saveasteading

It is a long time since I designed a multi-storey car park. I do recall though it being mentioned in the codes or a lecture that multiple car fires simply didn't happen as shown in films. Hence that car parks were often over-designed for fire risk. Then that was quietly withdrawn with the use of plastic tanks as fire can spread quickly. Balancing individual car risk against communal ones (car parks and motorway pileups must be a tricky balance.

Oddly, car fuel tanks in the 80s were made of steel and didn't go on fire. Now made of plastic, so the multiple explosions in car parks, beloved of film producers, is now feasible.

That is the different way our brains work isn't it? Not motivation.

Goof point. So don't move in, just camp in it. Well worth checking out the way your LA deals with "occupation".

I expect there is a good reason for being where they are. I wonder if anyone on here has experience and can advise on this interesting matter. That was meant to be my point. The fire runs out of oxygen. But timber doesn't melt and spread itself. The worst fire damage I have seen was from a polystyrene ceiling.

To be fair, this is for people 3 or so years out of uni. In a big practice they mat have no involvement in the business side, so this has to be a good idea. Says someone who is good at maths? A large proportion of our industry don't have an inherent feeling for quantities. And even more couldn't put an invoice together with retentions and VAT worked properly. Then there is 'setting out'. I wonder how people find it difficult. They think I'm being lucky or finnicky.

Energy and oxygen. In a modern house it should be contained to a room and fizzle out. Tests at BRE show that even lightweight studwork survives the 1 or 2 hour requirement of the bldg regs. They start the realitic tests using timber with lots of air gaps ( a bonfire) , then spread it to furniture etc, lots of paper and plastic. In lab tests they just use gas blowers. I've stood on the other side...its very hot and a bit scary. A bonfire of structural sized timber will take hours to burn right through. A bit of PIR on the top (in the interests of science) will be gone in minutes.

As @Russell griffithssays. I know from discussing with digger driver/ some end users that they are not usually done properly. This isn't necessarily wilful bad work but through not understanding why the design detail matters. The bco doesn't usually get closely involved either. So I believe that 3/4 are installed incorrectly, (and so won't digest properly) and outfall to much undersized soakaways instead of drainage fields. Could be smelly. Hence £7k for a bodge and £17k properly. With a ditch adjacent the proper job cost can reduce.

An hour from London? Plot with planning £450k. Plot with hope value £200k. They usually don't have services. London money keeps the prices high. Locals have no chance. Most are owned by big land owners who don't need the money, so no negotiating. Don't assume that self build is cheap. Your plan looks OK, but there is probably a lot that you don't know you don't know...yet.

OK, so it's not going to fail in fire. My original point here was that it may not need any coating. But the builder laughing isn't great. The same one who fitted the beam? The amount of paint required is usually measurably thick, such that most people choose an alternative, or ignore the instructions. I have never known a bco check the thickness physically or by counting tins, so I think this is deliberately avoiding responsibility. If you have any paint left, it is fun to apply it elsewhere and low torch it. That's the first time I've heard of the seal coat being optional, that is quite an advantage. What brand is it?

But pine forms a charred layer which then protects the core.

To RIBA credit, I supervised a final professional exam over 2 full days, so got to look at the question papers. There was a lot of heavy stuff about contract administration, dispute resolution, finances, VAT, and real life that I hadn't expected to see. I wish I knew the pass mark. The maths and ethics parts were really easy...if you're good at sums, and know fair from unfair, but I think would catch a lot out.....sorry Architects it's just not what inspired most to study the subject.

Interesting. Any idea Why not? They either care about carbon or don't.

No, although that is the main route towards it. The ARB is the registration body. With ARB registration an Architect can use that word with a capital. Without it they must use a different term and no capital. Sometimes people conceal this but can get in big trouble. There are plenty of Architects who don't think it is their job to design to keep the rain out or get building regs. There are technicians who can design with style. Check them all out.

No. The former is to give occupants fresh air to breathe, in a controlled manner. The latter is to avoid uncontrolled draughts, and so save energy.

And before the air test, close off fan extracts (polythene and masking tape), and close any other vents and gaps. And be there during the test. The tester is likely to ask what number your are hoping for, so may be more helpful if it doesn't quite get there. No that sounds like a bad idea. Sorry you feel like that, but that doesn't help and probably isn't so. Nobody had overall responsibility but you, so best just get this sorted now. There is lots of knowledge here so keep asking. Have you any more info on the input numbers? The advice above is good. Your house is probably much better than many mass development units, but they know the tricks and have influence. There are lots of tick boxes in the sap assessment where one conservative assumption makes a big difference. I think my next move would be to chat to the assessor again. The windows are not going o be changed. What can be done free or more cost effectively? are there any assumptions you have had to make that could be looked at again? What Air change target am I after? Everyone, does anyone happen to know?. The suggestion by @ProDave is especially good if this can be fitted later...perhaps very much later.

So it's done and looks good. The ceilng woild probably have done the job, but youre right that the bco will favour the paint. How many voats was that? Have you applied the same manufacturer's seal coat?

I thought maybe i've not been paying attention. So I've checked their website. Aplogies for the grey background. This reads to me as carbon, especially energy, first and comfort second, but perhaps comfort sells more buildings. As an estimate, I'd say that a basement construction creates 5 x the carbon, than the average. I'm not against most of the passivhaus principles. THe Bedzed project (similar principles) was a serious inspiration to me. Check out the monetary cost of a basement too, in some detail, before committing. Buildings are a significant culprit of carbon emissions – accountable for 35% of total global energy consumption. Backed with over 30 years of international evidence, Passivhaus is a tried & tested solution that gives us a range of proven approaches to deliver net-zero-ready new and existing buildings optimised for a decarbonised grid and augmented for occupant health and wellbeing.

Because the earth needs to be transported away and disposed of. Lots of diesel. Then it fills a valuable space in landfill, or goes on a farmers field, (probably under the radar) making it unproductive. Then a basement is a heavy structure using much more material than an above ground floor. So it is a commercial decision to get more housing on expensive land but not sustainable...hence should be contrary to passive house principles.

I'm afraid, as I predicted, the people that are liable have told you not to worry about it. It may not be the big problem that ground movement might cause, but no new house should crack like that. Have you got the persons comments in writing.?

The conditions should have been included with the officer's recoommendation, and thus were approved. Otherwise, it wasn't really concluded. If you could just find the agenda papers or minutes. Keep trying.

So they were good and did it quickly and without problems you know of. Probably paid more than the average fitter. Perhaps being paid a lump sum. Would you be happier if it took longer? Should the company allow only those estimated 5 days or allow contingency? Can you clarify? The £4k margin included fitting? Who was responsible for site measurement? Anyway, back to my question. Allow for whatever discount you think the intermediary might get: I'd be interested to see what actual profit you come up with. Its academic i know, but may be of interest to others at a negotiating stage who dont understand the difference between contracting and service/ £/hr busineses. You might be happier too, to know you haven't been overcharged.

The profits in contracting are generally 2 to 5%. Not considered to be sustainable combined with high quality, and the level of risk. Not to be confused with overheads. Using your numbers. Say you were the intermediary buying at £28k. What would be your supply price to the end client? To cover your management, the risk of problems becoming yours, your overheads, plus perhaps some profit. £4k seems light and not much of a living.

Wallz. Yes, unmoulded planks of spruce, hit and miss then overboarded. Roof. I haven't inspected it yet but have told them to add more screws at corners as the wind force will be far more there. In storms it is always flashings that come loose. This cladding came from a supplier in inverness that we didn't know of in time for the house roof.

Perfect, if you can tolerate some long delays.