Fireplace and plumbing conundrum...

[Kearn]

So, as daylight is minimal, I thought it would be a perfect time to stick my head up a fireplace (or two) again...! I never learn!

Both these are early Georgian, one above the other, which I opened up a year or two back and have been putting off for a while in favour of actually finishing other jobs. They may be put back into action at some point, but not at this stage - both are bedrooms, for now. Therefore, I will make them useable but not be installing liners at this stage and probably using balloons to stop some draughts.

Downstairs is an inglenook, presumably built to follow the style of the main inglenook in the older cottage, with original beam having been exposed and a later Georgian surround added further on and reduced in width slightly with an insert (hob grate I think) of sorts at some stage, with 9x9 beauties on the hearth, some of which were still in place, and I've matched the rest well so will be reinstated.

Upstairs, slightly smaller opening, potentially open fire originally, possibly not, certainly had a hob grate later on - hard to tell from the remnants of the hearth which has been messed with over time, although there are original looking pavers very similar in style and thickness to the 9x9s downstairs. Both fires and stack were added at the same time.

So my thoughts / plans:

Downstairs - fix up plaster around fire, leaving beam on show, probably plaster the fronts of the piers depending on brick condition. Repoint the internal brickwork, replace missing fireback, without over cleaning, relay the hearth in 9x9s, including the extended gap in floorboards which had 9x9s in it at point of uncovering.


I still have the wooden surround, added during the later cast iron days, but obviously the original opening is far wider, about a 10 inches each side which would visually be odd. Seen below as where we started before buying the house.


Upstairs - Repoint the internal brickwork, without over cleaning, remove the later added extended 6x6 tiles and relay the full hearth with extension - either in pavers or 9x9s, but probably pavers given its smaller size and to give more flex on layout pattern.


Downstairs 9x9s seemed to be laid directly onto compacted infill / soil and upstairs pavers were on about an inch of bedding lime, but neither pointed. My intention I think is to bed onto a similar depth of lime to give some rigidity and allow for varying thickness of tiles. Then probably also point to deal with inevitable gaps.

I have all the tiles, pavers and bricks required, which is a godsend.
I have some previously used ready mixed coarse (3:1) and fine stuff (2:1) from plastering internally, need to check as its been stored, but airtight under a layer of water so hopefully will mix up ok.

So, Qs...

- thoughts on bedding on compacted soil vs lime?
- what to point in - both tiles and also brick work?
- and...

the main challenge - It should be pretty obvious!! Some lazy plumber decided that a bricked up fireplace was effectively a wall and ran heating pipes across the front... Now, our house has some interestingly routed pipework, based on it being timber framed and having a boiler shifted significantly since pipework was run. These pipes serve a rad in this room and the one in the room below which is the last in the circuit, so they are necessary and frankly there aren't many easy alternative routes to run them - floor void in this room is too shallow. We could route them downstairs first and run under the boards there, but that is no small undertaking, requiring the full floor to be lifted, and these are original full room width, 9 inch pitch pine boards that I'd rather not mess with.

So, the initially simplest bodge would be to route them under the hearth, but lack of access if anything goes wrong doesn't make sense to me?
It wouldn't be right, nor possible to run behind the surround as there isn't clearance.

And this is why I've been putting this relatively simple job off for so long....!

any thoughts much appreciated!!

 

[paulc]

So, the initially simplest bodge would be to route them under the hearth, but lack of access if anything goes wrong doesn't make sense to me?

You want to avoid too many ups & downs in the pipework in order to minimise the risk of air locks. Is it possible to relocate the offending radiators so that you don't have the pipes running across the hearth ?

One concern I do have regarding the opening up of a fireplace in a bedroom - If you ever intend to have an open fire, please get yourself a carbon monoxide alarm. Toolstation currently have a basic model on sale for a tenner. It could save a life if the fireplace is ever used.

 

[Kearn]

Relocating is possible, would mean moving them from under the windows, but would solve the fireplace issue, just require new holes to take the pipes down in the other corner of the room, which means some other damage to fabric.

Regarding sensors, yes always good advice, these fires aren't currently to be used, although the fireplaces that are being used elsewhere have sensors of course.

Cheers

 

[noj]

The bodge under the hearth seems sensible to me. It's a minimal run and what can go wrong with a couple a of straight bits of pipe (famous last words) with no embedded joints?

