Render Thoughts

[parkview094]

When we bought our house, one of the problems which was came to light was that the external render would all have to be replaced. Although recently re-rendered, the mix applied was wrong and the render is bubbling and falling away.

This gives us the opportunity to potentially change things! Currently, we have a smooth render:

But I'm worried that even if professionally applied, a smooth render will always show defects and cracks more that other potential coverings.

We found this old archive photo:

Which as far as I can tell would seem to suggest the house has had a smoother covering for some time. There are 4 houses the same as ours in the street (including ours). 2 Have been pebbledashed and one has had a sort of texture applied.

We're currently torn between:

1. Re-render with a smooth finish and hope for the best.
2. Pebbledash and paint
3. Rougchast of some form (either chunky pebbledash or otherwise).

Other houses in the area built around a similar time (1911) seem to have roughcast finishes - so I don't think that would be out of character.

What's your opinion? Cast your votes now?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Your house reminds me of these houses near me, although the windows on yours are not stone mullioned windows, but the style and form are similar. What is the style?? Tudorbethan or Jacobean revival perhaps? Could it have ever been bricK? I always think brick looks nice and is my preference, and I think would work well on your house but maybe it was never built to have exposed brick. I've also see similar style houses roughcast and that looks good too. I think a smooth render is not so good. New/more attractive windows would transform it.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=kings+heath&ll=52.427514,-1.903138&spn=0.000854,0.002642&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=King%27s+Heath,+West+Midlands,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.427514,-1.903138&panoid=xTJmcxAVIz8TRRwe1NlIJA&cbp=12,103.24,,0,-1.83

 

[Roger H]

Hi Parkview.

Is the building listed? If not, and if re-rendering, then you might want to consider whether any external insulation is possible e.g. where the projecting bays are. It flies in the face of our usual debates on 'breathability' but if the building is cavity-built, and you can maintain the detailing on the building, it might be a good way of upping its performance.

 

[parkview094]

Oh they are similar! I also like the exposed brick approach, but all the houses by us have been rendered, so I'm guessing they're not built for exposed brick!

How the previous owner managed to get the black UPVC windows approved is a mystery to me. We're quite tempted to put the old oak windows back as per the b&w photograph.

Not listed, although in a conservation area so relatively restricted on what we can do. No cavity walls at all - all solid. We did get a couple of quotes for external wall insualtion, but the cost was prohibitive unfortunately. The re-render quotes seem to range from 10-15k, insulation adds up to an an extra 10k on top of that ..that said, I wonder if the new green deal presents any opportunities..

 

[88v8]

That extra £10k, you can invest at 6%, so there's £600 you'd have to save annually just to stand still. Payback time = never. And you'd no longer have the £10k. And it would ruin the look of the outside. External insulation is for the birds.

As regards, your render, I'd go for roughcast, but not paint it. Once you start painting roughcast or pebbledash it has to be done regularly as it shows the dirt, and it's a real pain. Our previous house was pebbled in 1980, two coats, we used quite a dark sand, never painted it and it still looked good 31 years later.

Windows... if you clean them off with white spirit, then key them with 120 emery paper, you can paint them. Oil gloss, no primer, no undercoat. Two coats. Green and cream would look nice. Please, not white.....

Ivor

 

[stuwlam]

Hopefully you are looking to re-render with lime render and not cement?! I guess you are well aware of the difference but just thought I'd ask - in case!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

From its apparent date and appearance I'd expect parkview's house to have been rendered with cement originally, so no special advantage in lime rendering it.

 

[stuwlam]

From its apparent date and appearance I'd expect parkview's house to have been rendered with cement originally, so no special advantage in lime rendering it.

I'm not an expert by any stretch but I assumed that solid walls+cement render would potentially spell dampness and that's why lime render would be the correct choice to allow the solid wall to breathe - but as I say I am not an expert so I stand corrected if mistaken.

