saveasteading

It's all about safe working. An architect is seldom expert on this or present on site but will do the paperwork. Lots of forms and files doesn't make it safe. 1. Don't have any accidents. 2. Ask each contractor for their method statement. If that is beyond them, sit them down, talk it through and write it up. Use templates as lots is standard. 3. Try to have only one contractor on site at a time. 4. Keep watching and instructing. Modify your plans if necessary. Keep a diary. 5. Don't have any accidents. I've had several inspections. Some unannounced. What an inspector wants to see is not paperwork but an organised site. Plus he asks who is in charge at that moment.....someone must take that onus. The only unhappy inspectors i have encountered was 1. when the foreman of our groundworker hid away...all he had to do was say yes I'm in charge and talk to the guy. I didn't get into trouble. 2. And I witnessed another rollicking....a national contractor' site manager could not find the relevant method statement in among 3 huge files. He pointed at me, his subby. I showed the inspector 6 pages of relevant information and was praised loudly. Keep it simple.

A total station is very expensive and needs skill. I've got one sitting on a shelf but use tapes for buildings. That would change if measuring hundreds of metres or on steep slopes. I was taught by a mining surveyor. Satellites would not have been much help to him, had they existed. But the skills in using a tape are always useful....and I've had a hitech surveyor make huge errors and not notice, because he didn't give it a visual (or leg- pace) check. But I acknowledge that a significant proportion of us can't do the maths.

Why so many horizontal battens?

With two long (and accurate tapes) and Pythagoras you can measure to a few mm accuracy. OR setting up a long base line and taking offsets from it. It's what the ancient Egyptians probably did, and still works.

Any recommendation for the best value currently. It is about 40 purlins plus cleats. We have it all scheduled as Steadmans and I have sent it there. But that seems a bit cosy, and I'm sure other companies must compete. (in case you wonder why I don't know this, as I advise n BH re such things : I retired, plus I used to always buy compete steel building packages. seldom parts.)

Builder seems to be avoiding that?

Aqualisa. Plumber has researched and says: 1. Turn off the pump and it should work as a thermal mixer. ( I guess the turbine gets in the way a bit, but it shouldn't matter). 2. If that doesn't work, we remove it from the inline supplies. 3. There is some expensive modification .

You can't have big spans without beams or deep joists. I'd guess that the beams across the door and the midpoint would be more like 250 deep for economy or shallower at a price. OR posijoists or similar....at a cost. The slopes can be sorted by various means, which can be discussed later. Once (if) you acccept that there are these heavyish members and costs then the next thing is you need an SE to design it to building regulations. We don't do calculations and other detailed design on here. I wouldn't use osb. Any tiny leak and it fails , or have a very well built covering.

It is all being changed to mains on Friday. A plumber I know well and trust has tested the mains at 3 bar, and looked at the whole setup. The hot tank has to be replaced by a pressure tank, and a pumped shower may add some complexity. Otherwise it is pipework. The headers get bypassed by the mains and are then cut up in situ to get through the hatch. It will be a relief to have it gone.

If there was local ponding, then it will reach above the concrete slab. Never rely on dpm providing tanking. I would lift the slab higher. XPS is half the price and half the insulation of PIR. Which is your priority? Yes but... if you walk on it, it dents. A car wheel spread over a wide area is less pressure than the wall sitting on the edge, as shown. I would sit the wall on the concrete or a kerb. insulation lost there is easily regained elsewhere.

It is amazing how much sound escapes through small gaps, but for some reason this doesn't seem the same with underneath doors. Without further consideration, I'm thinking this is because of the way sound bounces about: not much gets from your mouth to the ears next door by that long route. So door gaps rather than grilles I say. Plus furniture absorbs a lot, and carpets hugely.

This should not restrict air movement, otherwise you draw back in air that has been expelled chilled. The planners may or may not be interested in the mechanics and efficiency. Actually, I'd give them the credit of being interested, and that efficient air changes reduces running time too. So a fence would be slatted or hit and miss (which is proven to reduce noise well..horiz slat on one face, then the next on the opposite face). Thinking that this little item may be among major developments and disputes on their desk, I'd make it easy for them to approve. A tick list of all the pros and cons and how the cons were imaginary or are now removed by your thoughtful proposal. Put the draft up on here and get 20 sets of editor's comments.

That's what I'm thinking. There's a separate header for the hot water system, with a crook overflow/ pressure release. So perhaps the plumbing required is to bypass the tanks, then take the redundant stuff out. Speaking to a plumber tomorrow. Meanwhile, Do I apply a dab of LS-X or a great big gob of it? Any other practical tips eg holding it in place?

They used to be, just a few years ago, very noisy. You should minimise the distance from the house as heat is lost along the pipe unless you have stunning insulation.

Corrugated panels have bending capacity in the long direction and next to none across the width. So they must be supported by battens across the panels.