Edwardian houses - improving insulation & Maintenance issues

[Timja]

Looking around a selection of houses tomorrow so will be good to compare back to back. It's tricky when there is a not so nice looking 1970s house (albeit with smaller garden and room sizes, but plenty for us) just down the road for about £175k less than the Edwardian place and that is a lot of cash which could go towards an Aston!

Need to decide the premium between character and being sensible. It's our 1st family house so if we did go sensible in terms of price and age then plenty of years left to get a place with character. In fact, there is an amazing Georgian 2 bed cottage we could get for about £175k and have that as well!

Will see what we think/feel when we look around. Lots to weigh up but really love the character of older properties so trying to find reasons not to get the sensible/boring options!

[AC43]

Croutons said:

Like the £5k roof guess which ended up being £15, but it will last for ages with a complete 25 year guarantee

As a rule of thumb a roof on one of these properties should last 50 years. If it's over that, plan in a new roof at some point.

I (had to replace) the roof on my first (Vicorian) house and my then to-be wife had to do the same on her Victorian flat. Both would have been onto their third rooves.

I didn't do it on my last two houses (Edwardian and Victorian) and I would sometimes get a bit nervous on very windy/stormy days as the nails holding the tiles were ageing and beginning to let go.

The Edwardian one I'm now in had it done just before I moved it - total peace of mind. All the sofits (plastic) , gutters (plastic) , chimney pointing, etc had been done too so no significant maintenance needed on that lot in my my lifetime.

The builder had also replaced all the drains as part of the renovation. Another tick.

Total rewire and re-plumb too.

He's also put in some rather ugly but massively efficient white alu windows which help keep it toasty alongside extra insulation.

In terms of the OP's question the two big ticket items are roof and windows. They help keep the thing waterproof and have a huge impact on the thermal efficiency.

Then you need to think of the plumbing, electrics and drains.

None of this bothers me as I love older properties and it's great to bring them back up to scratch. Just go in with your eyes open and be realistic about the possible costs.

But one word of warning; after a massive refurb and extension in my last Victorian house I couldn't afford to replace all the (huge) single pained windows at the front and it could get really cold in the winter. The savings on capital costs became a leap in operational costs - I've never seen such huge gas bills......

Sold it for a nice profit, though :-)

[AC43]

Timja said:

really love the character of older properties so trying to find reasons not to get the sensible/boring options!

You'll pay more to buy and may have to pay more to bring it up to scratch but you will always get that money back and more if and when you sell. People (esp women) love them and people pay good money for a properly sorted one. And you will love living in it.

I have loved all of mine over the years but then again I never got to scratch my 911 itch.....

Do I regret it? Nope, would rather have a second rate car and a first rate home rather than the other way round. But you may have to make that conscious decision for yourself.

[blade7]

I think the risky ones are the probate sales after someone has lived in them for decades. On the surface they look like they need updating when in reality it's a total gut job, you may just be buying a shell.

[CaptainSensib1e]

If you're someone who needs everthting to be 'jut right' then an older house isn't for you. If yo can accept a few imperfections, and a bit of ongoing maintenance, then go for it!

[paulrockliffe]

blade7 said:

I think the risky ones are the probate sales after someone has lived in them for decades. On the surface they look like they need updating when in reality it's a total gut job, you may just be buying a shell.

Ours (100 years old) was like this and escalated pretty quickly from quite a few largish jobs to rip everything out and start again. Have spent about £40k now and replaced everything you can see and lots you can't, except for the windows, external doors, one wood burning stove and an arch in the hallway. Fortunately our first, very low, offer was accepted so there was plenty of money to get a lot done with and we're left very much 'up' on the deal now it's mostly done.

On-topic, we replaced the floor boards with 22m chipboard, with rockwool in the ceiling and 100mm of celotex between joists downstairs and topped up the loft insulation. I've also cleared a lot of crap from the cavity walls, primarily to cure some damp issues, but also to remove cold spots on the walls. I wouldn't risk filling the cavity. I filled a bay window ceiling with celotex too.

