saveasteading

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.

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.