SAVA Technical Bulletin
For registered members of the SAVA Scheme
Issue 18 | February 2015 All content © National Energy Services Ltd Welcome to the latest issue of the SAVA Technical Bulletin. The bulletin focuses on Home Condition Surveys and associated non-energy issues. We trust that you will find the bulletin useful for your day-to-day work and we welcome any feedback you have about what you would like to see covered in future editions. The contents of this technical bulletin may supersede certain scheme rules or requirements appearing in the Product Rules, Inspection and Reporting Requirements, training manuals or elsewhere. Members must therefore ensure that they have read and understood this document. I N T H I S IS S U E
D iploma in Residential Su rveying and Valuation Review of HCS Audit Issues The Th ree Pipe Problem
Ea rliest Cavity Walls — Competition Win ner C avity Wall s in Britain –A B rief Histo ry Chancel Repairs Radon Maps New C PD Modules SAVA School of Su rveying Open Day
Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation It hardly seems possible that this time last year the Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation was only an idea. Austin Baggett, NES’ Managing Director, and I were still to embark on the series of road shows (you may remember that we travelled up and down England to gauge responses to the concept). And here we are, one year on, with the first batch of learners about to start assessment. The people who started in June 2014, (Intake 1), together with some of the learners who started in September (Intake 2), are all practising surveyors with the original Home Inspector Diploma. They have Accreditation of Prior Learning (APEL) for part of the Diploma, so are undertaking a shorter, tailored version of the course designed specifically for those with the HI Diploma. Their course focuses on property law and residential valuation.
The rest of the learners from September 2014 (new entrants and DEAs) are all new to residential surveying and therefore have to study construction and building pathology. The February 2015 intake is now full and we have new dates for September 2015 available, but due to the demand we will be adding an additional course in May 2015. As well as the face-to-face training days, we are building a library of training materials that will be delivered electronically. As you probably know, we have been offering on-line CPD for some time. Recently, we have started to develop a range of new exciting training products which will be delivered online to complement the face-to-face training program.
Review of the HCS A while ago we asked for volunteers who use the HCS regularly to give us some feedback and provide suggestions for improvements. Several volunteers kindly stepped forward to provide their input and we thank them very much for their contribution. As a result of that review, we have p rod uced a v ery comp re he nsiv e document setting out the required changes in detail. This document is about to be formally handed over to our software team. There will be three types of change:
software bugs that need fixing;
(Continued on page 2)
Page 1 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015
Audit Issues (Continued from page 1)
improvements that we should consider because existing wording is out of date or to help you maximise the benefit of the HCS for your customers; ‘nice to haves’, improvements that are not essential or urgent but would be just that–nice to have.
In prescribing the required changes, we have no idea how long the wish list will actually take to program. Some changes that seem minor to a non-programmer can actually be complicated to create. Others, that on the face of it seem very detailed and involved, can be relatively quick to program. Consequently, at the present time I cannot give a definitive list of the forthcoming changes and improvements. Obviously, we will not get everything that we want in the first round of programming improvements, but with the proven success of the Diploma, there is a renewed vigour and emphasis behind the HCS and as a consequence, I am viewing this as just the beginning. W e will ke e p y ou inf orme d as improvements are made. Hilary Grayson, Head of Surveying Services at National Energy Services Ltd
Our auditors have reported that some surveyors are slipping into very bad habits. As we provide the PI Insurance for members of the SAVA Scheme on a ‘pay per click’ basis, this is something we will not tolerate. Successful claims resulting in the payout by our insurance scheme risks an increase in premiums and we will have to pass this on to all HCS users. Recent audits have identified following recurring problems.
the
Recording the use of the SAVA Protocol Most surveyors called for audit are not including this within their site notes. It is a mandatory requirement that the SAVA Protocol is both used and recorded. You must provide evidence of your thought process. Please see SAVA HCS Product Rules, page 7 and Appendix 1 for further information. You must record this for all surveys, e.g. AJKN, and ensure that the appropriate rating is used. Recording limitations of inspection Obstructions or anything that limits your ability to access the property fully must be recorded. Furniture, fitted carpets etc should, at the very least, be marked on floor plans. Remember too the power of the camera–after all ‘a picture paints a thousand words’. Obstructions or limitations are not just restricted to the inside of the property. Remember, to record the external limitations as well. For example vegetation can restrict access on the outside of the property or hanging baskets will disappear in winter and reappear again in the spring. Always remember the case of the surveyor who had to return the clients fee because he did not take any photographs of the hanging baskets: When he did the survey the verdant hanging baskets were fixed to the side
of the garage wall, completely obscuring the timber detailing at the edge of the garage roof. When his clients moved in, the baskets were gone, revealing a rotten fascia board that needed replacing. The surveyor got away with just returning his fee. He knew that the baskets had been present at the time of the inspection but he could not prove it. A lesson learnt–he never again failed to use his camera.
