Raise the roof ?

[DERYN]

Hi, a cottage question again OR perhaps it relates to any grade listed building ?

To gain a touch more headroom in a cottage/crogloft how would raising the roof be viewed ?

I seem to remember there being a bit of fuss when Gryff Rhys Jones accidentally raised a roof by a very small margin on his project that was screened on TV.

Are the exact dimensions of a building taken before restoration to ensure no changes have been made to the original structure ?

DERYN

 

[Moo]

Dunno.
But unless you shroud the place in tarpaulins and straw bales until it's all finished, isn't there a chance that the relevant authorities might notice what you're up to?

 

[Moo]

Have you managed to make contact with your CO yet?

 

[Flyfisher]

The repairs to our roof involved raising the roof line by a few inches. Because it was an alteration it required LBC and the height increase was taken into account during the discussions with the CO and the final design of the works limited the increase to the smallest practical amount. All this was just to ensure a watertight roof and did nothing to increase the internal headroom of the property, but it still required LBC. And quite rightly too.

I can't speak for the responsible CO in your case, but significantly raising a roof just to gain more headroom would, I suspect, be regarded as a significant change to the character of the property and I would not be at all surprised if it was not allowed. Again, quite rightly so, in my view. There seems little point in buying a house with low ceilings if it's not what you want, or could not live with, and then expect to be able to change a fundamental feature of its character.

 

[robgil]

how tall are the rooms? are the floors original?

 

[DERYN]

Robgil, I think your question was directed at me ?

The ceiling was around 8ft in height I reckon, a good height for an old cottage I think. Of course the connecting doorways were quite low. When I lifted the corners of the carpets up the floor was concrete ! At some point the floor boards have gone and they have been replaced by the concrete. In the house I live in now, half of the main living room retains their original lovely floorboards but half has been concreted. In my case woodworm looks to have been the culprit.

DERYN

 

[Jill]

Deryn

We have just gone through the process of raising the roof on part of our property so that the roof is now all at one height. We had no problem getting permission, but the house isn't listed nor in a conservation area. Posting what we had done didn't go down very well on this forum but the roof was leaking badly, and hopefully it will last for a long time. The roof was raised by about a foot at the front and 3 foot at the back. Loads of pics if you are genually interested. We also had the problem of concrete floors upstairs, the concrete being poured to a depth of approx 5 inches on top of lathes which resulted in a major oak beam being snapped!

 

[Jill]

Just seen your other post that you haven't managed to buy the property in question.

 

[vicky whitworth]

Deryn, I'm beginning to think you are a mole. I can't get my head round why you would say you love period properties and want to lovingly restore one and then want to change it completely - raise the roof, take out the ceilings, build an extension. If you want a practical house there are lots of modern properties available that would tick all your boxes. To me it sounds that an old property is something you like the idea of but that you are a practical person who really needs straight lines and head room.

We have low ceilings. I knock out one of my retinas crashing into a low beam and had to have emergency eye surgery. Everyone said I would change my mind and have the beam lifted. Have I? No. It's not the cottage's fault. I need to remember to duck.

8' high rooms sounds like enough space for a giraffe to me!

 

[DERYN]

Hi Vicky, a mole ? I've been called worse ! But I see where you are coming from.

The questions I've raised so far are mainly ones that have come up in conversations. For instance, raising the roof ? The estate agent suggested this when I viewed the cottage. My answer was 'no way !'. That made me think surely you couldn't do that on a listed building anyway, hence my question.

The ceiling ? The b&q cladding that forms a lowered ceiling are certainly not 'period' in my opinion. Under that hideous chocolate brown t&g is a beamed ceiling. I have an old picture of an old lady sitting in that room and right at the top of the picture is what seems to be a nice wooden beam. A little bit higher and I would get a better view. I did get a chance to peer into the crogloft and there was evidence of beams in good condition. It was a bit on the dark side though so I only had a glance.

The extension ? This particular cottage had both a stable and a winter/feeding barn added on. It was suggested to me that both could be knocked down and an extension forming an L shape could be built ! The horror on my face gave the person an idea of what I thought about that. I answered with the question, 'could I preserve both attached buildings and somehow knock through from the original building which would maybe provide me with the bathroom/toilet ?' As I mentioned earlier, the property has one outside toilet at the front of the house ! I have an outside toilet in my present house which I have lovingly restored. AND, at my age it has come in handy on a number occasions as I've been caught short while working in the garden. I would certainly have tried my best not to resort to an extension but sometimes needs dictate. All 3 people viewing the cottage alongside me all spoke of their plans to extend. At least my plan for an extension would have been out of view around the back of the building.

I mentioned changing the grey plastic guttering because it looked ugly and so obviously out of place. Another point while at the property with the agent, he suggested widening the drive up to the house, I said 'no way'.

I do hope I am not coming across as a 'mole'. When I visit a cottage I do think of making changes I admit that. When you find only an outside toilet at the front of the cottage and nowhere to bathe or shower then I'm afraid you have to think about changes. Yes I'm old enough to remember our outside toilet, and me standing in our stone sink as a youngster getting an all over wash in cold water and my father sitting in a tin bath in front of the coal fire. And potties under the bed because we couldn't get down to the outside toilet in 2 feet of snow ! A public wash house was built a half mile away from us which was a blessing. As for changes to a potential period property I only have changes in mind that hopefully would sympathetically restore the building to its former quaint character.

have a nice weekend,

DERYN

 

[JoceAndChris]

I can't get my head round why you would say you love period properties and want to lovingly restore one and then want to change it completely - raise the roof, take out the ceilings, build an extension.

