saveasteading

I wrote this many hours ago and forgot to send. I'd say it needs to be at least as big as the sink being emptied. It will force the equivalent water through to the other side and into the outlet very quickly. The inlet should be at mid height and horizontal* so as not to disturb the silt and floating stuff. The commercial traps tend to be much smaller and depend on their being a low flow, not a sink emptying quickly. * that may require bends from the high inlet down and back again. Remember that the outlet controls the level and the trap volume is all below that.

In my opinion it would be wrong for you take the role. They are professionals and experienced so should do it, and they probably prefer that to the alternative.

For general interest. When written risk assessments became a requirement, we put one together that was about 8 pages long, and attached to it a standard A4 form for each specific task. So there might only be one at the start of the job. HSE snap visits (maybe 10% of projects or one per year) asked to see it. They were able to read it in 5 minutes, and follow up with questions and a site tour. One inspector said he wished all manuals were like this, but that sadly it was changing. What they most want to know. Who is in charge? Everyone on site should know. Then asks that person what is happening today, and show me the relevant paperwork. Then a look at the work in progress and site in general. Often they'd give good advice When I retired, our file had expanded somewhat, as required, but was kept relevant and job specific, and was generally one lever arch, half full. On a major national contractor's site I saw they had 3 very full, big files. I happened to be in their cabin, being a subcontractor, when HSE turned up. The manager couldn't find the relevant bit. HSE not impressed. That file was designed to keep the hierarchy safe, not the site personnel. Mine he read and praised, looked at what we were doing and that was that. The bulk of the paperwork that is just waffle was (and is) of no interest. So do it. They don't expect a professional file for a self- build but would from any biggish contactor you are using. They have always been decent people in my experience. The best bit of advice I can give for safety is to think "what could go wrong" and note the measures in place or sort it. Practically it is often by not having too much going on at the same time. If I could find one of my blank forms I'd depersonalise it and publish it here...but I can't. Maybe someone else can. What you really, really don't want is HSE turning up to you after dealing with a nasty accident somewhere else and finding a shambles.

Let's put this in perspective. How many on here have had a formal visit or request to inspect the site or request to see the safety document? Unless you have an accident or complaint it's very unlikely.

You might have to do it with them and get them to sign. As long as it is logical and sensible they should be OK.

That's the trouble. Many are generic rubbish along the lines of safety being our priority. Also you need to see their insurance... the whole document. Eg I once had a roofer who was highly competent but on checking, his insurance excluded work above 3m. He knew it said that, and it was cheap or all he could get. but nobody had ever checked. I've met HSE inspectors several times. They asked for the paperwork but actually wanted to see competence and safe practices. Hey were genuinely interested and helpful... but tough.I'd hate their job... squashed people, missing digits... look and report. Meanwhile being disliked by the workforce. What they hate is to find nobody in control. On the occasions they told us or our contractors off, they were right. The safety people who like paperwork are safety consultants and company safety officers....

No. Just be safe, use experienced workers and reasonable care and attention. It is to keep people safe not make paperwork. A risk assessment is simple. What are we doing?how? What are the risks? How do we reduce or avoid these? Do it thus and brief those involved. Yes people make money from the paperwork from those who will pay. But HSE basically don't want to report on squashed people.

Eg timber, plasterboard and sundry other materials??

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.