|
Roof
Ventilation
To
achieve the necessary levels of roof ventilation required by current
building standards without disfiguring the external appearence of
the roof calls for considerable ingenuity and
subtlety. Russell Wright considers the often conflicting requirements
of current building standards and traditional detailing.
Figure
1a. Traditional parapet gutter detail
|
Figure
1b. The same detail, modified to conform to Approved Document
F2 of The Building Regulations (1991)
|
Alec Clifton-Taylor, the celebrated
author and broadcaster, was perhaps the first to show how the rich
diversity of English building results from the variety of regional
building materials and distinctive details. Today, many classes of
regional building types, together with their associated repositories
of local materials are made obsolete by current building regulations.
Problems arise when trying to make unobtrusive additions to listed
buildings by replicating existing or traditional features. The thermal
performance of an ordinary single-glazed sash window, for example,
is insufficient in itself to satisfy Part L of Schedule 1 of the
Building Regulations 1991 when placed in correct proportional
relationship to a classical facade. Similarly, the traditional method
of constructing a parapet gutter - another common classical feature,
fails to provide sufficient cross ventilation of roof timbers, to
satisfy Approved Document F2 (Figure 1).
Various proprietary devices are available
to satisfy AD F2 where eaves ventilation is required. Unfortunately,
the majority are intended for use with fascia and soffit boards. These
are not common historic features, and are particularly out of place
alongside rare forms of eaves construction. On the western edge of
the Vale of York, for example, the pantiled belt of the eastern seaboard
gives way to the 'upland' roofing materials of the west. Old buildings
in this small transitional zone often have an eaves course of fissile
sandstone 'flags' beneath an otherwise fully-pantiled roof - a manifestation
of a crossover between two distinct roofing traditions. Some ingenuity
may therefore be necessary in finding ways of preserving the aesthetic
integrity of this detail in new work (Figure 2).
Figure 2a. 18th century vernacular eaves detail. |

Figure 2b. The same detail, modified to conform to the Building
Regulations (1991) |
The effective illegality of a wide range
of historic features and methods of construction is of special concern
to us. In addition to our general conservation and repair work, much
of our practice's work load involves the introduction of new buildings
and details within an historic context. To respect the setting we
are inevitably concerned with the perpetuation of classical and vernacular
architecture in new projects. There is a constant need to find ways
of meeting the aesthetic imperatives of such traditions in order to
preserve often subtle nuances of detail. At the same time, we must
also satisfy current performance standards. This is not too difficult
to achieve in the case of a parapet gutter (Figure 1) or where such
features are hidden. The main difficulties occur on prominent roof
forms, particularly at ridge level. Roof pitches above 15°, where
ceiling plaster is attached directly to rafters, are now required
to have a ventilation opening right along the ridge-line equivalent
to a continuous 5mm gap. (Approved Document F2: 2.1 and 2.5).
In historical terms, this opening is a visual contradiction and manufacturers
have devised various ways of incorporating ventilation grilles in
ridge tiles . But, for our purposes at least, these are not entirely
satisfactory. Instead, we prefer to ventilate the ridge of a pantiled
roof, for example, by adapting a well-known vernacular detail (Figure
3).

Figure 3 |
It is tempting to imagine, therefore,
that closer contacts between trade associations and conservation practices,
perhaps under the auspices of the Building Centre or the Association
of Conservation Officers, would result in a range of new products
geared more specifically to the conservation market. In reality, our
experience is that variety of historic detail is so wide that the
production of new standardised components would satisfy relatively
few conditions. On the other hand, there is definite scope for refinements
or adjustments to existing products to make their application more
widely suited to conservation work. In some cases this would merely
involve a change in colour (brown or dark-coloured plastic eaves ventilation
grilles for example would be less obtrusive than the universal white
ones currently available). In other cases we find that the best solutions
are often achieved by helpful dialogue between Building Control Officers
where acceptable resolutions may be achieved by satisfying the spirit
of intent of a particular provision, albeit in unusual, even unorthodox,
but nevertheless legal ways.
Compromise is inevitable, and we have
yet to come across historic methods of construction or detail where,
by a little thought, resolutions of this type cannot be found. This
process often involves a degree of improvisation. There are also innumerable
instances in our work where simple devices for reconciling the qualities
of historic architecture with current standards suggest themselves,
but for which no product is available. Why, for example, have brick
or tile manufacturers not produced a clay ventilating slip tile? It
would be simple to make, preferably with an integral insect grille.
Reconciling the demands of the Building
Regulations to traditional architectural forms is, in reality, part
of a wider debate about the disfiguring impact of technology. A satellite
dish on a mediaeval timber-framed house in Essex, or a uPVC electricity
meter box on a Bath stone cottage in Somerset debases historical values
just as effectively. What is perhaps most lacking is a wider consensus
that such installations are indeed undesirable and that alternatives
must be found.
Recommended
Reading
Alec Clifton Taylor,
The Pattern of English Building. Batsford 1962.
Cassells' Building Construction
(1913), page 379.
|
© Cathedral Communications Limited 2005 |