You could run them through some plastic waste pipe too so that they're fully protected from the bedding lime and if the system works in its current configuration you're not introducoing and major changes to the flow

 

[88v8]

I'm rather with noj on the pipework. In any system there are always pipes that are hard to reach, so if it's a solid run of copper and in a sleeve - which is a good point - I would see no problem. Defo wouldn't take up that wood floor.
Otherwise go up the wall into the attic, put in an automatic air vent, then down the wall again.
Rads are best under windows, so if that's where they are I'd leave them be.

I'd be more concerned about getting rid of the modern rads and putting in some cast iron but you obviously have more pressing tasks atm.

The downstairs tiles, if I udferstand aright you won't be walking on them so bedding on earth/NHL/gritsand seems fine. Do you really need to point them?

Brickwork... depends how closely you want to match the existing pointing, or will you rake it all out and repoint....
Anyway, NHL3.5 and some sort of sharp/grit sand, or if the joints are too thin then silver sand.
If the end result looks too clean then spray it with some very dilute soot water when the mortar is dry. (Alert! not really reversible!)

I admire your vision. A lot of people would have left that stickabrick fireplace alone.

Ivor

 

[Kearn]

Thanks Ivor and Noj, I am leaning towards the straight run sheathed under the front most row of tiles, to minimise disruption at this stage. At some point the whole house needs re-plumbing for it's new boiler location, so I'm comfortable with this being a 'temporary' bodge (for the next x decades probably!!!).

The loft is a thought indeed... Moving the rads isn't really on the cards. Replacing them at some point is, but as you say, it is further down the list, as they a) work and b) are hidden!

The downstairs tiles, if I udferstand aright you won't be walking on them so bedding on earth/NHL/gritsand seems fine. Do you really need to point them?

Of all the tiles up and down, it would only be the outer section that protrudes into the room that would ever possibly be walked on, but not regularly. Ivor, are you suggesting a dry bed and compression alone? Most of the tiles are 2inch, so unlikely to shift once in place, although the bedding in lime was more to help me with some of the reclaimed tiles of varying thickness to produce a level.

Pointing tiles, not necessarily, assuming the edges allow close enough packing - part of my thinking here was if i didn't bed them in lime, then pointing would help solidify a touch.

Brickwork... depends how closely you want to match the existing pointing, or will you rake it all out and repoint....
Anyway, NHL3.5 and some sort of sharp/grit sand, or if the joints are too thin then silver sand.
If the end result looks too clean then spray it with some very dilute soot water when the mortar is dry. (Alert! not really reversible!)

I admire your vision. A lot of people would have left that stickabrick fireplace alone.

My current intention, which may change, is a stiff brush clean up to remove some of the loose plaster / soot, but not spotless. Then repoint where necessary only, and re-soot to blend back in, so colour matching isn't essential. The majority of the pointing is sound, but there are some very crumbly areas which need remedying and an obvious amount of brick shift and resulting crack, although the back isn't structural or tied in, so just a case of packing joints and replacing the underlying burned out / missing bricks.

Believe it or not, these two fireplaces were originally opened up around the time I started to investigate our main inglenook which was 2 years ago next month, but I got carried away starting too many jobs that I couldn't finish!!

There's no way those hideous fill-in's were going to stay!! Upstairs was literally just a brick wall.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

A dissenting voice...

Why oh why are people obsessed with (re)creating inglenooks in rooms that really don't suit inglenooks?
Nice mid eighteenth century fire surround, part of the long history of the house, in need of a new insert and hob grate, removed in favour of a hole in the wall with a wonky bit of beam over it that might appeal to a handful of archaeologists and Fred Flintstone.

I assume either:
The house isn't listed (odd, given its evident age and interest), or;
Listed building consent has been obtained for this (in which case the conservation officer must be mad), or;
Listed building consent hasn't been obtained, in which case you're committing a criminal offence.

For the good of the house, please find a suitable hob grate and reinstate the Georgian fireplace.

 

[Kearn]

Thanks for the thoughts Gareth, its a shame COs aren't consistent across the board locally, as it would possibly save needing to ask the internet for advice sometimes...

