saveasteading

Ground source as in borehole depends completely on the ground composition. Do you know what is there?

I think this is a building reg's situation. You are changing the use of a part of the building and also the means of exit in case of fire. If not, then they will tell you that in response and send the fee back. As stated above you are best to have certification of the works for when you want to sell, and it keeps your insurance squeaky clean. The fee will not be high as there is no added floor area. Amateur drawings should suffice but do use a standard scale. Do NOT show any heating or you will have to add substantial insulation. I suggest you state, 'no space heating: local infrared heater to suit occasional use' There will be no need for foundations.

I wouldn't. But try to get rid of most dust on the surface, and wet it. Then try to force some mortar into all the surface and corners you can, before mass filling. If you keep the mortar on the dry side at first to see how it handles, it will then stay in place. but if too wet it will run and slump. You can either fill it flush and trowel smooth ot leave it shy, and later add a finish. Don't over worry.

Have only installed 3 from memory, and had no call-backs so presumably all ok. My inclination is to choose the simplest design, so air blower rather than rotating wheel. Having the blower in an adjacent chamber (not in the sludge make sense). Of course the tank works to some extent without the help of rotation or bubbles. I currently favour Marsh Industries, if you want to add them to your list. Very helpful tech advice too. The blower motor can be heard from very adjacent, but not from a couple of metres away. When you have an air pump in a fish tank it is the disturbance at the surface that allows oxygen to enter the water, (and the line of bubbles is for show)...is that the same principle for the sewage tank, or is it more simply, moving the sludge around?

OSB? What don't you like about plasterboard on studs? it is standard. 11mm OSB first then plasterboard will make the walls very strong indeed. I specified that once in a 'robust' school and it proved to be teenage boy proof.

How true. A successful project needs collaboration and that includes a good client. Not a soft one but a fair one. 1. Be clear 2. Be fair 3. Pay the bill in good time 4. Listen to suggestions and make clear decisions. 5. Don't stand for any nonsense, but use civil discussion not threats. The stress as a contractor with a difficult client can be immense. Some contractors chase the big chance and extra money, while others welcome having a choice of project and client.

Loving the new idea. But you are right it would get soggy, rot and disappear. On the same lines you could glue sand to the pipe, but it would be easier to roughen it with the sandpaper as your original suggestion. Whether it matters I don't know, but would do no harm. If you keep the mortar as dry as you can that it is still manageable, and push bits of brick into it when there is enough room it wil reduce shrinkage and o gap should appear. I think we all deserve a report and photo of the finished project.

No, it needs to be this, or another that mentions water repellent. https://www.knaufinsulation.co.uk/products/dritherm-cavity-slab-32 Could be. The pipe already bridges the cavity, so make sure it is level or sloping down a tad (outwards). Expanding spray foam is difficult to control and you have no idea what is happening out of sight, So put in the barrier the best you can and spray from both sides. If there are any tiny gaps the foam will probably start to penetrate and give up and expand the easy way...outwards. You will probably end up stuffing bits of mineral wool in as best you can until it looks about complete.

If you use cavity batt mineral wool it is designed to be waterproof so it can be left in place. ROCKWOOL Full Fill Cavity Batt Thermal Insulation 75mm - or Knauf Otherwise no, as it may get soggy then fall some where and wick water through.

Most of my experience is in steel buildings, but even I tend to propose other methods as soon as large clear spans are not important. In a normal house with normal rooms, the walls carry a lot of the load and allow timber to cope with the stresses. Also bear in mind that steel is not ideal for any shapes other than rectangles, and that you are dependent on local skills. Most builders only like what they are used to. Discuss with locals as your nearby builders may prefer to build traditionally, and that might save a lot of cost and give you more flexibility. For steel? Very quick construction and your works are then all in the dry. In some rural areas the planners will allow a steel building to look like one, and that can save money in aesthetic finishes.

Back to basics, and apologies if it is already explained. Are you intending to demolish the whole building and simply retain the footings and floor? If so are you constrained by the existing geometry?

5% is based on a standard 'basket' and does not include construction. It is 7% according to a superseded 'basket'. I think it is for 'things' that people buy all the time, like groceries, and fuel. On construction costs I established that , for example, there was more value in site control than in getting discounts. eg concrete where the digger goes too wide and deep and then it is filled with concrete, 5% discount and 20% waste. Ask them all where the risk is . They know some of the answers if asked about their own field. And then how to limit it If not shy, the same question can be asked of each of the designers and each of the trades. After all the roundings up and allowance for risk, the contractor puts 30% on top of the waste you are already paying for. You really can make huge savings (or the other way round, avoid excess cost) but it takes hard work, supervision and some skill. Someone has to allow for risk along the way, but the cost comes back to the client.

