Ohh no, not another damp question.......

[Penners]

top notch work

No argument there - a real craftsman's job.

Does lead porn involve flashing?

 

[Feltwell]

Does lead porn involve flashing?

:roll:

Damn, why didn't I think of that one first? :wink:

 

[jocelyn plummer]

I have never seen such a spectacular piece of flashing--that's perfect !

 

[steveb]

I hope you are sitting outside in your rocking chair with your shotgun over your knees to deter the scallies. I didn't use very much lead on our place and I'm still paying it off

excellent job though, I am jealous

 

[Feltwell]

Yes, some low-life nicking the lead is a concern. I'm told though by Quinn, the lead worker I've used, that it's become much less common. There's also really not much lead there to nick - what the low-lifes tended to do was use a Stanley knife to take the panels out between the wood-cored rolls, leaving the well secured elements in place. Pretty much all of this is well secured, it would take some serious effort to get it all off.

A few years ago he said he was inundated with work as a result of lead theft, from Churches especially - sometimes they'd finish a job replacing stolen lead on a Friday, only to be called back on Monday to say it's been stolen again.

However, thefts have apparently cut right back and he gets next to no work as a result of thefts now. Scrap yard regulations changing to ban cash payments has apparently had a major effect, as has security tightening with initiatives like SmartWater marking and roof alarms on churches.

There's also less lead to nick, on the most vulnerable buildings in particular. The Church's insurers were apparently refusing to pay out on some vulnerable buildings, which resulted in some terrible damage as roofs went unrepaired. Something of a "Mexican stand-off" developed where the insurers were refusing to pay out to replace lead only to have it stolen again, but English Heritage / Local Authority were refusing to have anything other than lead on a listed building. Apparently a compromise emerged in some cases where the lead could be replaced with a single ply roofing membrane as a "temporary roof" - not really that temporary, it has a minimum 35 year life, although you could argue that relative to the age of the average church that is temporary!

This article is a year old but shows church roof lead theft as dropping by 70%:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28857517

Apparently metal theft from railways is down by a large amount as well.

Ohh dear, I'm tempting fate here aren't I..... I haven't looked outside this morning yet! :shock:

 

[malcolm]

Your bay roof looks lovely, very nicely detailed.

Thanks for posting such detailed photos - they will be a useful reference when I get around to fixing my bay which is currently rear sloping but front draining.

 

[Feltwell]

No problem Malcolm. I wanted to keep mine as rear draining rather than put guttering around the front, but if you're happy to have guttering then it will make the job easier and cheaper to correct the slope and make it front draining.

Also, I didn't strictly need the middle wood-cored roll - that's there to make it look better, it would have looked a little odd with rolls just at the sides. I didn't realise what they are for until I saw them being done on this roof - it's quite clever really. The lead sheets overlap at each roll, but the shape of them being "undercut" at the bottom means that the lead sheet is trapped between each one and cannot lift out, but is still free to expand and contract - they are fixed on one side only. Every day's a school day!

 

[Flyfisher]

The rear gutter is in code 8 lead, really heavy stuff, and is turned up as far as it can possibly go on both sides - it should never leak in my lifetime. All very reassuring as really having the gutter at the back is not the best design ever.

I know what you mean but having seen how well this rear gutter has been implemented I'd certainly have no qualms about it. The build looks solid enough to be structural, the functionality looks perfectly able to cope with any weather and the ground level effect is one of clean lines and neatness compared with a guttering option. Far from being 'not the best design ever' I'd say it would be hard to improve.

I suppose most people will never notice or appreciate it, but there's immense pleasure and appreciation in seeing something done so well - or perhaps that's just me?

 

[Feltwell]

No, it's definitely not just you!

I've no worries at all about it now, especially after we stripped the manky old felt off and found that even under that it has clearly never leaked to do any damage. Quite a surprise actually, as the coving in the room behind has clearly got wet at some point, and we always thought that was due to some past leak on the roof. Maybe it was from a leaking pipe in the room above, who knows?

My worst nightmare would have been uncovering a timber bressumer supporting the building over the bay, which was rotten from years of a leaking roof, the roof having been hastily patched up with felt and left. Luckily, no such sign.

