeared on our dream kitchen designs since then. I think the issue is that when shelves are packed, a light isn't much help. Instead put an extra ceiling light pointing at the wall cupboards, and a torch in or near the cupboard under the sink.

Well done. It has to be number 2. Your worries are sensible and sortable. A) expense...later. B) upheaval. Meaning nuisance? It can be less than you might think. Digging the pit is the biggest issue. But if you have access it's ok. the tank is manhandleable by 4 people OR digger. C) risk of obstruction. Your new drain takes priority. Dig the whole trench and pit from house to tank before laying or connecting anything. Pipes move, roots cut. New pipe doesn't have to be deep as there is no load over it. D) maintenace costs are very low. Plus they will be in your control....nothing going in that shouldn't, and no rainwater either. You can study how the tank works and decide if it needs cleaning.....which it shouldn't. You can make uour own test sump for the outflow. The testing kit is eyes and nose. The new Marsh tank supposedly uses less power and works better, but costs more (£300?) : your shout. Btw i have an ancient brick cess tank and have had it pumped out once in 20 years..... also a 3 chamber tank with no mechanicals or power Never cleaned in 20 years. E) Pool stability. A wise concern, but I can't comment. Except to ask what is the line marked "pump"? Why not drain to the orchard? If you use a pump then the pipe is small and shallow. Most people seem to use soakaways smaller than the design rules. I prefer a french drain, and it's easy to extend (phase 2). A) again. Covered in the above. Rain pipe in same trench? You can get big discounts for big pipe orders. Can be diy with mates. BUT I think BCO should be involved.

Probably about ...I don't know. Guess 300? 2.2m high min, to 8m max. Mostly me drawing or standing watching, and seldom wielding the stanley knife. I'm maybe missing your point. What I mean is that a fire would not spread under that even without intumescent mastic. I guess a really poor sole-plate fitting where you could see light through, might be a slight risk IF the blaze was intense and there was pressure forcing air through and a floor level fuel source. I've been informed that tests show that a 3mm gap between plasterboards onto stud, does not create any risk. But if there is sealer, for a few more £, then everyone is happy.

All very interesting. Background then serious suggestions. This will overlap with what you already propose and others suggest above. Credit implied! I sometimes come back from trade shows, all excited about a new product and way of construction. I take some convincing and expect am a pain to the reps of most things. There have been lots of these screws on show recently. But my career is based on build-ability, function and cost. Although qualified myself I always had an independent SE practice do the final calculations. That was also a reality check before construction. Once new methods were established and proven I would tend to make it standard. Often the SE would admit they hadn't wouldn't have thought of my proposal and didn't realise the cost/ buildability advantage. ie they were not contractors, aware of costs. But the reality generally did not appear innovative to non industry persons. To the point.... You are proposing a concrete ring beam good. I've seen another discussion with steel. I've looked at these piles for a decade or more. Mostly they appear to be sold through franchises of people who offer only this....ie not neutral. I'm sorry to say most of the reps don't know much. Despite this I have tried to design solutions using them, but never selected them....on cost and function. I see them as good for temporary buildings on bog or shallow landfill. Issues? As the above correspondents. Plus the trees and wildlife can flourish under your building. Your ground is OK. But the trees require foundations to about 2.4m. My gut feeling is to build concrete pads (mass filled, easy and cheap) at all corners and about 10 intermediates. Span the perimeter between them with a concrete beam. Maybe down the middle too. This can be poured insitu or bought in ( I've done both, to suit the circumstances ). You can then floor out any way you like but I suggest beam and block. Perhaps planks. Test both designs for cost and access. No wildlife below. No steel or other metal to corrode. The whole building solidly on good bearing and below tree influence. This can still be regarded as innovative if that appeals, while not worrying the authorities. Cost? Much the same as with screw piles. Maybe less because local builders can do this. It is a suitable diy process too. But it will last 200 years, get building regs, be insurable, be saleable. And not have trees, worms and rabbits flourishing underneath. Questions and counter arguments welcome.

Polishing for an industrial finish: no problem. For an architectural finish: no. You will see plastic fibres.

