ex-lintel

[Pennyviz]

Hi
I have an old lintel in the wall from a stoned up doorway. The lintel is now well rotten, being concreted in probably didn't help matters but suspect it is pretty old. Property Grade 2 listed. doesn't look like it goes deep into wall, suggestions as to what a builder should do and will I need permission? Hopefully have attached pics

Thanks
Penny

 

[Flyfisher]

Are you sure it is 'well rotten'? I mean right through, as it's not uncommon for oak (if that's what it is) to appear rotten and soft on the outside but hard as nails inside. Have you tried pushing a sharp penknife blade, or similar, into it? If it will only penetrate an inch or so you may not have anything to worry about structurally.

But assuming it is thoroughly rotten (and the apparent paint might also not have helped it) then I don't believe you'd need consent to replace it with a new wooden lintel. However, I think it would be fair to require consent to replace it altogether as this would not only be an alteration but it would also be one that would remove and probably lose forever a part of the history of the house, ie the fact that there was originally a doorway in that position.

Whatever you decide, I'd suggest contacting your local council conservation officer to discuss what you'd like to do and why, perhaps enclosing some relevant photos. This should, at least, give you an indication about their feelings on the matter and whether consent is required.

 

[Maddie-Rose]

Myself I would leave it as part of the story of the original house.

If it's rotten, we used a wood hardener on some really rotten windowcills which savalaged them enough to make good..

 

[Penners]

Are you sure it is 'well rotten'? I mean right through, as it's not uncommon for oak (if that's what it is) to appear rotten and soft on the outside but hard as nails inside. Have you tried pushing a sharp penknife blade, or similar, into it? If it will only penetrate an inch or so you may not have anything to worry about structurally.

But assuming it is thoroughly rotten (and the apparent paint might also not have helped it) then I don't believe you'd need consent to replace it with a new wooden lintel. However, I think it would be fair to require consent to replace it altogether as this would not only be an alteration but it would also be one that would remove and probably lose forever a part of the history of the house, ie the fact that there was originally a doorway in that position.

Whatever you decide, I'd suggest contacting your local council conservation officer to discuss what you'd like to do and why, perhaps enclosing some relevant photos. This should, at least, give you an indication about their feelings on the matter and whether consent is required.

I agree in every respect.

 

[plasticpigeon]

All has been said i think, but if I was in your position I would try and leave it there if possible too.

 

[MikeG]

The only thing I would add to the excellent advice you have received so far is that if you were to replace it, I would suggest a new piece of oak, rather than a reclaimed piece. Reclaimed timber would be mixing up the histories of two buildings, and be a deception. A new piece would reveal the original purpose, but be honest about being a later repair.

 

[88v8]

Mmm.

There is much to be said for resin repair. For painted wood. But behind the surface resin, wood that is exposed to damp, as in this case, may rot worse than before. So hmmm.

Hard to understand, from these two pics, what was here. The infill extends well above. A lintel adrift in a sea of infill. Perhaps it's clearer in the flesh so to speak.

Would be more inclined to use a reclaimed piece. A wonky old piece says that in olden time something was here. A new straight piece would just look blooming odd.
I don't support the academic obsession with being able to 'read' a building. It's bad enough that additions have to be a visual blot, without carrying this daft principle into repairs. A reductio would be a lintel in concrete.

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

Would be more inclined to use a reclaimed piece. A wonky old piece says that in olden time something was here. A new straight piece would just look blooming odd.
I don't support the academic obsession with being able to 'read' a building. It's bad enough that additions have to be a visual blot, without carrying this daft principle into repairs. A reductio would be a lintel in concrete.

Now there's a topic for conversation!

The C17 addition to our c.1550 house was built around an elaborately carved beam believed to have been reclaimed from elsewhere, so even an original build might contain reclaimed materials, making interpretation of buildings more of an art than a science. Of course, in this age of planning and building controls, not to mention the Internet making such information widely available, future building historians will likely be swamped with information about changes to buildings - complete with Blogs, photos and videos of the work actually being done! :lol:

I don't agree about the concrete lintel conclusion though. That would be introducing a change of material as well as just changing the age of the original material and would leave no clue as to what had been replaced.

 

[Pennyviz]

Thanks all. It is totally honeycombed with woodworm and previously I suspect was strengthened by wood hardener and held together with paint. I can tell 'well rotten' I think. Inch deep chunks are now falling off and there is a lot of powder. It might be more solid 3 inches in, but water is just going to get in there as the surface is so uneven, split and porous. Could perhaps ask to somehow chisel off rotten surface layer and replace but suspect any builder will want to just replace whole thing. Part of the problem is that it is probably a medieval doorway and the infill stonework in old doorway has absolutely no foundation so lots of damp in that section of wall too. There is an interior lintel too, marking the doorway, so I imagine there were probably 3 timbers originally. Could just leave it but I'm not sure how much it contributes to stability of wall/stonework above. Think will have to contact CO.

