Horrific Homebuyer's Report - HELP.

Doozergirl

thearchitect said:

FreeBear said:

lees80 said: I'm with Doozer on this. There is nothing 'just cosmetic' about the repairs. You'll be sinking big money into the house, easily more than the difference between current and expected value after the work is done. 

Modern method of auction is unfortunately a modern method of shafting unsuspecting / inexperienced buyers. Walking away won't be easy, but really is something you need to consider. 

 ...as soon as you touch the plaster, it will probably fall off the walls and the place will require a full plaster job from bricks out - That will involve Building Control (as will the other work) who will want to see the external walls insulated....

Are you sure about that?

I suspect he wouldn't say it if he weren't.

Part L1B of the Building Regulations.  If you're performing major renovation involving 25% of the envelope, then you are required to improve the uValue.  

It makes perfect sense to insulate anyway, even if it weren't a requirement.  It makes a huge difference.  

thearchitect

Doozergirl said:

I suspect he wouldn't say it if he weren't.

Part L1B of the Building Regulations.  If you're performing major renovation involving 25% of the envelope, then you are required to improve the uValue.  

It makes perfect sense to insulate anyway, even if it weren't a requirement.  It makes a huge difference.  

Regulation 4 states for work on an existing building that did not comply with the applicable requirements of the Building Regulations (i) the work itself must comply with the applicable requirements of the Building Regulations and - my emphasis - (ii) the building must be no more unsatisfactory in relation to the requirements than before the work was carried out.

That's a fairly standard grandfathering clause (there is a similar one in the Building (Scotland) Act) to prevent local authorities using repair and/or alteration works to get an entire property upgraded.

Regulation 23  provides that where work is being carried out to an individual thermal element and the amount of the renovation is more than 50% of the element's surface area then such work must be carried out to meet the requirements of L1(a)(i). Similarly, where a major renovation is undertaken that also needs to meet the requirement of L1(a)(i).

Before we can proceed we need to understand what constitutes a renovation or a major renovation. Clause 5.6A outlines the meaning of major renovations and means: the renovation of a building where more than 25% of the surface are of the building envelope undergoes renovation where the whole of the building envelope (external walls, floor, roof, windows, doors, roof windows and rooflights) is taken into account.

But if like-for-like replacement is being undertaken then it is not necessarily renovation. Reference to the definitions in the Rgulations becomes essential.

Ergo this isn't necessarily as straightforward as the post had suggested.  It's what architects and building surveyors are trained to look at with a view to identifying the best way(s) forward.

ChooseHappy

thearchitect said:

Doozergirl said:

I suspect he wouldn't say it if he weren't.

Part L1B of the Building Regulations.  If you're performing major renovation involving 25% of the envelope, then you are required to improve the uValue.  

It makes perfect sense to insulate anyway, even if it weren't a requirement.  It makes a huge difference.  

Regulation 4 states for work on an existing building that did not comply with the applicable requirements of the Building Regulations (i) the work itself must comply with the applicable requirements of the Building Regulations and - my emphasis - (ii) the building must be no more unsatisfactory in relation to the requirements than before the work was carried out.

That's a fairly standard grandfathering clause (there is a similar one in the Building (Scotland) Act) to prevent local authorities using repair and/or alteration works to get an entire property upgraded.

Regulation 23  provides that where work is being carried out to an individual thermal element and the amount of the renovation is more than 50% of the element's surface area then such work must be carried out to meet the requirements of L1(a)(i). Similarly, where a major renovation is undertaken that also needs to meet the requirement of L1(a)(i).

Before we can proceed we need to understand what constitutes a renovation or a major renovation. Clause 5.6A outlines the meaning of major renovations and means: the renovation of a building where more than 25% of the surface are of the building envelope undergoes renovation where the whole of the building envelope (external walls, floor, roof, windows, doors, roof windows and rooflights) is taken into account.

