saveasteading

Going through a wall reduces the risk of leaks through the roof, as closing off is tricky. In theory the flue should be straight if possible, but 2 x 45deg is ok. The main issue with going through the wall will be taking the flue high enough to comply with the rules about being above the ridge. at that height the flue is very vulnerable to wind, so needs guy lines and struts to brace it.

Good that you listened to the remaining items, and got the vibe of other applications. I bet the 'losing' neighbours walked out after yours. For interest, did they have the pro and con sitting apart or all mixed? This varies by council and number of attendees.

Well done. Your faith in the planners restored? Think how this is for the planning officers. They have this all the time and have to withstand abuse and noise from all sides, and usually someone is unhappy. You get the choice of 2 or more councillors every 4 years, each selected by a committee of hard-line activists for agreeing to what they want. Then we get to choose one. We don't get to say they are all useless, unless there is a chance of an independent. Then they don't get much training, and can refuse to take it. I have been at a meeting where the planner repeatedly had to point out that they were only agreeing detail and that outline permission was already awarded, yet one councillor kept saying the should be no building. Officer and Chairman prevailed, eventually. And at one of mine, the Officer kept pointing out that the town needed this proposal for the Plan, and there was no other option. When the vote came, they somehow managed to 'not count' when the vote was going the 'wrong' way. pointed out a few more key facts. Approved on third attempt by one. So you did well. Do you think that your attendance and statements were crucial?

Agreed, that looks very wrong. to cut out so much of the beam rather than just the top flange where they clash, and to have such a small cleat connection at the bottom, Also the connection being at the bottom puts more twist into the big beam than is necessary. The steels do not look 'under-designed' so it might be ok but needs checking immediately, before they build it out of sight.

Thanks Gus. The fact that this document was revised in 2010 to state that the BS guidance was withdrawn, and Eurocodes now prevail is, to me, the fundamental part. If it was not to be used it would not have been published, but withdrawn. When Eurocodes were introduced my main interest was in steel. The Eurocodes were much more up to speed on local wind effects, use of tapered frames, flange bracing and many other issues. I had many a building inspector / checking engineer/ client's Engineer saying that they would rather we used BS as it was easier for them, something they had been working with for years, and provided the comfort, to them, of using a lot more steel. BUT in all this we still had to use British wind and snow codes, and most countries did the same. ie the Eurocodes prevail but many countries added their own rules. I won't quote the differences I learned about, but there were many, based on local circumstances or simply feet dragging. My main concern re SBSG was that it had been quietly withdrawn, and the government had forgotten to take it off their website. As it happens, our provided design isn't too bad on the timber construction, but we have big arguments re the foundations and slab, where they add £15k or more to our cost. It is under discussion, but I don't think the Engineer has ever been questioned before.

The usual problem is the bonding (lack of) to the substrate. A system that requires the mechanical fixing of a netting to the wall can overcome this. I have certainly used this on block and on cement board and found no problems.

I am late in seeing this. Gus is absolutely right. Normal plastisol suffers from cut edge peel, so need an application of a special varnish to the ends. They make plastisol in double thickness (still in micron territory) that is supposed to resist this, and this grade is essential within a few miles of the coast. There are many other coatings available, with some very poor and intended for short-term protection (the agriculture market) and some good, but much thinner than plastisol. Any coating works until it is damaged or worn off, as does the galvanising underneath it. Plastisol is also more forgiving to minor abrasions during construction. Guarantees on the life of cladding are an indication only, as there are always weasel word exclusions so that nobody is liable. the biggest issue is usually when the sheets are cut on site. They must be cut using shears or a nibbler as this closes the galvanising over the edge. Absolutely they must not use grinders as this not only rips the edge apart but heats the sheet. Seagulls are an issue too, and no coating stands up to their excrement, or their pecking at rubber fillers. On the positive side: if your area experiences heavy rain on occasions, this cleans off salts etc. Have a look at metal roofs (and walls) around you. It makes trips to industrial estates more interesting.

Not really. They are very precise in following the rules, but sometimes this is down to interpretation. A planning consultant would not charge much for a quick overview, or quite a lot for certainty. You can do your own research by 1. looking at the planning history online for 'your' property, on the LA website. Has there been a rejected application for example? Or has it already been extended and used its allocation? 2. ditto for neighbouring and very similar properties which have been extended.....all the arguments for and against will be made. 3. reading the council's development plan for the area. 4. ask for a meeting with the planners. They will charge about £200. Probably you are right but it is worth checking.

My mistake: this is for birch or some-such pretty beam. I had not noticed that there is a tick-box for other timbers, and spruce is very much cheaper. I'm sure the joiner will know but for my interest, does the scarfe joint have to be central above the support post/wall ?

Please keep us informed, and good luck.

Because you have the best practical advice to hand at all times, and nothing goes wrong.

On my private builds? There will always be unknowns in a refurb, so nothing to make me hurt. On commercial projects: 1. Doing a trial hole which showed topsoil, a little fill, then solid clay and then designing 300m2 of building with conventional footings. While digging the footings the bucket went through into peat. The clay was a compacted capping. Had to very quickly redesign with piles and beams at our own expense. Lost 2 weeks and a few £k and could have been so much worse. 2. Is it a mistake if you spot it first and correct it? Woke up one morning long ago, knowing my setting out of the day before was wrong. Asked the boss for the landrover and chainboy, before coffee and prepping for the day. Went to the spot and adjusted the trunk road alignment to point at where the bridge would be. Back to the site office, Boss said 'everything ok? and never asked me what it was about ....sound man. Not that I would have minded saying, but he didn't want to know. Moral...dreams can be very constructive. 3. Another issue setting out a big culvert, using a theodolite, over an obstruction. I used a spirit level as a line, but used the wrong side of it. Told the GF that the foundations were in wrong. How did it happen? Fair enough! Any easy way to rebuild it?...yes I gave him a method, No more said by him or the big boss, or anyone as I think no-one was told. That has lived with me as how problems are handled....everyone makes mistakes, better to know about it and sort it, and no point scoring or shouting.

