George

Shear links increase the slabs resistance to shear. That is, it's resistance to snapping at the support. Because the slab is supported on cellcore it is actually a suspended slab, because the cellcore can be crushed by ground heave and no longer support the slab. It is essentially a sacrificial falsework. Because it is suspended the assumed support is just on the edge of the foundation. Sometimes slabs can be made thicker and no longer need shear links (because with more concrete you don't need the steel to resist shear) but it is a balance concrete cost Vs steel cost. Cellcore also has a limit on wet concrete thickness so you may need to go up a grade with that too. Steel suppliers can prebend reinforcement to a given dimension so you just need to order the links.

As said the span, location and structural form are highly relevant so there's not enough information to say. The timber is thicker than normal but you say the floor is having to support the roof. And a 152x152 is the small UC section available. There is almost always some room to trim but doesn't sound bonkers.

The safer way to demo it would have been to remove the roof first, then push the walls inwards. Leaving a RC slab up in the air was not wise, as it's old and cracked it may behave unpredictably.

Not really, just keep away from it.

Risk of a cold spot as it looks like you need to run it some distance. Would an adapter to a rectanuglar duct make it fit better? Otherwise just used a recirculating hob extractor with an standalone humidstat controlled extractor located in a more convenient location.

You should do it based on the individual spans. But given it's a 900mm span a 15mm hole isn't really going to make any odds to a 175mm deep joist.

300mm from the front of the stove isn't it?

You can get all-in-one through wall units. They cost a bit more than a split system and are slightly less efficient, but should be fit and go.

Is it a timber frame with a blockwork outerleaf? It may be that more MJs are needed than with masonry construction because on the face of it that is an excessive number of MJs. However without seeing elevations etc I can't be definite. Is this from a timber frame company engineer?

Have you got an engineer to help you? Movement joint positioning isn't an exact science so some experience and technical understanding is needed. Generally MJs are only required in continuous runs of blockwork panels, not placed at 6m regardless of the rest of the geometry. Also windows are better dealt with using bed joint reinforcement rather than movement joints due to the complications of lintels etc.

Hello, I've need of an office space for the next... five years or so (so my current office can be requisitioned as a playroom). I had been thinking of a shipping container, but the converted price is around £9k. The flat pack site office cabins are around £6k and don't look too difficult to get set up. https://www.shippingcontainersuk.com/m28b0s68p2412/SELF-ASSEMBLY-SITE-OFFICES-20ft-FLAT-PACK-SITE-OFFICE-CONTAINER-EXPCOM20 My main limitation is time. I'd love to self build or convert an outbuilding but with the prospective occupants of the playroom already being a handful, time is the resource I have the very least of. If I do go for a flat pack I'd be less worried about cutting holes it in to install heat pumps or ventilation, compared to the shipping container which has (in my mind) a bit more inherent value. I've the location with power and water, concrete base and good aspect, I think I just need confirmation it won't be too miserable...? Or has anyone got experiences / words of wisdom?

Resin anchors, either hilti or rawlplug. The datasheets are on their websites

£2000/sqm is the ballpark figure, but you will want a contingency on top of that. Talking to a QS (quantity surveyor) is the only other way to get a better estimate, but to be useful they'd really need a set of formal construction plans from the architect and structural engineer, in which case you may as well well just create a tender pack and get quotes from contractors.

There shouldn't be any major damage, consider that an old house has probably survived one or two earthquakes during its lifetime. Cosmetic cracking, especially to plaster is much more likely to happen. You may be able to claim for redecoration work, but I'd have thought that would only be for the cost to repair to cracks, which is quite minor really. Although unpleasant, construction does happen. If it is causing a nuisance, environmental health to limit working hours may be a better bet. But they'll still need to do the work sometime.

Hey at least the architect has allowed for a teenie SHS post int he corner!

You need to get a SE involved to sort out the beam and columns. It is possible to set steels into masonry - he's right there's is a risk of condensation if the column is very close to the external leaf. However until you know exactly what column is needed it may be a none issue. For example, for many 2-story homes a 152UC is sufficient for the column. These are around 160mm in depth so can be wrapped in 25mm insulation and still be within the inner leaf + cavity. Even with a 203UC you will have a fairly minimal projection into the room which kitchen installers can work around. The temporary works are more complex but if there is a critical reason to have the beam in the wall it can be done. You may also need to more to a box frame rather than a goalpost which will cost more, but aesthetics has costs!

100mm is almost always fine for the beam, the longer bearing lengths are there to protect the masonry.

There shouldn't be any change to how CDM operates. The regulations are aimed at bringing the Building Control terminology and procedures in line with CDM. This introduces duties to ensure competence for the design and construction are completed in accordance with the Building Regulations (whereas CDM almost entirely relates to competence regarding safety). This should have happened anyway but now the duties and responsibilities are more clearly spelled out.

You may as well traditionally underpin with mass concrete. There's no less risk with this 'side pinning' ( and possibly more) and the reinforcement is a significant complicating factor. Underpinning is not rocket science, but it does require some technical understanding and good procedural control, which is why it is often done badly.

Same happening here. I have a separate humidity sensor (pretty cheap off Amazon et al) to check. This year there has been high humidity but I believe this is because it's been very wet and warm. So all the mvhr is doing is pulling in warm wet air, which doesn't very effectively lower the relative humidity. You need a decent temperature difference (or absolute humidity difference) between inside and outside for the mvhr to lower relative humidity. If there isn't any condensation or a particularly damp feeling then I wouldn't worry too much.

The brick hood doesn't look very nice but I don't think it would severely impact on heat output over a long time period. As you are new to this stove I'll just point out what may already be obvious to you. A common user error is damp wood, I would ensure you've got sub-20% moisture wood and are properly closing the air flow to lessen the amount escaping up the chimney.

More houses will help with inequality, if those houses help regenerate and invigorate existing urban areas then all the better. Building over farmland isn't going to help the poor get a slice of a rural idyll. Those who benefit would be the middle classes who have job which you can work from home and can afford a car so they can exist in their new out of town development.

More sustainable by having homes near to existing services and places of work. More dispersed building needs more resources to create water pumping stations, sewage treatment, schools, public transport routes, roads etc etc etc. It uses less resources to make existing urban areas denser, and a route to do that is to prioritise urban brownfield. There is a massive issue with personal transport if it is a car - three great issues with modern society are obesity, air pollution and congestion. All of which are caused by an overreliance on car transportation.

Urban brownfield is a more sustainable option - I've seen too many developments which have been built on the far side of a town away from the centre with shops, schools and services. It just builds car dependency into the design.

Those uncropped areas have largely been put into environmental schemes. It undermines the point of those slightly if they get built on.