But if like-for-like replacement is being undertaken then it is not necessarily renovation. Reference to the definitions in the Rgulations becomes essential.

Ergo this isn't necessarily as straightforward as the post had suggested.  It's what architects and building surveyors are trained to look at with a view to identifying the best way(s) forward.

The best way forward is to upgrade our building stock with at least some insulation in order to reduce the amount of carbon pumping out of them and to make the inhabitants more comfortable.  

I haven't worked on a Victorian house where the plaster isn't utterly screwed.  It just gets worse as I get older.  When you break through the top skim to chase for electrics, it either comes off in sheets or the layer behind the top skim has turned to sand and there is nothing to that you can adhere to.   Reading your quotes, what I describe is major renovation and I haven't encountered a building inspector who I believe would accept that it wasn't. 

Even if they did, the vast majority of plaster replacement in this country is not like-for-like on Victorian buildings; it is replacing a traditional wet method of plastering with gypsum board and skim.   

I don't comprehend why architects and surveyors need training to try to justify to anyone that not upgrading the insulation, when staring at a brick wall, was a good idea.    If an architect suggested not doing it, I'd tell the client that their architect was an idiot.   I've only met one.  He who wanted to be so true to the bones of an arguably ordinary, but listed, Edwardian house that he argued for single glazing and no insulation to speak of.  He was, indeed, an idiot. 

Insulation saves money in the long term and building professionals in an incredibly wasteful industry have an obligation to do the best job they can to provide quality homes for people that they can enjoy.    There are long term saving to be had. 
 


    

thearchitect

Well firstly, most Victorian and Edwardian homes - other than  basic stock - are actually lath & plaster, with suitable space behind for installation of cabling.  Raggling of plaster is therefore rarely required in properties of that period.   1960s and 70s homes, on the other hand, are often an early modern gypsum plaster and that is more problematic.

Secondly, where the plasterwork is sound then it will typically incorporate decorative elements such as cornicing which most residents will wish to retain in the principal apartments. 

In the same vein, where room widths are at a premium strapping and lining with another 65-100mm of Kingspan on the external envelope is not always practicable or desirable.  Consideration also has to be given to minimising the risk of interstitial condensation on the rear (inbuilt) face of the solid wall which may require secondary ventilation.

On the other hand we can reduce carbon output by incorporating other measures such as air source heat pumps.  Windows can be double glazed if being replaced (I assume you're not using uPVC, what with the carbon footprint) and attic insulation is usually very cost effective.

But if you think it's a "no brainer" which requires no formal training then do feel free to batter away.

Doozergirl

thearchitect said:

Well firstly, most Victorian and Edwardian homes - other than  basic stock - are actually lath & plaster, with suitable space behind for installation of cabling.  Raggling of plaster is therefore rarely required in properties of that period.   1960s and 70s homes, on the other hand, are often an early modern gypsum plaster and that is more problematic.

Secondly, where the plasterwork is sound then it will typically incorporate decorative elements such as cornicing which most residents will wish to retain in the principal apartments. 

In the same vein, where room widths are at a premium strapping and lining with another 65-100mm of Kingspan on the external envelope is not always practicable or desirable.  Consideration also has to be given to minimising the risk of interstitial condensation on the rear (inbuilt) face of the solid wall which may require secondary ventilation.

On the other hand we can reduce carbon output by incorporating other measures such as air source heat pumps.  Windows can be double glazed if being replaced (I assume you're not using uPVC, what with the carbon footprint) and attic insulation is usually very cost effective.

But if you think it's a "no brainer" which requires no formal training then do feel free to batter away.

Lathe and plaster on an exterior wall?  Are you sure about that? Maybe we only work on basic housing stock that includes listed buildings.  It's a 'most' where I have yet to encounter a house with lathe and plaster external walls.  Interior, of course.  

Cornice can usually be saved, as decorative plaster seems to have more integrity and often, where the cornice is particularly decorative, the plaster on the exterior walls is extremely thick and we can get a good amount of insulation in there.  

