Whether you use dry mix or a wetted ready-mix to secure the posts doesn't make a great deal of difference. Dry mix draws the required moisture from the surrounding ground, whereas ready-mix has all the moisture it needs. In all probability, wet ready-mix would give a stronger concrete than a dry mix, but end-strength is not the key requirement when it comes to fence posts - you just want something firm enough to stay put and keep the post in place.

Moving on to your second point - using concrete base panels as a retainer is ok for 250-300mm of level difference, but for more than that, they aren't strong enough, it's true. However, there are ways and means of making them strong enough and there are ways and means of using stronger concrete panels in place of the standard wet-cast panels, but, if you're happy with the tanalised timber, go with that. Personally, I'd still use a stronger concrete panel.

The suppliers used to charge a deposit on these agg bags, which meant they were always rounded up and returned for re-use, but that practice seems to have died out now that they've become so popular, and they are beginning to turn up dumped in out-of-the-way lay-bys, along with other building rubble and unwanted fridges that some lazy gits can't be bothered taking to a proper disposal site.  

You might find that the original suplier will take them back, or you could wash them out and use them as patio furniture covers, but as a weed/root barrier, they're second-rate, I'm afraid.

You could use sand or gravel, but if it shifts or is washed out by groundwater, then you risk having a void beneath your kerbline. However, if you use a low-cement concrete, say something like a 1:3:6, then you can be sure the duct will be safe and there's no chance of the kerbs falling into a sudden void.  

If you're going to lay a kerb, you'll need concrete anyway. Were you planning on bringing in ready-mix or knocking it up on site?

Just haunching the kerb joints is known as "Maxwell's Backing" in memory of a particularly parsimonious groundworker who favoured that method of haunching, as long as it could be covered up with soil before the Clerk of Works saw it.  

If you want to lay the duct in gravel, then as long as it's fairly compact, there should be no great problem, as long as there's no risk of the gravel being washed out by the springwater. I still prefer concrete - you know then that the kerb isn't going to fall over suddenly!

You could, as stated above, omit the cement completely, or reduce it to a smaller proportion. I think a Class V mortar uses 3 times as much lime as cement, so a 1:3:12 mix (OPC:Lime:Sand) would be about right.

But.....when it comes to sealing, I really, really wouldn't bother. Sealed brickwork looks bloody awful, IMNSHO, and, if you've gone to all this trouble to re-create the traditional look, why then spoil it all by slapping on a late 20thC glossy varnish look? Every 'sealant-treated' working fireplace I've ever seen has developed a nasty yellowy appearance, as the heat seems to affect the jollop over time. I've seen some hand-dressed stone fireplaces that have been ruined by well-meaning homeowners daubing the masonry with BrickSeal or similar

It's the inevitable voids which are created when rubble is used as a fill material that cause problem down the line with settlement and/or channelisation. By 'blinding' the rubble with sand/fines, and ensuring the voids are filled, you can minimise the risk, but, to be extra sure, you could lay a geo-membrane such as Terram 1000 over the top of the completed sub-base to prevent any future bedding material (assuming you're using a granular bedding material) from trickling down into the voids.

The pergola design I've put on the website comes from a design I knocked up in the mid 1980s and it was used for years when we were obliged to build the damned things as additional works to paving schemes. It's an empirical model - the original was built based on guesswork; it didn't fall down, so I sketched out a plan of the timbers used, and, sure enough we built several more over the years, all of which, as far as I know, are still upright.

It wasn't a case of calculating stresses and loads and wind shear and whathaveyou, and then specifying the timbers - we used whatever we had in the yard: it worked, so we stuck to the same plan from that day on!

At a guess, I'd say that reducing the post dimensions by 13mm is neither here not there, but I'm not so sure about the spans - 37mm seems a bit thin to my untrained eye. I'm surprised there's no 50mm timber used in your country, as it's such a 'handy' size.

