saveasteading

Not necessary. I've been both. Sometimes in one camp or the other. Mostly doing both together Turn friction into bouncing off and it is very satisfying and productive. Good designers and good makers who can accept suggestions will flourish. If there is friction then it's not for long / only once.

It's a ramp. So either tamp then float smooth, or deliberately tamp with grooves down the slope. The latter looks rugged and is slip resistant, but gathers muck. But the former only looks imperfect when you are on your knees doing it, and nobody else will look.

Good point. That would indeed push half a day's stuff into the drain. I've looked at, smelt and let settle in a jar, the effluent from 4 installations. No strong colour, smell or settlement but presumably there is still chemical content. I don't think much sludge reaches chamber 3 and then that decomposes like the rest. I'll have a read about the Solido for interest.

@flanagaj it's just that some of us have done this for decades. It is never easy for us either because every job is different And because people are people. We may get a little cross when our advice is ignored. But hey, we could be wrong. Listen to the advice.whether you take it is up to you. No violence, but make big decisions to take advice or not. I sympathise, but never assume that building is easy, or that the man in the white van has expertise. And keep asking and listening.

@JohnMothats helpful thanks, and will be especially so if I find we have overcalculated the area. Your numbers are much smaller than ours, but that will he because your percolation is very fast. 8 times as fast percolation means one eighth as much area. In my opinion, there is no chance that your drainage runs more than 5m into the system before disappearing, and the rest is redundant. I don't want to build a needlessly huge trench.. that's bad design. That's not how i have spent my career. Always looking for better, more efficient solutions. You know when they work because everyone thinks it's obvious. Equally, I'm happy to be told of a reason why I'm mistaken. That's expertise. But for now I think it's a very conservative design set by bureaucrats who are not thinking it through. Identical. The current project is SE England. At the Steading, the digger driver said he had lifted in about 10 digesters and all went to a rubble soakaway. So either he was mistaken or the bco's were equally ignoring the rules. Rules that inspire contempt are bad rules.

Good luck and stay calm and smiley. with 20% you could just about throw away he ones that bother you most. I reckon it will go well.

Yes but it is not in the regulations. A reed bed is. From Google Earth I can see historic views showing that the land was once a commercial orchard. Thus I know that there will be fragmentation of the clay from the roots, which will long have rotted, and that there was drainage to the field in herringbone layout. I'd also expect the trees and apples to have depleted the phosphates from the ground (this latter is not my area of expertise though: it's a guess) . None of this will matter to the BCO.: I'm just expanding on the particulars.

Thanks for posting that. It's not easy to see, but I reckon they've done something like it but not as drawing, and also there probably shouldn't be a discontinuity. Yes, I've been the Contractor's Engineer and also the consultant's (acting for the client) on different big projects. In all of these the checking was very thorough by both. But I've no idea of the US (prob NY own rules) ways. perhaps the contractor and designer were the same ownership. Remember too that it is easy to see now, but during construction this is a birdcage of steel with no floors... No excuse but it would not be for the faint-hearted to check every detail in-situ.