Most surv ey ors are successfully sued, not b ecause they we re negligent, but because they cannot prove that they weren’t negligent.
Remember too, that any limitations relating to the inspection should also be reflected in the report. Accurate recording of moisture readings In many instances the location identifying where moisture readings were taken is not being shown on the floor plan. Note that it is not sufficient to record that you used a moisture meter and where; you must also record what the readings were in that particular location at the time of the survey. Remember that as a default you will use a moisture meter at 1m intervals, recording any obstructions that prevent you from doing so. Take particular care in vulnerable areas, i.e. around windows and doors, on exposed walls, where guttering might be defective, etc.: ‘Follow the Trail’. These are common problems emerging during audits but also, remember to review and check the actual report before you finalise it. Our auditors are remarking on a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes being made.
Page 2 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015
The Three Pipe Problem—A prelude to our competition When deciding on the topic for the latest competition in the last edition of the Technical Bulletin (see page 5), we were inspired by a story of detective work relating to a so called cavity wall at a nineteenth century terraced cottage.
The identification of the wall structure is a simpler example of our deductive reasoning. We can usually gain an initial impression, as we walk up to the building, by estimating the age of the dwelling and by looking at the brick bond.
Surveyors owe a debt to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: we have learned the art of deduction from Sherlock Holmes and applied it to our everyday inspections. The ‘three pipe problem’ is the literary equivalent to us of that difficult damp diagnosis, where, having reviewed all the evidence and considered the possibilities based on our non-invasive inspection we finally conclude that the damp is caused by condensation. The reason being that the wall is solid, it has been externally rendered with a cement render, and rising damp is unlikely because of the pattern of damp meter readings taken. It is a best guess much of the time but based on usually sound reasoning.
The wall thickness further informs our decision as to whether we are dealing with a cavity or a solid wall. Other tell-tale signs might be the evidence of filled drill holes at the junction of the perpend and bed joints in the mortar in strategic locations—an indication of probable retro-fitted cavity wall insulation. It’s elementary my dear surveyor… In the story The Red Headed League Sherlock Holmes has been told the remarkable story of the League and done some initial research. Back at Baker Street, he needs time to think about the mystery and says to Watson, "It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes." (The time it takes him to smoke three pipes.) But what if you drive up to the house shown in Photo 1? At first it appears to be at least 100 years old, possibly older. The initial impression when you note the brick bond (see Photo 2) is that this is a bit more interesting and requires a little more deductive reasoning.
Photo 1: The house looks at least 100 years. old. Note the terraced design the arches over windows and the tiles roof.
Photo2: Stretcher bond.
This was what one surveyor encountered on what initially appeared to be a fairly straight forward valuation for a lender. The lender already had lent on the property and the purpose of the valuation was for the borrower to get a further advance. The surveyor therefore obtained a copy of the original valuation report and studied it before he attended the inspection. The report described the property as 130 years old with the walls being of cavity brick construction. Therefore, as he arrived at the property, the surveyor thought that he might be dealing with something less typical.
On first viewing the property, the surveyor noted the stretcher bond which is unusual for a house of that age in this locality (East Anglia). When looking at the row of cottages of which the house was part it was evident that they were at least 130 years old if not older. Was this the oldest example of cavity brick construction he had ever encountered? Walking up to the front door the surveyor also noted that the brickwork appeared different to some of the adjoining houses. It appeared to be an external cladding. The sort of thing that you might see in areas where finger cavity was common and the outer skin had been rebuilt following the separation of the inner and outer leaves due to lack of or failure of cavity wall ties. Glancing at the front ground floor window, something caught his eye: the wall thickness appeared much thicker than that of the traditional finger cavity construction (230/240mm) and even thicker than the 250/300mm that might be typical of a traditional cavity wall. This required more detective work! Entering the property he noted that the walls at the front had been dry lined internally and actually had a thickness of 400mm to the front elevation. The rear walls (Photo 3) were thinner, but still over 300mm and were externally rendered at first floor level. The lower walls were more difficult to determine to the rear elevation as an extension had been added to the rear. Various possibilities occurred to the surveyor; this was potentially: a solid wall construction of three brick layers, the outer wall possibly not bonded to the rest; an old timber frame cottage, clad externally in brick and render; parts of the walls were stone and had been clad externally with brick.
