Help me price this basic referb - 2 bed 1700's cottage
Discussion
jason61c said:
First off, dont cement the floor, you'll push moisture into the walls.
Its about £100 per sq/M for 3 coat lime work it seems, this should include removing existing. internal 2 coat is cheaper still.
As above, thats a bonkers quote, totally nuts.
jason61 doesn't suggest what else to do other than cement which is pretty common and I suspect having a traditional wood joist floor wouldn't work, we had an original rubble floor which was dug out, dwarf walls built, tanking done and then joists and boards fitted - a lot of work but worth it.Its about £100 per sq/M for 3 coat lime work it seems, this should include removing existing. internal 2 coat is cheaper still.
As above, thats a bonkers quote, totally nuts.
strath44 said:
jason61 doesn't suggest what else to do other than cement which is pretty common and I suspect having a traditional wood joist floor wouldn't work, we had an original rubble floor which was dug out, dwarf walls built, tanking done and then joists and boards fitted - a lot of work but worth it.
limecrete floor. I wouldn't do any type of 'tanking'.jason61c said:
With a correctly done floor you don't need a membrane with limecrete.
Putting a membrane will only force damp into walls etc.
I understand that's what is said but I see no evidence that it's true. Water/moisture has to obey the laws of physics, it seeks equilibrium. You can't force it into the walls unless there is hydrostatic pressure. How can you get hydrostatic pressure below a membrane unless there is a spring or high outside ground level?Putting a membrane will only force damp into walls etc.
The other issue is the general claim that you'd get more damp by having a membrane. How can this be? A limecrete floor allows the sub floor to reach equilibrium the the environment in the room. So all the sub floor damp is going into the room. A membrane can't create more moisture so it can't allow more damp into the structure than a limecrete floor would.
Final point, the soil outside of the property (the other side of these walls we're so worried about forcing damp into) will be saturated for much of the year. Ample moisture to make an internal contribution irrelevant.
Of course where a sub floor is reasonably dry you don't need a membrane. A proper sub base will make this work in many cases. But there are other houses where the sub floor is saturated, for example due to a high water table. Surely no membrane will result in the floor being unacceptably damp?
Is the house listed? There aren't many from that period which aren't and what you're planning (removing a wall, putting in an RSJ, replacing a lot of internal plastering and digging up most of the floor of the house) sounds like it requires Listed Building Consent and you should first speak to your council's conservation officer before anything else to know what you may be allowed to do and what spec you should be using when getting quotes.
Despite the common misapprehension, listing doesn't just cover the exterior, it covers everything; internal, external, structural, even plumbing and position of pipes. If it's not listed, by all means, proceed as you like, but if it's not listed, it could get you into serious trouble and you might have to put back to what it was like before you messed with it, even many years later. When you come to sell, solicitors will (should!) note the extent of work which requires LBC and if you don't have it, you won't be able to sell.
Despite the common misapprehension, listing doesn't just cover the exterior, it covers everything; internal, external, structural, even plumbing and position of pipes. If it's not listed, by all means, proceed as you like, but if it's not listed, it could get you into serious trouble and you might have to put back to what it was like before you messed with it, even many years later. When you come to sell, solicitors will (should!) note the extent of work which requires LBC and if you don't have it, you won't be able to sell.
C Lee Farquar said:
I understand that's what is said but I see no evidence that it's true. Water/moisture has to obey the laws of physics, it seeks equilibrium. You can't force it into the walls unless there is hydrostatic pressure. How can you get hydrostatic pressure below a membrane unless there is a spring or high outside ground level?
The other issue is the general claim that you'd get more damp by having a membrane. How can this be? A limecrete floor allows the sub floor to reach equilibrium the the environment in the room. So all the sub floor damp is going into the room. A membrane can't create more moisture so it can't allow more damp into the structure than a limecrete floor would.
Final point, the soil outside of the property (the other side of these walls we're so worried about forcing damp into) will be saturated for much of the year. Ample moisture to make an internal contribution irrelevant.
Of course where a sub floor is reasonably dry you don't need a membrane. A proper sub base will make this work in many cases. But there are other houses where the sub floor is saturated, for example due to a high water table. Surely no membrane will result in the floor being unacceptably damp?
Its good enough for modern day building control to sign it off.The other issue is the general claim that you'd get more damp by having a membrane. How can this be? A limecrete floor allows the sub floor to reach equilibrium the the environment in the room. So all the sub floor damp is going into the room. A membrane can't create more moisture so it can't allow more damp into the structure than a limecrete floor would.
Final point, the soil outside of the property (the other side of these walls we're so worried about forcing damp into) will be saturated for much of the year. Ample moisture to make an internal contribution irrelevant.
Of course where a sub floor is reasonably dry you don't need a membrane. A proper sub base will make this work in many cases. But there are other houses where the sub floor is saturated, for example due to a high water table. Surely no membrane will result in the floor being unacceptably damp?
http://limecrete.co.uk/limecrete/
I've also tried in my own home replacing damp concrete with nhl5 lime floor, direct to earth and it worked a treat.
To be honest though, just stripping modern gypsum plaster/cement render/tanking out and replacing with lime plaster has got rid of any signs of damp.
fesuvious said:
I live in a property parts of which are mid sixteen hundreds.
Its a mongrel after that. Extended in all manner of ways, etc etc.