In hindsight I would have raised the kitchen floor with 100mm of celotex, though this would have meant a new door into the conservatory. And I would have insulated internally in the bathroom as it's 3 outside walls, one cavity, 2 solid and is freezing. No access to the roof space, so need to remedy this and get it insulated eventually. Long-term the plan is to remove the ceiling and replace with a a vaulted ceiling that's insulated and with a sky light. That should help a bit, but it is what it is.

There's only so much you can do though, it'll never be 'toasty' But we have 20kW of radiators and 10kW of wood burning and can keep the house warm with just the fires on even the coldest days. Think the balance is about as good as it's going to get, at least until we convert the loft and upgrade the ceiling insulation while doing that.

[AC43]

blade7 said:

I think the risky ones are the probate sales after someone has lived in them for decades. On the surface they look like they need updating when in reality it's a total gut job, you may just be buying a shell.

Well yes and no. As Paulrockliffe says if they are priced to take account of the £50k+ worth of remedial work needed then it's a good thing because you than can get the job done the way you want it.

The worst one I know of in terms of hidden surprises was sold by a former neighbour of mine to a friend. They'd seen us gut ours, extend it and re-finish it to a top standard.

They did a superfiical job on theirs, sold it and emigrated. Six months later it was re-wired, re-plumbed and the proper steels were put in for the loft.....gulp.

Looked great but was pretty bad under the veneer.

Personally I like probates and have bought two as I've preferred to restore it knowing it's being done properly. Fair enough if you can bothered, of course.

[herewego]

andy43 said:

Run.
But if you already own it and it's lime plastered or rendered - or both - do not believe anybody who says you can insulate the walls and not have problems down the line.

What problems?

[Eleven]

AC43 said:

Personally I like probates and have bought two as I've preferred to restore it knowing it's being done properly. Fair enough if you can bothered, of course.

They're lovely.

The last one we bought still had a large urine stain on the lounge carpet where the former owner had collapsed and died. The agent, well prepared, left an air freshener spray on the mantelpiece to cover the smell before each viewing.

In a previous one we viewed there was still a urine stain on the hallway carpet, where the former owner had hung himself by dropping a rope through the loft hatch. He'd removed the landing floorboards to get a decent drop. An indicator of his mental health was the collage he'd made on the back of the lounge door using Polyfilla and marbles.

Shortly before that we saw an un-modernised place where the old dear's knickers and stockings were still on the bedroom chair. The family had been in and rifled the place for anything of value, but everything else was exactly where it had been left by the former owner. It was a very sad sight.

[RicksAlfas]

OP, just keep your eyes open and don't try and make it like a new house in terms of draught proofing and ultra smooth walls.
Instead enjoy the high ceilings, well proportioned rooms and the solidity of the thing.
Our house is from 1871. We have horse hair in our walls and draughts coming out of the strangest places, but I wouldn't swap it for a modern equivalent.

[AC43]

Eleven said:

AC43 said:

Personally I like probates and have bought two as I've preferred to restore it knowing it's being done properly. Fair enough if you can bothered, of course.

They're lovely.

The last one we bought still had a large urine stain on the lounge carpet where the former owner had collapsed and died. The agent, well prepared, left an air freshener spray on the mantelpiece to cover the smell before each viewing.

In a previous one we viewed there was still a urine stain on the hallway carpet, where the former owner had hung himself by dropping a rope through the loft hatch. He'd removed the landing floorboards to get a decent drop. An indicator of his mental health was the collage he'd made on the back of the lounge door using Polyfilla and marbles.

Shortly before that we saw an un-modernised place where the old dear's knickers and stockings were still on the bedroom chair. The family had been in and rifled the place for anything of value, but everything else was exactly where it had been left by the former owner. It was a very sad sight.

Urgh. That's disturbing. Our were fine. They'd been cleared out/tidied up.