(Continued on page 4) Page 3 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015 (Continued from page 3) This problem might be clarified by looking in the roof space. Therefore, the surveyor erected his ladder and pulled back the loft hatch. As he shone his torch around the roof space he noted the old roughly cut rafters, more typical of houses built in the earlier part of the nineteenth century and earlier. The fire walls were infill plasterboard structures (Photo 4). Again, this is typical in older terraces that would have been built without separation between the houses in the roof spaces. Then the surveyor saw something even more revealing: the chimney stack passing through the roof space was constructed in rough blocks (Photo 5). The blocks were made of clay, chalk and straw and this cast a whole new light on the wall construction. Conversation with the property owner confirmed that they had discovered the clay lump (or adobe) block in the rear elevation wall when they had built the rear extension. The upper elevation of the original wall was rendered in a softer and breathable lime mortar. This also explained the wall thickness to the front elevation: an outer brick cladding had been added to the front wall, presumably to provide better protection to the outer surface, when the face of original clay lump blocks broke down, in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century (Photo 6).
Photo 3:The rear elevation of the house.
Photo 4: Note the plasterboard retrofitted fire break partition in the background behind the rough cut roof timbers.
Photo 5: The chimney stack is constructed in rough clay-lump blocks. These blocks are common in parts of East Anglia and are made of a mixture of clay and flinty chalk with a binding of straw and sometimes animal hair.
This was therefore not the earliest cavity wall in East Anglia but evidence of the previous surveyor’s failure to properly identify the wall construction from the evidence available— ”Elementary my dear…”
Photo 6: Similar clay lump blocks seen on site at a Mill house conversion on the Suffolk/Norfolk border. Note how easily the blocks on top of the pile have weathered and broken down after only a few seasons exposure to rain and frost.
Page 4 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015
Earliest Cavity Wall—Competition Winner Well done to Robert Teale of Kent for submitting his entry for the oldest cavity wall. As the winner of our competition he received a Samsung 10-inch tablet. The property in question is one of a terrace of cottages near the sea front at Westgate on Sea, near Margate, Kent. A quick glance at the cottages suggests that they are probably Victorian. Indeed the agent’s blurb for one marketed earlier in 2014 describes the houses as ‘period’ and Robert has dated the terrace to 1863. th
In the early part of the 19 Century there was not much to Westgate on Sea. It was mostly farm land, but there was a Coastguard Station which dates from the late 1700s, and cottages built to house the crew who manned the station. Most houses built before the 1930s will have solid brick main walls. However, this proves that just because a older than that, it can still be construction.
1920s or external property house is of cavity
Indeed, it does not take too much effort when searching the internet to find references to cavity walls well before the date of this cottage. The charmingly entitled Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm and Villa Architecture and Furniture published in 1835 references on page 14 to a form of cavity wall construction. In the description of the construction that may be used for a ‘model cottage’ the book says that: “Hollow cottage walls may also be built by placing the bricks, both headers and stretchers, on edge as first practised by Mr Silverlock of Chichester.” This is describing what we now call ‘Rat Trap’ bond. If nothing else, it should alert surveyors practising in the Chichester area to look out for this particular form of cavity construction. Presumably, if the book is referring to
Mr Silverlock in 1835, he was already well established with this form of construction. This same book also mentions a Mr Dearne: “…bricks halved lengthways, by cutting with a knife or wire before burning, as recommended by Mr Dearne*. (Hints on an Improved Method of Building–1821)” *If you want to find a copy of this second publication (copies may be available via antiquarian book sellers), then note the encyclopaedia spelt his name incorrectly–it should be Mr Dearn.
We learn from an academic paper on the history of cavity walls (Bricks and Tiles: The Cavity Wall–author unknown) that apparently a house was built in R o che ste r i n K en t u si ng t hi s construction method. This fits as Thomas Dearn spent most of his life in Cranbrook, also in Kent.
