saveasteading

A rotating cowl on a chimney is said to create a significant suction. The bearings are impressive as they spin for years except in exceptionally calm conditions. I've got one on a woodburner outlet, but mainly to limit downdraughts in gusts. It keeps most rain out too. How much suction I have no idea, and there is going to be some on an open flue anyway.

That beam was put there for a purpose, however misguided. For some mysterious reason, it has not been removed. Why not? Because it is part of the structure? Because an SE said don't remove that beam? Because the developer hoped it would all sort out, but it clearly has not? Ask the vendor. Ask to see the building reg's submission or permission to talk to the bco.

Heath Robinson could do this. Fire burns through string supporting extinguisher, which topples forward onto its lever which opens it and the fire goes out., It would be better if every supplier included a self-extinguishing system, and insurance cover for house and contents.

So a water spray at an early stage could reduce the temperature enough? Or that fire extinguisher as above, but somehow automatically. Someone could sell these. The law could require them. On balance, better to let the heat vent perhaps. We are putting ours in the detached garage so the risk is less. Maybe a polystyrene box around it and vent outdoors. I asked about this at a recent exhibition... negligible risk he said and no special measures required. I wonder if we can get that in writing.

Doesn't it need oxygen? If so, then a sealed enclosure, just stud and plasterboard, would soon snuff it out. Provided there wasn't a vent for excess heat of course.... but that can be fireproof too. Regardless of the rules and of insurance, I don't want my house to burn down. Homework needed.

It will say that fire should not be allowed to spread. The rest is examples of how to do this. We can't expect the bco to know about battery technology and risk. So you need to know the fire risk and present this to he bco. But 120minutes may not be difficult. usually just extra plasterboard.

Was my immediate thought too. To have got this far and not resolved this issue suggests that they have had advice they don't like, and want to pass this problem on. presumably you think it is overvalued. Not everything has a solution. You would need a site inspection by an SE before proceeding any further at all. They will rightly charge but you can ask them for a verbal overview to minimise their charge at this stage. Their overview may be that they can't possibly know without lots of research, so allow £xk for a more formal report and a very large contingency for the works. Some SE's would love this as interest and others will keep clear. The best advice to the seller would be to explain the issue in good faith and to open the beam up for inspection. But first, ask the agent to explain it. They won't tell you the whole story of course. And then tell them this obviously needs an enormous reduction in the price and what will they drop to, or you won't be considering it. My thought on what it is? It looks like a barn. Farmers use whatever is available and this may have been a beam for an engine hoist. The builder has not used an SE, and expected to be able to remove it but been told not to.by the bco. I'm intrigued. please report back. If you do walk away, do please try to find out if it sells. Another thought. Google the property and you may find the original sales advert as a barn for conversion, with some clues. and the planning portal is worth a try to.

Agreed as above. No need to stick them down or together. I think I would ignore any gaps up to 2mm, as the tape and over-sheeting of dpm will create a closed cell. In any bigger gaps i'd be wary of squirting in foam, for the reason you suggest, , and more comfortable trowelling some in. Or make some slivers and press in.

Digging a hole, pressing the ground with a thumb and referring to a tree table IS design. Btw you have 80m of footing there. So digging 100mm too deep and 100mm too wide will cost you about 8m3 of concrete and 8m3 of muck-away. (£1400?) An SE and skilled builder can save money from the start.

10.00 news.... $110 now.

Stock piling is seldom a good idea. It ends up being in the way, at risk of damage from operations and the weather, and needing double handling. Nearer to the time of need, ask the BM if any increases are forecast, and maybe avoid 10% cost and store for a few weeks. But I did this recently with insulation. And we had to shift it to suit a change in plan. The handling cost prob equalled the 10% saving. Then there is cashflow. The VAT cost is sitting there needlessly. Spend your time in saving material altogether, through design reviews and planning.

Last resort.. read the instructions if you can find them.

The work is very rough and it will have gaps too. I too suggest a complete repointing and a paint over. I like Blackjack as it is easy to use and fills the gaps. Although it is a very basic and plain material I've never known anyone dislike it, as they should be noticing the nice structure above.

Yes and no. This would need very detailed consideration and a site survey, just to give this preliminary advice. After you have had it, may be the time to ask on here for other ideas, which a good SE will be happy to discuss. But do be aware that the term 'raft' is used to mean different things to different people. Do you mean a heavily reinforced slab that could span over soft spots and support structural walls, or simply a concrete floor?

indeed. and it is the contractor who would be in very big trouble for not declaring the income. The IR know when annual returns look imbalanced and the VAT computer spots anomalies too. Plus taxes do have a purpose. That customer is probably going through life complaining about government services, and the brown envelope brigade because that is what they would do. 'How much for cash in hand?' Oh just allow a 5% handling charge.