replacing a sill plate. is it as easy as it looks?

[Jon Maine]

no worries , thank you. i shall have a good probe around on sunday and report back.

When you come to insert the wall under the new sole plate if the gap is a bit larger pack it with some slate or broken tile with the lime mortar to to give a bit more strength.

 

[Penners]

I don't know what others think about this, but given that you have the opportunity to do so, I would definitely include a dpc between the plinth and the sole plate.

And, referring back to Middi's earlier post, I have always adopted a policy of "hope for the best and plan for the worst" when carrying out any structural work on a house. So, speaking for myself, I would recommend that you always apporach the work in "s**t-scared" mode. In other words, no matter how sturdy and self-supporting the frame may look, always treat it as though it could fall down any minute. So - support, support, support....

That way you protect yourself (and your house!) against any possible unseen hazard.

 

[robgil]

i never made it up there today guys , if its not one thing its another preventing me from getting up there to do anything. tomorrow i need to be there and hopefully this week things should pick up.
its tough though when the house is over 100 miles away , it would be nice if it were just around the corner.
anyhow , i know what you mean by support , in fact my insurance policy says it wont pay out should anything happen and its found that we did structural work without the necessary precautions.

so , what are the pros and cons of a dpc ontop of the brick plinth? i take it trapping water in the bricks might be a con? or leaving no grip between the bricks and the sole plate?

 

[Flyfisher]

"hope for the best and plan for the worst" . . . . [and] . . . . "s**t-scared" mode.

Absolutely, and if more people followed this philosophy I'm sure there would be less need for 'elf 'n' safety instead of the I'm-wearing-a-hard-hat-so-it-doesn't-matter-if-I-walk-under-that-dodgy-looking-load-being-craned-across-the-road approach to life.

I find it works well in most areas of life.
Changing a wheel? - we know the jack will probably not break, but why not keep clear of the car body anyway?
Felling a tree? - of course it should fall in the direction of the nice wedge you've just cut, but why not be prepared to move in any direction just in case?
Doing electrical work? - naturally you've removed the relevant fuse or switched off the main circuit breaker, but why not test that the wires are not live anyway?

I'm sure everyone has their own favourite examples.

 

[Flyfisher]

in fact my insurance policy says it wont pay out should anything happen and its found that we did structural work without the necessary precautions.

That sounds like a guaranteed get-out clause; if anything bad does happen then, by definition, you didn't take the necessary precautions. Reasonable precautions, perhaps, but not the necessary ones.

 

[Penners]

so , what are the pros and cons of a dpc ontop of the brick plinth? i take it trapping water in the bricks might be a con? or leaving no grip between the bricks and the sole plate?

Pros: helping to keep damp out of the sole plate.
Cons: can't really think of any.

Trapping water? Not if the bricks are unpainted with gunk and uncoated with cement. Grip? Well, if you're worried, why not set a few vertical threaded rods into the new plinth, drill the sole plate appropriately and bolt it down.

 

[middi]

Penners and FF are absolutely right- approach the job in s%*t scared mode- ( cowards!!).

As to the sole plate and dpc, dpc under the sole plate is reccomended only if you can satisfy yourself that the external wall finish/cladding or other, is of a construction that will totally protect any water ( regardless of quantity) which may find it's way to the external face of the new replacement sole plate and above the dpc. Needless to say this will speed up the decay process 10 folds.

Once you have inserted a dpc under a replaced or repaired sole plate, you will also have the responsability of keeping this dry and avoid exessive moisture from above reaching the new plate. There is benefit if this is achieve ( such as exteneding the life of the new oak plate from 300 to 600 years !!!)
As most sole plates have usually rotted away after about 300 years mainly due to bad maintenance of the extenal cladding you can safely assume that if do not put any dpc under the new plate and allow for fast base wall drainage ( e.g no dpc) this plate should also last another 300 years. any water entry above the dpc and the same plate will be good for about 30 years.

It also depends if you are doing any repairs or replacement of external wall surfaces, if you intend to insulate these at the same time you do any repairs and what is the constituing materials of the external walls. If you are repairing ( let us say) in a traditional manner only part of the ext.wall by using lime plaster on laths then it would be useless using dpc because you will be trapping moisture above the dpc which will rot the plate. This moisture will also travel along the dpc and speed up the rotting process at the repaired junctions.
The main reason for not advocating the use of dpc on OLD traditional sole plate repairs is that sometimes a lot of the original fabric has to be sacrified for the dpc to work correctly. Of course this does not apply and use of dpc is beneficial if whole walls have to be reconstructed and with some of the benefits that modern materials can offer.

The problem with dpc under sole plate is not the worry that damp may climb up but the problem with dampness and exess water on the external walls going down and being able to travel down freely and not being trapped by an inverted umbrella like the dpc speeding up the rotting process of anyting above the dpc.