[andy43]

herewego said:

andy43 said:

Run.
But if you already own it and it's lime plastered or rendered - or both - do not believe anybody who says you can insulate the walls and not have problems down the line.

What problems?

Traditionally a solid walled house would have had a slate dpc (or none at all), solid walls built with lime mortar, lime plaster internally, and maybe lime render outside, limewashed for colour. Add in a chimney in every room and draughty single glazed windows and everything was great, if a bit cold. The walls breathed, and moved with the seasons.
Start sealing the house up and the ability to breathe is reduced. Covering the walls in anything like rigid cement render, gypsum plaster or weathershield masonry paint is the kiss of death.
Relatives 'restored' their house with modern materials in the 70's - the damage 30 years down the line is immense. The cost to rectify is even bigger than immense. If they'd left the house alone instead of 'improving' it they would have saved literally tens of thousands of pounds.
Covering 200 year old walls with slabs of insulation and then a top coat of render 'system' won't allow the walls to expel the moisture enough long term I reckon. Internal insulation would cover any features - coving etc. Daft.

I think you can get special breathable systems now, designed specifically to cope with older properties. How well proven they are I have no idea.
Payback time on wall insulation is in centuries anyway, so it's all a bit daft trying to save money on heating an old house by spending tens of thousands on sealing it up - if you want to keep Ed Miliband and the polar bears happy, go buy a new house.

Just my opinion - these systems may work great short term but I don't think it's worth the risk

[herewego]

andy43 said:

herewego said:

andy43 said:

Run.
But if you already own it and it's lime plastered or rendered - or both - do not believe anybody who says you can insulate the walls and not have problems down the line.

What problems?

Traditionally a solid walled house would have had a slate dpc (or none at all), solid walls built with lime mortar, lime plaster internally, and maybe lime render outside, limewashed for colour. Add in a chimney in every room and draughty single glazed windows and everything was great, if a bit cold. The walls breathed, and moved with the seasons.
Start sealing the house up and the ability to breathe is reduced. Covering the walls in anything like rigid cement render, gypsum plaster or weathershield masonry paint is the kiss of death.
Relatives 'restored' their house with modern materials in the 70's - the damage 30 years down the line is immense. The cost to rectify is even bigger than immense. If they'd left the house alone instead of 'improving' it they would have saved literally tens of thousands of pounds.
Covering 200 year old walls with slabs of insulation and then a top coat of render 'system' won't allow the walls to expel the moisture enough long term I reckon. Internal insulation would cover any features - coving etc. Daft.

I think you can get special breathable systems now, designed specifically to cope with older properties. How well proven they are I have no idea.
Payback time on wall insulation is in centuries anyway, so it's all a bit daft trying to save money on heating an old house by spending tens of thousands on sealing it up - if you want to keep Ed Miliband and the polar bears happy, go buy a new house.

Just my opinion - these systems may work great short term but I don't think it's worth the risk

What are the actual problems?

[Olf]

Uncle John said:

Jeez, so you think I just walked away without negotiations? Thanks for your informed input but when the roof estimate was 60k and the sellers wouldn't budge on an already very high asking price then I deem that walk away material. Let some other mug buy it and fund their lifestyle, and deal with all the grief of the repairs.

I bought an Edwardian house that according to the surveyor needed a new roof and chimney (all original) and a yard of other expensive work. Next year I'm doing the chimney, so I'll do the roof at the same time, not because it's leaking, I just don't want to scaffold twice.

It's ok though because I've had TWELVE years so far in the house so a bit of time to save up.

The conversation to have with the Surveyor is a simple one. I know you had to write down all of that arse covering st to make sure I don't sue you, BUT, is there anything on that list that would make you walk away, if so what?

My eminently sensible surveyor said 'it's fine, it's a 100 year old house - what else do you expect?'.

Edited by Olf on Friday 27th February 18:05

[C Lee Farquar]

herewego said:

What are the actual problems?