We are still being advised that our project will cost double to 2.5 times what we have allowed. So far we are on track. BUT this is with a whole lot of knowledge and serious project management, and a preparedness to keep looking for an alternative. Allow for outside design and project management, 'reliable' but bigger builders etc and it can easily double. everybody is right and also wrong. 30% contingency is just wrong. Prices are already high. But 30% overall margin is common enough

The difference being that in a normal loft conversion you are protecting the existing, finished house. No new-build houses have a complete enclosure to work within. Is yours effectively a new-build, or do you have to protect any sensitive internal finishes?

Firstly a declaration. I think gutters are a good thing, recognising that rain happens and is best got rid of efficiently. Also I don't like sedum roofs other than for appearance (from above?). Not 'green' not 'sustainable'. Practically though in your case. If water runs off an eaves onto a flat roof it makes a noise and wears out the surface, even steel. After the rainstorm, the roof drips for many hours. You will have sedum, so it will kill the plants and wash out the growing medium, then probably cause a blockage in the drainage channel and rwp. You are going to have to do maintenance every few months, especially of the concealed gutters. A matter of opinion perhaps but I also don't rate having downpipes running through the living room. The sound of running water may provide a 'connection to the outside world', but it is a worry for keeping clean and intact. It rains everywhere in the UK. In the areas that have more extreme downpours (west coast and SE England) the water will power off at an incredible rate and cause damage. I am interpolating from the drawing that there are also some valleys, which will concentrate the rain even more into spouts towards the middle of the roof. Gutters and external downpipes would be a great idea. You won't feature in Architects' Journal but your house will last longer and you can relax when it is raining.

Some insurance companies don't accept properties within a certain distance of the flood forecast, regardless of the height above. Shop around.

I think I used tile adhesive, and that allows a few mm adjustment. Otherwise self-levelling screed first. the floor should already have a membrane under it. I see there is a manhole. Yo need to keep that accessible. I would cut the insulation around and on that shape for access. Carpet tiles can be lifted, and then your boards too. Whatever insulation you do will be fairly pointless for energy saving as there is the metal door with gaps around. The floor insulation is for comfort and feel-good.

My suggestion. It is a hard product and can be glued to the floor, then will take carpet tiles/vinyl etc. and witshstand foot and furniture pressures. Expensive at about £15/m2 but will last, which celotex wont without a screed over it. This is only 10mm thick but the effect is significant, as standing in socks on a board and directly on the concrete will demonstrate. There are some alternative manufacturers. I have used this before fitting a warmup system, and it was easy. In a garage being improved for recreation, I might use carpet tiles on top, as they add more insulation, and are easy to diy.

There is plenty of water in the sea to travel 10 miles. How far above the flood forecast level are you?

That seems reasonable, as maps and plans have more mistakes than is generally recognised.

The planners will overlook a minor difference, and this was once defined to me as 'a brick'. in other words practical tolerances. Doubling the size of this element is not minor. While it is rue that few buildings have to be reduced, it does happen. More likely would be that, having deliberately ignored the permission granted, they will be upset at the contempt, and it may take a long time, and cost, to get it through this way. The conversation is recorded here too, and you have already asked for the planners' advice, which will not help. I think I would either. 1. get formal advice from a Planning Agent, who may know a way out of this. or 2. Build as permitted but with a steel frame and stud based wall that can be removed/ moved. 3. Don't build this extension until you are occupying the ret of it and can do it the habitation way, as you explained (but I have not checked on). But it has to be your shout.

Tell me if I am getting this wrong. SteamyTea: red pen out please. Warm the air and it absorbs more moisture, which all must effectively come from the floor slab in a sealed room. Then chuck the saturated air out at 18 degrees and bring in outside air at 5 (?)C. The colder air has half/third of the moisture in it, leaving capacity to repeat daily. For a 50m3 room this will 'only' be a pint of water each cycle, but is in addition to what is taken out by the machines. I don't know how much water is surplus within the screed after the chemical reaction has used most of it. Say 3% volume. So for the same 20m2 room and 50mm screed there is 1m3 of screed and so 30 litres of surplus water. Doesn't sound too onerous. I don't think we ever aim to get all the water out. Daily removal: 0.5litres by opening the windows, say 2 litres in the machines. 2.5litres/day for 12 days. ???

This is one of the rules among building operatives. The client knows nothing. The professionals know nothing. I the tradesperson am the most important person here and everything must suit me. How much water are you collecting in the buckets?

You can probably design it so that the extra metre or so fits in efficiently if you get permission. Nothing stops you from building out to the piles as that is foundations not 'the building'. Perhaps you can build a demountable outer wall that can be moved when you get permission.

Ask him if you can delay his payment until it is approved. Easy to risk 'someone else's money'.