saveasteading

OK, I had misunderstood the question. You want to pour it in one go but get the trenches inspected in two visits? That makes sense as you can't get back to the rear trench after the front ones are done. I reckon BCO will be fine with that. Explain it and they should be ok.

No. It is the battery thing! A car in a detached garage is low risk to the house, but if there's a room above then that sounds scary... though the door should fail first and vent it. I will report back. I'm thinking an extra layer of plasterboard and intumescent strips on the door. It appears that battery type is the most important thing.

I agree with @DamonHD. It is not for the average resident to attempt, and very sloppy. And they should check all work by that operative, who doesn't appear to be competent.

Exactly that. A 100mm /110 round pipe will do but it is recommended (and my hydraulics training concurs) that the bigger pipe is better. But in your case I'd continue with rectangular, on an outward slope, even 1:150, and on an eps layer...even 15mm will make a big difference. It simply struck me when looking at it.. steam goes in and will very soon condense. Btw, money aside, look at the island extractor on show in Wickes. Push a button and it rises. Very nice. And I was impressed they had it installed and working. Contrast that with Howdens who have their hob hacked into a standard unit and no ducting installed even to look at.

Ahhh. That depends on so many other factors. Also note the cost of several visits with pump hire.

We have decided to do this rather than recirculate to the room. Wastes heat in winter, but avoids overheating the room in summer. We are installing it right now and realising issues. The best size of duct is 140/150mm. Obv you can't have that. It sits on the concrete with insulation around it. Will condensation form in the duct? I'd expect it to. And will water get into the pipe from cleaning the hob? I'd think so. So we are setting the duct on thin polystyrene. Also setting it to an outward slope so any water runs away and out. We have the depth for this but that is unusual. I'm going off this hob with extraction. It was never my choice, and we are realising these additional unpublicised issues as we go. NB maybe a rectangular duct will work better for you. It will be less efficient fir airflow, but your distance is short, and if will fit more readily.

I just wouldn't. Easier and better quality to batten out and plasterboard. Look into metal grid as an option to timber.

Spread of fire and destruction of the building and beyond... the people being out already. It's what I thought I was saying. The order of priority. Avoid fire Keep people safe Get people out Stop the fire spreading to other buildings Save the building If we can keep the (battery) fire enclosed for the input of some design, care in construction and a few £, then we should. So I will bd asking our solar people about the risks and what we might do to reduce them. I suspect they will know less than the assembled expertise in this discussion. My hunch is to use low risk batteries, with an inherent suppression if possible, and to keep it an an enclosure (small room or cupboard) that is 120 minutes construction, incl the door. Vent to outdoors to remove heat?? Include a fire alarm.

Yes. It is normal to work in stages.

There have been a few people who won't listen and think everyone is against them, even getting rarher rude. After a few attempts to help have been ignored, or met with hostility, I think we have to let them stew. Construction is not easy, but some people assume it is. @WisteriaMews sketches or photos give us a chance to help.. And at some stage it needs expert professional input.

Will he love you for adding a service void?

And that's all that really bothers the fire service. But for an extra layer of plasterboard and some rockwool, isn't it worth stopping or slowing the spread?

Long long ago, I designed, and then my employer built, a very large concrete tank for water storage at a coal mine. Only later did I learn that this was part of what was called Scargill-proofing.... doubling all resources at pits. My apologies to the pit communities that soon closed. So it reminds me that stockpiling is more than a big pile of stuff. It would be very expensive.

It is imported in vast quantities from Canada. A stockpile wouldn't last long and with stock rotation won't rot. Whether this biomass is properly sustainable is another matter.

The bco can't be an expert on everything, especially with changing technology. The regulations require safety, so I think it is fair that he asks for a formal proposal with references and risk assessment.

A rotating cowl on a chimney is said to create a significant suction. The bearings are impressive as they spin for years except in exceptionally calm conditions. I've got one on a woodburner outlet, but mainly to limit downdraughts in gusts. It keeps most rain out too. How much suction I have no idea, and there is going to be some on an open flue anyway.

That beam was put there for a purpose, however misguided. For some mysterious reason, it has not been removed. Why not? Because it is part of the structure? Because an SE said don't remove that beam? Because the developer hoped it would all sort out, but it clearly has not? Ask the vendor. Ask to see the building reg's submission or permission to talk to the bco.

Heath Robinson could do this. Fire burns through string supporting extinguisher, which topples forward onto its lever which opens it and the fire goes out., It would be better if every supplier included a self-extinguishing system, and insurance cover for house and contents.

So a water spray at an early stage could reduce the temperature enough? Or that fire extinguisher as above, but somehow automatically. Someone could sell these. The law could require them. On balance, better to let the heat vent perhaps. We are putting ours in the detached garage so the risk is less. Maybe a polystyrene box around it and vent outdoors. I asked about this at a recent exhibition... negligible risk he said and no special measures required. I wonder if we can get that in writing.

Doesn't it need oxygen? If so, then a sealed enclosure, just stud and plasterboard, would soon snuff it out. Provided there wasn't a vent for excess heat of course.... but that can be fireproof too. Regardless of the rules and of insurance, I don't want my house to burn down. Homework needed.

It will say that fire should not be allowed to spread. The rest is examples of how to do this. We can't expect the bco to know about battery technology and risk. So you need to know the fire risk and present this to he bco. But 120minutes may not be difficult. usually just extra plasterboard.

Was my immediate thought too. To have got this far and not resolved this issue suggests that they have had advice they don't like, and want to pass this problem on. presumably you think it is overvalued. Not everything has a solution. You would need a site inspection by an SE before proceeding any further at all. They will rightly charge but you can ask them for a verbal overview to minimise their charge at this stage. Their overview may be that they can't possibly know without lots of research, so allow £xk for a more formal report and a very large contingency for the works. Some SE's would love this as interest and others will keep clear. The best advice to the seller would be to explain the issue in good faith and to open the beam up for inspection. But first, ask the agent to explain it. They won't tell you the whole story of course. And then tell them this obviously needs an enormous reduction in the price and what will they drop to, or you won't be considering it. My thought on what it is? It looks like a barn. Farmers use whatever is available and this may have been a beam for an engine hoist. The builder has not used an SE, and expected to be able to remove it but been told not to.by the bco. I'm intrigued. please report back. If you do walk away, do please try to find out if it sells. Another thought. Google the property and you may find the original sales advert as a barn for conversion, with some clues. and the planning portal is worth a try to.

Agreed as above. No need to stick them down or together. I think I would ignore any gaps up to 2mm, as the tape and over-sheeting of dpm will create a closed cell. In any bigger gaps i'd be wary of squirting in foam, for the reason you suggest, , and more comfortable trowelling some in. Or make some slivers and press in.

Digging a hole, pressing the ground with a thumb and referring to a tree table IS design. Btw you have 80m of footing there. So digging 100mm too deep and 100mm too wide will cost you about 8m3 of concrete and 8m3 of muck-away. (£1400?) An SE and skilled builder can save money from the start.

10.00 news.... $110 now.