saveasteading

I'm not altogether comfortable that a bco can overrule an SE. I had one on site who didn't understand the tree root business. Many more situations too, on other matters of structure or fire. Work together perhaps. You would certainly want proof that the changes were approved by the bco in case of issues. Will the SE update the drawings? In which case all is ok.

Somtimes there is good news! Yes let's see the drawings when you can, but i think you won't need root barriers, with the trees being long gone. I've just been looking at some online. Expensive stuff, plus the trenches. I have never used it in hundreds of projects on heavy clay. In reality, would a tree grow roots down and under a building, where the ground is much drier? Is this a product looking for a market?

MOT type 1 is to a strictly controlled specification, specifically to provide certainty. It covers grading of material and hardness. I think angularity too. I'd be surprised for there to be inferior material...unless described as an "equivalent". Having said that, there is some confidence in having granite or hard limestone, rather than crushed gravel. You are right about slipperiness if the limestone turns to dust. That would imply too much fines on top. Ie not properly mixed A bit mucky too.

You might ask what it is for. Sounds like a collapsible board to allow for tree root growth or soil expansion, neither of which seems an issue.

I've done lots of this for car parks. Very successful with cars only, but gets trashed when bigger vehicles run on it. Then you need the appropriate grids at double the cost. A bit strange to use on bends, using plastic square modules. Quite expensive too.

These would be sensible, but I would simply use membrane beneath the stone.

The original Macadam road is stone without the bitumen binder. It is very durable for normal forwards driving and highly appropriate for a rural drive. Easy to repair too. Beneath that you can have cheaper stone to spread the load. Discussing with your local quarry can be helpful, and can achieve best value with decent appearance and durability. You must decide whether you will allow heavy vehicles to use it. Type 1 is the other good option. It will be smooth when rolled.

The red bar is structurally elegant but a pain to work with. They have to be exactly placed. I would stick with epoxy and inserted bars. The pullout strength is huge. I can tell from the drawings that uou will be precise. Mesh in the base is appropriate as the vertical bars will be trying to bend the base. One layer middle if being mean. Still add 25mm drain pipes out of the wall above ground level in case your other drain fails. NB your land drain is going through the piers. Make it smaller, or settle for the front pipes.

Interesting. It assumes that a glazing company is aware of all possible construction options, and that it was clear on detailed drawings (if they existed) or on site, that the windows were not to be in the block section. I think ggc has it right: legal action would be costly and i am confident that there is case law that would result in the award of a tiny sum. I like ggc comment about the motor industry....except that vehicles are not normally individually designed with multiple choices of parts, then assembled in a field. Get everyone working on a satisfactory solution. If you can, get something for nothing from the window people....trims or something to benefit you but easy for them.

Is that simply a sheet of polythene, lining the excavation, to keep the ends of cut roots out of the concrete?

Can i suggest that it isn't as simple (one way or the other,) as some are suggesting here? The client, as most, is doing this for the first and probably only time, so doesn't necessarily know the pitfalls, or that drawings can be proposed and approved. Asking an amateur client to approve technical drawings can be seen as offloading responsibility, so isn't standard. Mistakes happen. I think i might have measured to block instead of timber too. When projects are subdivided into multiple responsibilities it saves the client a huge amount of money but they take on risk. This is an interface that was liable to go wrong. As I see it: If (and only if) the window company can fit it so that it isn't substandard then there isn't much of a claim. Maximum claim would be the cost of remedial and adaptions not by the window co. Plus you could argue for 0.5m2 ,or whatever, less window area. If you went legal on this, that is all you would get. Similarly verbal agreements, which 'aren't worth the paper they are printed on'. Sorry. Building is very difficult and there are risks.

Not that simple! North West yes, North East no. I noticed that Tunbridge Wells has much the same rain as Nairn (600 miles ish north). 750 to 770mm TW has had very serious flooding in recent years, hence my interest. Nairn and surrounds has more rainy days, but fewer torrential days. Ideal for the barley and the resulting whisky. Back to trees. Your point is good though that the TW trees have more chance of drought, and so cause more problems.

