saveasteading

That's the excuse of the less well informed that you are repeating. The vast majority of scientists are too busy being scientists (knowledge, analysis, complicated stuff) to get involved in politics. They are not inclined to lie or push propaganda either. They will also say' it isnt that simple ' unlike the worst of politicians who say what the audiene wants to hear, Those who don't understand science are often disinclined to believe just how clever some other people can be. If you excuse me I will exit this otherwise useful conversation: we self builders are designing with climate change in mid after all, and maybe become old if we can keep indoor temperatures in control. after passing some rather tricky exams at school . It's much easier to not understand and to assume it is bluff.

Because it has been blotchy for a while so not rally 10 years aesthetically. thanks for the names, Ill read up a bit incl Hammerite. Rustoleum I know the name, but the others are new. Only one typo is good going with my fingers. I dont fancy taking it down as it is probably 70 years since it was last fitted (we are told that the roof was originally shingles but didn't last long.) and will be 25 years older than that. Just the steel brush perhaps, then whichever paint seems to be the stickiest.

Relax. The planners are well aware that the complaints were vexatious. if there are more then they will contact you. I've had such complaints and as long as you aren't deliberately cheating then it goes away or needs a simple resolution such as retrospective approval.. eg. to high? above what? they don't know. Too wide? an inch is not remotely significant. and so on. If you've added a wing or converted an attic without permission then that's different. Come back to us if there are any more contacts though, of course.

Looks like I need to do my own research.

I wonder, with many insurances being via comparison sites and tick list questionnaires, how often people tick the nearest description to theirs. This could result in a claim being refused. Insurance companies vary with some being fair and others being cynical claim deniers. I overheard a manager of one insurer (it happens that I'm seeing their name all over the place at present) saying proudly that they are by far the "most successful" in avoiding claim payouts. There appeared to be a league table of who kept most of their premium income. I think he said "we only pay out 40% of income." That was clearly a target. Ticking the nearest description would be an easy one for them to refuse on the grounds of inaccurate description.

Doesn't read like an ensuite door.

Comparing this to the concurrent discussion on insurance of non-standard construction.... how many online questionnaires will have this option to tick?

Hoping to do as few operations to this gutter as possible. A one coat solution would be welcome. Any suggested products? I last did that about 10 years ago using something like hammerite. As you can perhaps see it was onto variously the previous finish, an undercoat, or iron. Did I do a primer where it was rusty iron? Can't remember, but certainly only if the tin said I had to. Clearly the paint didn't adhere as hoped, or fade as anticipated. So, suggestions for minimal prep, over any surface, in green. Please. 🤞

I have been advised (off the record) that none of the wall constructions perform as well in real life as in acoustic tests. This is because the tests are not between real rooms, but through a central area of a panel. ie no flanking sound. The difference between grey and blue will be fairly accurate though.

You speak sense. Insurers know nothing other than statistics and minimising risk (theirs). On the same course they advised that all the protection specifications are conservative. Eg a plasterboard manufacturer provides a wall panel for testing to half hour exposure, and it gets tested. After half an hour the test is halted so as not to survive an hour and confuse us with the possibility that fire board or thicker boards aren't needed for 1 hour. Similarly whether any jointing at all is necessary for fire purposes.

That's extremely ageist as well as incorrect. Many of these persons at risk would have years ahead otherwise. I could explain but I don't think you want that. Good luck with your circulation in the years to come. You seem to be troubled, but this isn't the appropriate conversation, or help forum. Stay cool. 😎

You suggest 90mm studs. So you could use 90mm as the sole plate etc, then studs of CLS 63mm.

Good suggestion. On a fire engineering course they explained how long a timber takes to burn through, as the outer faces first become charcoal which protect the core. Hence we see the skeletons of timber house fires, not a pile of ash. And even in a bonfire a 4 x 2 will last a long time. So are you suggesting that above 11m the whole structure gets more protection. Eg 1 hour fire protection gets 90 minutes?

This from the Timber Development Association. A number of changes have been proposed to Approved Document B – the UK’s statutory guidance on how to meet the fire safety requirements of the Building Regulations. These changes affect the use of combustible materials – including timber – in buildings. We welcome some of the proposed changes, but there are others that we strongly disagree with. One change, for example, is to apply a height threshold of 11 metres upon any building containing timber in its elements of structure. Other changes require higher fire ratings for cladding, membranes and sheathing in external wall systems – which we consider disproportionate. I haven't read it yet but will do., and will respond if I see the need... which seems likely. Responses from individuals like us should have some weight as we have done it, or are about to do it. I have had most of my career in steel, but strongly support timber where appropriate. I've had a couple of run-ins with bco's on timber being 'combustible'. Even when completely encased in plasterboard, it is wood, and wood burns, so you can't use it, went the argument. These are not flexible people and are becoming ever less so., so ambiguity and global statements must be avoided. Plus I've met the sort of people who make these proposed reports and I wouldn't have given any a job. They tend not to be practical or fully understand the whole issue. In a domestic situation what is magic about 11m? as long as there is easy exit. I expect this all follows Grenfell which is fair enough, but common sense may not prevail. 'Something has to be done'. Pursue the guilty parties? Or reduce the use of a material which was not remotely implicated? https://timberdevelopment.uk/approved-document-b-you-have-until-wednesday-july-1-to-submit-your-response/?utm_source=TDUK+Contacts&utm_campaign=2eb47531a6-Designer+Update_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4619f835bd-2eb47531a6-223169024

Impact noise or airborne? For both, if you can spare a bit more wall width (how much do you have?) Studs twice, staggered to face each room with plasterboard only on one set of studs, so that you have physical discontinity. That deals with bumps and some loud noise, especially bass. eg a 100mm sole plate but 75mm studs lining up alternately with only one room or the other.. @ 600mm cc, twice, so actually every 300mm Then fill the void with any mineral wool, and you can even put some between studs and the 'other' side. It will snake. One sheet pb each side, possibly upgrade to the denser blue faced grade. for dB figures see the Knauff catalogue. That will be stunningly good, with the weaknesses being at plates to floor, ceiling and existing walls, so you'll still hear the vacuum bumping at skirtings.