The first cavity walls were not designed to keep out moisture. In 1818 the architect J B Papworth, in his book Rural Residences, described a dairy and an ice house with ‘double walls’ for free circulation of air and drainage–the implication being that such structures had heat insulation properties and were better suited to draining. Also, until the 1850s, a very high duty was charged on bricks, which is probably what encouraged Silverlock and Dearn to come up with alternative forms of construction.
(Continued on page 6)
The same academic paper also suggests that the method of construction was used at Portsmouth, Cranbrook and Shorncliffe, but we have nothing to corroborate this, nor indeed any pictures.
Recent building research carried out by the BRE has identified that some cavity main walls built before 1981 MIGHT be prone to metal wall tie corrosion. The problem with some metal ties is that, over time, they corrode. Eventually, if left unnoticed/untreated, the ties will fail. If too many ties fail in the same area of a wall, partial/total collapse occurs. To complicate things, a variety of wall tie types have been used in the building industry over the years. Are they all at risk of corrosion? Realising there was a possible problem the government commissioned the BRE to investigate and the results of their research may be summarised as follows: (1) Cavity walls built before 1981 are potentially at risk because the metal wall ties often lacked protection against corrosion. After 1981 metal wall ties were more thoroughly protected and stainless steel/plastic alternatives introduced. (2) Some pre-1981 metal cavity wall ties are more prone to corrosion than others. Generally, the older the cavity wall tie the greater the risk.
Rat trap bond
(3) Cavity wall tie corrosion is exacerbated by environmental factors. Proximity of a property to industrial (airborne) pollution or exposure to salt air (cliff-top/ seaside) will increase the risk of wall tie corrosion. Page 5 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015 (Continued from page 5)
Cavity Walls in Britain: A Brief History Early cavity walls could be bonded by bricks joining one leaf to the other and by metal ties. Metal tied walls can perhaps be easily defined as true cavity walls. However, the early walls boned by brick across the cavity need closer consideration.
This is all very fascinating, particularly if you are a practising surveyor in Kent or West Sussex; but what about the rest of the UK? The cottages in Westgate on Sea were built to provide accommodation for the crews of the local Coastguard station. By the time these cottages were built, the Coastguard service was under the control of the Admiralty (having previously been under the Board of Custom, when its function had primarily been to prevent smuggling). Under the Admiralty, the number of Coastguard stations grew, peaking at over 500 by 1903. Being operated by the Admiralty, the Coastguards had a close association with the Royal Navy and this might explain why an innovative form of construction was being used when these cottag e s we re b uilt. The nav al dockyards underwent massive expansion in the 19th Century and as well as the docks themselves, the associated buildings (from stores and offices etc.) were crucial. As a big and innovative developer it is easy to see how the navy might have been at the forefront of new forms of construction. There are ex-coast guard cottages all over the UK, many of them in desirable waterside locations and Grade II listed, and while their architectural styles vary, it would be interesting to know how many more might be early examples of cavity walls.
The history of the cavity wall in Britain is one which has been subject to much debate as to the date when they became common place in housing and when the first cavity walls appeared. Ronald Brunskill & Alec Clifton-Taylor, in their publication of 1977, English Brickwork made several claims regarding cavity walls in common use in the construction of housing. This included a claim that JJ Stevenson's house at
For the purpose of this article our definition has taken true cavity walls to include walls bonded by brick, where the function of the brick is primarily to ensure stability between the two leaves and the bonding bricks are spaced at intervals that would also be intended primarily to ensure stability.
8 Palace Gate SW7, of 1880,
was one of the earliest uses of cavity walling in London. Given that there are various examples of cavity wall construction used in dwellings in the previous three decades throughout England, this claim could be misleading. In 1876 Sir Edmund Beckett wrote that although cavity walls in their varying forms were “now at last generally admitted to be expedient [...] architects are wonderfully slow to propose them�. This is perhaps an indication of the slow mass adoption of the cavity wall in housing construction but overlooks examples of cavity wall construction from as early as 1826 and thereafter throughout the decades leading up to the 1880s. So how many houses are of cavity wall construction in the nineteenth century and how wide spread was this form of wall in this country? First we need to clarify what we mean by a cavity wall as there are various examples of walls with cavities that we might disregard. There are also many examples of cavity wall or walls containing cavities used in non residential buildings, which indicate that cavity wall construction was around. Some such buildings may have been subsequently converted to residential use in more recent decades.