 

[Flyfisher]

'Trapped water syndrome' brought on by cement pointing and modern paint would be my guess, judging from the photograph.

During our restoration work I've come across rotted timbers behind cement render and, in one case, squirty foam while almost adjacent timbers open to the elements were still in good condition. Not to mention oak timbers that have been exposed to the weather for over 400 years yet remain rock hard.

If the timber really is rotten through then fair enough, but do consider the use of lime mortar and non-plastic paints when replacing it rather than just seal it all up again and shorten the life of the new piece.

As for its contribution to the stability of the wall above, if there are no cracks evident then all is probably well. Depending on the thickness and construction of the wall and the depth of the outer lintel it's quite possible that the lintel could crumble to dust without the wall collapsing. I'm no structural expert by any means, but am just speaking from experience of a couple of lintels that had indeed turned to dust without the wall above collapsing - even after many, many years! Also, as I understand things, a lintel doesn't actually support the entire wall above it and if there were a collapse it would typically be the 'triangle' of wall above the lintel, with everything else remaining supported by the 'arch' formed after the collapse. In other words, I don't think there's any immediate danger - though that's easy for me to say as a rank amateur looking at an Internet photograph :wink:

 

[Pennyviz]

Thanks FF. Could be 600 years old if put in at same time as roof, so in which case has lasted quite well! But agree horrible cement and paint not good. It's the old chestnut of finding someone to work in lime though ....

 

[MikeG]

......It's bad enough that additions have to be a visual blot, without carrying this daft principle into repairs. A reductio would be a lintel in concrete.

Ivor

Curious that anyone would think a new piece of timber is a "visual blot". At the time the house was built, would you have considered the whole house to be a visual blot?

a reductio would be no lintel at all. It doesn't need a lintel. The lintel is merely serving the purpose of a historical marker. By your own words, historical markers (or being able to "read a building") are something you don't agree with, and think an "academic obsession". Why, then, do you want to mark the location of a redundant and decayed lintel? Your argument isn't logical, but emotional ("a straight new piece would look blooming odd").

If you had argued "a new piece will shrink and leave gaps" then you'd have been on more solid ground (that issue could be mitigated of course), but a straightforward appeal to emotion amounting to "it's not my taste" isn't a sound argument.

What do you think the original builders would do if they were transported through the centuries and asked to repair the building? If you gave them the choice of a piece of new timber, or a piece of second hand timber, which do you think they would choose? Why would your aesthetic be more important than their judgement?

Oh, and extensions don't have to be a visual blot. That's a silly claim. There are wonderful extensions done to historic buildings every year. Get yourself a decent architect and be blot-free!

 

[88v8]

A wonderful extension would be one where it is not apparent that the building has been extended, unapparent in form or detail. I was able to achieve that in our previous house, but it wasn't listed. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that extensions have to be 'of their time', in other words a blot.
Under that protocol, the 60s bathroom extension to our cottage would still have its tiled rod and Magnet windows, but a PO prior to the listing, raised the roof and had it thatched so it now enhances the beauty of the cottage. Would that be permitted now? No.

Look, you may say, 'of its time' is what the Georgians did and the Victorians did and they have added to the richness of our buildings, but in the same breath many will deplore what they did to mediaeval churches so perhaps what the Georgians and Victorians did they sometimes shouldnae ha done.

The builders of very old used treen. Just as they did in our house. They did not use sawn, planed straight wood. Nowadays, yes, likely they would. But in the context of a period house, that does not make it right. If this lintel is to have any resonance, it has to look old. Preferably it should be treen. It has to say '"I've been here a very long time". Otherwise, as you observe, it might as well not be there. A piece of timberyard wood will not tell that tale, never will.

Emotional? You bet. After all, what other than emotional attraction leads us to live in period houses?

Ivor

 

[MikeG]

A wonderful extension would be one where it is not apparent that the building has been extended, unapparent in form or detail. I was able to achieve that in our previous house, but it wasn't listed. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that extensions have to be 'of their time', in other words a blot.

Your understanding is wrong, Ivor, and your idea of what is a "wonderful extension" is simply that: your own personal taste. It is perfectly possible to do an extension which is in the style of the original. However, what you can't do is make the extension look like it was built at the same time as the original, and you do this by little set-backs in the wall line, and a step-down in the roof line. The extension must be subservient to the original, but can be in exactly the same style and materials, and you are completely wrong to think that extensions have to be modern. In other words, not a blot.

