Mr Punter

We have had stainless ones specified in the past. Really expensive for what they are.

Have your insurance company accepted their liability for the costs? Check the policy and see if professional fees are also covered. If so, look at getting a building surveyor to assess what needs to be done and advise on how best to do it.

You can mostly lose that inside with packing / insulated plasterboard and outside with render so you can still have the slim sightlines. I would ask them to contribute to the additional costs for packing out.

I don't think it will look as good as the alcove cupboards because the fireplace is not centred in this room. Also the wardrobes have lay-on doors and the alcove cupboards are in-frame.

On your drawings these are 3200 x 1600 x 6, so they are over 5m2 for the 2 tiles. Cut into 35 pieces. So with the cost of the tiles this is about £340 per meter plus fitting. Did you fit them or was that done by others? The ceiling came out very well.

It locks the floor components together and allows them to work together as a diaphragm. Apparently.

Sharp sand makes the job hard work. Building sand:cement 3:1 with plasticiser and sloppy. It wont take that much. It is easier when the blocks are wet.

Yes.

Regarding late accounts, we used to have an accountant who frequently filed our accounts and companies house returns late and although he covered the fines it was very annoying but not anything to do with our solvency. My instinct is you will get the kitchen.

Can you narrow the walls down to 350mm? Lintels, wall ties and cavity closers will be easier to source.

I guess that if both houses are equally leaky and yours is also running MVHR, yours will use more energy.

Have you looked at Marmox Thermoblock as an alternative?

The House of Lords' decision in Murphy v Brentwood has significant bearing on this situation. The Murphy v Brentwood case, also known as the "Hedley Byrne" case, established the principle of a duty of care owed by professionals who provide advice or services. In the context of building control, this means that Building Control has a duty of care to ensure that their inspections and approvals are carried out with reasonable skill and care. If Building Control fails to exercise this duty of care and their negligence causes damage or loss, they may be held liable for this damage or loss. The Murphy v Brentwood case also established the principle of "pure economic loss", which refers to losses that are purely financial in nature and not associated with physical injury or damage. In the context of building control, this means that a property owner may be able to claim compensation for financial losses incurred as a result of Building Control's negligence, such as the cost of making the building comply with the required standards. Therefore, the House of Lords' decision in Murphy v Brentwood has a significant bearing on this situation, as it establishes the legal framework for determining liability in cases of negligence by Building Control. If Building Control's mistake in approving the plans was due to negligence, and this negligence caused financial losses, the property owner may have grounds to make a claim for compensation.

Sell it. It will be an expensive pain to build and the area does not look great.

It will be easier to get the foundations done first. If you start putting in drains, then dig foundations around them they will get wrecked.

But that case had nothing to do with failure with the Full Plans Approval but that they did not do a trench inspection. Not relevant to the OP.

You'll be lucky to get any money from a farmer!

I think they are similar. The ones in your pic will be fine.

Here is ChatGPTs take: If Building Control made a mistake in approving the plans that led to the building failing the final inspection, they may be held liable for the cost of making the building comply with the required standards. However, liability in this type of situation can be complex and depends on several factors. Firstly, it is important to determine whether the mistake made by Building Control was due to negligence or incompetence. If Building Control failed to identify a significant error in the plans that would have been apparent to a competent inspector, they may be found to have been negligent. On the other hand, if the mistake was due to a lack of knowledge or training, they may not be considered negligent. Secondly, it is important to consider the terms and conditions of the building control agreement. The agreement may include provisions that limit the liability of Building Control in certain circumstances, such as where the building work was carried out by a third party, or where the error was caused by the property owner or their representatives. If Building Control is found to be liable for the cost of making the building comply with the required standards, you may be able to make a claim for compensation. It is recommended that you seek legal advice to determine your options for making a claim and to ensure that you have a strong case.

The actual Paslode ones are blue but expensive. Make sure they are hot dipped galv. When you pull one out a load of timber fragments stay stuck to the nail.

50 x 50 is quite big. Maybe 38 x 50 would still be OK. I would go with heavy duty galv nails 90mm. Either ring shank or smooth with the glue. There is still enough room for embedment for your nails on the (25 x 50?) horizontal battens. I would use 63mm stainless ring shanks for the horizontals.

I like internal thumbturn. Much safer in the event of fire.

I thought that if you did not have an airtightness test, the default was something like 15. May be different for conversions though.

Sounds fine to me.

I understood that your full plans approval notice should be legally binding for 3 years. If you received the approval and it did not mention this I would discuss with the head of BC.