MortarThePoint

The lintel doesn't quite come to the face of the blockwork and then the render bead is pressed into the render basecoat. The gap is about 8mm.

Could do. I think that could be hard to get looking neat. I was hoping to use some form of caulk or something. If black, I could then paint the lintel black. If ivory could match render. Needs to be exterior grade though obviously

We have render coming down onto a bellcast bead above windows. There's a gap between the bead and the lintel. Can anyone recommend something fill this gap?

I thought this was going to be really easy but then... I have an opening for a double sided stove. The main structural lintels are two R15A (100(w) x 140(h) lintels) shown in BLUE below. Across these lintels sits some P150 lintels (GREEN) and the internal blockwork of the chimney as well as the flue liner base (YELLOW). To support the outer brickwork layer above the opening, We have used ANG steel L-shaped lintels (RED). All of the loads etc are comfortable and there would be an arching action in the brickwork meaning the ANG lintels are only supporting about 0.5m2 of brickwork (~30 bricks, 80kg vs SWL of 400kgf). Further, the brickwork is tied to the internal blockwork which is supported by the R15A lintels. The lintel scheme was checked by the Structural Engineer who was happy. I called Catnic today to ask about using the same type of lintel elsewhere and they said they shouldn't be used in fireplaces due to thermal transfer. I suspect they envisaged an open fire but I was hoping for comfort from others using these in a similar way. They are >450mm from the top of stove as it's a bit smaller than shown below and the stove manufacturer said it was OK to have combustibles >=400mm above the stove. I know the flue pipe has its own requirements too. Clearly the L-shaped lintel isn't combustible, but it gives and idea of the heat in the area.

Interesting, I don't realise that they are required in rooms the chimney passes through. Do you have link for more information about that as I'll need to change my plans slightly.

This one is dinky: https://www.cavius.com/2002-10-year-smoke-alarm/ https://www.cavius.com/cavius-build-in-base-40mm/

A couple of sources below including from Part B. Looks like hallways and kitchen (though not always) are required. "If your kitchen is not separated from the stairways or circulation routes by a suitable door, then you must also install a compatible heat detector in the kitchen, interlinked with the other smoke detectors positioned as above in the circulation routes" https://www.tameside.gov.uk/buildingcontrol/guidancenotes/note16.pdf

England

I know where I want to have smoke alarms, but I as wondering where the regulations require them. Reason being is I could fit more discrete battery ones in the rooms that aren't required by regulations. As I understand it, I need to have them "in all circulation spaces that form the escape route and in all rooms or areas that are of high fire risk to the occupants". Now that second bit is open to interpretation. Do building regulations require them in rooms with wood burning stoves. I know CO alarms are required but what about smoke alarms. I want smoke alarms in these rooms, but would prefer more discrete battery ones.

That's a good deal, well done! A mortgage on the current house would help. The rear house also has access via a 'farm track' which belongs to it, so whilst the shared drive is the preferred route it's not the only.

We're building a house behind an pre-existing house that we are currently living in. So far we haven't needed a mortgage, but will ultimately. We could get to habitable and BC signoff without a mortgage but I would rather have a 'standard' mortgage sooner than later as rates likely to rise and feeling the pinch. Options: A) Mortgage just the pre-existing house, but lender could get sniffy about the building site out back, though there is a very natural divide between the two with >0.5 acre for the pre-existing (but shared drive). B) Mortgage against just the new house. C) Mortgage against both, may still be sniffy about building site but clearly the value is higher The deed currently covers both 'sites'. I could get a solicitor to split but timing of that may be critical in terms of capital gains tax. I guess a loan is against a deed so (A) and (B) would need the deed splitting (?). If (B), when is it finished in the eyes of a lender: When I say it is by virtue of having a working kitchen and loo When the BC says it is habitable by way of a letter Completion certificate without signed off planning conditions Completion certificate with all planning conditions signed off Depends on loan to value ratio (LTV)

I used my compressor to flush the system yesterday. Sprayed the walls a few times, but think I got most of the water out. Left at 3bar air pressure. It's obvious to see how much more effective water is at leak detection through pressure loss than air is due to air compressibility

Fair play, you now have the experience to know how robust it is. Personally, I still wouldn't risk it and would pressure test and then leave the water in. It's less buoyant with water in, but shouldn't be going anywhere anyway. I think I read somewhere about the initial deformation of the pipes when pressurised, but it's not like screed isn't strong enough to resist that.

Plain inhibitor (no antifreeze) is much more dilute and cost effective than with antifreeze but obviously wouldn't add any winter protection https://fernox.com/product/protector-f1-500ml/ https://www.screwfix.com/p/fernox-f1-protector-central-heating-inhibitor-500ml/342pp

Pipes full of water and house roof on with proper windows half in (poly windows elsewhere). It is the conventional wisdom to do a wet pressure test before the pour and to leave it pressurised during the poor. The pressure test could identify if the pipe was damaged as laid or at another point prior to concrete which you could identify and rectify before pour. Agree you are unlikely to do anything during pour. But it's nice piece of mind to still have pressure after the pour. Finally, a pressurised pipe will better resist damage from being squashed. 6bar of pressure is around 100PSI so can resist the full weight of a person across an area of just 12mm x 100mm which is around a foot's width. Yes the pipe is strong, but may as well help it. Here I am convinced water is a better choice than air as air is compressible and water not. That means that air would only ever push back with the system pressure whereas water could momentarily increase the pressure, and locally due to inertia. The inertia of the water would resist impacts much better than air would. Agreed, but when inexperienced it is often about minimising unquantified risks. You don't have the experience to know it will be fine anyway so you do what you can to give yourself the best chance.