Mr Punter

I think you may do better to build in blockwork, then fix vertical battens for your timber cladding. You should use facing or engineering brick for the lowest 150mm-225mm as this tends to get splashed. Get someone in to build this, it will not be that expensive and you will still have loads to do.

Very odd as the regs make no mention of number of storeys in regard to Internal fire spread (linings)

http://nhbccampaigns.co.uk/landingpages/techzone/previous_versions/2011/Part6/section2/appendix.htm#62C

2.9m with 300mm thick concrete core. Concrete with superplasticizer. One burst but fortunately easily propped. Not fun to do. Go steady with the poker...

I have removed quite a few trees from a site before starting work on the new building. The planners were not thrilled but there was nothing they could do. My preference now is to remove the trees not required before submitting the planning application. If you have not begun work I suggest you take out any trees you do not want to keep.

You are right in that timber has very little shrinkage along it's length. The shrinkage occurs across the width, so sole plates, locating plates, head binders, joists, top and bottom chords of engineered joists. This is all in the floor zone. The issue with timber frame occurs on buildings with a brick or block outer leaf as the frame shrinks down and the brick // block does not.

Where we are it used to be the case that archaeology was funded by the County Council and we used to just have to ask the local voluntary archaeology group to visit any sites which were considered of interest. I think we donated about £100 per house. Now it is "developer funded" and it has spawned a whole business and the fees are now about £1000 per house. If the planning condition means that you are not able to reasonably construct foundations and the actual worth of the archaeology is low you can appeal the condition. On the other hand if your site overlies a Roman villa with intact mosaics you may need to think again! Explain to the archaeologist what foundation system you are proposing and why and see what he suggests, as it is you that pays his fees (through gritted teeth no doubt).

If is not economical / practical to avoid the stuff underneath, argue this with the archaeologist as unless the finding is of significant importance it should not be an obstacle preventing development. I have had similar with trees in conservation area and they conceded that keeping them was not practical.

Agreed. The bit to the right of the front door would make a four bed developer house.

A big issue to consider is that timber frame will shrink in height by about 20mm so you will need to be able to accommodate this at the junction to your existing building, particularly after first floor level. A plan may help - you can post pdfs.

You will need to allow for the window opening in the timber frame to move downwards relative to the blockwork opening. This will be more so for upper floors.

Expanding foam will not work as a seal. It is good for insulating but you will need mastic if Compriband does not fit.

Don't mess with lining paper, it will book worse. Electric sander will lose any edges.

Don't remove it - fill any gouges, then maybe a light sand, then paint.

If you have window trickle vents, 10mm gap under doors and dMEV fans in bathrooms it should be OK.

I like the design. Windows with sloped or apexed head are tricky for blinds / curtains / shutters (not sure if this applies to you). I am not keen on the Jack and Jill bathroom. You have enough space for two en suites and could even make bed 2 500mm smaller if needed.

He was an idiot in that regard. The new regs just require self-certification using the wording "Water consumption is less than 125 litres/person/day using fittings approach". Stupid reg anyway, with things like bath capacities measured to the overflow. Really the regs should mainly focus on health and safety for occupants, not what shower head they choose.

This should be sealed on the outside with Compriband or mastic.

When you submit the rest of the stuff for the final inspection (air tests, elec and gas certs etc) you also submit a statement confirming that "Water consumption is less than 125 litres/person/day using fittings approach". You no longer need to do the calculator.

If you want a grass roof it will be fairly heavy and the grass can dry and become a fire hazard unless watered. Probably OK for a shed.

The Lacomet stuff? I think someone here has used it. Lead, installed correctly, is fairly inexpensive and very long lasting.

The actual conductor diameter is less than 7mm, which always seems quite small to feed a 100 amp supply, but I guess the DNO have played this game before...

It is more likely 35mm2 cable that being the area of the conductor. Your ducting is fine. The cable diameter is about 15mm including the sheathing.

Really poor when a big firm does not give clear fixing instructions including, size, type, location and spacing of fixings. Get in touch with their technical dept as it is their job. I think it was owned by a different firm when we used it and I think I remember them having a fixing spec.

Go for 15mm.