As for the inline braces, they remain decorative, as long as the rails are securely fastened to the posts, but they do make heck of a difference to the finished appearance.

Build up levels using a selected fill - this can be any crushed rock or recycled material sold as "Crusher Run" or SF1, or DTp2. Your local Builders' Merchant will advise what is available at what price, and it should be laid in layers no exceeding 200mm and compacted thoroughly before placing the next layer. So, for a 600mm lift, you would use 2 layers of Selected Fill at 200mm thick, then a capping layer consisting of 100mm of the fill material, and finally 100mm of DTp1 as a sub-base.

Many of these Acronyms are explained in more detail on the Aggregates page of the main website.

Lay a geo-membrane down over the sub-grade. This will help prevent the granular material being driven into the clayey sub-grade and lost in the quagmire. The membrane (I suggest summat like Terram 1000 or TDP115) may float on the water at first, but once you start backfilling with a decent granular fill material (or DTp1/2), the membrane will sink, and the water will be driven out.

Build up your layers by not more than 200mm at a time. Once you've placed and levelled 200mm or so of granular material, compact it thoroughly with a vib plate, a rammer or a vib roller before placing the next layer. It's best to finish your fill layers approx 100mm below base of slab and then top up with DTp1 and a sand blinding to ensure that, when you come to pour the slab, you've got a regular thickness and no voids. Don't forget a DPM between the sub-base and the slab - it makes such a difference to the finished quality.

I'm not sure about a 1:2:2 mix - it's a bit heavy on the cement and light on coarse aggregate. The resulting mix would be more like a rough mortar than a concrete. And, if you plan to use the area for horses, then a hard aggregate content is very important - if you have an excess of matrix (fine agg + cement) the surface will be more readily damaged by hoofs than would be the case with a mix with plenty of hard whinstone incorporated. Using a small mixer really wouldn't/shouldn't make mixing the concrete any more difficult - just remember to be fairly accurate in your measurements, using, say, level bucketfuls rather than the more haphazard 'spadefuls', and keep the water content constant - variation in slump will result in a poor finish.

As you plan to lay in a series of bays, Day Joints should be fine. Will you be using any reinforcement? If you plan to build a heavier structure on the basein the long term, then you mnight want to consiedr using a mesh or rebar, but for basic use, a fibre reinforcement will be ok.

The basic construction you propose is sound for a wooden structure, but if the possible brick/block building is more probable than possible, a 150mm slab would be a better minimum. Have you spoken to a builder or structural engineer about what would be needed if you did decide to go with a permanent structure?

Someone else mentioned this "additive for stables" but didn't have a name, and when I discussed it with my pet concrete technician, she didn't know anything about it. Perhaps you should call your local Ready Mix plant and see if they have any info, or try someone like Grace or Sika to see if they have a suitable product. I seem to recall that Alison suggested the additive in question was probably a hardener, rather than a urine-proofer, but we never pursued the discussion, so I have no real answer.

Does the British Horse Society (or whatever they're called) have any recommendations in their bumf?

This business about making triangular sub-bays for the area in front of the stable block sounds like a lot of hard work. How big is the area, and how much fall is there from the outer edge to the central drain?

Seal the top of the gully by cutting a piece of ply to fit just inside it, or by wrapping it with visqueen/DPM, so that no concrete can get into it. Pour the concrete into the area, spread it with rakes/shovels and then tamp it using a straightedge timber, with one end on the central gully and the other being swung around following the fixed sides.

Your straightedge need only be 3600mm or so, as that will be plenty to reach from the furthest corner to the central gully. You'll find that the concrete will want to settle towards the lower centre, but by repeatedly swing around the tamp and scraping off any excess, you'll eventually (after 3 or 4 passes) have a beautifully profiled 'dish', with the gully at the centre. With only 25mm of fall, the concrete will stay in place and not migrate towards the centre once you finish tamping.