There are many examples in the early nineteenth century of buildings built with walls which are bridged by brickwork at regular intervals which we can possibly dismiss as examples of the true cavity wall. They are not cavity walls in the sense that while they contain small cavities they are bonded at intervals greater than was necessary to ensure stability between the two leaves and effectively only had cavity pockets in the solid wall form. The earliest reference to date of a cavity wall design was, according to Brunskill & Clifton-Taylor, to be found in William Atkinson's Views of Picturesque Cottages with Plans, published in 1805. This, like many other hollow wall designs, proposed the use of bonding bricks spanning the cavity. It is this use of brick and other materials to span the cavity between the inner and outer leaves of the wall that help us understand our modern definition of the cavity wall and how designs such as that proposed by William Atkinson arguably fell short of the true cavity wall as it ultimately evolved. Other forms of hollow wall construction were designed to save bricks as a consequence of the very high duty
(Continued on page 7) Page 6 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015 (Continued from page 6) which was payable on bricks until 1850. One early example is that described in the Bath Society’s Papers in 1833, describing a design for cottages using a form of cavity construction whereby the cavity was closed at intervals by cross bonding so that the cavity was really a series of cells about 120–1300mm long. Another is Dearn’s method of wall construction, proposed in 1814, whereby the wall is laid in English bond but with the stretchers on edge to create a continuous three inch cavity between them. Rat trap bond is one example of such hollow wall construction that we now consider to still be solid wall construction due to the large number of ties between the inner and outer leaves of the wall. There are several others that use bonding bricks but it is the frequency of these ties that is key to what we now consider as a true cavity wall.
The principle function of a cavity wall today is to keep out moisture but the first hollow or cavity walls were designed for many purposes. Another of the earliest proposals for a true cavity walls construction was J B Papworth's designs for an ice house and a dairy in 1818. This may be one of the first proposals for true cavity walls but the purpose in the dairy was to maintain a free circulation of air while the use of cavity walls in the ice house was to allow drainage of surrounding moisture and improve insulation to keep the ice cool. Neither design appeared to include any form of wall tie (brick or otherwise). The aforementioned house built before 1826 in Rochester could be considered to be the earliest true cavity wall in Britain so far identified. This was a design with two leaves of four and a half inch thick brickwork separated by a four inch cavity. Bonding between the two leaves was provided by the use of ‘occasional’ bonding bricks. There were other similar houses built in the same period at Cranbrook. Other proposals for houses built with cavity walls were published throughout the following decade.
Rat trap bond
By the early 1840s cavity walls bonded by iron ties had become common on the Isle of Wight.
Cavity wall from: ‘Masonry-CarpentryJoinery, The Art of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 1899.
The tie was a wrought iron rod with ends bent sideways to lay between brick courses and bond the inner and outer leaves. It incorporated a depression in the middle to prevent water bridging the cavity. By the 1860s the Dictionary of Architecture described what were thought to be improved types of metal cramp or tie to those used on the Isle of Wight. It is thought that during the 1850s about 80% of workers housing in Southampton had been built with cavity walls, some using these improved metal ties. Various examples of bonding brick were also patented during the following years, for example George Jennings
(Continued on page 8)
The late 19th Century cavity brick house This interesting property (Photo 1) was identified in Harwich as an early example of cavity wall construction—it was built c.1889. Initially, the surveyor was alerted by the filled drill holes below windows (see Photo 2) and in other strategic locations that suggested the presence of retrofitted cavity wall insulation. This was unusual as the house was obviously built sometime in the 19 th Century but also the brick pattern (Flemish bond) would normally be associated with solid wall construction. Photo 1: This substantial house in Harwich was identified as having cavity brick walls .
The surveyor’s inspection confirmed the walls to be approximately 350mm thick, but again, this could be consistent with solid walls using an infill of bricks between the outer and inner leaves of brick.
Conversation with the owner confirmed that the property had been built some time in 1889 or possibly a little earlier. The owner had arranged for the cavities to be filled, after confirming their suitability by contractors, with blown fibre glass insulation material. This is perhaps an example of an individually designed house where the architect was a little more convinced of the benefits of a cavity wall than many architects and builders of the time. In the late 19 th Century, although set back from the sea front, this property would have been in a relatively exposed location overlooking farmland across to the sea. Photo 2: Flemish bond, but also
We have been unable to confirm it but this property is perhaps an example of a cavity wall built note the filled drill holes under with brick wall ties (similar to those patented by Jennings), hence the use of Flemish bond to the bay window between the third and fourth courses below the incorporate the wall ties. window cill.