I have to say I share Vicky's bewilderment at the mixed messages coming across in your posts Deryn! I do appreciate what you say about the whole bathroom thing, but there are things that really raise blood pressures on this forum - altering the outside appearance, raising ceilings and changing roof lines, unsympathetic extensions, putting in upvc, cement, concrete, damp proof courses, stone cladding, pine cladding, fake beams, normal paint on top of lime plaster or render, stripping pine that shouldn't be stripped, exposing stone that shouldn't be exposed - to name just some of the main culprits.

When I visit a cottage I do think of making changes I admit that.

It has to be a place you can live in comfortably, I'm sure we'd all agree with that. But also that any changes should be to prolong the life of the building whilst keeping intact what makes it worth saving- not imposing on it arbitrary change dictated by our taste or passing whims.

 

[Moo]

Well, I for one am prepared to give Deryn the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder how many of us took over a house that had no indoor sanitation (or electric light or central heating) and decided to do without it in the cause of authenticity. It sounds to me as though all the poor chap's doing is some thinking aloud, using the forum as a sort of sounding board, before he makes any irrevocable decisions, which strikes me as a pretty sensible approach.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Well, I for one am prepared to give Deryn the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder how many of us took over a house that had no indoor sanitation (or electric light or central heating) and decided to do without it in the cause of authenticity. It sounds to me as though all the poor chap's doing is some thinking aloud, using the forum as a sort of sounding board, before he makes any irrevocable decisions, which strikes me as a pretty sensible approach.

Deryn may correct me, but it is generally a girl's name in Wales; and a lovely one at that. It means "bird". Had Ben turned out to be a girl, it was one of the candidates for his (her!) second name...

On the main point, I think Deryn is asking reasonable questions. Thankfully the forum is not full of fanatical purists and we mostly recognise that the best chance of old buildings to survive is for them to be lived in - and this means sympathetic upgrading at times. After all, we all have electricity and running plumbing, despite living in houses mostly built before either was common-place.

 

[Horace]

I agree with Moo's and FW's comments completely.

I am alone in getting slighty annoyed when people are mildly ticked off in a mildly patronising manner because they raise a query that might upset some of the group hug members of a forum? Its like PP PC. Ask a question, get an answer or give an opinion. Please get rid of the worthy but oh so polite (but sneering at your ignorance really) approach.

I'll get my coat......

 

[JoceAndChris]

Oh, don't get your coat - I like a challenge!

If Deryn is using the forum as a sounding board and is not about to buy a cottage and smash it up then that's wonderful. After all, I knew sod all this time last year- remember when I was going to pull up the pamments? I didn't even know what pamments were.

But Horace, if you've read any of my 2000-odd posts you'll know I'm not a keep quiet person! I'm sorry my tone annoyed you, I think full-on vitriol is worse?! :lol:
It's better to say something, even if it causes a bit of annoyance, then let someone make a mistake and another cottage bite the dust. Hopefully Deryn will get a listed building and be guided and helped by a CO through all the tricky decisions, but that may not be the case.

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree with Moo's and FW's comments completely.

Me too. I doubt there is anyone today prepared to live in a period property in the manner of the original occupants (although there's always one :lol: ) yet these buildings will only survive by being lived in. That means electricity and modern plumbing - as a minimum. But that doesn't require, or justify, destruction of the original building fabric. OK, a few holes in the walls for waste pipes, a bit of channelling to hide some wires, maybe some minor alterations to room layouts, but they are small prices to pay to create a home that people will cherish and maintain - and thereby help to preserve. The alternative is empty, decaying properties.

And I didn't read Horace's post as being a dig at Joce's comments. I think we're all basically saying the same thing, just with our own individual slant on things - and what a boring place it would be without some differences of expression.


But the thing that is really bothering me is FW's comment about Deryn's likely gender. Unjustified though it may well be, I had a mental image of Deryn being a fellow male. Now I'm all confused - I think we should be told!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

And I didn't read Horace's post as being a dig at Joce's comments. I think we're all basically saying the same thing, just with our own individual slant on things - and what a boring place it would be without some differences of expression.

Well said FF. We have (me included) taken ourselves a little too seriously on here in the past. I had been thinking recently how the forum had changed and we'd had a big influx of new posters asking questions on a variety of topics.

But the thing that is really bothering me is FW's comment about Deryn's likely gender. Unjustified though it may well be, I had a mental image of Deryn being a fellow male. Now I'm all confused - I think we should be told!

Fellow male? That spoils my mental image of you as a bearded lady - all East German female shot-putter style! :lol:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Deryn said this in another thread, so unless lesbian 8) he's a man. Not that it matters.


"Secondly, I am just tipping over 50yrs of age now, I've worked the building sites, I've tarmacked the roads, I've taught in schools for 16 years, I'm looking to settle in a cottage in the local area with my wife now while I still have my wits about me.

And I didn't read Horace's post as being a dig at Joce's comments.

Meanie. Do you not realise how much I enjoy a good spanking? :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Well, I will defer to Deryn who presumably is in the best position to check.

However, in my (limited to just 6 or 7 years) of living and working in N Wales, the only Deryns I have met so far have been girlies... or at least they looked like girlies! 8)

I wonder if our correspondent is using his wife's login? I know SWMBO used my login for Another Place for a long time (causng much confusion in the process!) until I relented and let her have her own.

 

[Flyfisher]

This is all getting far too confusing for me. My apologies for spoiling your fun Joce, let me know how I can make it up to you. :wink:
Meanwhile, I'll continue to work on my East German Shot Putter persona.