saveasteading

As I often say on BH. The bco is not your designer or to be relied upon to spot everything. But in this case perhaps ask them along. If you have a designer of any sort, get them to sort this out. Meanwhile stop the work...that is sensible but also concentrates the builder's mind. Let's hope the builder is just going about it in an odd order.

If you can present the case yourself then try it. Eg archaeology...I have pointed out that the design cannot affect anything that is there, with drawings etc. The planner asked the archaeologist who reluctantly accepted. Ditto newts. Designed on the assumption that newts are present...no need to do a survey Trees ditto..... It doesn't work with every subject or project but you can try. Most projects do not need these types of reports.

The drains are interesting. Superficially tidy but laid on bricks or over rubble, then pour in lots and lots of gravel. i am guessing that you are paying for the gravel.

The piers have to be directly on the foundations. It all seems worryingly vague, and that you are your builder think this can be made up as you ho along. Is there a design for the piers and the beams?

Different but the issue still applies.

Make it clear you like it but have options. Have a big area of floor and other tiles. Try another topps if one isn't discounting enough. Be lucky with whether they are pushing for sales at the time. I would have to ask the team which tile it is. BUT crucially for me there are 18 (?) patterns x 2 ways round, so ( with attention) there is no visible repetition.

When trees are removed, the ground recovers wetness and expands. More with clay, less with other ground. Your foundations will need to be deep..probably. There are tables for this. OR you don't build for a couple of years after they are removed. Then there are the roots as obstructions. The cable may have to be diverted. What kind of cable is it?

that's a good idea to tell them. It might avoid the planners asking consultants if they should be involved: they invariably say they should as it is an earner. I think it is worth remembering that the planning officers are individuals with a busy job, often up against robust developers. If you provide them with an easy to read overview, then it helps them. You can , if you want, give a little tick list of why it is simple. There is only one little tree, no outbuildings, no archaeology or whatever. a couple of photos perhaps.

Masonry cracks and crumbles and is heavy. If the building is well designed and well built then it resists the elements and devourers for a long time. Hence there are very old timber buildings around, albeit usually of hardwood because that was what was available.

The differences are speed and certainty. With Full Plans the bco will bring up any obvious issues before you start. That might delay the start as you await approval, and dealing with any issues. but then you are pretty sure that it is going to go ok. With Building Notice you just start. If there are issues at inspection then you may have to stop, even undo or modify what is done. With both, there are inspections at key stage, so there is no difference in that regard. As a builder you will have met bcos, even if it was not your design responsibility. So you know that they are not designers. It is not their job to design the building and they are not insured to take that responsibility.. If a helpful one gives more advice then that is a bonus. It can be an issue if the inspecting officers don't agree, so you do what one wants and another disagrees....another reason for full plans. This confuses some people. But if you look at the building regulations (which you should already be doing) there is the statutory part ( in green at the start) and then the typical solutions. There can be different interpretations. Moral? if you absolutely know how things are done and don't mind the risk, then Notice is ok. Otherwise do the drawings and submit them all and await approval.

A sheet of damp proof membrane under the concrete slab does the same for 50p/m2. The ground sounds great. The 300mm topsoil has to go, and be replaced by stone. If you can stick to traditional construction methods, the cost is much lower, local builders can do it, and to some extent it is more adaptable to any particular details you want. Why are you worried about high water? does it flood/ puddle visibly? Another thread is preferable as we are hijacking the original. @Admin can apparently shift it.

yes. Politely. ask him if he has shown the tree and description on the plan. you can explain that you don't see any need for other consultants on such a simple matter, unless he is reducing his fee accordingly. Some Architects do seem to suggest outside reports a lot. This may be because they don't know a lot, or simply for their ease and convenience. I inherited one project with about 10 reports submitted along with the design. All expensive and had already taken many £1,000 out of the construction budget. If I had done it from scratch then I might have had input on bats but the rest I could have done myself. It is reasonable that they don't dabble in things they don't have expertise in, but there is a limit. In most cases the planners are content with the design submission and don't need any more. They will ask if they want more, but it may be that you can do it yourself...or ask on BH.

