Property developer asbestos, remove or encapsulate?

Bigphil1474

anselld said:

Bigphil1474 said:

Personally I'd remove it. Yes, it costs more, but it's far less hassle for future owners. It's just a case of who takes that hit to get it done. Having it skimmed over is just kicking the can down the road IMO. Agree with tacpot.

"Kicking the can" suggests it will need to be removed at some later date.  It does not; it is perfectly safe to leave indefinately if not disturbed.

You're right, it doesn't need to be removed. But for a developer, they would be lumbering the next owner with the asbestos to consider, and every subsequent owner would need to be notified that there is ACM in the ceiling. Eventually, someone will drop the ball. And eventually, some work will need doing on that ceiling. It is highly unlikely that am artex coating on a ceiling in a house will never need to be disturbed. Kicking the can is accurate.

Section62

anselld said:

Skim.  Perfectly normal and generally safer than removal anyway.

What is the basis for that claim?

What is the risk if a professional asbestos removal company is employed to remove the asbestos-containing material, and clean up?

Personally I'd remove - as other posters have said, skimming it only covers up the problem, leaving it for other people to find at a later date.  I'd not want my children or grandchildren doing work on a ceiling not knowing there was a layer of asbestos hidden inside it, and I'd extend the same feeling of concern to other people's children and grandchildren.

"Encapsulate" is just a fancy way of saying "hide", and give the false impression the result is somehow safer.

vic_sf49

gemmacots said:

Thanks all for your comments. I agree that removal is the best long term solution but not sure there would be any profit left as it costs a lot more to remove than encapsulate and inform any future buyer. Just wondered what other property developers do in this situation. I think I may look for an alternative property without the asbestos unless I can get this one for a lower price so I can get it removed safely. Thank you all for taking the time to respond  👍

If your profit margin can be eaten up by the difference between those two things, then I definitely wouldn't be bothering buying that house.

I don't have an idea of costs between the two, but don't think it'd be in somewhere up in the 5 figures, which is the minimum I'd want as a profit.

Happy to be corrected ref the costs. 

Zekko

If the ceiling is in good condition, leave alone.

If there are lots of cracks I would have it over-boarded with plasterboard and then skimmed, rather than just skimmed. 

Less mess than a complete removal of the artex, and more stable against further cracking compared to just skimming - cracks in artex substrate may still propagate through a fresh skim but won’t do so through new plasterboard+skim.

The dangers of asbestos in artex are quite overblown. 

https://cancerchat.cancerresearchuk.org/f/ask-the-nurses/106866/asbestos-exposure

Bigphil1474

The danger comes from repeat exposure to asbestos fibres, particularly when creating dust from jobs such as drilling, sanding down, or removing - if the ceiling is encapsulated or boarded over, what about the builder who is asked to replace it in 20 years time? A commercial property has to keep an asbestos register so that every person who does any work in that building knows exactly where it is. They also have to manage it, until some time when it is removed. A domestic property owner doesn't. The next owner of this property might not even be told there is ACM when they move in. Unnecessary risk to life to save a few quid is bonkers, and it's good to see the OP moving on.