Brian Morton suggests that conservation engineers are good value for money 'SUPPORTING COLUMNS' COST EFFECTIVE CONSERVATION It is a matter of fact that the conservation engineer is cost effective. Clearly if there is a structural problem with a property the conservation engineer's approach is to use a minimum intervention policy which of course means minimum cost. There are many examples in Spitalfields, London, where other engineers have suggested demolition as a solution to a bulging wall whereas the simple solution is simply to tie the outer skin to the inner skin and restrain the wall by tying it into the floors. Some years ago I was asked to look at the front wall of a Georgian villa in T eddington, London, where there were clearly problems. Brickwork was bulging around wall ties, and there were other signs of serious distress to the wall. A solution suggested to the owner was to scaffold the front wall completely in order for the engineer to take plumb readings so that he could ascertain the stability of the wall, and in this way to perhaps suggest reasons why the bulging had occurred. In this case it was immediately obvious to me that there was some good reason for the wall to have bulged in this most unusual manner. Some research at the local library showed that a bomb had dropped some 100 yards away and it was my view that the bomb blast had sucked the outside face of the wall away from the inner skin, whilst the wall ties had restrained the brickwork local to their metal plates. The simple solution once again, of tying the outer skin back to the inner skin and locally rebuilding badly distorted areas of brickwork, solved the problem without the expense of the scaffold and plumb survey that had been suggested. I remember the client suggesting that we had saved him about £10,000 compared with other solutions that had been offered. If demolition of an historic building is proposed it is usually for commercial gain, and yet I have been able to show on many occasions that it is much more cost effective to retain the existing structure, strengthening it by traditional methods where necessary; perhaps 50% of the cost CONTEXT 44 Conservatory,Old Catton,Norfolk. of a new building of similar area or volume. The difficulty is that inexperienced professionals believe that it is expensive to re-use or restore an historic structure, and indeed in many cases it is expensive because of the quality of the internal finishes, but this is only true in a limited number of cases. Most of the simple vernacular buildings or commercial buildings that we are asked to look at can be restored to a good standard even by comparison with a new building if the right approach is adopted. On several occasions I have looked at buildings on behalf of the Victorian Society where either demolition is proposed or the cost of repair suggests that a building has reached the end of its useful life. Almost without exception it has been possible to show that demolition is unnecessary because the structural problems are not as great as they appear or the requirement for repair has been grossly overstated. A conservatory at Old Catton near Norwich, Norfolk, which can be seen in the photograph, was subject to a proposal for demolition because it was indicated that it would cost £250,000 to restore. A detailed inspection by myself and a specialist contractor suggested that the figures quoted were extremely high and I was thus able to put together a scheme with the specialist contractor, and the conservatory was restored for under £50,000. In this situation the local authority which was the owner had been badly advised as to the possible cost and would not consider restoring it for £250,000 but was reasonably happy to expend the smaller sum. At Old Catton our analysis of the problem suggested that the rusting of the structure in the joints between the main columns and the glazed window panels was causing the distortion that could be seen. The fact that the building was a 'kit of parts', prefabricated off site, meant that it could be taken apart, repaired and put back together again. The Charter of a civil engineer requires that he should be capable of "harnessing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man". I see this as a requirement for engineers to produce the most cost effective scheme for the repair of an historic building commensurate with quality using traditional skills and 27
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=