Search results

I might be wrong, but it doesn't look as though the window frame is flush with the outer skin?

Stud walls are not normally diaphragmed with boarding each side. If some future owner started taking it apart and noted that it was unusual in its construction and the way it was fixed, that would set alarm bells ringing. But ultimately, not the OP's problem. Future occupiers need to satisfy...

You don't need windposts in that design. Where it shows a problem is the wall on the right-hand side, which is effectively unrestrained by return walls at either end. A possible way around this is to: 1) make the stud wall at the back of the wardrobe into a buttressing wall by diaphragming...

If its like that all round the house, it could be that its built on a raft (?) and that the wall above oversails the lower courses to provide a cavity wall, with a cavity tray dpc. But that's just a guess - maybe others have seen things like this and can explain?

Decimal point missing!? :unsure:

Normal shrinkage of concrete blocks. Dense blocks are supposed to be built in maximum lengths of around 7m.

Yes, on reflection, they may be right. If joists in that area run front-to-back, the wall between the master bed and bed 4 is likely to be a partition wall, possibly supported on a double joist.

Do joists run side-to-side over the lounge? (front-to-back only seems logical for the rest of the house). Wall between beds 3 and 4 probably load-bearing, other walls upstairs probably partitions. Wall between kit and dining room will be load-bearing, and would need a beam running from the rear...

LOL - I think a lot in the Building Industry is a million shades of grey!

Nonsense; they don't need welding - your builder is correct. Ask your SE why he is insisting that the beam should be welded to a steel spreader plate, yet not fixed to a concrete padstone.

Dig out a little of the mortar immediately below the arch. If you come across a thin flat bar of wrought iron below the arch, you should be OK taking out the lintels below, as long as the original opening wasn't subsequently widened beyond the end of the bar.

I don't buy Christmas presents......and you're off my Christmas card list this year (not that they'd get there anyway).

Safety depends on familiarity. In a domestic setting for a couple of steps to a single bedroom on an abrupt change in direction it could easily be argued that the arrangement is safe. For a public building, it would of course be a completely different matter. The guidance given in the Approved...

No rule against that in a domestic setting. The ultimate regulation on stairs is K2; "shall be designed, constructed and installed so as to be safe for people moving in and about the building" If I was a BCO, I'd accept that due to the change in direction, and the limited rise. Although the...

Is it a steel beam, or have you just hit a reinforcing bar in what would be an insitu reinforced concrete beam? I've come across a few houses built after WW1 which incorporate a full-width r.c. beam. If it was a steel 'I' beam and you hit the web, the depth of concrete would be far more than...

Yes, bang one's head on the roof more often but be warmer.

Screws would be perfectly OK spaced as you suggested. (Consider 80mm screws as 100mm will poke through and result in blood everywhere). No need to glue (glue and screws have different characteristics and don't 'work together') though it certainly won't do any harm - just a bit messy.

Or convince the BCO that, under the sloping section, headroom would be reduced to an 'unreasonable' degree, and therefore the thickness of insulation should be modified accordingly. Some inspectors are more reasonable than others.

It means that the allowable bending stress is 10% greater. But there are other factors to consider, such as excessive deflection, and just because the beam might be 10% 'stronger', it doesn't mean the deflection will be 10% less. In domestic floor joists, excessive deflection, rather thann...

BS 5268;