We were undertaking what I had hoped/expected were cosmetic repairs to a single storey bay window. It had plastic-y paint all over the stone and the cills had been rendered in thick cement.
The area below the bay window had been rendered in concrete too and when removing it (to ideally just restore some stonework or, if not possible then re-render in lime) we discovered all manner of bodging. It looks like the bay may have been entirely reconstructed at some point and one column was barely being held up with concrete blockwork. There was a crack in the render here and I think this is the explanation. We have no record of when this was done or why.
It looks as though the stone (or what's left of it) sits on some very deteriorated bricks which then sit on earth, so barely any foundation. Behind this, there appears to be an inner skin of more modern bricks (i.e. not original based on the pattern on the bricks, what looks like cement pointing and they are untidy). We don't know what these sit on. I'm not sure if they actually serve a structural purpose because my understanding is that the stone holds the bay up but I'm not an expert.
The stonemason was originally going to pour a strip of concrete from the compacted earth up to the level of the existing patio (probably about 100mm deep). A new bath stone plinth would sit on this and then all off the stonework would be built up from here. I don't think he was intending to do anything to the inner skin of brick and I understand this was just to give a solid base to put the outer stone on.
Whilst the stonemason was confident, we got a bit nervy with the idea of doing anything around the footings so we have spoken to a structural engineer - we hoped someone could provide reassurance and say "yes, this is ok, you need to put concrete in here because there isn't a foundation and you can't just lay the stone onto earth". It also seemed prudent to have some kind of documentation. The engineer has provided a sketch which suggests digging down further and putting in concrete below both the stonework and the inner skin of brickwork. Under the stone they then suggest engineering bricks and then the stone on top of that.
Has anyone got any thoughts on the proposed solution and whether it is necessary to go under the inner skin of bricks as well? That seems much more extensive than the stonemason originally suggested, but I'm not sure what would happen if the outer skin of the bay (i.e. stone) sat on concrete and the inner skin didn't. There would also be a mismatch in levels beneath the ground, so perhaps that is why going under both has been suggested.
I feel like getting the engineer involved has potentially made things more complicated than if we had just told the stonemason to sort it. This wasn't being undertaken because there were particular problems with the bay (despite how bodged it was!). There are a few minor cracks but nothing significant and it was meant to be a cosmetic repair to the deteriorated stone. Digging down below both the inner and outer wall doesn't feel very pragmatic given that it isn't really resolving a problem and is a much bigger job.
We also feel like if we went ahead we could have walked into a minefield of doing something that could be classed as underpinning which then has all kinds of potential repercussions, when in reality we just want to repair a total bodge job that has been done in the past. Infact, the previous owner had damp proof work done and this mess must have been exposed but then covered back over!
Feeling very stressed about all this.
The area below the bay window had been rendered in concrete too and when removing it (to ideally just restore some stonework or, if not possible then re-render in lime) we discovered all manner of bodging. It looks like the bay may have been entirely reconstructed at some point and one column was barely being held up with concrete blockwork. There was a crack in the render here and I think this is the explanation. We have no record of when this was done or why.
It looks as though the stone (or what's left of it) sits on some very deteriorated bricks which then sit on earth, so barely any foundation. Behind this, there appears to be an inner skin of more modern bricks (i.e. not original based on the pattern on the bricks, what looks like cement pointing and they are untidy). We don't know what these sit on. I'm not sure if they actually serve a structural purpose because my understanding is that the stone holds the bay up but I'm not an expert.
The stonemason was originally going to pour a strip of concrete from the compacted earth up to the level of the existing patio (probably about 100mm deep). A new bath stone plinth would sit on this and then all off the stonework would be built up from here. I don't think he was intending to do anything to the inner skin of brick and I understand this was just to give a solid base to put the outer stone on.
Whilst the stonemason was confident, we got a bit nervy with the idea of doing anything around the footings so we have spoken to a structural engineer - we hoped someone could provide reassurance and say "yes, this is ok, you need to put concrete in here because there isn't a foundation and you can't just lay the stone onto earth". It also seemed prudent to have some kind of documentation. The engineer has provided a sketch which suggests digging down further and putting in concrete below both the stonework and the inner skin of brickwork. Under the stone they then suggest engineering bricks and then the stone on top of that.
Has anyone got any thoughts on the proposed solution and whether it is necessary to go under the inner skin of bricks as well? That seems much more extensive than the stonemason originally suggested, but I'm not sure what would happen if the outer skin of the bay (i.e. stone) sat on concrete and the inner skin didn't. There would also be a mismatch in levels beneath the ground, so perhaps that is why going under both has been suggested.
I feel like getting the engineer involved has potentially made things more complicated than if we had just told the stonemason to sort it. This wasn't being undertaken because there were particular problems with the bay (despite how bodged it was!). There are a few minor cracks but nothing significant and it was meant to be a cosmetic repair to the deteriorated stone. Digging down below both the inner and outer wall doesn't feel very pragmatic given that it isn't really resolving a problem and is a much bigger job.
We also feel like if we went ahead we could have walked into a minefield of doing something that could be classed as underpinning which then has all kinds of potential repercussions, when in reality we just want to repair a total bodge job that has been done in the past. Infact, the previous owner had damp proof work done and this mess must have been exposed but then covered back over!
Feeling very stressed about all this.