Under that protocol, the 60s bathroom extension to our cottage would still have its tiled rod and Magnet windows

Remember, that protocol exists only in your mind. It isn't real. So your conclusion is completely wrong.

but a PO prior to the listing, raised the roof and had it thatched so it now enhances the beauty of the cottage. Would that be permitted now? No.

Come on Ivor. It's as though you are trying as many ways as possible to be wrong here. Yes, it is perfectly possible to thatch a new extension. Not only have I done that multiple times, I have also built a brand new thatched house.

Look, you may say, 'of its time' is what the Georgians did and the Victorians did and they have added to the richness of our buildings, but in the same breath many will deplore what they did to mediaeval churches so perhaps what the Georgians and Victorians did they sometimes shouldnae ha done.

I can't argue with any of this.

The builders of very old used treen. Just as they did in our house. They did not use sawn, planed straight wood.

Treen doesn't mean what you think it means. Shoes (clogs) can be treen. Fork handles are generally treen. They did use sawn wood, despite what your claim. They planed it too, in places. The most certainly did use straight wood. In fact the piece in question here looks as thought it was absolutely straight as a die when it was fitted.

Nowadays, yes, likely they would. But in the context of a period house, that does not make it right. If this lintel is to have any resonance, it has to look old.

You're dressing up your personal taste as some sort of fact. I challenge you to back up "it has to look old to have resonance" with anything other than appeals to emotion and your personal taste. My personal taste says differently. Why should your taste trump mine? The thing is, I am not making this argument from the perspective of my personal taste. Indeed, I'm not even arguing for my suggestion that new timber be used in this instance: all I am doing is challenging your assertions in support of the use of an old piece of timber.

It has to say '"I've been here a very long time".

There's that assertion again: "It has to". Unless you can provide a good reason why it has to, then this just remains a matter of your personal taste.

Otherwise, as you observe, it might as well not be there.

That's taking my observation out of context. Its purpose for being there is to mark the historic location of that door opening.

A piece of timberyard wood will not tell that tale, never will.

Oh yes it would. It would do exactly that. It says "here is a replacement lintel for an old blocked-up opening".

Emotional? You bet. After all, what other than emotional attraction leads us to live in period houses?

Couldn't agree more. That doesn't inform this decision, though.

Look, I'm persuadable on this. I have changed my position over the years, and may well change it again. What I look for, though, is some degree of persuasive argument, not "this is what I like, so it's right", which is all you've given us in support of your choice.

 

[Penners]

If this lintel is to have any resonance, it has to look old.... It has to say '"I've been here a very long time"

You're dressing up your personal taste as some sort of fact. I challenge you to back up "it has to look old to have resonance" with anything other than appeals to emotion and your personal taste.

I agree with a number of your comments on Ivor's opinions, MikeG, not least with the above.

I have renovated a number of my own timber-frame, period homes, and I have used new, green oak to repair or replace rotten members that are beyond conservation. My subjective view on this is that the new oak against the old not only looks wonderful, but also emphasises the metamorphosis and "cared-for" character of the building over its centuries-long lifetime.

There are no absolute truths in this argument, only (to use your phrase) emotion and personal taste - except of course where these are at odds with the requirements of the Conservation Officer!

 

[MikeG]

.....MikeG......

Mike, please. I use the G to distinguish me from all the other Mike's posting here. Or at least, because it is what I use at a couple of other fora where there happen to be lots of Mikes.

 

[Penners]

Roger, Mike, wilco!

 

[Flyfisher]

I have renovated a number of my own timber-frame, period homes, and I have used new, green oak to repair or replace rotten members that are beyond conservation. My subjective view on this is that the new oak against the old not only looks wonderful, but also emphasises the metamorphosis and "cared-for" character of the building over its centuries-long lifetime.

I agree with the generally subjective nature of these issues but wonder if there are sometimes some underlying 'truths'? For example, oak framing generally relies on green oak moving as it dries out to tighten up the joints and thus stiffening the structure of the overall frame. Might not the use of reclaimed (and therefore fully seasoned and dimensionally stable) timbers actually compromise the design integrity of a building being repaired in this way? A sort of 'style over substance' situation?

 

[Flyfisher]

.....MikeG......

Mike, please. I use the G to distinguish me from all the other Mike's posting here.

I use 'flyfisher' for much the same reason :wink:

 

[Feltwell]

Makes a change from everyone being called "Dave" I suppose. Fine name though it is, in deference to all Davids.

I was addressed as "Gervase" the other day, which I thought was a little random, not the most common of names (and not mine either).