saveasteading

This seems over complex. 4 layers of vapour barrier of different types whereas one out and one in should do. Plywood on the frame will make it very much stronger, laterally and vertically, so that is a great idea. I'm not a fan of foil insulation if there are other options. 6" between the studs as shown is a good start. Then some non- conducting liner over the studs. What external facing have you in mind?

You might find there is less waste that way too. Too easy to pick up a nice new coil every time. Then there Is the other sort of 'wastage'. I only supplied cable once as it was obvious a lot was stolen: not nec by the electrician.

You are allowed to trade off insulation in the floor against the walls and roof. Not the best idea if you have UFH*, but worth thinking about if the depth us critical. * esp when the floor has cold air under it.

How far to the oaks?

I like TLC too, although not nationwide. Longer lengths too I think.

The effects of a willow or oak are much the same as both grow to about 24m and take up huge amounts of water, and clay shrinks. The foundations would be designed for the mature height. Apart from the shrinkage in summer, another issue us that a large tree looks out of place and grows lopsided if very close to a building. Also sheds leaves and sticks, perhaps into the gutter. The main benefit is obvious, that trees are a good thing. But also, If to the south of the building they shade and cool in the summer but allow light in winter. A willow on clay will need foundations about 2.5m deep. Not the end of the world. If it does / they do fall over suddenly then you need a wet winter and spring for the ground to recover IF there are roots to the house. Ignoring this can cause immediate heave of the foundations.

No. Once cut down, its effect on the ground will continue, as the ground becomes wet and the ground expands. Unless you can leave it a season to stabilise. Don't assume that the BCO understands this. It will be your problem, not theirs. I once had a bco walk round the site with me looking at founds. He had no comments about the differing depths , sometimes quite deep when close to large trees. On gentle questioning it became clear that he was unaware of the subject. But what are your ground conditions? Clay/rock/gravel/ an old landfill???

The problem is with big, deciduous trees on shrinkable ground such as clay. They drink the water in summer, the clay shrinks, and the building moves. Then is winter the tree is dormant and the ground expands again. The solution is deeper footings or piles, which you have. For a willow/oak etc on clay, the effect is up to 24m from the footings. At that distance a 0,9m deep footing may need to be 1m (approx from memory). But very near to the building it may require 4m deep foundations. If there is a stream between, or rock beneath, or multiple other variables' then this doesn't apply. It is important so check it out. NHBC is the easiest resource (online) for the guidelines, using the BS graphs for "Building Near Trees"

Make sure that the capping is good for a few decades. I suggest making sure the construction is agreed, and also getting a photo to confirm. Assuming you are not going up to inspect. I don't know how to cap of a chimney. Rainproof but ventilated....somehow.

Just be sensible and polite to the council and they will be the same to you. I would send an email to bc saying what you have said here about just waiting for results, drinking bottled water etc. That puts it on the record that you are not being sneaky. They won't throw you out.

Agreed. One flush could spring the bend off the vertical pipe. If not the first then soon after guaranteed.

Agreed ' not as much'. But i think there will still be a big difference on most sites. There are much cheaper, yet efficient, ways to get the insulation at the perimeter than to insulate the footings. I'm not about to calculate the difference, but would be interested if someone has. I can see the attraction of the kit foundation idea though, for certainty and speed, for which there would be a premium. Hunch price? £15k extra on 200m2? As to muck away costs. Yes this is often ignored and can be significant on a small site in the SE. Often there is a design solution to this too, but it needs holistic design.

Let me know if any of this needs clarification. For a load-bearing slab we consider the slab, acting alone and supporting only the floor loading. The concrete sits on stone , on ground and the floor loads therefore act directly on the ground, (spread somewhat by the thickness, if the loads are uneven) The much heavier walls sit on footings in the ground, usually 1m or deeper, and not on the slabs. Reinforcement of the slab is generally only to control shrinkage cracking, and is a steel mesh, easily laid. Footings are usually mass concrete, a lo-tech process Rafts are structural slabs. The concrete is thicker and they have 2 layers of steel, top and bottom, to prevent bending and make the slab work like a big beam. Cost are higher because the concrete is thicker and the steel is heavier gauge as well as being in 2 layers. It may also require additional skill. The walls are supported on edge and cross beams made as deepenings of the slab, heavily reinforced and fully linked to the slab. These support the walls but also spread this heavy load over a wider area of ground, using the slab area. So a simple load-bearing slab sits on good ground. If a book-case wouldn't sink into the ground, then neither will it when there is concrete on top. Walls are very much heavier and so need strong ground. If the ground is not strong enough to support the walls then a raft may resolve the issue by spreading the load over a bigger area, and allow construction. Cost of slab and footings approximately double, perhaps more.

