Spray foam loft insulation removal, likely cost?

TELLIT01

We live in a 1930's semi which had spray foam applied to the underside of tiles nearly 30 years ago as there was nothing under the tiles.  Open cell and nothing to indicate any problem with timbers which are solid if probed.

I'd like to get a very rough idea of likely cost for removal before contacting any of the firms offering the service.  Floor plan is very approximately 20' x 30' with hip roof and typical fairly steep pitch as seems standard for properties of that age.  I would estimate the ridge as being between 8' and 9' high.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Green_hopeful

You can remove it yourself if you are up for it.  Apparently its very hard work. There is a conservation facebook group that has quite a bit of information on removing spray foam. I did a search but you will have to join the group to see it i think. It’s called ‘Your old house uk - repair and conservation’ if you want to search for it. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1023449561785486/search/?q=Spray%20foam

WIAWSNB

Hi Tellit.

Why do you want to remove it? Are you planning to sell, for example?

How old is the actual roof covering - I presume a lot more than 30 years? Is it even original?

Assuming it'll cost £k's to remove the foam, would it make sense to leave it until you can recover the whole roof, and potentially add value to your property? What style of covering is it, and have any similar properties been redone in your 'hood that suit a different finish? (Our 30's bungalow had very dated-looking asbestos-cement tiles, replaced by real slate when we lofted - sooo much more attractive).

If you have concerns about the foam causing rot, then I think a mid-way resolution could be to slice away V-slots down alongside each rafter, and remove these strips of foam. No idea whatsoever how easy or hard this could be to do...

My thinking - and that's all it is - is that it'll remove the contact between the foam and the main rafters - so they will be able to breathe and not be affected by rot - and also allow a route out for any rain that may be getting past the roof covering; you may be able to monitor better what's going on.

TELLIT01

We want to release capital from the property as we have no children to leave the house to.  Other relatives are welcome to the residue when we pop our clogs but we aren't planning to do without for that to happen.  No equity release company that we have found will lend on property with foam roof insulation.  We may go the route of having all the tiles and battens replaced, but that doesn't alter the fact that the spray foam still has to go.  It's not a job I can tackle myself.

The spray foam as basically across the tiles and battens and only an inch or so onto the rafters.  The purpose was to avoid the risk of losing tiles when there was no felt behind the battens.

Green_hopeful

Please look at other options than equity release. Its such a bad deal for customers. 

Albermarle

spray foam applied to the underside of tiles nearly 30 years ago as there was nothing under the tiles. 
The purpose was to avoid the risk of losing tiles when there was no felt behind the battens.

Does not really help with your current situation, but maybe worth knowing that many older houses have no felt or covering behind the tiles, without it causing any issues.

WIAWSNB

TELLIT01 said:

We may go the route of having all the tiles and battens replaced, but that doesn't alter the fact that the spray foam still has to go.

My point is, if recovering your roof - new tiles and battens - is carried out, the foam will be gone as a direct result. So the foam removal won't - shouldn't - cost any extra.

So, if it doesn't cost 'that' much more to recover your roof compared to having the foam removed, then the former is a much better solution. A new roof should add value to your property, possibly even enough to counter the difference in cost.

Say you are quoted £3+k for foam removal (seems typical), and - ooh - £7k-ish for a new recover of a terraced property (ditto), then I would suggest the extra outlay of ~£4k for the new roof is the way to go. 

A full roof recovering is surely bound to increase your property's value by £5k or so? And make it more desirable.

I'd suggest the starting point is to get actual quotes for both options. Have any similar properties in your hood had a roof done recently? If so, worth asking the owners who they used, if they would recommend, and an idea of the cost?

Is your roof original? What about your neighbours? If a few of you get this done at the same time, it should be both cheaper overall, and a better finish.

Olinda99

Equity release is a bit expensive at the moment it might be worth waiting until we've had a few cuts in interest rates

Silvertabby

Green_hopeful said:

Please look at other options than equity release. Its such a bad deal for customers. 

You mean it's a bad deal for those who expect to inherit.

We don't have children, either.  Just nieces and nephews with expectations who, in the meantime, can't even be bothered to return Christmas and birthday cards.

Once told sis-in-law that if one of us needed nursing home care, the other would take out maximum equity release to help pay for a decent, local, home of our choice.

Sis-in-law tried to tell us we couldn't do that, because as we were both over 60 the Council couldn't touch the house.  What she actually meant was that her children's 'inheritance' would be reduced. And sod the fact that the one needing care would just be dumped in any old 'over my dead body' council run home.

More likely that we will take out some form of equity release to make our lives more comfortable in our later years - ie, cleaner, gardener, odd jobs, personal care, etc.

FreeBear

TELLIT01 said:

We live in a 1930's semi which had spray foam applied to the underside of tiles nearly 30 years ago as there was nothing under the tiles.

My roof just had reed & lime mortar torching under the tiles. In the ~90 years since it was constructed, much of the torching had disappeared along with a lot of the reed.

WIAWSNB said:

TELLIT01 said:

We may go the route of having all the tiles and battens replaced, but that doesn't alter the fact that the spray foam still has to go.

My point is, if recovering your roof - new tiles and battens - is carried out, the foam will be gone as a direct result. So the foam removal won't - shouldn't - cost any extra.

So, if it doesn't cost 'that' much more to recover your roof compared to having the foam removed, then the former is a much better solution. A new roof should add value to your property, possibly even enough to counter the difference in cost.

Say you are quoted £3+k for foam removal (seems typical), and - ooh - £7k-ish for a new recover of a terraced property (ditto), then I would suggest the extra outlay of ~£4k for the new roof is the way to go. 

A full roof recovering is surely bound to increase your property's value by £5k or so? And make it more desirable.

Depending on where @TELLIT01 is in the country, a basic strip & replace might cost around £5K where the bulk of the tiles can be reused. But with foam holding the tiles in place, I'd imagine most would get damaged during removal. Having to replace all the tiles could quite easily bump the cost up to £20K.

With the foam in place, many surveyors would put a zero valuation on the property or downgrade by £20K+ to account for a new roof. A new roof may not increase the value compared to similar properties in the locale, but would avoid the down valuation and increase the appeal if/when it goes on the market.

TELLIT01

Albermarle said:

spray foam applied to the underside of tiles nearly 30 years ago as there was nothing under the tiles. 
The purpose was to avoid the risk of losing tiles when there was no felt behind the battens.

Does not really help with your current situation, but maybe worth knowing that many older houses have no felt or covering behind the tiles, without it causing any issues.

The house attached to us (semi-detached) has lost a number of tiles in storms during the time we've lived in this house, so the theory of securing the tiles was a good one at least.