Shell flat already taken back to brick - what would you do?

[dizz]

I am working on a flat where the previous owner has already taken the plaster off the walls and exposed bare brick throughout.

I have skim plastered to good effect before and also dot and dab boards onto poorlt finished walls before, but never had the bricks exposed.

Can you :

1. dot and dab straight onto brick?
2. use bonding on the brick, then multi-finish after?

What other options are there?

Thank you.

 

[tony1851]

If you were doing it by the book, you would need to apply some insulation to the walls first.

 

[^woody^]

What book is that that says he must insulate?

 

[^woody^]

Unless you are an experienced plasterer, you probably won't get a flat finish with bond and skim. You can dab on to brick no problem

 

[tony1851]

What book is that that says he must insulate?

You know full well.

 

[^woody^]

My pamphlet does not say "must" anywhere. It mentions technical and economic feasibility a few times though

 

[tony1851]

Oh, I see; so the section in L1b on "Retained Thermal Elements" is a dead letter, then?

 

[noseall]

Surely if it is chopped back to brick the practical and economic possibilities could not be more favourable?

Or does "economic" mean if the customer could find better use of his money, in which case 95% of homeowners would be able to dodge building reguilations on that very phrase.

Woodbin, stop being pedantic.

 

[^woody^]

It's not pedantic. There has to be a compelling reason to spend x amount of money to get y amount of savings. There has to be a payback, otherwise it may be better (economically and environmentally) to spend the money on some other energy efficiency measures.

And if the work it's not practical, again insulating may not need to be done

It's all there in the document. There is no "must insulate" and people need to think about proper application of the regulations

 

[tony1851]

The guidance states that the element should be upgraded 'where feasible etc'

It also states that a wall, for instance, should be upgraded to at least 0.7.
I think it would be difficult to explain to an inspector that it was not possible, technically or economically, to improve a solid/cavity wall to this standard.

If NO insulation was to be added to the walls, how would comparable insulation be added elswhere to compensate? In the roof? It would be very thick. And there would be the condensation issue with having such a big disparity in insulation value between one element and another.

 

[noseall]

It's not pedantic. There has to be a compelling reason to spend x amount of money to get y amount of savings. There has to be a payback, otherwise it may be better (economically and environmentally) to spend the money on some other energy efficiency measures.

Is the payback relevant to the lifetime of the building or the occupant?

 

[dhutch]

Depends what the walls are, solid, unfilled cavity, retro-filled, inslulated as to what I would do.

I like properly plastered walls, but I can see the advantange in drylining it with board adheasive, partiuarly if using inslation backed board.

I also would ensure, as per I belive the rules, there is a contant bead of adheasive around each board and holes in it (sockets etc) for air tightness and so you dont get drafts and dust marks around the edges.


Daniel

 

[^woody^]

Is the payback relevant to the lifetime of the building or the occupant?

Its a calculation to determine savings over a 15 year period

 

[dizz]

OK, thank you. The bricks are mainly outside double skin (double brick) walls, with only one internal single single brick wall. Are we talking dot and dab insulation type board or battens with insulation and regular board both sides?