In simplistic terms, with cost and simplicity being the main drivers. Ground good and also level : load bearing slab and strip footings Ground good but sloping or liable to flood: beam and block Poor ground: raft. So why do major developers use B and B so much? Certainty, and repetition of designs. Also less liable to problems if using unknown ground-workers. Why are rafts specified so commonly? Not the designers' money, and perhaps don't realise the cost effect.

Did this in a daughter's terrace house about 5 years ago. Took maybe 2 hours, using stud and epoxy. Gallows bracket installed where a previous owner had just cut out bricks, only supporting the remaining chimney on some bits of wood on the joists. I say remove as little as you can, as the chimney is part of the structure, including next door. The party wall will be 1 brick thick (225) at most and the chimney is a major part of the strength,

Doesn't sound like it. Can you contrive a bend or baffle at either end to stop turdles running straight through? Just a downward bend into the liquid.

I was an Estimator for many years. It took weeks in any new position to know how the company costed thigs like waste, plant. management and profits, and most of all risk. if estimating a project where the builder or builders were unknown, then I would say this could only be very approximate. easily +/-20%. More accurate than not having it done professionally of course.

Also while it is raining. An issue in the cavity is indeed likely to be bringing the water inside, but if the source is cured then that should be the end of it. Otherwise....cut out the inner block, sort, and build back.

Would it be clear to anyone passing that this was a barrier? Would it keep out a child or elderly person? I know it is said that intruders could sue if they climbed in and fell in a hole, but i haven't seen evidence. A construction site sign would emphasise too....they are off the shelf / on-line.

Deeper is fine, and extra concrete to get back up to a standard level is also sensible. In the absence of a vibrating poker, do still compact the concrete by poking vigourously from top to bottom, using a 2 x 2 or similar. You won't see it but a lot of air will come out, the concrete be better mixed, and the concrete become denser as intended. Yes. That is a lot to shift and level on your own esp if the weather isn't great.

I wasn't aware of that. What / how? I now recall once asking a big merchant for a price for 2 whole pallets of osb. They quoted higher than wickes per board, so was an easy 'try again' discussion. Didn't buy from them on principle anyway after that. Another wickes advantage is choosing the best timbers.....disadvantage is if someone else did that already.

Approx 16m x 0.5 x 0.2, = 1.6m3. If delivered in a big mixer you will pay for 5.4m3 not carried. If you can get volumetric (mixed on site) it should be cheaper, and no waste.

130 concrete on rock is fine. 300 is very thick. What is the reason for that? Concrete does not find its own level. Or shouldn't if you haven't added water. Your peg method is very sensible, because the driver can judge while pouring and then you just have to shovel and forget the lasering. If checking the poured concrete with the laser, be sure not to let the staff depress the surface and give a false reading. This is a common mistake and the blocks need to be cut. Do not add water to the concrete. It is a precise mix and axrea water makes it very much weaker, for the sake of a bit more work. When finished, the driver asks where you want the surplus and slops. Decide in advance. Then he washes out the drum and again you need a place or barrow to hand. How accurately are you calculating the order? Again your pegs help a lot in measuring the depth.

That would be a good price. I don't need any but was so surprised that I searched, but £30 without feet is the best i have seen. Obv not on orkney. A cheap alternative for a longish length is whatever local fences look like. Post and 3 wires? Then put scaffolding mesh on it.

Correct. It becomes a lighter colour, harder and brittle in daylight esp sun, over 2 of 3 years. I think brown is just a cheap default colour, and grey is more expensive to make but more attractive.