Fireplace Advice

[Anonymous]

Hi, we've started stripping the external wall of it's plaster and mortar, we plan to make this a bare brick wall.
We totally accept that it won't be perfect which is sort of the point.... Anyway having removed the 1960's / 1970's concrete with tile over the top fire surround shown in the first picture and now having exposed a bit more of the brick work around it, I'm wondering how this fireplace / chimney should look...



View attachment 1
I'm thinking the height of the opening should be around full row of bricks 5, though I could be wrong and it could be row 3 all of the bricks in full rows 1 - 3 are loose (not I hasten down to my chipping off the plaster / mortar etc which came off quite easily in this area).

Anyone got any thoughts / advice ?

Paul.

 

[Lime]

I don't like bare brick.

That said your fireplace brickwork opening is likely to be much larger than you are expecting.
Old houses, many Victorian and Edwardian for instance, had brick arches 4 - 5 feet wide and 3 - 4 feet high or more.
Whatever design of flue, grate and fire surround was chosen for a particular room, it was constructed within the arch after the house was constructed.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I think I'm right in remembering that your house is listed isn't it? In which case a change from a plastered wall, which in all probability was always plastered, to a bare brick one is likely to need (and in my view, would not get) listed building consent.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes you are right it is listed, however the plaster / render is actually damaged (by the fibre wall boards that were attached to it) and the damp caused by the large swathes of concrete that were laid (presumably without consent) around the base of the house, oh and let's not forget the replaced windows, the cement mortar, moved and replaced dining room door, the concrete floor and so on...

The plaster and render will need to be removed to be repaired in any case and since the abject failure of conservation to control any of the developments that have already taken place, I'll take my chances (I should say that I've already had a conversation with the conservation office about our intention to strip the wall back to brick and she was fine about it.

Paul.

 

[mims&pip]

Yes you are right it is listed, however the plaster / render is actually damaged (by the fibre wall boards that were attached to it) and the damp caused by the large swathes of concrete that were laid (presumably without consent) around the base of the house, oh and let's not forget the replaced windows, the cement mortar, moved and replaced dining room door, the concrete floor and so on...

The plaster and render will need to be removed to be repaired in any case and since the abject failure of conservation to control any of the developments that have already taken place, I'll take my chances (I should say that I've already had a conversation with the conservation office about our intention to strip the wall back to brick and she was fine about it.

Paul.

Surely you're still going to have to apply for LBC for this though? I'm just thinking about another member here (MatthewC) who - iirc - had a conversation with his conservation regarding a conservatory, was advised verbally that it would get the thumbs up, but on submitting an application for LBC to the agreed design it was declined.

I'm with Gareth on this one, I'm afraid, in that the wall was never intended to be exposed brick and TBH I'm extremely surprised your CO has suggested this work would be approved :shock:

Just saying......

Mims x

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm.... it is interesting that when you ask a simple question about a fireplace you end up with the world and his wife's opinion on everything but the question you ask !

The fireplace that was taken off built on top of the fibreboards that have been brick nailed to the walls clearly wasn't original and as I mentioned due to the boards and the damp caused (probably by the boards, condensation etc and penetrating damp) the plaster on the bottom 1 / 1.5M is falling off and is salt damaged, the condition of the plaster generally is poor due to the damp but also the nails that were used to attach the fibre boards. To that end my view is that this would all need to be removed as part of a repair to the wall in any case.

The assertion that the wall was originally plastered would also seem to be not necessarily true since now I seem to have also got airbrick chimney vents under the plaster at the top of the wall which surely would not have been covered originally.

Once it's stripped I'll take a view about recovering it and never the less get any consents that would be necessary.

Paul.

 

[bobby spray]

The height of the opening - any opening including this 'builders hole' is limited to the position of the lintel. I can't see anything that look like a lintel except the slab directly above the opening. I would suspect that the original is higher up or worst case has been removed.

 

[mims&pip]

I think I'm right in remembering that your house is listed isn't it? In which case a change from a plastered wall, which in all probability was always plastered, to a bare brick one is likely to need (and in my view, would not get) listed building consent.

I concede that some of our responses were not answering your original question, but I disagree that the observation by our esteemed member, Gareth Hughes (quoted above) is the opinion of "the world and his wife". As PP mentioned in a previous thread of yours, Gareth is a highly regarded Conservation Officer who knows his onions :wink:

Of course your own CO knows better the likelihood of LBC being granted for such works in your area, so maybe we are wrong and you are right........

Good luck with your project.

Mims x

 

[Lime]

Hmmmm.... it is interesting that when you ask a simple question about a fireplace you end up with the world and his wife's opinion on everything but the question you ask !

.............

Paul.

I thought I had answered it.
The last picture you posted of a fireplace insert and brick fill is what is to be found behind almost all original fireplaces.
It looks ugly doesn't it?
But it is authentic.
It is probable that the ugly brickwork was installed in a much neater arched opening as I described previously.

 

[Anonymous]

ok enough now I think, this topic is becoming a flame and is the reason I stopped joining these type of forums before. Gareth / anyone else's qualifcations are not in question.
Some people have endeavoured to answer my question for which I thank you and some have taken it upon themselves to offer an opinion of what I should and shouldn't do when I never asked for that.