 

[DJH]

Nice job, as usual, from Quinn.....

Code 8...pah :wink: ...try 9, 10 or 12 which I once used in an over length gutter which could not be structurally shortened to take code 8, but also for the back and sides of cisterns.

Doug

 

[MatthewC]

However, thefts have apparently cut right back and he gets next to no work as a result of thefts now. Scrap yard regulations changing to ban cash payments has apparently had a major effect, as has security tightening with initiatives like SmartWater marking and roof alarms on churches.

I really cannot see why that common sense sort of regulation took so long to introduce, nor why some people were against it

There's also less lead to nick, on the most vulnerable buildings in particular. The Church's insurers were apparently refusing to pay out on some vulnerable buildings, which resulted in some terrible damage as roofs went unrepaired. Something of a "Mexican stand-off" developed where the insurers were refusing to pay out to replace lead only to have it stolen again, but English Heritage / Local Authority were refusing to have anything other than lead on a listed building. Apparently a compromise emerged in some cases where the lead could be replaced with a single ply roofing membrane as a "temporary roof" - not really that temporary, it has a minimum 35 year life, although you could argue that relative to the age of the average church that is temporary!

Ecclesiastical Insurance did not refuse to pay out any valid claims as far as I know, but they advised policy holders up front that they would not pay out more than a certain amount, unless various conditions were met (like alarms and cameras) - effectively making your lead roof uninsured as I understand it. At least this policy change meant that common sense did prevail and other materials were allowed by the authorities, contrary to their earlier practice. As you say, 30 years is pretty temporary really for a church. The church opposite me has several separate roofs with slate, zinc, copper and stainless steel - all the metal used to be lead and were changed between 1960 and 1990; lead is only used for hoppers and chutes.

Matthew

 

[DJH]

Aside from insurers I recall that had a church availed of an English Heritage grant to carry out works before any theft and replacement needed, that English Heritage made it a condition that any works carried out in the future to that church had to be on a 'like for like' basis and subject to their approval..

Several churches I worked on regretted having availed of these grants becuase of the onerous conditions applied when further works were needed.

In my opinion any roof other than lead is temporary... 8)

Doug

 

[tobydog]

In my opinion any roof other than lead is temporary... 8) Doug

Unfortunately Doug, I think that if you ask the local constabulary around Suffolk, they might advise that any roof that is lead is particularly temporary

 

[DJH]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[TheRoost]

lovely job, I bet you can't stop looking out of the upstairs window just to have another peek at it!

very nice building by the way.

 

[MatthewC]

Aside from insurers I recall that had a church availed of an English Heritage grant to carry out works before any theft and replacement needed, that English Heritage made it a condition that any works carried out in the future to that church had to be on a 'like for like' basis and subject to their approval..

Several churches I worked on regretted having availed of these grants becuase of the onerous conditions applied when further works were needed.

In my opinion any roof other than lead is temporary... 8)

Doug

Presumably this was English Heritage doling out Lottery funds? The Heritage Lottery Fund took that entire process back in house at the start of 2013 and so the application process has changed (I think they didn't like the EH way of doing things!). I am not aware of any restrictions on the six figure grant that we are just finishing work on - but then we weren't changing any lead for anything else! I won't hear a word against HLF - we are about to apply for a grant for our next phase of restoration work.

 

[mims&pip]

They look great Feltwell Think I might contact your guy as we have a few jobs he could do here.....good to have a tradesperson that comes highly recommended and he's not far away either!

Mims x

 

[DJH]

Yes, he's a good chap Mims.

Sorry MatthewC, I 'm going back long before 2013...probably 30 years or so and as I retired in 2006 so I'm well out of touch. Should have kept my mouth closed.

Harking back though, 8) I remember two churches in particular, one in the middle of Yeovil and the other in Beaminster Dorset, where we had a battle with EH over the ventilation details on the Nave roofs...happy days. :roll:

Doug

 

[Keithj]

Sadly, the lead thieves are very active indeed around Suffolk churches. It's been a terrible few months for some of the best examples.

 

[JohnArmer]

Late to this party, but beautiful leadwork on your bay roof.