MJNewton

Thanks everyone; a unanimous opinion really helps. I've just caught a glimpse of one of the panels in low light and the white 'paint' mark *really* stands out, even at a distance. Anyone any idea what white substance is used in the manufacturing process? The supplier has just got in touch to say they've sent my email and photos off to the manufacturer so we'll see what they have to say. Mr Punter, its not low iron glass. The blue tint is a coating intended to help reduce glare. TuffX's version is called Ambi Blue. I don't know how it's applied but finger's crossed it is an accurately repeatable process.

I have just taken delivery of a 2.5m x 1.5m Korniche roof lantern and whilst I am very pleased with the frame two of the 'TuffX Ambience' glazing panels have some defects on the inside (i.e. within the cavity) as per photos below. One has a 2mm diameter white mark (almost looks like a spec of paint!) on the glass and white powder on the black edge spacers: Another panel has a ~18mm mark (scratch/abrasion?) on the glass: There may be other, smaller, marks on this one also. Would you accept these panels? I have read the GGF Code of Good Practice on the subject of what is acceptable and it is, perhaps understandably and unavoidably, still somewhat subjective. I am mindful though that this roof lantern is intended to be something of a focal point, not just a means to let light in or us to see out, and so visual imperfections may have more of an impact than they would in a window. Furthermore, it will always be at most around 1-1.5m away in view and so an 'only visible when close up' consideration isn't all that relevent. I have sent some photos to the supplier and so will see what they say but I thought I'd share my worries with the panel for comment. With this glass having a slightly blue tint do you think I could end up in worse situation if I insist on replacements given the potential for differences in shading between batches?

The kitchen being a 'special location' is no longer the case - it was removed a few years ago.

Thanks both. I must keep reminding myself that any negativity on my part is merely the result of observations of what's in front of me and if its wrong it needs calling out. Whilst it is wrong to expect professionals not to make mistakes (we are all human), it is only reasonable to expect them to be rectified once identified.

Bit more of an update... The BCO came out and listened to my concerns about the falls. He wasn't half as hard-lined about it as I thought he was going to be but did say he'd go back and speak with his manager about the situation, and he also said we should wait for the membrane manufacturer's opinion on the quality of the application as it could make the fall situation a moot point... And it looks like it has... The manufacturer phoned me today and said the application of their product in this instance was 'shocking' with numerous issues including pinholing of the surface, the wrong joint tape being used, uneven thickness etc. They are going to put everything in writing on Monday. I told the builder and he told the roofer. Both seem to be fuming and will be visiting site next week with the local supplier/trainer of the product used as the roofer seems adamant he hasn't done anything wrong. Not particularly looking forward to that one as I don't like criticising people's work, particularly in front of others, but I will have to at least point out all the bits that I sent photos of to the manufacturer so that they can all see what they've seen. So, in my view, the fall issue has been overtaken by the membrane installation issue now. If the manufacturer isn't willing to provide a guarantee against failure in this instance then nobody else is in a position to do so either so that's my option 1 (leave as-is) gone. If the report says that water may have already got through then I think the line I'll be taking is that I want the whole roof structure stripping back to the joists (option 2) as if the roof structure was built well enough to keep moisture out then if any water does get in their it's going to stay in there and I'm not at all happy about that. With the roof stripped back we can of course then put the proper firring strips in before building back up. I've been really enjoying the building of the extension so far but this whole roof business has really left a sour taste which is a real shame for all concerned. Hopefully one day I'll look back and laugh about it.

Ah okay! Not got one of them; sounds fun though.

Shot fire? Overboarding is a challenge in this house as the ceilings are suspending on resilient bars (for noise reduction) and finding them with screws without finding the joists can be tricky!

I'm not overly worried; as Nick said if there's a beam-twisting fire going on I'll be out of there in a flash and chances are it's a complete rebuild anyway from that point.

The beams are recessed and contained entirely within the ceiling void. It was this from the Application Instructions that made me think otherwise:

It's already primered so I think it can go straight on. It's not really a cost issue; more what was going to be easiest in this particular situation.

If 4.2m is my length I've got roughly 0.7m width of exposed surfaces so that's ~3m². A litre of Envirograf EP/FS/INT should cover 10m². All said and done though I think I'm leaning more towards the boarding now if I can get it sorted without too much of a headache. It feels a bit more predictable in its performance, as is often the case with more conventional methods.

For the amount I'd need it'd only be £20.

I'll see what I can do. Thanks everyone for the ideas.

It does make sense; is it held securely? I think I need to get up close and personal with the beams when I get a chance and see what possibilities there might be.

It's how I attach the fireline that could be the challenge as I am assuming it cannot be stuck in place with adhesive?