I have ended up feeling sorry for every tradesperson that we've employed. This house throws curve balls directly at the heads of anyone that makes changes to it.
Maybe this guy has been bitten by an old property in the past.
I'm guessing that. Never underestimate the capability of a knackered old pile to kick you squarely in the bIts a mongrel after that. Extended in all manner of ways, etc etc.
I have ended up feeling sorry for every tradesperson that we've employed. This house throws curve balls directly at the heads of anyone that makes changes to it.
Maybe this guy has been bitten by an old property in the past.
ks. Stone walls, rubble filled. Once. Now just dusty rubble held together with paint on the outside and paint and more dust masquerading as plaster on the inside.
I don't think he wants the job!
ILoveMondeo said:
Nice cottage
Can you tell me where the sofa is from? Looks good! I want one!
Ta!
Thanks Can you tell me where the sofa is from? Looks good! I want one!
Ta!
It's from furniture village, a year or two old now though so unsure if they are still doing it.
QuickQuack said:
Is the house listed? There aren't many from that period which aren't and what you're planning (removing a wall, putting in an RSJ, replacing a lot of internal plastering and digging up most of the floor of the house) sounds like it requires Listed Building Consent and you should first speak to your council's conservation officer before anything else to know what you may be allowed to do and what spec you should be using when getting quotes.
Despite the common misapprehension, listing doesn't just cover the exterior, it covers everything; internal, external, structural, even plumbing and position of pipes. If it's not listed, by all means, proceed as you like, but if it's not listed, it could get you into serious trouble and you might have to put back to what it was like before you messed with it, even many years later. When you come to sell, solicitors will (should!) note the extent of work which requires LBC and if you don't have it, you won't be able to sell.
Nope, not listed, so free to do as I wishDespite the common misapprehension, listing doesn't just cover the exterior, it covers everything; internal, external, structural, even plumbing and position of pipes. If it's not listed, by all means, proceed as you like, but if it's not listed, it could get you into serious trouble and you might have to put back to what it was like before you messed with it, even many years later. When you come to sell, solicitors will (should!) note the extent of work which requires LBC and if you don't have it, you won't be able to sell.
jason61c said:
C Lee Farquar said:
I understand that's what is said but I see no evidence that it's true. Water/moisture has to obey the laws of physics, it seeks equilibrium. You can't force it into the walls unless there is hydrostatic pressure. How can you get hydrostatic pressure below a membrane unless there is a spring or high outside ground level?
The other issue is the general claim that you'd get more damp by having a membrane. How can this be? A limecrete floor allows the sub floor to reach equilibrium the the environment in the room. So all the sub floor damp is going into the room. A membrane can't create more moisture so it can't allow more damp into the structure than a limecrete floor would.
Final point, the soil outside of the property (the other side of these walls we're so worried about forcing damp into) will be saturated for much of the year. Ample moisture to make an internal contribution irrelevant.
Of course where a sub floor is reasonably dry you don't need a membrane. A proper sub base will make this work in many cases. But there are other houses where the sub floor is saturated, for example due to a high water table. Surely no membrane will result in the floor being unacceptably damp?
Its good enough for modern day building control to sign it off.The other issue is the general claim that you'd get more damp by having a membrane. How can this be? A limecrete floor allows the sub floor to reach equilibrium the the environment in the room. So all the sub floor damp is going into the room. A membrane can't create more moisture so it can't allow more damp into the structure than a limecrete floor would.
Final point, the soil outside of the property (the other side of these walls we're so worried about forcing damp into) will be saturated for much of the year. Ample moisture to make an internal contribution irrelevant.
Of course where a sub floor is reasonably dry you don't need a membrane. A proper sub base will make this work in many cases. But there are other houses where the sub floor is saturated, for example due to a high water table. Surely no membrane will result in the floor being unacceptably damp?
http://limecrete.co.uk/limecrete/
I've also tried in my own home replacing damp concrete with nhl5 lime floor, direct to earth and it worked a treat.
To be honest though, just stripping modern gypsum plaster/cement render/tanking out and replacing with lime plaster has got rid of any signs of damp.
TA14 said:
That's OK but I'm with silly on this one seeing no benefit in having a lime floor over a concrete one and the lime floor's slow setting time and lower strength are drawbacks.
NHL 5 is quite quick setting/strong.If i'm honest, it's a fairly expensive system and i'm trying to work out a cheaper way to do my floors. By the time you've used the whole 'system' plus a breatheable covering it adds up.
Jason, did you have it ready mixed or do it yourself?
I looked into supplying ready mixed a couple of years ago and it didn't really stack up then, although the gross margin was good.
I had a customer (builder) who laid one for the first time, which IIRC, was on the insistence of a BCO but I suspect it was more to do with listings.
The reason given was the expansion and contraction of a concrete slab was incompatible with random rubble walls. It was a new floor in an old cottage. This seems nonsense when a 10mm expansion joint is sufficient for a concrete slab with UFH.
I looked into supplying ready mixed a couple of years ago and it didn't really stack up then, although the gross margin was good.
I had a customer (builder) who laid one for the first time, which IIRC, was on the insistence of a BCO but I suspect it was more to do with listings.
The reason given was the expansion and contraction of a concrete slab was incompatible with random rubble walls. It was a new floor in an old cottage. This seems nonsense when a 10mm expansion joint is sufficient for a concrete slab with UFH.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff