saveasteading

They are all hard enough for us not to notice.

And your designers. I would have to rummage a long way back, but i recall that the big contractors had targets of something like 10 skips per 1,000m2.* (Ours was 2.) That involved everyone through technical design, ordering, and use as well as site manager ordering reuse of ends etc. But on top of this came simply using less in the first place. Efficient use of all structural elements, no overdesign, no overdig, natural drainage...all sorts. We reckoned 25% less material used, let alone waste. So my view was that hemp etc were easy ways to seem green, while not addressing the less blingy aspects of waste.....use less. It also saves stacks of your money. What i don't understand is that straw is not used in the same way as osb. Or in blocks. There is so much as a waste product. I think sawdust is still added to concrete blocks as a filler. * that became zero to landfill, so a good thing. They way they managed that with mixed rubbish was to classify it as non recycable. Less to recycling would be even better.

Austrian alpine look, and massive. Almost the opposite of the articulated appearance of the first renders.

Stop press. The elevations have just appeared. With gutters. More later. But rainwater pipes inside the building? Really? Gurgle gurgle, and constant concern re leaks and maintenance.

I suggest that you insist these are worked out now, and shown on the drawings. You may be surprised how much they affect the appearance. Your architect may duck this , saying it is detail for later. It isn't...get him to do it now. If he can't, then there will be other issues too. The oversails seem to be very slender. The roof structure will be much thicker, so this will be an add-on rather than continuation of the roof. The gutter may even be deeper than that oversail is shown. Perhaps ask now if this has been considered or is an aspiration. Also ask if there are to be posts at the internals of the glazed corners. Sorry to be picky, but making things work from impractical drawings has been a big part of my career. I'm the one that says you need to deal with the rain. I like Miami deco. The rendering is perhaps Miami weather too. The sun is very high. Not sure of the size. But that is an expensive building. £1M+ ?

I repeat my argument. You understand it as you have done extensive research. Theh have not. Thus you can make it easy for them, and I can't see why that is upsetting.

It does, but very nice offices. I have designed and built several quite like this, so cleagly like the look. People say ours, for offices and schools, are almost domestic, so not so officey , clearly. These overhangs, which are such a big feature....they aren't enough to shade windows, so are entirely for show. They keep rain and wind off the high section of wall, so you will get a stripe of dirt or algae there. Allow for annual cleaning. Ideal to build in steel. The overhangs would then be costing £250 / m run. So I hope you like them a lot. Oh, and there are no gutters or rain water pipes. Oops.

I used that to bridge over old floor boards before tiling. I stapled it down which is what i would do again. Then tiled. The problem I had was that the floor was bouncy, very old and probably under-designed joists, so the STS, being flexible, did not help in stiffening the floor. I think it all settled down, but a few tiles came loose when i walked on the floor perhaps too soon. (Not my house, now sold, so no latest report available). Of course normally people don't jump on a toilet floor. If your floor is robust then yes I would say STS is fine, and easy to use. plus helps a little in insulation. If bouncy then I would use a cement board which would probably kill the bounce.

Something wrong then. Joists are designed to not collapse, then checked for deflection at 1/360 maximum. So in a 3.6m wide room they should not move more than 10mm with full furniture load and people jumping. I wonder, do people jump to test posijoists, but don't worry about timber joists? Then when the furniture is placed, a lot of the bounce is taken away and nobody questions it again. The first time I used galv steel as a floor, I, of course, jumped on it hard and it concerned me how it shuddered. In life it was fine. If it still bounces after loading then it needs a discussion with the supplier.

Up to you of course. Some people like the digging. I don't, but my compost is great and just gets spread on the top, and the worms do the rest. It also means that plants can be in small areas, all year. As i understand the science of it, the undisturbed worm holes allow a more active biodiversity underground, and especially of microbes and fungi, that are a benefit. Digging breaks all that up. I've got very heavy clay, which is like brick in the summer. I might sometime dig an experimental hole in a raised bed to see what has changed, if anything , below the soil line. Soil mechanics meets gardening...keeping it relevant for BH.

My view is that I know more about some things than does the bco. Also if I am the designer and/or builder then I already know why it complies, and so I can readily demonstrate the fact. My job to make it easy for the bfo if requested. If I don't like a regulation then I have to demonstrate why it is unreasonable or that I have an alternative solution. Most regulations are for good reasons. If in doubt , go back to the green clauses in the English regs. Treating the bco as a fool is morally bad, and could rebound, whichever of these matters more to the individual trying to trick or fool the bco....and endanger future users.