Air source heat pumps require a degree of airtightness and insulation to work effectively.   If the purpose of not putting insulation in the walls is to save the OP money, then buying an air source heat pump, which costs thousands and works best with underfloor heating, isn't exactly a logical follow-on move when your house is worth £150k either.  Running the heating off an air source heat pump in an uninsulated Victorian house isn't something I've regularly seen encouraged by anyone.  

thearchitect

You mean lath, and yes. Absolutely.  Unlike timber stud partitions, where it can be afixed directly, it will be fixed to lathing battens typically 1 1/2 x 2-3" at 18" centres held off the wall using wedges fixed into the lime mortar joints.  It's one of the areas you need to watch for woodworm.  It usually means you have something like this:

Doozergirl

Literally never seen it on an external wall and we work almost exclusively on period property.  Not in the two largest cities in England or a fair few counties and I've been intimate with well over 100 houses.   We're talking completely at odds with each other.  

If it was lath then it wouldn't fall off the walls in the way that I described, so what was the point in this conversation?  I said the plaster would fall off, Freebear agreed and pointed out that building control would want it insulating.

You've suggested you could argue that it didn't need insulation but that ultimately now, plaster doesn't fall off the walls because most houses apparently have lath and plaster external walls.  Now air source heat pumps are somehow now better than having any insulation.  

My experience, which is pretty long, is that the majority of houses of that age do not have lath and plaster walls, they are plastered directly onto brick.  The plaster shows itself to be destroyed when disturbed and so the walls have to be stripped back to brick. Stripped walls triggers it as a major renovation and so it needs to meet building regs.  

Two entirely different conversations.   I agree that if the plaster doesn't fall off that no-one can demand that it is insulated but nobody said otherwise.  How much fun was this!

thearchitect

We'll have to agree to disagree.

In my previous role I was head of conservation for a major Manchester practice and the only time I saw plaster on the hard in houses it was two-up, two-down terraces - for example out the back of Sefton, before the urban regeneration works there, or in funny little mill houses in Huddersfield.  Good quality work  is nearly always lath and plaster throughout, which is also what the textbooks confirm.

Incidentally it falls off there's been rot, woodworm, or if someone has given it a hammering and the plaster keys have broken as a consequence.  In practice the latter applies more to ceilings where gravity contributes.

You've also rather simplified my comments on why you might want to retain existing linings and hence upgrade efficiency in other ways.

On a final note, I'm not sure that Freebear really understands the English building regulations beyond doing what he's told to by the BCO.  But that's amongst the reasons why architects and surveyors exist......

Doozergirl

thearchitect said:

On a final note, I'm not sure that Freebear really understands the English building regulations beyond doing what he's told to by the BCO.  But that's amongst the reasons why architects and surveyors exist......

If that is what you thought was the case, then you could have chosen to reply to him with a post that would have been helpful to him or the OP.  Patronising him wasn't a good look when he's one of the most helpful posters on this board.  

thearchitect

If we are to be helpful on this forum, it is important that we give sound advice. 

Comments like this are simply unhelpful (my emphasis):

I don't comprehend why architects and surveyors need training to try to justify to anyone that not upgrading the insulation, when staring at a brick wall, was a good idea.    If an architect suggested not doing it, I'd tell the client that their architect was an idiot.   I've only met one.  He who wanted to be so true to the bones of an arguably ordinary, but listed, Edwardian house that he argued for single glazing and no insulation to speak of.  He was, indeed, an idiot.

And yet, on this very thread, we've seen what might be kindly called an incomplete rendering of the English Building Regulations, an over simplification of the application of insulation in a way which will almost certainly cause or contribute to interstitial condensation, and question marks around one of the standard forms (textbook, in fact, since that's where my sketch came from) of Victorian finishing work.

If you think that correction of these points is patronising then I'm sorry.  Personally I think it's more important to brief people on the issues accurately.