Noooo...property we are buying is of non-standard construction....

bristol_pilot

Half the houses in Britain don't have a cavity as this type of construction only started in the 1930s. Before then double brick with no cavity - rendered or not - was the norm. Nothing wrong with that - it will cost a bit more to heat in winter but there will be none of the issues sometimes associated with older cavity walls. In some countries even today, non-cavity construction but with external insulation is the norm. If this is single brick however, I wouldn't touch it - you can't 'regularise the construction' using internal insulation you would have to build on another layer of brick which is what is done when, for example, converting a single-skin garage into living accommodation.

Werdnal

Is it a "one-off" property, or on a development/estate with others of the same build? If there are similar houses nearby, see if you can find whether its a particular type of construction, as many had "brand" names like Cornish Unit, Airey etc.

Also, have any others had remedial works done?

Remember, that even if the cost is high for the required work, you are adding to the capital value of the property and it will make it much more sellable when you eventually want to move on, so unless someone tells you it is better to knock it down and start again, you need to weigh up the cost versus increased value.

There are systems available for single block properties (my dad currently lives in a 1940's HA house which has had external insulated "tiles" fitted and rendered over to insulate it), which are probably more cost effective than physically building another skin.

Better_Days

Werdnal wrote: »

Is it a "one-off" property, or on a development/estate with others of the same build? If there are similar houses nearby, see if you can find whether its a particular type of construction, as many had "brand" names like Cornish Unit, Airey etc.

Also, have any others had remedial works done?

Remember, that even if the cost is high for the required work, you are adding to the capital value of the property and it will make it much more sellable when you eventually want to move on, so unless someone tells you it is better to knock it down and start again, you need to weigh up the cost versus increased value.

There are systems available for single block properties (my dad currently lives in a 1940's HA house which has had external insulated "tiles" fitted and rendered over to insulate it), which are probably more cost effective than physically building another skin.

Thanks Werdnal. It is a 'one off' property so there are no others nearby to compare it with. Interesting to hear of your Dad's experience. I will look into what can be done with regards to remedial works and how much it will cost. We will then have a difficult decision to make - as lovely as the location is we have to consider what the position will be when we come to sell. Luckily the surveyor has been very helpful, so I will be able to chat with him about our options.

chucknorris

Southend1 wrote: »

If it's solid brick 2 bricks thick with no insulation then it's definitely standard construction, this is how most houses were built until the 1930s. If it's one brick thick it sounds like a non standard. Definitely worth asking the surveyor for more info.

I think that you are getting confused here, a one brick wall is one brick length (not width, i.e. 215 mm) thick. Although back in the 30's they would have been slightly thicker as the length of the imperial sized brick was about 228 mm long. You would be hard pushed to find a house that was actually constructed with a two brick wall (i.e. two brick lengths, plus a approx. 10mm joint thickness).

To clarify a 'single brick' wall is a 'half brick' wall, not a one brick wall as defined by SMM7 (Standard Method of Measurement) and NRM Vol 2 (New Rules of Measurement) used by chartered surveyors to measure and define building work.

Davesnave

What a shame! It was a cracking site.

I suppose the other option of bulldozing it and starting again isn't open to you?

Often, that's the way to go, rather than fiddle around with a poor property on a worthwhile site. Indeed, if you are in a buoyant area, the site may be seen as the part holding the value.

I know of a few Woolaway type bungalows in my area that aren't selling. The owners have 'invested' in them by updating, or even extending, but no one will pay what they want for them, and they're way too expensive to re-build.

Better_Days

Thanks Davesnave.

Your point is a good one. This property is very dated and it does make me wonder if spending money on bringing it up to standard internally would be worth it as the construction will always make it difficult to sell.

Knocking it down and starting again would be the sensible option, but not financially viable for us I'm afraid.

Scale_Rule

A lot of this construction went on post war, rows of bungalows with single skin rendered brick walls (two bricks thick with one turned the long way every so often to tie it together - the length of a brick is the same as the width of two for those who don't know), many have steel joists in the roof as opposed to timber. There is nothing wrong with them in reality, they knew what they were building and in my experience tend to be well ventilated to avoid damp and as long as you look after the render they will be fine.
Whose to say that our current method of air tight heavily insulated brick and block homes is the best way forward - or standard construction?

lostinrates

Better_Days wrote: »

Thanks Davesnave.

Your point is a good one. This property is very dated and it does make me wonder if spending money on bringing it up to standard internally would be worth it as the construction will always make it difficult to sell.

Knocking it down and starting again would be the sensible option, but not financially viable for us I'm afraid.

Parts of our house were single brick depth. If most of them hasn't been large we would have really struggled. The single skin kitchen, big enough for a decent sized kitchen table pint the middle and a couple of big dogs beds etc, wouldn't fit the same in with the double skin wall and internal insulation. (Its now a very fair sized study, or a snug reception room, but not a capacious kitchen). So its worth remembering that the internal dimensions seem not that much smaller....a few inches off each outside edge,...yet can have a big impact.

Better_Days

Thanks lostinrates, it is interesting to hear your experience. None of the rooms in this property are that big so internal insulation etc would adversely affect the usability of nearly all the rooms.

Scale Rule, I am not too worried about the structural integrity. The issue is that the method of construction has a significant impact on value and the ability to mortgage and insure the property. This will affect how easy it is to re-sell. But I take your point, if the property has been standing since the 1950's without problems then it is unlikely to fall down now!

Surveyor has confirmed that property appears to be of single brick thickness, rendered and dry lined on the interior. The front extension appears to be cavity brick, rendered and boarded on the outside.

Strapped

I live next to a Woolaway bungalow - have been in it in the winter and it's bloody freezing. Tenants couldn't wait to leave. They'd've been better off in a tent tbh.