Page 7 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015 (Continued from page 7) patented a brick that could be of varying lengths to suit differing cavity wall thicknesses. Jennings later patented a more effective design which appeared as a header in the outer face, then sloped upwards in the cavity to become a header one course higher in the inner leaf. These bricks were used well into the twentieth century in Britain. From around 1869 a series of seaside bungalows were built near Margate, at Birchington-on-Sea, including examples that had cavity walls tied by flat metal straps with an upward kink at the centre. These are later than an example of a house in nearby Westgate-on-Sea which has been identified by one of our contributors to the Technical Bulletin
brick wall ties continued to be used into the twentieth century.
The early Edwardian cavity brick house
However, the solid brick wall remained the favoured method of wall construction until the early twentieth century: cavity brick walls before 1920, although found in many parts of Britain in the 50 years preceding this date, remained less common.
This row of terraced housing in Colchester is one of several rows in the street built of cavity wall construction in or around 1905 (as confirmed by date stones on each row of terraced houses).
Time line 1805: William Atkinson's Views of Picturesque Cottages with Plans, published with proposed designs for housing constructed with a cavity wall bonded by bricks at regular intervals– not a true cavity. 1814: Thomas Dearn refers to the method of cavity wall construction he later publicised in 1821 in his Hints on an Improved Method of Building 1818: J B Papworth designs a dairy and ice house with walls designed incorporating a true cavity. 1826: first documented record of a house in Rochester built slightly before this date to a cavity wall design similar to that proposed by Dearn. Further examples are also built in same period at Cranbrook.
competition (see page 5). The house at Beach Road, identified by Robert Teale MCIOB MRICS, is reportedly dated to 1862 and has metal wall ties between the cavity walls. By 1873 John Birch was building labourers cottages all over England with eleven and a quarter inch hollow walls bonded with iron ties spaced around two feet and three inches apart on each alternate brick course. By 1883 F W Braby of London was advertising six different models of galvanised wrought iron wall tie, indicating perhaps the fairly widespread acceptance of cavity wall construction. We can conclude that examples of true cavity wall dwellings were therefore built as early as the 1820s (certainly by 1826). As cavity wall construction in dwellings became better understood, metal wall ties were introduced from the 1840s even though specifically designed
1833: designs for cottages published that are built using cross bonded masonry walls incorporating hollow cells.
It looks like a fairly typical terrace of the type found in many towns built between the 1880s and early 20th Century (Photos 1 & 2). It lacks some of the decorative brickwork and features usually associated with housing built in the Edwardian period and up to WW1. However, the stretcher bond walls alert you to the possibility of the cavity brick structure. In many northern towns the wall thickness might only have been 220/230mm, indicating the presence of a finger cavity. Closer inspection of one of these houses confirms that they have a wall thickness of 260mm and therefore must contain a cavity of at least 40mm. Other streets nearby contain houses built with mainly solid brick walls, but there are some slightly later (1910s and 1920s) examples of properties with cavity brick walls. This is therefore one of the earliest examples of volume built housing in the town using cavity wall construction.
1840s: first cavity walled houses bonded by metal ties appear on the Isle of Wight. 1860s: Silverlock of Chichester invent a method of walling that became widespread in southern England and known as rat trap bond.
Photo 1: This row of terraced housing in Colchester was identified as having cavity brick walls.
Photo 2: Stretcher bond, consistent with cavity brick walls.
Page 8 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015
Chancel repairs verify definitively whether a given piece of land is still a glebe in a present parish that must have had a rector but no longer does.
