Upstairs ceiling on house

robbiejustice

Doozergirl said:

That looks like the cheapest
renovation ever.    

I wouldn't want to buy it on principle.  The kitchen looks like they threw the units in and left them where they landed.
 

Yer I don't mind stuff like that, it can be easily changed. The house was rented for a time but the last tenants trashed it so they did the cheapest possible renovation to make it sellable. It's liveable in and we can change things as we go along.

robbiejustice

stuart45 said:

Easiest solution on a cut roof is replace the joists with collars to give you an extra ft.  
However it could well be trusted rafters.

I'll investigate this. Would be a while in the future but I'd like to know there is an option that isn't crazy like taking the roof off. 

robbiejustice

Here's the planning drawing - 

https://pa.canterbury.gov.uk/omt-server/lt/index.jsp?docKey=QuHQNAH2tZKUCEOZxkPzO-mm0P_oJBj5OIuScUyVJFxof4xRHuJXaxrZMpjly1yjuS3lHXOXbyPMMhntd4oi5A

Section62

robbiejustice said:

I'll investigate this. Would be a while in the future but I'd like to know there is an option that isn't crazy like taking the roof off. 

The planning drawings show the main roof being trusses. If that is what has been built then raising the ceiling will require reconstruction of the roof, or some complicated (read 'expensive') structural work.

The curious thing is that although the original application was refused for being overbearing of the neighbours - the concern appears to be limited to the impact of the first floor where it was to extend back beyond the rear walls of each of the neighbouring houses.  The change which led to the revised application being approved was to reduce the extent of the 1st floor rearwards. 

There's no mention of the height of the main roof, so no obvious reason not to have taken the walls up another 6" or so to give more ceiling height in the first floor rooms.


When you visit with your friend you ideally need to arrange to be able to look in the loft (there's an access in one of the bedrooms) to confirm that the roof system is trusses built as per the drawing.


But bear in mind that even if it is feasible to increase the height, the cost involved in doing so is unlikely to be recouped in increased value of the property.  Plenty of people would be willing to buy and live in a property with ceilings at the height they are now - they aren't so bad that the property is unsaleable.  The roof is also only about a decade old, so there's no maintenance benefit to be achieved from a replacement roof.

Bendy_House

robbiejustice said:

I need to work out what a reasonable budget might be (with a large margin for error). 

I probably will be able to cope, just annoying. Plus potential buyers in the future will be thinking the same. Doesn't bother my partner but then she's 5'1".

See the link below. The pictures hide very well the fact the drive is on a steep incline. There is access down one side only with enough room for a narrow digger (should be but not checked that yet). 

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/59719882/?search_identifier=d84e0b8feadf76faec05ea6cad6f3beb

Well, that surprised me. There's clearly enough 'roof' (loft) upstairs, so the most crazy-expensive option of literally having to 'raise the roof' isn't required.

As you say, Robbie, take your builder friend along and check out the loft. I can't see any obvious reason why the ceiling cannot be raised up the required amount. This would give you an attractive ceiling slope along one side of each room, but the headroom could then be what you want. This appears to be 90% 'joinery' work.

It may even be that this could be done to just the two main bedrooms - whichever these are - to save cost, and the other two left as they are. This is a traditional 'cut' roof made up of joists, rafters, purlins, hangers, ridge collars and whatsits (I am very good at Googling). So why can new ceiling joists not be mounted a foot or two further up?

(Someone is now going to embarrass me with the answer...)

I'd have thought that Canterbury would be a pricey area, so this strikes me as being quite a lot of house for the money? But I don't know.

stuart45

I can't get the plans up, but Section62 thinks the roof construction is trussed rafters, probably fink, which are normally used nowadays rather than a traditional cut roof.
They can be altered, but really requires an SE to work out what can be done.

Section62

stuart45 said:

I can't get the plans up, but Section62 thinks the roof construction is trussed rafters, probably fink, which are normally used nowadays rather than a traditional cut roof.
They can be altered, but really requires an SE to work out what can be done.

I found the Canterbury site to be flaky and had to use a different machine to access the documents.

From memory the plans showed a simple variant of attic truss, but no idea whether that is what was actually used. I think there was also a note to say the trusses would be designed based on site measurements (or words to the effect). So the finished roof could be anything.

If they did go for Attic then the bottom tie will be doing a heck of a lot of work, so cutting that out would definitely need input from a clever SE.  I'd imagine that stripping the roof and starting again would be a more economic solution than trying to modify what's there.

robbiejustice

Section62 said:

robbiejustice said:

I'll investigate this. Would be a while in the future but I'd like to know there is an option that isn't crazy like taking the roof off. 

The planning drawings show the main roof being trusses. If that is what has been built then raising the ceiling will require reconstruction of the roof, or some complicated (read 'expensive') structural work.

The curious thing is that although the original application was refused for being overbearing of the neighbours - the concern appears to be limited to the impact of the first floor where it was to extend back beyond the rear walls of each of the neighbouring houses.  The change which led to the revised application being approved was to reduce the extent of the 1st floor rearwards. 

There's no mention of the height of the main roof, so no obvious reason not to have taken the walls up another 6" or so to give more ceiling height in the first floor rooms.


When you visit with your friend you ideally need to arrange to be able to look in the loft (there's an access in one of the bedrooms) to confirm that the roof system is trusses built as per the drawing.


But bear in mind that even if it is feasible to increase the height, the cost involved in doing so is unlikely to be recouped in increased value of the property.  Plenty of people would be willing to buy and live in a property with ceilings at the height they are now - they aren't so bad that the property is unsaleable.  The roof is also only about a decade old, so there's no maintenance benefit to be achieved from a replacement roof.

Thanks for the info and good points.

I think the people who had the work done must be quite short. The light fittings in each room reach down such that anyone taller than say 5'9" would bang their head on them so perhaps the ceiling height is ok for them. 

robbiejustice

stuart45 said:

I can't get the plans up, but Section62 thinks the roof construction is trussed rafters, probably fink, which are normally used nowadays rather than a traditional cut roof.
They can be altered, but really requires an SE to work out what can be done.

Fair enough, I read structural to be expensive so probably never really worth unless it really bugs me.

stuart45

I'm 6ft as well, and live in a cottage where downstairs is 6ft 6in from floor to bottom of exposed joists and upstairs 6ft 5ins from floor to ceiling. Worst thing is the door frame heights which you do get used to.
My wife got me to paint the walls and ceiling the same colour which does make the ceiling height look better. Also saved cutting in and paint waste.