S. A. Consulting Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers

STRUCTURAL APPRAISAL

FOR

MR and MRS R SHENTON

AT

MOAT FARM

DRAYCOTT-IN-THE-CLAY

Job No. G-022

SA Consulting Regent House 34B High Street Tutbury Burton-upon-Trent Staffordshire DE13 9LS Tele: 01283 520-495 Email: admin@saconsult.co

Date: May 2016

Project Number G-022 Structural Appraisal At Moat Farm Draycott-in-the-Clay Ashbourne DE6 5GX

Structural Appraisal For Mr and Mrs R Shenton Tuffa UK Ltd Dovefields Ind. Estate Derby Road Uttoxerter Staffordshire ST14 8SW Structural Appraisal By Eur.Ing D. Gregory. C.Eng. FIStructE, MICE, AaPS Date of Appraisal Wednesday 18th May 2016

1.00 INTRODUCTION 1.01 The property in question is an outbuilding consisting of a collection of 5 workshops and

3 Stables. 1.02 The property sits back from the Main Road in grounds of approximately 65 Hectares and

is approached by a long concrete drive. 1.03 Both a stream and a drainage channel are running along the east boundary. 1.04 The roofs are, with the exception of Workshop 3 and Workshop 5, duo pitch in nature

and covered with slate or tiles. 1.05 The roof to Workshop 3 is that of a flat concrete roof. 1.06 The roof to Workshop 5 is that of Big Six type sheets. 1.07 The external walls are that of fair faced brickwork with render being seen on Workshop 4 1.08 The Client is considering refurbishing the property into a habitable dwelling. 1.09 The Client has therefore appointed SA Consulting to carry out a Structural Appraisal on

the property and report the findings. 1.10 The Structural Appraisal was carried out on the morning of Wednesday 18th April 2016. 1.11 During the time of the Structural Appraisals the weather was dry. 1.12 SA Consulting was accompanied by the client during a part of the Appraisal. 1.13 Drawings are contained in Appendix A 1.14 Photographs are contained in Appendix B. 1.15 The Scope of Works is attached in Appendix C. 1.16 Our observations are as follows

. 2.00 EXTERNAL Main Roofs: Duo Pitch 2.01 There were basically 4 duo pitched roofs covered in both slate and tiles. (See Drawing G-

022/02). 2.02 Viewed from the ground, the ridges looked acceptable horizontal for a property of this

age. 2.03 The tiles and slates again appeared to be in relatively good condition for a property of

this age. 2.04 Except for the roof over Workshop 4 undue deflection of the roof slopes was not seen. 2.05 However deflection was noted in an area of roof to the front of Workshop 4. Concrete Flat Roof 2.06 This concrete roof was over Workshop 4. (See Drawing G-022/02) 2.07 Viewed from the ground the perimeter edge appeared to acceptable without signs of

spalling. Big Six Roof Covering 2.08 This type of roof was over Workshop 5. (See Drawing G-022/02) 2.09 The roof did not show any signs of undue deflection or distress. External Walls 2.10 The walls with the exception of the wall to Workshop 4 were 220mm fair face brickwork. 2.11 The walls were generally in an acceptable condition being acceptably plumb and without

undue structural cracking. 2.12 The window and door frames were square and without distress as such but were of an

typical outbuilding specification. 2.13 An inspection of the wall at ground level did not reveal any settlement. 2.14 Around the perimeter at ground floor level there were small areas of render and these

were in disrepair 2.15 As would be expected it appeared that a DPC was not present. 2.16 The walls to Workshop 4 were rendered and in an acceptable condition for a building of

this age.

2.17 The guttering and down pipes were not in good order. 2.18 Although there were many Inspection Chambers present around the building it was not

possible to lift any of these. 3.00 INTERNAL Workshop 1 3.01 The roof comprised of timber rafters supported by timber purlins. 3.02 Although no distress was seen it appeared that the purlins, by modern specifications,

were undersized. 3.03 A farm type roof truss was present but again did not appear to comply with modern

design practice. 3.04 The condition of the walls were typical of an outbuilding in that there were fair faced. 3.05 The walls had been rendered but this was now in disrepair. 3.06 At the top of the gable wall it could be seen that the wall had in the past been raised some

300mm 3.07 Damp patches on the wall could be seen. 3.08 There was a dominant opening with a steel beam over which appeared to be fit-for-

purpose. 3.09 The floor was that of a concrete slab that was acceptable level and free from cracking Workshop 2 3.10 The roof appeared to be an extension of Workshop 1. 3.11 However the slope was under drawn so a full picture of the rafters could not be gained. 3.12 Again it appeared that the timbers seen were somewhat undersized by modern

specification. 3.13 The walls were rendered and this was in good condition 3.14 The floor was level and had been painted but it was worn. Workshop 3 3.15 The ceiling was that of the flat concrete roof slab. 3.16 A central downstand beam was present