 

[robgil]

the outside of the house has been cement rendered in places if not all over by way of attaching a wire gauze and rendering onto it. i am not sure if the gauze has been nailed straight to the frame or battened out first. i am not even sure if any of the original plaster or laths have been left. some of the rendered walls inside have had the gauze attached straight to the frame and some have been battened first.
i plan to remove all this cement next spring/summer and lath and render the outside of the building , probably all of it depending on how much cement there actually is. i can safely assume the front and at least one gable wall are cemented and i am pretty sure the back wall is cement render also.
with this in mind then a dpc would not be such a good idea?

 

[middi]

As the original wall fabric has already been destroyed anyway, with the approval of the CO, you can take advantage of this and insulate the external walls and make them waterproof with the aid of modern materials ,then re-render. If this is your chosen route then you can use as much dpc as you like.

 

[robgil]

this is true. i just fancy the idea of putting the house back to what it was when it was built. i am not sure how i feel about building a modern house out of an old one. i also fancy the idea of learning how to do it as it was originally done.
i suppose i have to consider the environmental impact of an uninsulated house though. i did consider battening it out then using cellotex or similar , lathing it then lime rendering it.
how could i water proof the external walls and wouldn't it be best to leave them porous or breathable?

 

[middi]

I admire your idea of reinstating the original fabric on the house, the harsh reality is that ,probably, all the original fabric of the house has all but disappeared therefore the romantic notion of " restoration" would actually be " reproduction" which is not the same thing.
Your house/cottage would( most likely) have had exposed external timbers infilled with wattle and daub, thatched roof and no chimney. Over the decades/centuries changes and alteration have taken place . The external cement render on expanded metal laths (EML) is probably the latest modern make over. If the property is listed a good discussion with the CO would be invaluable as to what is best for the cottage, the environment and to yourself. There are an array of modern materials that can be incorporated within an old building that can prolong the lifespan of a listed building , keeping it's aesthetic appearance and be kind to the environment.

Old timber , or any other old building, are quite simple in their construction but must be understood if contemporary materials are to be used to supply us with our " modern" requirements. This why it is quite important that CO,s must be involved at an early stage of a project If only to get "direction " as to how to tackle a specific situation.

 

[robgil]

thats what worries me Middi , the house isnt listed. its in a conservation area but i worry that because it isnt listed they might want me to make all sorts of inappropriate alterations to make it confirm to modern building regs.
there is a lot of the old house left , in fact id say its hardly been touched apart from this modern render and some inappropriate windows. it has original timbers throughout, original wattle and daub infills on all the walls etc etc. 75 percent of the floor boards are gone and the dining room ceiling is mostly fibreboard but the house is well recorded in books etc as being an old hall house and i believe it to be important enough to try to keep 'as is' or 'as was',it was built between 1520 and 1580 and this is recorded in documents provided by the village history group and while i agree that reinstating its originality will be a reproduction rather than a restoration it may be some time before i get my head around this.

i am wondering if it may be a good idea to have the house listed?

 

[Jon Maine]

i am wondering if it may be a good idea to have the house listed?

You may have less freedom but also as you say it could help force the hands of the BCO although most of what you propose is repair so if you do it by instalments they should not get to excited.

Of course if listed any alterations are vat zero rated too.

 

[robgil]

i am wondering if it may be a good idea to have the house listed?

You may have less freedom but also as you say it could help force the hands of the BCO although most of what you propose is repair so if you do it by instalments they should not get to excited.

Of course if listed any alterations are vat zero rated too.

perhaps its simply a question of when rather than if? i could use the timing to my advantage.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

If you put it in for listing now, past experience suggests it could be a year or more before a decision is made.

 

[Jon Maine]

Yes, I am almost certain when we uplisted from 2 to 2* it took best part of a year

 

[robgil]

the way things are going it will probably take me a year to get up there to do anything.
if its worth the wait though i dont mind waiting.

 

[middi]

Well ,you appear to be very enthusiastic about historic buildings, just learn as much as you can on the subject especially the history of these buildings and get a feel as to why we preserve them and it will click into place as to how we should restore them.
Having it listed is a good thing ( from my point of view) , Gareth and Jon have indicated the approx. time scale . The decision is yours.

 

[robgil]

its a massive learning curve for me middi but one that i find fascinating. its not just the history of the buildings that interest me , its the people who lived in them and how they lived. i think to fully understand a building you must also understand the people who built it and lived in it.

if i were to apply for it to be listed i assume a conservation officer would come out to the site to visit? does this mean i would have to put a halt to any work in the mean time?

 

[Jon Maine]

Of course there is no guarantee they will list it, although it sounds like it would have a good chance especially given the age you state as provable.