 

[JoceAndChris]

As far as I understand it 20thC cement render is always a problematic thing. It can crack and pockets of moisture can get trapped behind. However I believe that the correct approach is to chip off any loose cement around the crack, allow to dry for a period, and replace with more cement and repaint. I think it's a poor invention, and I would always urge friends to buy an unrendered property.

In my house I have the opportunity to watch (very sad I know) how moisture behaves in a 1930s cement rendered onto brick extension and how it behaves in cement rendered onto stone. The stone hates it and the moisture penetrated into the house, until we chipped the cement off. But although the brick part has very cracked render that I would say has reached the end of its life, no moisture ever seems to wick through into the house. I presume that the Ancaster stone section is a lot more porous than the cement mortared brick.

You house is very nice and rather imposing. I think that my vote is going to be for a smooth render, as it is, which to my eye looks like the politer and more formal finish, as compared to a more cottagey pebbledash. However I'm no expert. If you can ascertain the original finish, that will be best.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Gareth, you say that the house would probably have been cement rendered originally so there is no advantage to rendering in lime. Doesn't this depend on what the construction is?? I'm guessing the house is early 20thC and I would have thought that the bricks are quite porous (the ones on my house are) and if so wouldn't the cement render, even if part of the original construction have been a less than optimal idea.

 

[stuart45]

I've worked on quite a few houses with solid walls where cracks in the render have been the cause of penetrating damp. Normally the cracks are repaired. To hack off and render in lime mortar is an expensive bit of work.

 

[88v8]

A brick house with a damp course would routinely be rendered in cement.
Pebbledash is cement, two coats.
Our 1920 solid-wall house was rendered twice in its life, once by the original owner who was also the builder, and once for us in 1981. We used soft sand so it was a bit more flexible.

A stone house, or one with no dpc, that's another matter.

Ivor

 

[Moo]

While we're on the subject of render, does anyone have any idea about how to repair a crack in (otherwise very sound) pebbledash so that it doesn't show?

Not our house, I hasten to add!

 

[stuart45]

I've plasterers use a clear mastic in the crack and then put in some matching stones from the base of the wall.

 

[parkview094]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of local records about the house. There are only 4 of them in the street that are the same (ours included) and all the others have been re-rendered over their life.

We do have a slate DPC, so I'm presuming this would originally have been a cement render. There's no evidence of any damp internally either recently or in the past (The inside hasn't been decorated for many decades) - so I'm hoping we can get away with cement again.

We're hoping to get some building work done at the same time and our architect thinks smooth, so it looks like smooth is edging it slightly..

Regarding the windows, we're out getting some quotes for oak replacements currently. I see 1 vote against white, but I think we're erring on the side of preferring white to the current black. Any votes on this front?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Just for fun, here is a pic of "The Orchard", a house that Arts and Crafts architect Charles Voysey designed for himself. There are some similar features to yours and it is probably a similar age too, although not similar in form I know. The house is definitely pebbledash and better for it in my opinion. I have linked to another photo here where it is a more natural finish. I think flat render would not look so good, it is a more modern finish and I think wouldn't complement the style as much. Is your architect a specialist in historic buildings???

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=WD3+5NT&hl=en&ll=51.650953,-0.528245&spn=0.006896,0.021136&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Chorleywood+WD3+5NT,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.651023,-0.528114&panoid=pcxMJnnM1l6FrU8-_wbG6g&cbp=12,126.18,,0,-6.67

P.S. I'm sure I will be told the comparison is absurd and that I don't know what I'm takling about but I'm just trying to show that roughcast/pebbledash was popular around the time the place was built.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

My first thought was "imitation Voysey".

 

[andrew gayton]

Voysey? Baille Scott..................

Roughcast would get my vote.

Has the original brick corbel to parapet detail been drawn through with the render at some point? In my opinion, it should be stepped. The current diagonal set back is very late 20th c Alfred Mcalpine.

 

[JoceAndChris]

In which case I stand corrected in my vote for smooth, apologies.

 

[Moo]

I've plasterers use a clear mastic in the crack and then put in some matching stones from the base of the wall.

Thanks for that, Stuart. I'll pass it on.