That was probably happening at the time anyway, and the money would not have reached you. You supervised everything else and it was good? Well done.

The lime wash is attractive, but so is the exposed stone. In favour of the lime wash...it is an additional coating before the mortar and seals any little gaps. It emphasises the rough stone construction. Conceals old repairs. Relatively easy to repaint if needed. Against: the rough stone face will catch and hold the rain. For the exposed stone, depending on the stone itself, there is less of the absorbent surface. If pointed near to flush, the rain will run off quickly and only the pointing hold water. It is total rendering/ parging that is most effective but it is also rather plain and functional.

If you look back at other discussions there is a lot of good advice. It is all good whether consistent or not. Also there were recommendations for technical documents, some of which I had not found despite ninja googling, and I recommend them all to you. There is so much practical advice therein, and also some background to old buildings uses and history. If your gutters are good, and you do really good repairs to the lime pointing, then any water that seeps in will evaporate outwards again.....so no need to parge over the lovely masonry.

It is shocking how un-level and un-square many buildings are. Worst example I found was an indoor tennis court in a posh school that sloped 100mm from one side to the other (Don't tell anyone said the client) And I worked briefly for a small builder who asked me to check why the bricklayer was having problems..(they had a dumpy level but obv couldn't use it). I found that the brick walls were being built in a spiral, ever upwards. Very few builders or professionals can do basic setting out or geometry, and depend on machines too much.... and assume all is ok. Assume nothing. Check by eye, check with a quality tape, check square using diagonal distances , use a golf ball on the floor slab.

(Wrong overall heading as the menu isn't working for me.) Does anyone know if the design document "The Small Buildings Structural Guidance, 2010", has been withdrawn or discredited in any way? It is still published online by the Scottish Government. Our Engineer says , with a scoff, that it is no longer used or acceptable.

It is very likely that the cable comes in at right angles from the road. Therefore it will be in the way of your new wall, and will be exposed (or broken) during excavation. It is also unlikely to have enough slack to allow it to be nudge out of the way. I think the cable is the responsibility of the electric company so you shouldn't bury it an foundations anyway. Suggest you ask for it to be diverted....you may want to arrange the trenching/ducting

Ouch. I have had that and not every detail and calc is available. I had very good help from British gypsum re dew points, just last week. Channel Islands I note. On the island I worked on the Chief Engineer was also the planner and bco.

Me too, and that is because there are conflicting ideas, and conflicting requirements from designers and building control inspectors. They can't all be right. I am currently of the view that no water will get through a 600mm solid stone wall IF it is in good condition. My main concerns with a vented cavity are that it removes nearly all the thermal advantage of that thick wall, creating air movement through the cavity may bring in as much damp as it removes, and bits can fall off the inside over time and bridge it. There is much discussion on here a few weeks ago, and a lot of certainty......not always in agreement, but all interesting, helpful and thought provoking.

There is another solution. Get an Architect to post-rationalise the design: a unique skill that makes good reading in Architects Journal. I can't really do it but something like: The sweeping curves of the sustainably sourced local oak staircase juxtaposes aesthetically and figuratively with the harsh rectilinear oversail, referencing the comforts of modern life contrasting with the harshness of the outside environment. If you can find a useful purpose for the corner of floor, then that will also take away some pain. Then convince yourself you like it and most importantly...stop looking.

Not like me to say nothing. Assuming this reference is unintended.

Re leylandi / cyprus sort of trees: Once the green side branches are cut away I have never seen new branches forming and the ugly brown core is left permanently. Perhaps if it is literally trimmed, so that each branch retains some green stuff, they will recover. OR take out a proportion of the branches and leave the rest. For me, I use a lopper as much as possible because of the control, and then chainsaw for the bigger branches that become apparent under the small ones.

that is the one.

All concrete shrinks and cracks. The skill is to have millions of tiny cracks that are invisible. That is done by concrete mix and reinforcement design. Power floating is a skill. The machine is big and powerful and is difficult to control, especially in tight areas. In a warehouse there is a big central area, and the odd edge not quite polished doesn't matter. In a house there is a lot of edge and little middle. There is no secret to successful slab construction, but there is a lack of knowledge. Mix design, mix control, precise preparation, and skilled workers. DIY and the local builder, and it is likely to crack. And polished concrete shows up cracks beautifully. Yes, UFH pipes will complicate the issue slightly, as regards crack control, but the main worry is damage from careless workers or impact from a tool or concrete pump nozzle. That may be a good reason for contractor's giving the sensible advice to be wary. I suggest looking closely at the concrete floor of any local retail park shop. Almost certainly there will be cracks, often roundish shapes, coin sized. If I had to provide a polished floor, I would first check that the client was prepared to pay the high price, and then suggest a specialist laid screed, which is done after the floor has done its shrinking. But don't let me talk you out of it...it is my default to aim for good value and no gimmicks.