saveasteading

1. 1 length of skirting for the return to the left of the front door, 2.screws for skirting 3. mastic for skirting .. 99. What chance they say that's too much info? Other people have done this so I hope they can advise.

Do you know to what extent? it could be a long list. This is really useful info for lots of us. Thanks for it.

did I type that? sorry. btw that will be a litre of water or so over 25m2 of screed so it will dry in 1 or 2 days. It's one of these strange anomalies, that floorers want the screed to be ultra dry but will then happily paint it with a water based liquid, diluted up to 1:4. I think the instructions say 'allow it to dry'.

It's only fair to say that we don't know the relative skills or responsibilities of these consultants, and that the second one was not responsible for the main design, and may have had an equally acceptable proposal if they had been. There was not zero cost in stiffening the building with ply or osb, and a wind post might have been a good option IF incorporated from the outset.

Agreed, but it will be treated with the official blue primer and we might even preprime it with diluted unibond (myst remeber to give it tomd to dry) , and it will no longer be a porous, potentially dusty surface, but a very compact and tight surface I've never seen tiles or timber flooring float off the floor as gravity is useful. Might be otherwise with vinyl. I do realise why the floorers want this. Screeding contractors aren't always very skilled. Screed is overworked producing the laitence. Often there are tram lines and dimples, hollows and humps. Often the screed is recent or otherwise damp. Floorers don't know the difference between gypsum screed and concrete. Treating is added business. I'd be cautious too if it was my trade. But I've had this discussion on maybe 30 projects, and I've signed a disclaimer when required. My risk but several £k x 30 on the right side of the margin. My risk, my money. Lucky 30 times? No, it has always been a considered decision on a quality floor. If it was my client's money I'd make the same decision.

Show me please. "Should" is not a requirement. The 'trade' saying it is required doesn't count either. I'm not doing it anyway because it is very hard and would be an utter waste of money.

I'd be surprised. Clay should dig neatly so the concrete goes in efficiently. Also there are usually nasty extras with piling: mobilisation cost, hardstanding, muck arising from some methods, pile caps. Small fruit trees and pines don't need 2m deep trenches. Plus the closest distance does not apply to the whole building so can all be different depths.

Conifers at 10m are unlikely to be an issue but your designer will confirm that formally for the bco.

Well done. End of story.

I know but it satisfied the floor people. I know it's dry enough. My post was kind of to demonstrate your point. The latest is that the floorers have caused unease in our team. So caution prevailed and they were asked to grind the surface.... to which they respond that it will be too hard after so long and needs heavy industrial grinders. Qed as far as I'm concerned. If it is so hard then it doesn't need grinding at all. In order: Too wet, needs 80/ 60 days , we need to tank it. Needs to be under 45% Alright 55% Needs weak laitence ground off. Needs industrial grinder as is too hard. Ignorance or chancers I can't tell. Unfortunately the BS says it 'should be ground', hence our team's caution. BS tends to be cautious. Not "must" I note. So for now we return to the blue treatment with full family agreement.

It depends how much you risk a row with the neighbour. Have they got permissions? If so, you could ask SW why theirs is allowed and yours not. If not.... there may be flak.

Yes. But wet clay will expand back into the spaces and the amount of wood in roots is surprisingly small. as you say, it is the effect of the tree drinking the water from the clay that causes it to shrink. Then in winter or when it becomes a former tree, the clay will expand again when wet and stay that way. Not a lot. Obv you wouldn't build on top of right next to a dead tree trunk, and would do something about big surface roots for stability. Houses are built assuming that no inappropriate tree planting will ever occur, and you can't stop a neighbour doing it, but that is just one of life's risks.

Yes. The average house with cross-walls is sufficiently braced. In big open spaces this changes. You can see in warehouses that the wind bracing is provided by diagonal bars or angles on the outside walls which take the wind load out in simple tension, plus some compression struts at the top. In a gale it is sometimes possible to see the bars tensing up. In an extreme wind I've seen them 'snap' tight and make a noise. There will be similar crossed rods in the roof to transfer loads to the walls then down to ground. But if there is no space for these bars because of movement paths or glazing etc (eg car showroom), then a post is used. Also in an enormous shed with intermediate columns and no walls. It can be a post on its own, or more usually adapted on the sides of an existing column, making it into a Maltese cross shape. The forces at the ground can be enormous so it nearly always needs a very big concrete footing (I think we once put about 6m3 of concrete in the one base.) They are expensive so sometimes worth 'designing out' with client approval. So a house with very big rooms or large areas of glazing might need individual posts or 'goalposts. But these are seldom considered at preliminary stage where space and appearance come first.

Yes that's way ott for a house. That's a commercial floor spec. Having reread I agree in principle you work to SE1. But why did you engage a different one?

Me too, but language should be clearer and I was being flippant. But how does anyone know there was tree there last year or whether 2 or 10 years ago matters. In my opinion a normal year's weather cycle will likely allow the clay ground to come to stability.