3.17 The ceiling had been painted in the past but it was now peeling off. 3.18 The fair-faced walls were acceptably vertical but did have some deposits of salt on them. 3.19 The concrete floor was acceptably level and free from cracking Stable 1 and Stable 2 3.20 Typically the roofs were timber rafters supported by timber purlins which again by

modern specification were somewhat small in size. 3.21 The walls were rendered which was in an acceptable condition for outbuildings 3.22 The floor were concrete and again in an acceptable condition for outbuildings. Workshop 4 3.23 The ceiling was of what appeared to be an asbestos type ceiling tiles that were not in

good condition. 3.24 Areas of the ceiling were in disrepair which enabled the roof timbers to be seen in part 3.25 The construction appeared to be that of timber rafters supported by timber purlins

supported by roof trusses. 3.26 The view was extremely restricted but it appeared that the roof trusses had been modified

in the past. 3.27 A small corner steel has also been positioned to support a truss. 3.28 The walls were rendered but this was not in good condition. 3.29 The concrete floor was acceptable as such and there was a covered duct present. 3.30 The duct ran from Workshop 4 and through into Workshop 5. 3.31 It was not possible to remove the duct covers. Workshop 5 3.32 The roof was that of a Big Six type “asbestos” sheet covering. 3.33 This was supported on what appeared to be undersized timber purlins which in turn were

supported by small steel beams. 3.34 Although the members were apparently undersized undue deflection was not seen. 3.53 The brick walls were in an acceptable condition but the render was not. 3.36 The concrete floor was level and without any structural cracking.

Stables 3, 4 and 5 3.37 As it was not possible to open the doors to Stables 4 and 5 it was only possible to view

Stable 3 3.38 For the purposes of this Appraisal it is assumed that Stables 4 and 5 are in the same

condition as Stable 3 3.39 The roof was mainly of timber rafters and timber purlin construction. 3.40 However the change in pitch of the roof was constructed along a timber purlin which

resulted in a part of the roof being formed with opaque sheeting. 3.41 This junction was not of Best Practice with the timber purlin being inadequate in size. 3.42 The walls were rendered and these were in an acceptable condition 3.43 The concrete floor slab was level and free from cracks. 4.00 CONCLUSIONS 4.01 It is concluded that the basic structural fabric of the outbuilding is in an acceptable

condition to allow the outbuilding to be refurbished into a habitable building. . 4.02 However to complete the change in use, certain structural and architectural works would

have to be carried out. Externally 4.03 All roofs coverings would appear to be watertight. 4.04 However a dip in the roof slope could be seen on the front elevation on Workshop 4

which would appear to be due to the condition of the internal supporting timbers 4.05 The Big Six sheeting and supports would have to be upgraded if the building were made

habitable. 4.06 The external walls which are double leaf solid brickwork are plumb and do not show any

signs of cracking or settlement. 4.07 It is therefore considered that the external walls are themselves structurally sound and

capable of supporting the present and proposed loading. (see note on foundations) 4.08 However there does not appear to be any DPC within the wall and this would have to be

inserted if the building was going to be made habitable 4.09 The small amount of render at ground level has failed, probably due to its age and damp

penetration but this render would have to be removed in any case. 4.10 The foundations were not inspected but a Trial Pit was excavated nearby.

4.11 This Trial Pit filled with water to approximately 800mm below ground level. 4.12 This would seem to be indicative of the high Water Table on site 4.13 It is concluded that the foundations of the out buildings must be at a fairly high level and

any new foundations should be in sympathy with the existing foundations. 4.14 Should the existing house be extended then the proposed foundations again must again be

similar to the existing. 4.15 It is concluded that due to the high Water Table piling may have to be used. 4.16 It is therefore concluded that the nature of the foundations of the existing outbuilding and

the existing house should be ascertained so that a decision can be made as to the design of any new foundations.

Internally 4.17 Internally the timber roofs are adequate for their present purpose but would have to be

strengthened to meet a present day specification for a habitable building. 4.18 Special attention would have to be given to checking out the trusses in Workshops 1 and

4. 4.19 The internal walls are structurally sound and are capable of capable of supporting the

present load and should be capable of supporting any proposed domestic type load. 4.20 However the foundations would need to be proved. 4.21 The ceiling tiles in Workshop 4 should be checked for asbestos content as too the roof to

Workshop 5 4.22 The concrete ground slabs are again fit for their present use but would have to be

upgraded should the building be used for habitable purposes. 4.23 It is concluded that the drainage system should be checked. 4.24 It is concluded that a timber survey be carried out 4.25 It is concluded that an asbestos survey be carried out.

5.00 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.01 The findings of this Structural Appraisal are that with the usual architectural and

structural upgrading the outbuilding could be made into a habitable dwelling. 5.02 It is recommended that the existing roof timbers sizes including the trusses should be

structurally designed taking into account the proposed loadings. 5.03 Any strengthening required should then be carried out. 5.04 It is recommended that excavation be carried out adjacent to both the perimeter of the

existing house and the outbuilding to expose the foundations. 5.05 This would then allow the foundations to be designed. 5.06 The floor slabs would have to be upgraded to the architect’s specification to allow for

improved insulation to be added. 5.07 The depth of the footings would also have a bearing on the amount of insulation that

could be applied to the ground floor slab. 5.08 It is recommended that the building as a whole should be checked for asbestos content. 5.09 It is also recommended that a timber consultant be appointed and a report be made on the

condition of any timbers that are to remain.