I made the mistake of spreading unrotted manure. Horses guts don't appear to digest seeds. But easy to hoe the seedlings. I should have put a membrane over it. As you say, keep on top of it. Less work overall.

Now that it is established, I really recommend " no dig". It's not just a gimmick or lazy, it works really well. National Trust veg garden nearby say that since theirs got established they never water after 2 weeks in the ground. I'm trying that this year.

I'm feeling oddly supportive of the BCO here. He needs to know that nobody will fall out of the window. So use a barrier, or make it easy to be sure about the glass.....they can't know or remember everything and it isn't their job to research everything about every project...the fee doesn't cover that. Neither is it their job to search every panel for sometimes obscure marking and to have the BS or Eurocode with them. 'Dear BCO the windows satisfy clause x because they are made of glass type y, which is deemed to satisfy under z. The windows are etched with the evidence, see these photos, showing that they are to Eurocode a, and here also is the manufacturer's statement to confirm. If that is not possible then there is a problem. and bco is right to not accept it. If you choose, instead, to fit a barrier then it is easy to obtain an attractive grille, which could be an external panel such as for a deck, ie something that is attractive enough and not being contemptuous, and obviously temporary..

Not essential to have wheelchair access if the rest of the storey is self contained. "As accessible as possible". Steps as in section 4.3.

I am assuming you have a brick chamer with a cover. This is clear volume, unlike a rubble soakaway so holds lots of water, then it dissipates. Presumably there is a cover, and through it you are seeing silt. So why not just clean it out?

Roof battens will be thicker for 600mm. Perhaps the roof sheathing too, simply for temporary support of the roofers. Plasterboard is OK over 600mm too. Agree that cold bridging might be significant, so consider the additional insulation. I would have expected changing to 400 would be fairly expensive, esp on labour. Sturdiness and flex are calculated in the design, so don't worry.

Wouldn't a brick chamber be easy to clean of silt with either a sucklift service, or getting in there with a shovel? As it is existing , that will avoid the need for permission. A crate system will replicate what you have, although one in parallel would give you more temporary storage.

The rules are fairly clear. I always have another read through when in any doubt. https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-standards-technical-handbook-2020-domestic/4-safety/4-1-access-buildings/

Number 1, I just took out the turf and laid them in there. Next time I had learnt not to bother, and I took out the turf only enough to set the timber down beneath it, and put cardboard over the rest. It needed to be set down, to resist the spread of roots. If it wasn't in grass, i don't think it needs recessing at all. Note the VPL as a weed suppressor.

Here are mine.

For rot I only painted them with creosote substitute (looks like old sump oil). All good after 4+ ? years except some big fungus growing...which i reckon is a sign of the health of the soil. Mine are simply frames, sunk 50mm into the ground. No anchors, braces, pegs or cross bars. I would not line the inside with plastic as it will make it damper. I made a small trowel hole to plant a lettuce, and disturbed about 5 worms.. The worms are doing a great job. I am utterly converted to "no dig" gardening. Mine are not, however, handsome features, just doing the job.

Bag that up with a bit of fertiliser and sell it as John Innes compost to clay areas. So, non shrink soil, dead or distant trees. 1.2 may not be necessary but i wouldnt argue. Good news, well done.

We found that our local bm was able to slash the price if we took a whole box. Minimal handling, no stocking, no losses, one transaction. As above £2 becomes 50p.

In case it helps in any way... I have suffered arch....etc surveys in kent i think 5 times. In none of them was the consultant responsible for trenches. We argued that the foundation excavation was sufficient to allow them to inspect. This kept the cost and disruption down, and remained in our control. The worst case was when they wanted the excavations to half depth for one inspection, then another at full depth. In reality there was clearly nothing there so they said carry on, but didn't reduce the fee. I met them on each occasion, and they were happy to explain that they were mostly looking for ditches, to complete a plan of ancient field boundaries. On another, it was a known Roman stopover. There were bits of pot all over but they didn't want any more. Could have been serious if we had found a footing or well etc. One job had no condition and they turned up on site, hoping we would let them look in the excavations. He got excited thinking he had found a roman road they knew was nearby. I explained it was a stratum of ironstone. Then they left. Lastly a known brickworks, infilled with filthy dirt. I complained that the survey was pointless because the works didn't reach the old buildings. Made it easy for them to agree by drawing cross sections. i e give them a non awkward exit. Hope that helps. Study your site. Ask what they expect to find. Question their proposal if excessive. Stand over them. They will be decent people, expert in what they do. But best not at your unreasonable expense. As it happens I am at a talk tonight about roman , and other, excavations. I'm wondering who is paying for the dig.