I'm supposed to be an expert in this but am hoping for some genius or experience on reducing the vast area required by the regulations for soakaways after the sewage digester. Basically there will be a Marsh 10 person digester which removes about 95% of the nasties. However the regulations require the same amount of drainage field as if it was the 45% of a septic tank, less a paltry 20% because it is treated. I even gave some advice on this, on BH, recently, suggesting phasing the soakaway and perhaps leaving phase 2 until later.... perhaps much later, unless we can see that it is needed. This house will be kept in the family so we aren't a developer passing the buck Space is not an issue (if it was then the Env Agency often gives permission for infiltration tunnels.) We haven't tested the percolation yet , but my guess from observation is 80 s/mm. That gives us a crazy amount of trench approx 250m long, maybe more. We don't want a reed bed. A drainage mound is worth a thought. When I first used these digesters, as a new thing, the regs and BCO were perfectly happy with percolation through French drains as if it was rainwater.. ie 30m or so. The tanks are very much better now but the regs have gained this ultra-cautious approach. As I read in a sales blurb... "written legislation has fallen behind the technology available" Agreed. They then say that while the legislation has not caught up, "local authorities and Building Control have'. If only. Unfortunately I can see no sign of that unless the land is too small. The digester company cannot offer help. I'd have thought that saving customers money without affecting their own cost would be good business, but apparently not. eg they make a special model to reduce phosphates even more, but that doesn't make any difference to the soakaway area. The other manufacturers appear to say even less. It's not only stinginess (otherwise known as efficient and sustainable design): I simply don't think it's sensible or necessary. It is very simple how digesters work, as a flush of the toilet almost immediately pushes the same amount out of the treated end of the tank. 3 or 5 litres? More with a shower. That will not travel far along a perforated pipe so all the phosphorous will be at one location, close to the tank, especially in summer when the ground is drier. The regulations are assuming a day's worth all rushing through at once. BTW in passing I have read The real issue is of preventing phosphates from reaching the aquifer. that an orchard is an excellent way of taking phosphates out of the water. We will have fruit trees exactly there, but I doubt the BCO will be interested. This is the same principle as reed beds where the grasses absorb phosphates greedily and we would harvest it annually and... I guess compost it. Willows are good too, but at some stage need to be reduced and the timber taken elsewhere. A drainage field is regarded as secondary treatment rather than as a dispersal mechanism. Has anyone got a brilliant idea? Anyone used a drainage mound? Does it have to be a mound rather then below ground?

I like to stop a slab short of the inner leaf, then the ramp down is from there and the door bottom seal sits on a slope and water doesn't get through. This is because bottom seals dont really seal, but water gives up climbing the slope after about 50mm. To form this edge the shutter is simply placed against the inner leaf with any extra packing needed. This assume you now where the bottom of the door will be.

be a huge help to him in opening the packs up and tidying away the waste for a nice clear room. also any offcuts that are no use (or unlikely to be, and a pile of possible bits for fitting in where any small bits needed. In so doing you can choose to mix the packages up, look for any severe patterns near ends and ask him to use them where the ends will be cut off. How much waste have you allowed? it is standard to allow 10% with other people's money whereas 5% is more likely with care and attention. Can they be reversed? That can make a huge difference and its something that most fitters wont do. You can rota te them before they reach him. With your help and a few 'queries' , but not too many, he may end up respecting your concerns. The danger is ending up with nothing but the strongly marked ones. I did something similar with floor tiles that were a complex layout. By me handing the excellent tiler 'the next one', he was pleased with the help.

I have raised this repeat thing with lots of manufacturers and I think they genuinely dont 'get it'. Even if the main effects were less bold it would help. Do the planks reverse ? The main offenders will still appear but look slightly different. And if they are at ends can they be worked so the features are part of the offcuts? Or under the sofa.

Me too. I'd do it free if you were near. Because it can be an informal assessment without a formal report. 'Can't possibly commit or comment without full drawings and perhaps some tests , but I haven't seen anything obvious' sort of thing. If they do have concerns then it could escalate of course. You should be aware of course that all of us on here are in that boat... we don't know what we don't know.

The ufh can be within the screed so it's just more screed rather than adding boards. @Nickfromwales or @ a.n.other may know how to fix pipes down to screed. You can stick or screw down straps that pipes click into, or the egg-box-like stuff. Stroppy me would get it all paid by the developer OR you take money because you don't trust them.

True. The beams I have used were pretty straight because there were wires at top and bottom, but some curve or wobble is inevitable. Plus there are changes at joints in the eps. Anyway we don't want to worry @sisturix unnecessarily. Nobody is going to fall through eps let alone with thin screed over it Even if the lvt is out of warranty the floor can't be levelled without replacing it. So they can pay. Or you could agree to tiling if you fancy it, as one contractor could sort it. To pick up another worry. If a beam had moved then there would be dips and big cracks near that point. It's unlikely.