Once it's cured sufficiently, you can cut off the visqueen and re-open the gully.

I reckon the best "all-rounder" for general paving work is the 75kg plate - PVP75, I think it is (I can't see outside to check the one in my yard: it's too dark!)

If you're planning on having HGVs use the driveway, then I'd strongly recommend using a large, vibrating roller, summat like a Bomag 120, to consolidate the sub-base. The vib plate would be fine for any bedding layers and consolidating the block paving (if that's the way you go) but I don't think you'd get sufficient compaction of the sub-base to handle the quite considerable pressures imposed by such large vehicles.

You can hire in a roller such as this for around 100 quid for the day, or 200-300 quid for the week. I know it sounds like a lot of money, but it will cover the ground at 4 or 5 times the speed of a vib plate, and it will consolidate to a much greater depth than a standard vib plate.

A heavy vib plate or trench compactor would be as effective, but wouldn't be any cheaper to hire and isn't as quick as a roller. With 400m² to cover, a roller would be my first choice, without a doubt!

It's hell of a lot of work, they're tricky to lay well, you'd need to use cobbles in the 30-75mm range to get a reasonable surface, they're a "person of illegitimate birth" to walk on, and it's expensive, even when the cobbles themselves are free.

Using a few of the larger cobbles to make a decorative edge, or break bands, is all well and good, but 400m² of cobble paving is almost unheard of nowadays - if it was done, it would be as a deterrent paving, rather than access paving!

You can get a crushed concrete DTp1 for a reasonable price in full loads (at least you can in/around the big cities) and if you spread out 150mm or so of that, gave it a good pounding with a vibrating roller, then it should do fine. You might have to do a bit of tittivating once a year, to get rid of the occasional pothole, but it's the cheapest solution I can come up with.

And then, if your numbers come up on the Lotto, you can always grade it out and top it off with a bit of base course (oops! - binder course) bitmac.  

Just laying cobbles would be umpteen times more expensive. You need a full concrete bed to hold them fast and if you lay them loose, they'll all be at the bottom of the hill within 12 months.  

Once you've laid two or three thousand metres of kerbs, you sort of get the hang of handling and positioning them to avoid spalling, but the 6mm play is a good 'trick' for occasional kerbers. Once the kerb is on the bed and tapped down to level, the ply can be withdrawn, and the kerb 'knocked-up' to close the gap to 3mm or so.

I think the solution may be to make a switchback ramp with flat landings at the turn points.  You may need to use a Z-layout, ie: 3 straight runs, each rising 400m, with flat landings at each 'hairpin'. Of course, it all depends on the site layout, but a single ramp is not going to do the job.

When building civil structures, such as bridges or roadways, we'd use frost-proofers and/or accelerants to ensure we achieve the required cured strength, but, for pointing flags this loss of strength isn't all that critical, and as a very rough-and-ready rule of thumb, I'd allow pointing to take place as long as there were four hours of frost free surface and air temp following placement, and I always like to cover such pointing with hessian or similar to keep off the worst of the frost.

For Mr Mayer in Colorado, I'd suggest having a word with whatever it is that passes for a building supply company in that part of the world. The frostproofers we use in the UK and Ireland might not be suitable for the very low temps you experience, so it's always best to seek local knowledge and see what they recommend.

It sounds as though you have another 300mm to go, and here's a tip to stop your hands hurting - try using a spade!  

Let me know....

<virtual gulp>

I've only experience with what used to be North-West Water (now part of the United Utilities Evil Empire) and they used to offer a free replacement service for lead supply pipes. We were involved in the refurb of hundreds of older properties in and around South Lancashire during the 80s and 90s, and that was always one of the tasks - digging the trench for the new alkathene pipe. The Water Board (as they are still known) would do the digging and all the jointing work under the road/footpath, but we had to dig the trench for them on the private land.

The face is quite coarse and will get covered with the algae and lichens in a couple of years, especially if the walling is north facing, but this, in my opinion, only serves to make it look more natural.

