saveasteading

Fwiw. In the steading it is ufh on the ground floor but rads upstairs because headroom did not allow ufh. Rads also happen to fit in the 1.5 storey setup. It works well. It can be done. Current project has huge ceiling heights so is ufh both storeys. Why not Rads? would have been enormous. Because there is no carpet intended. Because we can. I rather like the pragmatic suggestion of @joth. Tell the Architect you note their opinion, but to design for rads for the present and you will review after research. I'd add that I was fairly ignorant on ufh until recently. Had done it twice but in easy, large spaces, and if I learnt one thing, it was that the 'specialist' contractors didn't understand it and just did what they did. The same applies to most designers... the info comes from the trade. I'm dubious about cooling. Hot air is up at the ceiling, and i would suggest is not much affected by the floor or rads being cooler. But your feet won't be hot. The pros and cons inter-relate with construction method and layout. You will be the expert soon.

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.

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.

Yes. But wet clay will expand back into the spaces and the amount of wood in roots is surprisingly small. as you say, it is the effect of the tree drinking the water from the clay that causes it to shrink. Then in winter or when it becomes a former tree, the clay will expand again when wet and stay that way. Not a lot. Obv you wouldn't build on top of right next to a dead tree trunk, and would do something about big surface roots for stability. Houses are built assuming that no inappropriate tree planting will ever occur, and you can't stop a neighbour doing it, but that is just one of life's risks.

Yes. The average house with cross-walls is sufficiently braced. In big open spaces this changes. You can see in warehouses that the wind bracing is provided by diagonal bars or angles on the outside walls which take the wind load out in simple tension, plus some compression struts at the top. In a gale it is sometimes possible to see the bars tensing up. In an extreme wind I've seen them 'snap' tight and make a noise. There will be similar crossed rods in the roof to transfer loads to the walls then down to ground. But if there is no space for these bars because of movement paths or glazing etc (eg car showroom), then a post is used. Also in an enormous shed with intermediate columns and no walls. It can be a post on its own, or more usually adapted on the sides of an existing column, making it into a Maltese cross shape. The forces at the ground can be enormous so it nearly always needs a very big concrete footing (I think we once put about 6m3 of concrete in the one base.) They are expensive so sometimes worth 'designing out' with client approval. So a house with very big rooms or large areas of glazing might need individual posts or 'goalposts. But these are seldom considered at preliminary stage where space and appearance come first.

Yes that's way ott for a house. That's a commercial floor spec. Having reread I agree in principle you work to SE1. But why did you engage a different one?

Me too, but language should be clearer and I was being flippant. But how does anyone know there was tree there last year or whether 2 or 10 years ago matters. In my opinion a normal year's weather cycle will likely allow the clay ground to come to stability.

I don't think we are in any position to say that. More likely is that it is a result of switching Engineers. The continuity of logic may be broken and the reasonable assumptions of one, not picked up by the other. Going back to the first one could now be awkward... what if it becomes a dispute? I might be uncomfortable and be "too busy".