Post and beam

They certainly are. If they took a ruler to their PC screen and measured any dimension against the scale bar it is correct. I used as the template a previously accepted drawing from the original planning application so they have actually already had the information i am trying to give them. Discharge of conditions looks for all the world to me like an excuse to extract another £145 from me. Which they have duly done.

Hi George, i have a very kind offer via PM to do the very same thing but thank you. I do suspect that the scenario that you propose is exactly what i did. But as i have made 2 failed attempts to submit already i am clearly not the person to find the error and correct it.

Thats what i did, import-edit-export. The scale bar in the drawing measures correctly against dimensions on the ground (in the drawing of course). I use the width of the drive way as my test. There is also a '1:200 @ A1' annotation on the drawing. I am very reluctant to pay the original planning advisors £500 to submit this very basic info on my behalf. I might have to.

I am lost and need some guidance if possible guys. I have taken a .pdf drawing that was previously accepted at the full planning application stage and tried to modify it to use to satisfy the discharge of two conditions. Not having the correct software or knowledge i converted the .pdf to .jpg imported it into paint and amended it. (As 2 slighly different drawings.) I then re converted it back into .pdf and submitted it. The scale bar on the drawings matches measurements within the drawing. But as you can read below a reply from the planning dude can see an issue. On newly submitted drawings ’22-036-101-LEVELS REV A’ and ’22-036-101-SS REV A’, your scale bar has proved to be inaccurate. Instead of measuring to 9m at the stated scale, it measures to 3.1m. Please can the drawing be revised, so that it scales correctly, and resubmitted at your earliest convenience. If anyone understands the intricacies of .pdf scale I offer a bottle of very good Red wine to anyone that can successfully get me over this hurdle.

Yeah, that's not happening

Agree. First question is/was to understand if liquid screed is good at 75mm. It might be that sand & cement is cheaper and the TF guys have opted for it on that basis. Total ground floor area is 114 square metres. I dont have a cost for either method at the moment so cannot yet make the call.

Is it the liquid quick pour stuff or dry mix sand & cement though?

Is there a practical or recommended maximum depth of the quick pour type liquid screed used to bury UFH pipes please? I have always imagined that we would use 50mm when we get to that stage. For no other reason than this is the most often discussed depth that people seem to use. For example on Forums such as this. Why re invent the wheel. But my actual construction drawings from the TF company show 75mm cement and sand 'dry' mix. To maintain levels, thresholds etc can i specify 75mm wet pour screed, does it matter which, or is there some reason for the difference that i am ignorant of? Keith

Having now read the thing i also note that the author decides to discount low side values that are too far from the average becuase they must be unreliable. I wonder on what basis he made that call.

I note that the report dates from 2011. I wonder if its still accurate enough to be relevant

And if i look in the full SAP report that i have just re discovered i get this....

Here Dude

Exactly that question. Difficult to decipher how 4.36 and 219% relate to each other.

?

It didn't say anything. It does not mention what make or model of heat pump either. It was created by my TF company and before i go back and ask them where the 219% figure comes from i was hoping to have a little more knowledge. I want to run the UFH flow at 35 degrees maximum. I have emailed Vaillant tech support to see if they can point me at some credible facts and figures. If, in fact, the 219% refers to COP/SCOP then i know Vaillants own site is up over 4.

I think i have seen on here somewhere or possibly been directed to a site that lists the % efficiency ratings as they relate to the Building Regs Part L and the SAP assessment process. My as designed sap report gives a % of 219% at Para 4 space heating. So, does this percentage directly relate to the COP/SCOP? My intended ASHP will be a Vaillant aroTHERM 7kw

I have been thinking about just this issue recently. Amazing what you find on this forum. My proposed fireplace is huge, probably 2 square metres so the heat loss could also be huge i think. I have been thinking concrete backer boards at the low side with PIR above. Surely the heat wont be enough for it to be an issue then, for the PIR. This has just become a can of worms.

I sort of hoped that asking on here would achieve the desired result. I know from my current water bills that our domestic use is well below average. But i have no idea how to demonstrate(prove) this with regard to our intended build.

Below, in bold is the last condition i need to discharge. I submitted the SAP assessment document, the Buiding Regs Part L report and the construction notes from the TF supplier. Is there anyone here that has recently been successful with regard to this sustainability condition that can comment on what level of detail they submitted. Thanks in advance The Statement should demonstrate how the development responds to sustainable construction, energy and water efficiency: • how the design, materials, construction and operation of the development would minimise overheating in summer and reduce the need for heating in the winter and cooling in summer; • how carbon dioxide emissions will be minimised across the development site; • how the development will minimise the use of mains Policies CC1, CC2, CC3, WAT4 East Herts District Plan 2018 19 East Herts District Council Validation Checklist (October 2021) Requirement When required? What is required Policy Driver water The statement should the explain, in more detail, the answers to the sustainability checklist criteria relating to water efficiency, energy and carbon reduction and climate change adaptation.

But this is surely the crucial sentence.

All over it

We wont have an internal garage and its a 2 storey house so on this basis i dont need any fire doors. I am trying to budget for internal doors so this makes a difference. Need 14 in total. Thanks guys

With the what now? Apologies, i dont understand.

For our new build i am trying to understand which doors if any are required to be fire rated.

My TF company have had Section drawings provided that show face bricks below the DPM. Is this necessary and/or cost efficient? Can the skin be Dense block below DPM?