In real life you don't need to seal that interface. There's no way that fire can get through a zero gap. Plus wood chars but doesn't burn, plus the concrete and plasterboard will expel water at thd board ends. But a bco doesn't know that and wants to see an industry standard drawing and the same built. So use beads of intumescent mastic at the ends. Where it meets the roofing felt, what happens? Felt burns and drips flame. Then is there any board? The fire can jump next-door. I think you need to fireboard the soffit for a metre on both sides. But I havent checked the document.

First please lets help you sorg this properly. Further down the line a partial solution might be to put a water butt on each. They have a clever attachment that fills the butt first if there is space. You can then use it or allow it to dribble out under control to make more space. But that's a nicety, not a solution.

I've been turning a small area of lawn into meadow. After 3 years I think we can say it is a success although the flower mix remains limited. It is heavy clay under thin soil. We did not rrmocd or rurn over the foil, just cut it hard. Cutting once after seeding is hard on my mower and me. Raking it all off is hard work too. Yellow rattle is our friend though. Where it has established tgrowth th is in control. There are seed suppliers specialising in mixes to suit the circumstances.

Was it that all the water went to his garden? Does his outlet do the same as yours? so it is now spread onto yours too? Laying the pipe on the surface is not acceptable. A building inspector would not accept that. It will also create an issue whenever someone has to inspect and report, eg a surveyor/ valuer. Where does the water from the main roof go?

This is too clever by half but there's no icon for that. I'll just give a little whistle and try to use my new favourite term whenever possible.

Memorable.

Of course. I assume though that the SE agreed the error and you sorted out a solution. I've had lots of run-ins with bco's usually LA ones who don't like being answered back to. The thing is here, expertise. An SE doesn't do much on ventilation. Where it is Engineering I would always expect the bco to accept my proposals, or have a very good reason to disagree. I've had hecking Engineers say they didn't know the European codes or like Limig state principles.... ie they weren't properly qualified. But for ventilation a bco won't accept my word and wants to see a proven construction detail. Even though we are looking at Building Science and effectively fluid mechanics. Can you find something in a catalogue standard detail that is like your proposal? Even then he will want a formal proposal to put in the file as insurance.

OK. My preference. My career was in big buildings and so eaves at 6m or more. I knew people don't clean gutters. So I preferred a bigger than standard hopper so the leaves etc flow fast into the rwp 100 x100. Nearly everything gets down that. (At standard hoppers, the flow streamlines like a wier, and stuff gets left behind) At the bottom, fit a grated grill and poise the rwp about 100mm above that. Thus crud is not on the roof or reaching the drains or soakaway and clearing is simple by hand. This can be made more sophisticated by shaping the rwp bottom, or adding a plastic shoe. I did this for our own office building. I had a catchpit before the rw harvester, and it was redundant: Barely any stuff ever in it. I think this principle works for the roof under discussion. Big sticks on the roof are another matter.

All the above agreed. I recall there being mesh inserts for epoxy bolting into hollow blocks. That would keep it all solid and even clamp a bit on the inside. But overall I would prefer it not fixed to the wall. A simple goalpost of 2 posts and a rail, using square hollow sections, not quite touching the wall, and with a new concrete footing. Then the house is unaffected and movement isn't a concern. Paint the steel in specialist coating.... grey to match or something else as a statement.

What is not clear? Going back to your original question. It is definitely about the height relative to the original levels at the building location, and not the drive, gate, highest part of the site. If you want it as high as possible, choose the highest original ground level within the house area or the ffl. if you add 100mm you will likely get away with it. Not a good idea to push your luck beyond that.

I think so. Starting with the logic that allowing rainwater into the sewage will reduce the effectiveness of the bugs. It is all designed to suit a certain murkiness. The stuff passes through the chambers on the in = out principle. Too small a digester obv means it is passing through too quickly. Too big and when it should be moving on, it is still in the earlier chamber, diluting the solution, and not optimising the right kind of bugs. BUT, the tanks are always designed up to the next size, and most are oversized fig actual use, so it can't be a serious problem. Another BUT. In my experience they don't need pumping out very often at all, not for organic sludge anyway...perhaps for stuff that should not have been flushed.

Drains and other hidden things It's so annoying when lay observers (incl clients) don't appreciate the work involved to this stage. Especially when very tidy like yours. But you can be happy. 1m x1m pads is a lot. But 600 x 600 is a fiddle to dig, and saves you £50 each. At least it will never take off. It might be worth marking these drain runs and the tank to avoid damage from dumpers etc. Pins with red and white tape.