Recommendations for removing stone cladding

Martin

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 4:56:34 AM10/27/12

to

Does anyone have any recommendations for people who can remove stone
cladding from the front of a Victorian house and clean (sandblast?) the
brickwork afterwards?

Martin

CWatters

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 8:10:41 AM10/27/12

to

Sand blasting the bricks might not be a good idea. I believe it can be
damaging.

Google found..

http://www.back2brick.co.uk/

CWatters

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 8:13:31 AM10/27/12

to

PS It's possible it was clad to stop water penetration causing damp on
the inside. In which case the damp may return. Rendering the outside
might be necessary in the end. Unless you plan internal wall insulation
and can form a barrier at same time.

Fevric J. Glandules

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 8:33:54 AM10/27/12

to

I've been wondering about this since I saw a house having its overcoat
removed. The coat in this case being pebbledash. Or possibly roughcast.

I assume that it has some benefit, in protecting the brickwork, which
is why it's applied in the first place. But what's the incentive to
remove it? Wikipedia claims that it can affect the property's value
negatively. Is that it?

NB the above doesn't apply to the wildly inappropriate and ugly (IMHO)
faux-castle stone cladding you sometimes see.

Owen Dunn

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 9:15:14 AM10/27/12

to

"Fevric J. Glandules" <f...@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Martin wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any recommendations for people who can remove stone
>> cladding from the front of a Victorian house and clean (sandblast?) the
>> brickwork afterwards?
>
> I've been wondering about this since I saw a house having its overcoat
> removed. The coat in this case being pebbledash. Or possibly roughcast.
>
> I assume that it has some benefit, in protecting the brickwork, which
> is why it's applied in the first place. But what's the incentive to
> remove it? Wikipedia claims that it can affect the property's value
> negatively. Is that it?

Pebbledash is certainly considered `naff' and `1970s' by many.

(S)

Fevric J. Glandules

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 10:34:33 AM10/27/12

to

Owen Dunn wrote:

> Pebbledash is certainly considered `naff' and `1970s' by many.

In which case it's bound to be trendy within a few years...

Duncan Wood

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 10:46:12 AM10/27/12

to

Well it's handy for externally insulated walls.

Martin

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 5:23:52 PM10/27/12

to

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:

> I assume that it has some benefit, in protecting the brickwork, which is
> why it's applied in the first place. But what's the incentive to remove
> it? Wikipedia claims that it can affect the property's value
> negatively. Is that it?

The incentive is that I'm having the windows restored to proper sash
windows, but the cladding makes it impossible to measure that properly,
and, well, it looks ugly..

I'm not sure where there any damp issue (it certainly hasn't been a
problem so far).

I suspect it was installed back in the 70s just on the basis of being
trendy then, but now it just looks ugly!

>
> NB the above doesn't apply to the wildly inappropriate and ugly (IMHO)
> faux-castle stone cladding you sometimes see.
>

Martin

RobertL

unread,

Nov 1, 2012, 12:20:22 PM11/1/12

to

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:23:53 PM UTC+1, Martin wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Fevric J. Glandules wrote: > I'm having the windows restored to proper sash windows,

You generally won't be allowed to return to "original type" sash windows; they will have to be double glazed ones. I think also that it is hard to meet the new window insulation rules if you have weiugths in sash boxes because of the cold bridge the boxes create.

Robert