I wouldn't personally choose 'obsessed' as a motivation.
I've no desire to force something on a room that isn't correct. However as with the rest of our beautiful historic home that we're looking after temporarily, the last 70 odd years, especially the previous 7 when it was 'modernised' in the most common and inappropriate of ways, we are keen to reverse what damage we can, to do justice to the buildings and eras they came from.

Not knowing the room, its hard to judge what is appropriate, albeit this started as an open beamed early Georgian fire when constructed in the early 18C. With a later Georgian surround and hob grate added a good few decades later based on bricks used for the secondary piers. What is for sure, is that the hideous modern brick-ettes did not belong, however I'm sure many could argue that these were also part of the house's history if they wished.

A nice surround indeed, removed carefully and dry stored, such that it can have close to 10mm of paint removed which is blotting the detail, but more importantly so that the huge volume of poured concrete and engineering bricks could be extracted from the opening where they had damaged the piers and hearth, in addition to over a metre and a half high of debris, damp soil, nests and all the other lovely stuff that hides away over the decades without care. Out of sight doesn't equate to out of mind here.

The opening is currently at a point of being fully cleaned out, checked, bricks repointed securely and a hearth being put back in again. What happens next is not decided. It's an interesting debate, as to what is correct for the room and also the house in totality - original, maybe half a century later or half a century ago? - all part of its evolution through time. The irony is that if we were listed when most of the properties in the village were, which was clearly not a robust assessment by any means, then to quote Ivor, the Stickabrick fire would likely have been protected, along with all the detrimental things it was hiding.

I'm certainly not a criminal, many thanks. But I am very committed to investing a lot of time, money, energy, blood, sweat and tears in these beautiful buildings that we are lucky enough to currently call home. And have done a significant amount over the past 5 years to remedy modern issues above and beyond the long overdue maintenance.

 

[88v8]

Of all the tiles up and down, it would only be the outer section that protrudes into the room that would ever possibly be walked on, but not regularly. Ivor, are you suggesting a dry bed and compression alone? Most of the tiles are 2inch, so unlikely to shift once in place, although the bedding in lime was more to help me with some of the reclaimed tiles of varying thickness to produce a level.
Pointing tiles, not necessarily, assuming the edges allow close enough packing - part of my thinking here was if i didn't bed them in lime, then pointing would help solidify a touch.

Mmmm, if the solid bed is solid you could leave it at that. Although take your point about padding out with lime to take up varying thicknesses. Equally valid. Pointing or not would be an aesthetic decision really. Very thin pointing adds little to the strength as it's impossible to get the mortar down into the joint. If the gap is wider, then yes point them.

My current intention, which may change, is a stiff brush clean up to remove some of the loose plaster / soot, but not spotless. Then repoint where necessary only, and re-soot to blend back in, so colour matching isn't essential. The majority of the pointing is sound, but there are some very crumbly areas which need remedying and an obvious amount of brick shift and resulting crack, although the back isn't structural or tied in, so just a case of packing joints and replacing the underlying burned out / missing bricks.

Believe it or not, these two fireplaces were originally opened up around the time I started to investigate our main inglenook which was 2 years ago next month, but I got carried away starting too many jobs that I couldn't finish!!

Good, yes, basically doing the minimum.
Oh I entirely believe the two years. Quick jobs that weren't, changing priorities. I have work here that I started six years ago.

Your exchange with Gareth is classic, undoing negatives, how far to rewind the clock, the risk of Disneyfication, recreating features such as an inglenook that were eagerly deleted in C19 because they were a fuel-eating wind tunnel.

Recent owners of our cottage have evolved things in a largely positive direction, including removing both our later fireplaces in 1972, but I am thankful to have stoves in our inglenooks.

Ivor

 

[paulc]

Very thin pointing adds little to the strength as it's impossible to get the mortar down into the joint. If the gap is wider, then yes point them.

A cheap icing bag from somewhere like Poundland and a thin spatula are both very handy to have in the toolbox when doing grouting/pointing.

 

[Feltwell]

Oh I entirely believe the two years. Quick jobs that weren't, changing priorities. I have work here that I started six years ago.

Six years ago? Ivor, you're clearly an amateur at procrastination! :wink:

I can beat 6. But not more than 11 - and that's only because that's when I moved in.

 

[Kearn]

Very thin pointing adds little to the strength as it's impossible to get the mortar down into the joint. If the gap is wider, then yes point them.