Don't forget the toilet must be returned to the end of the garden as the house wasn't designed to have one in

Incidentally all Edwardian houses should have been built with a damp course.

[blade7]

herewego said:

andy43 said:

herewego said:

andy43 said:

Run.
But if you already own it and it's lime plastered or rendered - or both - do not believe anybody who says you can insulate the walls and not have problems down the line.

What problems?

Traditionally a solid walled house would have had a slate dpc (or none at all), solid walls built with lime mortar, lime plaster internally, and maybe lime render outside, limewashed for colour. Add in a chimney in every room and draughty single glazed windows and everything was great, if a bit cold. The walls breathed, and moved with the seasons.
Start sealing the house up and the ability to breathe is reduced. Covering the walls in anything like rigid cement render, gypsum plaster or weathershield masonry paint is the kiss of death.
Relatives 'restored' their house with modern materials in the 70's - the damage 30 years down the line is immense. The cost to rectify is even bigger than immense. If they'd left the house alone instead of 'improving' it they would have saved literally tens of thousands of pounds.
Covering 200 year old walls with slabs of insulation and then a top coat of render 'system' won't allow the walls to expel the moisture enough long term I reckon. Internal insulation would cover any features - coving etc. Daft.

I think you can get special breathable systems now, designed specifically to cope with older properties. How well proven they are I have no idea.
Payback time on wall insulation is in centuries anyway, so it's all a bit daft trying to save money on heating an old house by spending tens of thousands on sealing it up - if you want to keep Ed Miliband and the polar bears happy, go buy a new house.

Just my opinion - these systems may work great short term but I don't think it's worth the risk

What are the actual problems?

Damp, usually.

[C Lee Farquar]

Ok... but if you insulate externally and then have a render coat the original 9" wall becomes an inner skin.

The construction of the house changes to a fully insulated cavity construction.

It would no longer need to 'breathe' to control penetrating damp, you would just need to ensure that interstitial condensation didn't occur, or if it did, drain externally.

Assuming you believe in rising damp you would need to ensure the dpc was functioning.

No damp

[herewego]

blade7 said:

herewego said:

andy43 said:

herewego said:

andy43 said:

Run.
But if you already own it and it's lime plastered or rendered - or both - do not believe anybody who says you can insulate the walls and not have problems down the line.

What problems?

Traditionally a solid walled house would have had a slate dpc (or none at all), solid walls built with lime mortar, lime plaster internally, and maybe lime render outside, limewashed for colour. Add in a chimney in every room and draughty single glazed windows and everything was great, if a bit cold. The walls breathed, and moved with the seasons.
Start sealing the house up and the ability to breathe is reduced. Covering the walls in anything like rigid cement render, gypsum plaster or weathershield masonry paint is the kiss of death.
Relatives 'restored' their house with modern materials in the 70's - the damage 30 years down the line is immense. The cost to rectify is even bigger than immense. If they'd left the house alone instead of 'improving' it they would have saved literally tens of thousands of pounds.
Covering 200 year old walls with slabs of insulation and then a top coat of render 'system' won't allow the walls to expel the moisture enough long term I reckon. Internal insulation would cover any features - coving etc. Daft.

I think you can get special breathable systems now, designed specifically to cope with older properties. How well proven they are I have no idea.
Payback time on wall insulation is in centuries anyway, so it's all a bit daft trying to save money on heating an old house by spending tens of thousands on sealing it up - if you want to keep Ed Miliband and the polar bears happy, go buy a new house.

Just my opinion - these systems may work great short term but I don't think it's worth the risk

What are the actual problems?

Damp, usually.

With reference to the original insulation statement, what is the cause of the damp?

[blade7]

Condensation, and or damaged slate damp proof barrier.

[herewego]

blade7 said:

Condensation, and or damaged slate damp proof barrier.

But this has nothing to do with insulation. Insulation does not cause condensation or damp proof course failure.