Let the planners ask for any additional information. But do show cherry tree ( wild, for fruit, ornamental) and the height. Simply say 'grass area to be retained, or whatever. They should not need any more. If you have or plan any wildlife areas then say so.

A new thread will be best I think. Chalk is my second favourite bed material so it's a good start. It works as rock for foundation strength, digs neatly and safely and drains reasonably. Turns to toothpaste when driven on, is the downside. With the chalk there, my instinct is for conventional footings. 600mm soil. That isn't topsoil presumably. What is it?

Was that before the frames had to be supported on a raised brick? What other poor details were there that have been sorted? Guessing the solutions are from: Raise on blocks Tanalised sole plate Controlled drip Drain to perimeter Vapour control has improved. Ventilation gap.

Except that the hot flue is also giving off heat to the room. Box it in and it flies very efficiently up the flue. Plus if you box it you risk condensation. Leave it alone, with the added benefit of heeding @ProDave's excellent advice.

A good way of thinking about it. However it doesn't apply to some conifers or to permanently small varieties.

TPOs and the technical reason for distance are not quite the same thing. An oak will grow to 23m and that is the height assumed. then the roots affect the ground, more or less according to type.

No. In simplistic terms, the implication of changing length is the square of the span, so any change is significant. Then when a section of steel doesn't quite have the capacity, there is a jump up to the next weight. Not all the steel sections listed are readily available. The steel is going to be £/t.

As can any material, even metal cladding, if it is out of direct sunlight and also shaded from wind and rain. Lashing rain washes it off, wind dries it out. The Forestry Commission buildings tend to be in woodland, and also to have overhangs and fancy features, which encourage algae. I have some projects with timber cladding that looks great after 10 years. The downside is fading in sunlight whereas the shade side is fine. Vertical alignment of the timbers is essential, to get the water off asap, and no ledges. Also I always have it stained in high quality product which resists algae and keeps the timber colour. (for natural look, use a light stain which barely shows up apart from the gloss). Of course many designers relish the fading to grey of timber along with any plant growth. 'even metal cladding' Look at modern buildings with overhanging eaves, as favoured in municipal offices , hospitals, and flash retail estates, and you will often see the wall is clean at lower levels and dirty where sheltered by the overhang.

Another possibility is to fit a beam at mid height, a hollow section probably, inside the building. The window sections fix to that and so the sections are spanning half the distance and can very much smaller. From outside the glazing is more elegant. Inside you have a steel, which can look great or not, acc to context.

The manufacturer has it all worked out and the fitters will work to the spec provided. I'm thinking back to a warehouse where there were sliding industrial doors, hanging from the beam overhead. It's a sort of bellows effect, and made of steel so heavy. If I remember correctly, the manufacturer stated quite clearly what load there would be, changing in complex manner as it is pulled about, and they specify a maximum deflection, otherwise it will jam in the bottom guide runners. The SE designs for that, it gets built and along come the fitters. They fix the top, loadbearing, runner with spacers, in the knowledge that the beam will deflect by the amount specified, or less, and the bottom runner to suit. Thus, the runner may rise slightly in the direction of opening, and the weight cause some deflection that won't be a problem. ie it looked like an uphill runner, but the weight brings it down to horizontal and then a little lower still. I only did a few of these because they are a pain and I generally convinced clients to go to an overhead door. But it was a routine thing and they all worked nicely. If you have proper experts it will be fine.

Ahh yes. That. And that. So like my morning in the cold rain, squidging through mud and trying to divert runoff.

People vary. Architects are taught self confidence and boldness. Some courses include very practical design while others are all about vision and concept. Some are pure artists. Some are interested in construction methods, Some are interested in construction detail and even cost. Make sure to get the right type, and also interrogate on their attitude and experience. I interviewed a recent graduate once and expected to see some working drawings in the cv, but they were all abstract paintings denoting....something or other.

No it's not. Says company selling it. No, it's for a different scale of building, and had plenty of cons.