APPENDIX A

DRAWINGS

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHS

EXTERNAL

Photograph 1 Entrance

Photograph 2

Drainage Channel to right of entrance

Photograph 3

Stream to right of entrance

Photograph 4

Front Elevation

Photograph 5 Workshop 4 Showing dip in the roof.

Photograph 6

Junction of Workshop 4 and Stable 1

Photograph 7

Workshop 1

INTERNAL

Photograph 8

Workshop 1

Photograph 9

Workshop 1

Photograph 10 Workshop 1 Spalled render

Photograph 11 Workshop 1, 2 and 3

Photograph 12 Workshops 3, 2, Stable 2 and the Undercroft.

Photograph 13 Stable 3, The Undercroft, Stable 2, Workshops 2 and 3

Photograph 14 Stables 3, 4 and 5

Photograph 15 Stable 5 and Workshop 5

Photograph 16 Stable 5 and Workshop 5

Photograph 17 The Undercroft

Photograph 18 The undercroft ceiling

Photograph 19 WORKSHOP 1

Photograph 20 WORKSHOP 1

Photograph 21 WORKSHOP 1

Photograph 22 WORKSHOP 1

Photograph 23 WORKSHOP 1

Photograph 24 WORKSHOP 2

Photograph 25 WORKSHOP 2

Photograph 26 WORKSHOP 3

Photograph 27 WORKSOP 3

Photograph 28 Showing location of Trial Pit

Photograph 29 TRIAL PIT Showing Water Table

Photograph 30 Showing Spoil taken from Trial Pit

Photograph 31 Stable 2

Photograph 32 Stable 1

Photograph 33 Stable 1

Photograph 34 Workshop 4

Photograph 35 Workshop 4 Ceiling timbers And Steel beam

Photograph 36 Workshop 4 Ceiling Timbers And Rafter

Photograph 37 Workshop 4 Floor Gully

Photograph 38 General view of Workshop 5

Photograph 39 Big Six sheets, timber purlins and steel beam

Photograph 40 View into Workshop 5 Note floor gully

Photograph 41 Inside Stable 3 Note purlin picking up change in pitch of roof.

Photograph 42 Wall and floor of Stable 3

APPENDIX C

SCOPE OF WORK

AND

LIMITATIONS OF APPRAISAL

Scope of Works and Limitations of Appraisal

1.0 Our brief, as instructed by the client, Mr. and Mrs. R. Shenton was to inspect the property and report on the feasibility of using the outbuilding for habitable purposes.

2.0 Report on apparent defects, giving an opinion as to cause and structural significance, together with

recommendations for further investigations if required, or where appropriate suggest in outline only, the scope of any necessary remedial works. This not to include general advice concerning the likely effect and treatment needed to any nearby trees and vegetation that could affect the structure.

3.0 Unless specifically mentioned our brief has not included an investigation into the presence of

asbestos and all other non-structural elements, nor have we inspected the electrical and mechanical installations.

4.0 External inspection of the building has been carried out from ground level by visual and optical

sighting and without special access arrangements we cannot confirm that obscured parts are free from defect.

5.0 The internal inspection has been made within the limits of ready accessibility and it is not normal

practice to lift floor coverings or floorboards, remove panels or plaster or move heavy items of furniture. Consequently we have not been able to inspect woodwork or any other parts of the structure that are covered, unexposed or inaccessible and it is neither implied nor should it be construed that other parts are free from defect or that they have not suffered from insect or chemical attack.

6.0 The measurements and sizes stated are approximate or nominal and are taken only for the purpose of this

report they should not be used where accurate dimensions are required or are otherwise to be relied on. 7.0 Our inspection of the drains is limited to the raising, where possible, of visible inspection chamber

covers. 8.0 This report does not constitute a Homebuyer’s Report, Valuation or Schedule of Refurbishment, and

the lack of specific reference to any structural elements, materials or type of construction does not infer compliance with the current British Standards, Codes of Practice, or Building Regulations, and enquiries to the Local Authority have not been made.

9.0 The inspecting Engineer has not investigated mining activity or the extraction of minerals; we

therefore recommend that the appropriate searches be made as considered necessary. 10.0 The property and site have not been tested for any form of contamination, pollution or any other

environmental impairment (methane, radon, etc.) thus we are unable to make any comment in this regard.

11.0 Whilst we have used all reasonable skill and care in preparing this report, it should be appreciated

that we cannot offer any guarantee that the property will be free from future defects or that existing ones will not suffer from further deterioration.

12.0 All observations are referenced as left or right hand as observed from a position standing in front of

that elevation. 13.0 This report is for the private and confidential use of the client for whom it is prepared.