How do I get the moderators to close this post closed to new comments please.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Since the gap that has to be spanned is very small, literally just over a bricks width, could it be that there is a metal strap somewhere? Or perhaps because the gap is so small that there is no structural arch at all. In my house these small bedroom combination fireplaces have a very very rudimentary arch behind, which consists of 2 bricks with the corners broken off laid slightly at an angle from horizontal with the broken corners butting up to each other in the centre to form a chevron shape. Often these things are very rough behind the stuff that shows. The slightly loose bricks above are probably not an issue, I can't see them being a structural problem, but I'm sure repointing would help hold them together a bit better.

Unfortnately the way people should treat listed buildings (by law) and they way they can be treated without repercussion are often very far apart from each other. It seems like the previous owners took a few liberties. If you work with your conservation officer all will be fine I'm sure.

Talk of flames in a fireplace post. Who'd have thunk it! :wink:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Yes you are right it is listed, however the plaster / render is actually damaged (by the fibre wall boards that were attached to it) and the damp caused by the large swathes of concrete that were laid (presumably without consent) around the base of the house, oh and let's not forget the replaced windows, the cement mortar, moved and replaced dining room door, the concrete floor and so on...

The plaster and render will need to be removed to be repaired in any case and since the abject failure of conservation to control any of the developments that have already taken place, I'll take my chances (I should say that I've already had a conversation with the conservation office about our intention to strip the wall back to brick and she was fine about it.

Paul.

The various things that have harmed the building probably pre-date its listing in 1986. However, you posed the question:
"Anyone got any thoughts / advice ?"
This was in relation to your query:
"I'm wondering how this fireplace / chimney should look"
It should not be a bare brick wall - I and others have given you thoughts and advice. You seem to be offended that they have done so.
However, I would add to them this - do not take on trust a "conversation with the conservation office about our intention". The work you are doing undoubtedly does require listed building consent, and "taking your chances", as you put it, on the basis of a short conversation is not the way to go about things. At the very least, follow up in writing before going any further. The same goes for demolishing the kitchen chimney which you mention in your other post.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Gareth,

thanks for your input, I'm not offended in the slightest. I didn't realise that everyone got so passionate about this stuff, which honestly I think is a good thing

I don't want this topic to descend into a war of words, I simply wanted to ask a question about the fireplace in the dining room which some (quite a few) including you have also provided some advice on. Some feel it necessary however to try to impose their opinions (and that's all they are) on others and that's what I don't like.

The question of the render / plaster I agree is something to discuss however but as I've pointed out the damage done to the wall covering by the fibreboards that were brick nailed to it on 2"x2" batons also brick nailed to it and the ingress of penetrating damp caused by the high ground level mean that the lower section of the wall plaster / render is basically falling off in lumps. Removing the brick nails due to their design also does further damage.

My view is that this will need to be removed in any case and if necessary redone (again which I've no issue with doing should that be required). I would just add that the damp fibreboards that were attached to the walls were almost certainly done in 1953 which predates the listing, however no one is suggesting (at least I hope not ) that these boards should remain. Nor the concrete floor that's been added God knows when !

I will as has been suggested ask the conservation officer her opinion like I did when we had a site visit (prior to purchasing the property) to confirm that it's ok in her view to strip the wall and if necessary consent would be applied for.

Paul

 

[Pennyviz]

Just get it in writing - anecdotally have heard stories of conversations that have been denied by CO's and one CO to approve verbally then change of Co and next CO to be different opinion. Penny

 

[mims&pip]

Some feel it necessary however to try to impose their opinions (and that's all they are) on others and that's what I don't like.

It's honestly not a question of imposing opinions though, it's more a case of gently warning you - and you admitted you were novices when it came to restoring older properties - to tread carefully around the LBC issue :wink:

None of us here - and between us we have a ton of experience of restoring all manner of old buildings to their former glory - would want a fellow member to be hung, drawn and quartered (or more likely, fined) for not going through the correct channels/or for doing what is not right by the building that at the end of the day, you are merely a temporary custodian of.......

I for one, was sorry to see you had removed the link to your blog as it promised to be an interesting journey of discovery. Hopefully you will decide to reinstate it

Mims x

 

[OliveTree]

I thought I had answered it.
The last picture you posted of a fireplace insert and brick fill is what is to be found behind almost all original fireplaces.
It looks ugly doesn't it?
But it is authentic.
It is probable that the ugly brickwork was installed in a much neater arched opening as I described previously.

When did vermiculite start being used to backfill firebacks?

 

[Lime]

When did vermiculite start being used to backfill firebacks?

Vermiculite has been mined since the mid 1800s but its use for backfill in domestic fireplaces is IMO relatively recent.
IME almost all fireplaces installed before WW2 were backfilled, if required, with builders' debris of no value.
Where any fireproof insulation was required in those days, asbestos was the goto material right upto the mid 1970s.
At that time almost all flats and converted houses of more than 2 storeys had stairs, doors and corridors of escape lined/covered with bare asbestos sheet for fire protection.
It was also used in loose fibre form as a loft insulation.
It is only in more recent times of DIY (1960s 0nwards) that any money was ever been spent to backfill domestic fireplaces IMO.
Consequently I suggest that vermiculite began to be commonly used for backfill late 1970s onwards.

 

[LadyArowana]

IIRC when our Aga was dismantled* they vacuumed out all the innerds amd said it was vermiculite.

*Do not fear Aga lovers, she was unharmed. Although an old model, pre-1974, she was given a new lease of life. Converted from gas to electric, shot blasted, re-enamelled and given some new bits.