A cheap icing bag from somewhere like Poundland and a thin spatula are both very handy to have in the toolbox when doing grouting/pointing.

Indeed, one of the most useful things I picked up when repairing small blown patches of original lime plaster was a stainless flexible round ended cake icing spatula!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Two simple questions:
Is the building listed?
Do you have listed building consent for the work you are doing?

 

[Kearn]

Two simple questions:
Is the building listed?
Do you have listed building consent for the work you are doing?

That's really a compound question based on an assumed answer to the first part. However, there's one simple answer: no.

What I'd actually be interested in a viewpoint on, rather than dissent, is the logical reasoning behind how and when a line is drawn in time, on which era should be preserved/recreated?

For example, why in your strong opinion, is reverting to a later Georgian addition and evolution, by sourcing an insert not from this property, a more honest solution than an originally created fireplace? And similarly, why shouldn't the most recent addition by protected?

 

[88v8]

What I'd actually be interested in a viewpoint on, rather than dissent, is the logical reasoning behind how and when a line is drawn in time, on which era should be preserved/recreated?

For example, why in your strong opinion, is reverting to a later Georgian addition and evolution, by sourcing an insert not from this property, a more honest solution than an originally created fireplace? And similarly, why shouldn't the most recent addition by protected?

Ahh, the shading between restoration and recreation, the preservation of a perceived 'wrongness' that exists (eg the stickabricks) and the relative merits of a 'rightness' that only partially exists (eg the Georgian surround with no grate, or for that matter the inglenook with neither grate nor fireback.)

Our inglenooks have their original beams and bread ovens, and are jolly nice, but no original grates nor firebacka, and the hearths were laid in the 70s when the later fireplaces were removed. The later fireplaces I never saw, but they were there. As you say, was it right to remove them?
Define 'right'.

A jolly interesting topic, by no means confined to fireplaces, which imho deserves a separate thread.

Ivor

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Two simple questions:
Is the building listed?
Do you have listed building consent for the work you are doing?

That's really a compound question based on an assumed answer to the first part. However, there's one simple answer: no.

What I'd actually be interested in a viewpoint on, rather than dissent, is the logical reasoning behind how and when a line is drawn in time, on which era should be preserved/recreated?

For example, why in your strong opinion, is reverting to a later Georgian addition and evolution, by sourcing an insert not from this property, a more honest solution than an originally created fireplace? And similarly, why shouldn't the most recent addition by protected?

The later - if it really is later - fire surround is good of its kind, in its own right, and I am not at all convinced that what you've exposed behind it, even if it were tidied up a bit, would actually present an accurate recreation, in its entirety, of a fireplace that existed in that room before.
Therefore, the logical thing to do is to retain and where ncessary improve the last good thing, not to go looking for something earlier that is incomplete. Status wise, a hole in the wall with a wonky beam over it is wrong for the room as it now is and has been for most of its life.
I'm not even a great enemy of the 1930s brick insert. It's perhaps a bit too recent to have claims to special interest, yet, but it doesn't strike me as specially hideous.

 

[Flyfisher]

Interesting discussion, and an interesting use of ‘logical’. Surely there is nothing logical about any of these decisions? They are based on opinions and fashions, not rule-based logic.

 

[88v8]

Status wise, a hole in the wall with a wonky beam over it is wrong for the room as it now is and has been for most of its life.

I think this is roughly how I've come to feel about old features in general. They work best when they have context.
In the 80s I removed a 50s tiled fireplace - we found parts of the 1920s original buried in bits beside the house - from our sitting room and replaced it with a stickabrix, which we liked at the time. But when we eventually decorated the room in the early 90s it had morphed into a Victorian/Edwardian setting, the décor, the doors, the furniture, and the fireplace looked quite wrong. If we'd stayed there I'd have replaced it, probably with an Edwardian wooden surround and an inset.

The OP could decorate and furnish the room to match the later fireplace, not so readily the early one. It would be a fish out of water.
I suppose in conservation terms the thing to do would be to uncover, conserve and photograph that earlier fireplace, then cover it up again.
Is this too 'academic'?

Glad I didn't have to make such choices in our cottage. I'd be in a right dither.

I do like that lintel beam. It's a grown lintel - grown that is, in the same way that some ships had grown knees.

Ivor