{"id":21841,"date":"2016-01-04T11:49:59","date_gmt":"2016-01-04T11:49:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/?p=21841"},"modified":"2016-01-04T11:49:59","modified_gmt":"2016-01-04T11:49:59","slug":"warranty-historic-buildings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/building-control-news\/warranty-historic-buildings\/21841\/","title":{"rendered":"A warranty for historic buildings?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peter Ward, Partner at Heritage Consulting Ltd examines how traditional buildings can still meet warranty conditions after renovations have taken place, along with the different skill sets and knowledge required to undertake the work properly\u2026<\/span><\/h2>\n

As \u2018Historic Building Surveyors\u2019 our practise constantly deals with the clash between building regulations requirements, and the needs of historic buildings to breathe. Building Control Officers (BCO\u2019s) can only work with the scope and content of the regulations they are given.<\/p>\n

When I first started working with old buildings, I was ridiculed for my use of the word \u2018breathability\u2019. Now, breathability is recognised in Part L1B and L2B \u2013 but sadly still only quoting \u2018special considerations may apply\u2019 (Para 3.8c).<\/p>\n

We have come a long way from universal application of damp proofing, tanking, and cement rendering of our old buildings, to an acceptance of the fact we have been doing things very wrongly. This has been focussed with the release of British Standard BS7913: 2013 \u2013 Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings – a mammoth effort by IHBC, and main author, John Edwards. My only regret is the title \u2013 \u2018Conservation\u2019 as it conjures up thoughts of specialists, difficult work and strange \u2018expensive traditional materials\u2019. \u2018Historic\u2019 makes us think of National Trust, Listed Buildings and Historic England. The Standard could be more aptly be described as \u2018Surveying and looking after Old buildings\u2019.<\/p>\n

For traditional buildings to have a chance of meeting warranty conditions after restoration, BCO\u2019s need clear guidance that allows them to differentiate between an \u2018old \u2013 traditional, or breathable\u2019 building, and modern construction. They are not specialists in old buildings, nor have they trained to be \u2013 until recently there has been no requirement to pay anything but lip service to a few paragraphs (3.6 to 3.13 of L1B), often only when requested by a Conservation Officer in relation to a Listed Building.<\/p>\n

We need to make a fundamental leap of faith, recognising that ALL old buildings, be they Listed or not, need the same treatment. There needs to be a clear definition of an \u2018Old Building\u2019 \u2013 one built using breathable materials, whether brick, stone, or timber, using lime mortars and plasters, mud or clay lump. The fact is that nearly 25% of our building stock is constructed this way.<\/p>\n

Because of the lack of understanding of breathability, both by RICS surveyors, BCO\u2019s, and many architects, the damp industry has thrived in this country since the early 1960\u2019s. It is based on the inadmissible use of \u2018damp meters\u2019 which don\u2019t even measure damp. This industry has instilled a culture of \u2018damp and timber\u2019 treatments within the survey, real estate, and building control industry. We are brainwashed into accepting and using the terms \u2018Injection Damp Proof course\u2019, \u2018Rising Damp\u2019, \u2018Tanking\u2019, \u2018Remedial Damp Proofing\u2019 \u2013 and associated \u2018guarantees\u2019 which are such a big part of most old house sales. We have never seen a single \u2018guarantee\u2019 honoured. We have never seen the mythical \u2018rising damp\u2019. It is ominous that a google search of \u2018rising damp\u2019 is confined to England \u2013 the United States is strangely free of the \u2018rising damp\u2019 which apparently blights our old houses. This industry is single-handedly responsible for most problems of retained moisture within the fabric of old buildings today. It is rare to survey a house that has inherently dry walls, and original breathable lime plaster, external walls free of cement strap pointing, and some form of damp proofing.<\/p>\n

For work on an old building to allow it a chance of survival for another 100 years, those involved need to learn and understand the basis of breathability. They must understand the processes which take place within \u2018traditional\u2019 materials, and the reasons for failure \u2013 the return of dreaded \u2018damp\u2019 and associated decay processes. We need to boot \u2018rising damp\u2019 and the damp industry into the trash can, and introduce simple, structured training and advice for both the professionals, builders, craftsmen, and labourers involved.<\/p>\n

There is a sea change taking place within the industry. Many more tradesmen are learning traditional skills \u2013 5 years ago, finding a lime plasterer was akin to getting an audience with the Pope. Now, a google search reveals numerous entries, and Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are busy with recently completed projects by a growing army of traditional builders. Timber framing, lime plastering and stone masonry feature prominently in the courses run by the Heritage Craft Alliance, supported by the NHTG (National Heritage Training Group). The dark cloud on the horizon was a recent decision by CITB to cease funding the NHTG, seen by many as a refusal by government to support traditional skills training. BRE research by Colin King is showing that assumptions about heat loss in solid walls are incorrect. He recently told me \u201cA DRY old house is a warm house\u201d.<\/p>\n

A recent example we have dealt with embodies many of the points made<\/span><\/h2>\n

We surveyed a recently completed development \u2013 a row of late 17th C Listed buildings, renovated and sold by a developer. Building Regulations complied with, and Conservation consulted extensively. Historic England asked whether \u2018damp proofing\u2019 recommended by the builder was suitable. Their advice was not to damp proof. Critically, NO specification was provided to the builder, either by the architect, Conservation, HE, or Building Control. The resulting development was sold, and within 12 months, many rooms in 3 houses were showing peeling plaster, damp, and mould. The builder had injection damp proofed, cement tanked every wall, and gypsum plastered. He had re-pointed in cement, and cement rendered the front elevation \u2013 in his words \u201cTo make sure it stayed dry\u201d. These buildings are now being stripped and restored using traditional methods under our supervision \u2013 the builder is allowing independent craftsmen to undertake the works, funded by his liability insurance. Clearly, the builder was not at fault here \u2013 the project architect never understood the building fabric, Building Control approved standard conditions and clauses, and Conservation never specified ANY materials to be used. There was NO specification for traditional, breathable materials in any of the project documents.<\/p>\n

The solution:<\/p>\n