Many people see easements as a chance for big money. A friend found that the cost halved when he mentioned going off grid with water from rain and electricity from the very noisy generator he would need.

Excellent. 1m is required too often when there is no need. What is your soil type? Sounds like sand or gravel. Any trees within 20m?

The new director owns the debt. Notice before action perhaps?

Then demand it. As long as it is in-house and how they design, not subbed out. It is more than cool, as it avoids the common issues of 'pictures' that don't make sense in 3d. I once got a job where the original architect had dummy chimneys but our revit rerun showed them to be in 2 places in space (and time ?) Saves money later when construction details are easily changed and any implications are found and dealt with. The licence costs thousands, so some one man bands stick to the old ways.

I think a lot of their cost comes from multiple visits. Different gangs do cables and jointing. Doing your own trench and ducting might save depending how good you are at it.

Debts are passed to any new owner. The last thing anyone wants is the vat inspector. Even when a business is squeaky clean they take up a lot of time. I had one for 3 days. All he wanted was suppliers invoices and payments. They then go there to see if there is a differeng version of the vat. Apparently vat is seen as an easy aid to cash flow.....just pay somd fof now. IF you are in the right, big if, then PD maybe has the answer. You might politely just tell the other party that you will ask the vat man to check it out.

Now that I know that you mean a packet of bacteria I can answer again. I have put in I think 3 STPs and had no negative feedback from the clients. The manufacturers don't seem to insist on them either. A bag (or bottle) of it won't do any harm, especially at the start , to kick it off, because it won't get properly festering for a week or so. But I don't think you need anything.

No don't touch it. It looks to me like diagonal bracing to stiffen the building. That would imply retrofit because something was moving. Laid flat-ways it can only work in tension which implies the same. And it ends on the line of the big timber beam, so nodes are lining up and that again says it is needed for triangulation. Imagining the photos without it, it all looks very sparse and unstable. So I would not touch it now. A Structural Engineer might say it can go, or that it can be replaced by something tidier. Better that fee than the house failing and insurances void for messing with it. Or continue to duck. In fact. with it being a strange timber, I would be inclined to put a sign on it saying 'this timber is structural , do not cut or remove'.

Once or twice, yes. Yes, as you rightly surmise, it is done on major civil engineering. Dams, bridges etc, where the implications of failure are massive. In large pours, overheating is a problem and there can be cooling pipes embedded, or the aggregate is chilled before mixing. On cold...I was very personally involved in a concrete pour when we had missed the severity of the weather forecast. The Beast from the East battered us as shutters were concreted. I never felt so cold (Kent). Next day the concrete crumbled out of the shutters with ease and became expensive hardcore. On foundations on big sheds the wind uplift can be the critical load, the wind being strong enough to lift multi-ton structures. For LSB we are only looking at small downward forces, but we still wouldn't want the concrete crumbling and having to do it again. 'tomorrow' is almost upon us...hope it goes well. And may i say for the nth time...do not add any water to the readymix...the mix is precise and not to be messed with. Any added water evaporates eventually, leaving millions of holes.

It will work either way round, but inside is tidier and may need less digging. You could leave the top block of the buttresses off, to allow a full bed of soil and plants. Not much load is happening there. 655 is awfully close. Doubling that isn't going to be a risk. When backfilling put gravel against the wall to aid drainage. A bit of plywood held 50mm off the wall, pour 300 deep gravel, backfill with soil to the same depth. repeat. Pull out the ply for reuse.

By muck munchers I am guessing you mean a macerater and pump like Saniflo. If so, then yes, they are fine for feeding to the stp. In fact they have turned the contents to soup and treatment will be all the quicker.

It is certainly worth buying a commercial one, rather than making your own and trying to keep the water out. Usually cheapest by shopping around rather than from the electric company.

Wind chill doesn't count as such. But the concrete will take a long time to "go off" at lowish temperatures like 7°, and wind over the surface will dry it and cool it which is not good. So you must protect it with polythene or hessian to keep the moisture in, once the surface is stiff. (Always, but esp if windy).