As the eyes and ears of the conveyancer, surveyors have a duty to highlight potential legal issues in their reports for the conveyancer to check. One potentially substantial liability might be hinted at by the very address or that of property adjacent to the property being inspected. Property with the words “Glebe” “Vicarage”, “Parsons” or “Rectory” in the address, or situated near the property being inspected, might ring alarm bells for the wary surveyor. What are chancel liabilities? Chancel repairs (relating to glebes) are a rather quaint and unusual legal liability that can be attached to land but not recorded in the original deeds of a property in England and Wales. The liability dates from medieval times, when churches in England and Wales were ministered by either a vicar, who received a stipend (salary), or a rector or parson who received tithes from the parish. The rectors (of around 5,200 churches) were responsible for the repairs to the chancel of their church, while the parish members were responsible for the rest of the building. Monasteries and Oxford and Cambridge colleges could buy or receive rectorships, and consequently became liable for chancel repairs. The dissolution of the monasteries in the late 1530s by Henry VIII brought about significant changes to parishes. Henry sold many parish rectories (also known as glebes) with land, and with these new estates the liability for chancel repairs passed to the new landowners and subsequent owners, who became known as “lay rectors”. Over the centuries glebes have been merged by landowners with other land and the liability has passed with such lands. It is therefore very difficult to
There are some ways to check, for example maps and records held by the National Archives can be consulted, as can local church websites in some cases. However, it is often difficult to verify liability and even now solicitors regularly advise clients to take out insurance cover where the land the property is built on is considered to be at risk. As a consequence, property owners can find themselves liable for repairs to the chancels of their local parish churches in England and Wales. Although this is not a responsibility to repair the whole church—the chancel is the space around the altar in the sanctuary, and in some cases includes the choir—it can still be a substantial liability.
Costs of chancel liabilities The case of Aston Cantlow PCC versus Wallbank provides a sobering example of the cost. After protracted court challenges, the case was referred to the House of Lords, who in 2003, upheld the chancel repair liability claim in favour of the Aston Cantlow Parochial Parish Council against lay rectors Andrew and Gail Wallbank.
land and register their interest before 13 October 2013. This means that chancel repair liability is no longer an "overriding interest" protected under the Land Registration Act 2002. The assumption has been made that, since that date, new owners of land are only bound by chancel repair liability where it was already entered on the Title Register database kept by the Land Registry or the land is to be registered for the first time. This led to a number of homeowners receiving notifications from the Land Registry about registration of interests on their property. The issue has not gone away though for other landowners who might have been liable. Many parishes have refrained from registering such interests, due to the potential damage to their reputations, but this has not been considered lightly. The members of Parochial Church Councils (who are responsible for the local church and registering the interest) usually have to act as charitable trustees in the best interests of the church. This means that they could have a duty to protect the church’s interest by registering any liability. The Law Society expressed doubts about registration in 2006: The issue remains, in their opinion, that existing owners still have a liability. One potential issue is that the liability is “joint and several”, therefore if one property has the chancel repair liability registered against it in the parish, then other properties that are also liable, where the interest is not registered, could be asked to contribute.
The Wallbanks were faced with a c.£100,000 bill for repairs for their local parish church and with the addition of legal costs their bill amounted to c.£300,000.
Since 2006 various debates have taken place in Parliament and there have been petitions for legislation to resolve the issue. The government has indicated that they see no need for legislation, but a private members bill is currently going through Parliament in an attempt to abolish the liability.
Changes to chancel liabilities Through provisions made under the power of the Land Registration Act 2002, the onus was put on Parochial Church Councils to identify all affected
New owners of land who purchased a registered title since October 2013 will not be liable for chancel repairs unless the interest had already been registered with the Land Registry.
Page 9 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015
More detailed radon maps are now available Under Section C of the Home Condition Survey under ‘Risks to People’ there is the ability for the surveyor to warn the client that the home they are considering to buy may be in an area affected by Radon. The main source of information relating to Radon is provided by Public Health England via the UK radon website where small scale maps can be downloaded from the ‘Indicative atlas of radon’. On these maps, the UK is divided into a grid of coloured squares and the darker the colour the greater the chance of a higher level of radon being found in the area covered by that square. In white areas on the map, the chance is less than one home in a hundred, whereas the chance is greater than one home in three in the areas shaded darkest brown. These maps are helpful but a bit clunky and imprecise. However, our colleagues at Bluebox Partners have recently advised us that a more detailed search functionality has been added to the website, giving a better definition. On the home page of UK Radon website (www.ukradon.org/), click on the heading UK maps of radon areas.
