Post and beam

I thought there was only one SUDs requirement. You are either required to meet it or you are not. One of our many planning conditions was that the front hard landscaping had to be SUD's compliant. The crushed concrete that we had poured to support heavy traffic during the build contains sand. It does not drain water when i perform the following test...... Run a hose onto a test area for 1 to 2 minutes, water should not pool more than 300mm . We do not get visible run off towards the house when it rains however, its finding its way underground somehow, just not in the way, or time, that the test requires.

It depends, is the only answer right now. If i can get away with grading it to fall towards soil then it will stay as it is. If it were not a planning condition to be SUD's compliant i would leave it as it is. Worst case, if i have to dig up what is there today then all bets are off.

Possibly true, i just need to learn what & how this might be achieved.

I suppose this very useful piece of 'theoretical' advice depends entirely on whether it is my choice where the test is filmed. no idea what kind of evidence is expected. But thank you.

Must be SUD's compliant. Otherwise i would not give this a moments thought. This is not my area, i have no idea. The frontage of the property is 18 metres wide, most of which was covered with the previously mentioned rubble. I did wonder whether channels could be cut across it to bury french drains and take the water to the side where there is soil. Otherwise i am back to ' i have no idea'.

When our house was first under construction a large amount of crushed rubble was poured to form a drive way, mainly to support the 35t Crane but also all the vehicles that visited. It currently performs as a perfectly serviceable driveway. But it fails the SUD's permeability test. As far as i can see then only option is to have it removed ! and then to lay a compliant type 3 base. Does this sound correct?

I would spell out exactly who it is that will pay this figure. For the avoidance of doubt.

I may not be explaining this very well. One last comment and then i'll leave this subject. My contention is that it should be me that decides what i build and why. And it is me that judges what is of value to me. There are many things that could be built into the total package of a new home. That i pay for dont forget. Some would potentially be of benefit to a later resident. I dont care, if they want it they can provide it. Simple really.

No that's an inaccurate assumption. I knew from the outset that an EV charger was required. My sparky did indeed run a suitable cable from the consumer unit out to an outside wall. This was part of his overall fee of course. This also happens to be the part of the EV installation requirement that i believe is reasonable to be mandated for the potential benefit of whoever may come after me. It still leaves almost £600 for the unit itself which i maintain is not reasonable as a gift to someone else.

You must be minted. £600 for the charger on a supply only basis is not 'very small'. Neither is the £300 plus installation fee.

Doing some research on what i need to provide for both my drive way and the paths i was directed towards this site....www.tobermore.co.uk Within i read this....'In England, SuDS can be recommended by planners but not enforced by law. Section 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 is designed to help with surface water management in urban areas.' Does anyone have practical experience of the implications of this. I dont want or intend to circumvent the planning rules. But it would be comforting to know that if i screw up on the effectiveness of what i do it will not have dire consequences for my bank balance. I started today looking for a recognised test of whether my drive currently meets the permeability requirements. Would hate to dig it out if its not necessary.

And if we carried this logic over to the EV charger point, a cable and connection point ready for a charger would appear to be enough. That is reasonable.

We keep coming back to this without resolving why. What is this 'should' nonsense? Because the 'rules say so' is not what i mean by an answer. The 'rule' is an unfair and ridiculous burden on the house builder.

These EV chargers have a display panel. If your BCO was awake ( and cared) they might notice if its not working.

'To comply with the rules' is an answer but its not THE answer. Why is it a rule? I think it is reasonable to require installation of the cabling to a point on an outside wall. In contrast it is nonsense to mandate that i spend a grand of my hard earned for the potential benefit of someone else.

A future owner of my house might want a pool, should i install one now just in case. FFS! Solar panels are very popular, green and likely to become mandatory soon. Should i also install some

East herts are my local authority. I had to spend a grand on a full EV charger install. I dont have an EV car.

This is from just now. I can forgive the infrequent couple of seconds buffering we get in the evenings sometimes. Fair trade off as far as i am concerned.

As an ex Submariner i can say that quite a few visitors do ask where the portholes are. We did have a fish tank built into the junior rates dining space wall which made people do a double take.

Disagree. If the supply/demand equation were better balanced the upward price pressure would evaporate. Homes( not just new homes) are in short supply thus the price.

One obvious reason is the huge imbalance between supply & demand i think. As long as the amount of people wanting a house outstrip the supply of them then the price/quality thing will suffer.

I watched Kevin yesterday exploring the off site construction of a 'modular' single story house. Am i missing something? all that appeared to happen is the house was built in sections in a warehouse, it took just as long as it would have done on site as far as i could tell. Other than, of course, not at the potential mercy of the weather. Is this enough to warrant the process. The customer was impressed that once the house was delivered it went together quickly. But it still took quite a while, just not within the customers visibility. Only one house was able to be built at a time in the warehouse. Surely this is not a sustainable model from a financial point of view. I imagine true off site modular houses would be a 'call off' from a parts warehouse of pre made for example... 3 x 4 metre wall panels with window 2 x 2 metre panels with door. n X 4 metre wall panels no window. etc. You get the idea. Much like a SIPS design might be now but scaled for volume. Any design of house you want but from the standard parts list. Appreciate not everyone likes SIPS but i hope the description still holds. I believe the actual assembly should still be on site.

I just read elsewhere on the forum about the building regs requirement for gigabit capable infrastructure mandatory. Have i screwed up by ditching openreaches incompetence and going with Starlink as my only connection to the outside world. I have read the requirement before, forgotten it i guess and then gone my own way. Clearly starlink is not hardwired. Depends on an acceptable definition of 'infrastructure' i suppose.

I would not rely on any AI generated content. But i will view all designs and pictures it creates to see what i can take from it. If it sparks either my wifes or my imagination with any good ideas for layout then it will be worthwhile.

Not yet but chat GPT says it can do this. It even claims it can prepare building control spec drawings. I am also planning to spend sometime out in the sunshine today as well, staking out options for paths, drive way etc. I need to try to stake out the relative heights. also need to accommodate the Wife's flower beds. I am not very imaginative in this regard which is why i wondered what AI can do.