If you have a south facing wall, leaving a few 25mm gaps in between the blocks and inserting some alpines (aubrietia is excellent for this) will help soften the appearance.

If you do go ahead with it, let me know how you get on. I'd like to hear a DIYer's opinion as to whether they think it is as simple and effective as it's portrayed.

I think you're better off using 5 steps, which means you could use a 200mm riser (160mm plus 40mm of flag thickness) with 15mm of endfall on each tread.

I wouldn't bother trying to build the risers first, though. these small flights of steps are always tricky and it's easier to build each riser as it's needed. You can spend a lot of time plotting out on paper only to find that, when it's translated to a site, you're 10mm out here and 15mm short there, which makes hell of a lot more work for you.

Plan the steps in advance, by all means, and build the side walls, but use the plan as a general guide rather than a hard-and-fast rule.

However, for small projects, they could be ok. I know of a number of projects, such as your car park job, where they've been used without problems, but I still have reservations: it only takes one bad batch to make a mess of the entire job, and at least one car park on which I installed the kerbing (before I was disabled) suffered terrible rutting and repeated break-up of the surface for years because the main contractor had used planings instead of a "decent" sub-base material.

If the planings are consistent and a good blend of fines and coarse material, then I suppose they would be suitable, but therein lies the problem - will the stuff you buy be a good blend or will it be too dusty? Will have have big lumps of unbroken material? If there were some control over the grading envelope for planings, I'd be a deal less concerned.

Anyway, I have to be overcautious. If I "recommend" a particular type of aggregate and it causes problems, I'll never hear the last of it. So, rather than recommending planings, I urge caution.

If you've seen the stuff and reckon you can get an acceptable degree of compaction with it, then go for it. Personally, I'd rather take a decision on their suitability case-by-case rather than issue a blanket approval for their use.

If you were to use that example, then the link members might be at 450mm centres, so, in a 6m length, you would use 13 or so of them.

These link members are specified when the steel reinforcement for a slab is designed. The run list for the steel will specify that so many of such a type of bar is to be used, and they are to be linked using such-and-such a shape of link member at a given separation, and then the whole covered with mesh of a certain size.

To be frank, if you are not sure about link members and their usage, then it's probably best that you leave the steelwork to a professional, as the way the link members are fastened to the re-bars is vitally important. Further, the type of link member and type of re-bar is specific to each slab, which has to be designed by a structural engineer. The example given on my website is a very basic 'common solution' when a keeled slab is required.

I've just found this image of a groundbeam that has reinforcing bars linked together with the same sort of link member as is shown in the cross-section drawing.

The percentage figure refers to the percentage of the total aggregate content represented by that particular zone of fine aggregate (sand). The definitions for each 'zone' is given on the Aggregates page, in the section dealing with sands.

This is all very technical, and is the sort of thing only ever used in batch plants ands civil projects where the strength of the concrete is hyper-critical. For DIY jobs and most residential paving, it's way, way, way too involved, and the basic 1:2:4 type proportions are near enough.

However, if you have 75mm of uncompacted 'scalpings' (another non-specific term) then, very generally speaking, that should compact to around 50mm thickness, which is not sufficient for a competent sub-base. You need 75mm compacted thickness as a minimum for non-vehicle areas, and 100mm MINIMUM for driveways and the like.

For the sand bedding, you want a MAXIMUM compacted thickness of 50mm. Anything more than 50mm runs the risk of movement and uneven settlement. The spec is usually 35-50mm, but 40mm is around about ideal. If you find that you need more than 50mm of bedding to achieve the required levels, then your only option is to build-up the level of the sub-base using more 'scalpings'. Regardless of how difficult small quantities of suitable sub-base material may be to obtain (and, to be honest, it can be had in quantities of half-a-ton from almost every BM in the land), building-up the levels using extra sand is a recipe for long-term problems.