Select the map for the appropriate country, and then select your region. This reveals an interactive map of the UK. Click on the Explore the interactive map button and enter the postcode of the property and you will be presented with a larger scale map of the neighbourhood. Click on the ‘show radon data’ and much more useful information is shown. How to Report Radon in the HCS According to an explanatory video on the UK Radon Website, if the property is in a white area, it means that there is less than a 0—1% risk and no further action needs to be taken. (See www.ukradon.org/information/ differencesearchmap) However, if there is a property higher than 0-1% risk, this probability level will be allocated to the whole square even though many of the neighbouring properties may be much less. In these cases, UKradon recommends an on-line ‘UKradon search’. This is easily arranged and only costs £3.90. You should note Radon in the report. As part of the planned software changes we will amend the Radon section to bring it up to date.
New CPD modules for surveyors We are extending our partnership with BlueBox to offer a new CPD programme to our existing surveyors. We aim to ensure that our CPDs are always in-depth and challenging. This is because we think that if you give up your time to learn something then you should have an excellent and fulfilling experience. Therefore, you will have the opportunity to learn from experts in the surveying field to ask your burning questions and to develop your understanding of key subjects. Unlike other SAVA courses, this programme will be taught differently with some modules involving both pre course preparation and post course study. This means that, with the completion of pre and post course study, one day of face-to -face training could result in up to eleven hours of CPD. The programme will consist of a number of comprehensive modules. As well as the usual topics such as damp, movement and timber defects, we will be covering new areas. For instance, watch out for the party wall training module (with the option to take a new Party Wall qualification). We will also be delving into property valuation for the first time, with an ‘Advanced Valuation Studies’ module. The programme will run over a number of months with all modules available to be taken separately. We understand that 20 hours of CPD can be a lot to find when you are busy with inspections and other work. However, with some modules offering up to eleven hours of CPD, these modules will ensure you have access to enough CPD to meet your annual requirement and, most importantly, to keep you at the top of your game. The programme is still in development, but we aim to launch the first modules shortly.
Page 10 of 11
Issue 18 | Fe bruary 2015
The SAVA School of Surveying Open Day Come and find out how you could benefit from training with SAVA by speaking to the industry experts. Representatives from RICS, Countrywide Surveyors, RPSA and BlueBox partners have already confirmed their attendance, and we have many more organisations in the pipeline to help answer your questions and explore just some of the opportunities the Diploma will generate. The February 2015 intake for the Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation is now fully booked. At the end of their journey, learners on this course will have the opportunity to produce the Home Condition Survey for homebuyers through the SAVA Scheme, and will gain direct entry into the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) as Associate members (AssocRICS). Due to popular demand, we have released dates for a May intake. You can download a prospectus to view the new dates and course information at: surveyorqualifications.co.uk/download-theprospectus.html
During the course of the event, you will have the opportunity to speak with representatives from these organisations on a one-to-one basis to discuss the Diploma and career prospects for post-qualification. We will also be hosting a number of short presentations throughout the day to demystify the qualification process and explain the available entry routes. Many have already expressed their interest in the new May intake, so if you cannot attend the Open Day but would like to register your interest, call us for an informal chat on 01908 442158 or email us at training@nesltd.co.uk.
Attend the SAVA Open Day If you are interested in the Diploma and would like to know more, we would like to invite you to attend the next SAVA School of Surveying Open Day in Milton Keynes on Friday 17 April, 11am to 4pm. The day will run as a drop in session, so you can come and go as you please.
About our bulletins We trust you find this edition of the SAVA technical bulletin useful. If there are any areas you would like to see covered in future editions drop us a line at bulletins@nesltd.co.uk. All editions of the bulletins and an index are available in the Useful Documents section of NES one. Technical Support: 01908 442105 (8am–7pm Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm Friday, 10am-4pm
SAVA, The National Energy Centre Davy Avenue, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NA Web: www.nesltd.co.uk
Saturday); support@nesltd.co.uk Support Website: support.nesltd.co.uk Membership Services: 01908 442277 (9am–5.30pm Monday -Thursday, 9am-5pm Friday);
membership@nesltd.co.uk Compliance: 01908 442288 (8am–7pm Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm Friday);
compliance@nesltd.co.uk Training enquiries: 01908 442240 or email assessment@nesltd.co.uk NES one Credit Top up line: 01908 442299
The content of this technical bulletin is protected by copyright and any unauthorised use, copying, lending or making available of it, howsoever defined, which is not specifically authorised by National Energy Services Ltd., is strictly prohibited. © 2015 National Energy Services
Page 11 of 11