Stipple Ceiling Question

PCros

I am in the process of redoing the house and one the things we want to get rid of is the stipple on the ceilings. It’s actually bet on and is impossible to remove.

One builder has said he can drill new gypsum boards into the joists covering the stipple – so basically a new ceiling.

Seems like a good idea but I'm just wondering if anyone has had this done before?

seamus

Your only options really are to pull down the old ceiling or cover the stipple with new boards. You'll break your heart (and your wallet) trying to strip it off and level the existing ceiling.

I'd go with pulling down the old ceiling myself. It is a messier job that will need more finishing, but it'll give you an opportunity to inspect the joists, pipework and electricals behind it.

PCros

We actually stripped the wallpaper ourselves and it was heartbreaking and then we took a look at the stipple and we never fell over!

I think the easiest thing for us would be to cover the stipple with new boards as we already got the house re-wired. But I will mention it to him and see what the cost would be.

CJhaughey

How level will the new ceiling be if its fixed over an irregular stipple?
That would be my main concern just slabbing over stipple.

PCros

CJhaughey wrote: »

How level will the new ceiling be if its fixed over an irregular stipple?
That would be my main concern just slabbing over stipple.

I was actually just thinking that. Maybe they sand it down to a certain extent but I'll definitely ask that question.

BryanF

PCros wrote: »

I am in the process of redoing the house and one the things we want to get rid of is the stipple on the ceilings. It’s actually bet on and is impossible to remove.

One builder has said he can drill new gypsum boards into the joists covering the stipple – so basically a new ceiling.

Seems like a good idea but I'm just wondering if anyone has had this done before?

Yes,scrapped as best we could and then boarded, ‘doubled the slab’

Good for sound and fire. You’ll need a good plasterer.

selfbuild17

Watch that you will still have min 2.4m ceiling height if you are covering over

Rows Grower

selfbuild17 wrote: »

Watch that you will still have min 2.4m ceiling height if you are covering over

Why?

Not trying to be smart, is there some law that says ceiling height must be at least 2.4m?

Rows Grower

CJhaughey wrote: »

How level will the new ceiling be if its fixed over an irregular stipple?
That would be my main concern just slabbing over stipple.

Surely the stipple will only be a few mill deep, whatever the depth of the teeth on the trowel that was used to put it there.

It should be a uniform depth whatever it is and shouldn't affect the level of the new ceiling.

selfbuild17

Rows Grower wrote: »

Why?

Not trying to be smart, is there some law that says ceiling height must be at least 2.4m?

Technical Guidance Document F. While old houses might predate the building regulations, you really shouldn’t be doing anything to any house to make it less compliant. If you have 2.4m ceilings and you carry out works to the house that reduce them to 2.35, you are in breach of the building regulations

seamus

selfbuild17 wrote: »

Technical Guidance Document F. While old houses might predate the building regulations, you really shouldn’t be doing anything to any house to make it less compliant. If you have 2.4m ceilings and you carry out works to the house that reduce them to 2.35, you are in breach of the building regulations

2.4m is only a recommendation, not a requirement.

Rows Grower

selfbuild17 wrote: »

Technical Guidance Document F. While old houses might predate the building regulations, you really shouldn’t be doing anything to any house to make it less compliant. If you have 2.4m ceilings and you carry out works to the house that reduce them to 2.35, you are in breach of the building regulations

So it's illegal if your ceiling is under 2.4m?

Builders providers sell millions of slabs that are either 2.4m high or just 38mm higher, take the skimcoat and the flooring into consideration and half the houses in the country must be in breach of building regulations.

I honestly never heard of a minimum ceiling height law, it sounds a bit crazy to be honest.

seamus

Architectural guidelines in general state that where possible the minimum average ceiling height within any living space should be 2.4m. Should be, not must be.

Some other planning bye-laws and regulations require 2.4m in certain select circumstances.

Architects will be slow to certify a roof that is under 2.4m and may even refuse to do so because it's not within guidelines.

This has led to a common belief that 2.4m is the legal minimum height and all works must adhere to this. I even spoke to a builder who refused to do a pitched roof where the eaves would have been below 2.4m, but the average height in the roof would have been 2.8m. Even though a qualified architect drew the plan, the builder erroneously believed that would be illegal.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Easiest thing to do is hey a good plasterer and scrape the stipple back as far as possible with a trowel
Then a good thick coat of bonding and then skim over it.

chrisire

As the above poster said,you can easily get a plasterer in to scrap it back as much as he can and then give it a coat of bonding and then it can be plastered over,I don't do it anymore but i have done this hundreds of times.

tradesman

Artex may have asbestos in it. Dont bother scraping. Fit new plasterboard to the ceiling with screws. If the stipple is really heavy the spikes will break and the ceiling will even itself out over the 8' * 4' sheet. Then skim the boards. No need to take down the ceiling as to much mess for what its worth. I have done loads of these. It is a 1 day job for 2 men if everything is organised. Room cleared & materials on site. Board the ceiling in the morning. Have a cuppa. Skim in the afternoon. Job done!

BoardsMember

We tried scraping ours back, ended up ripping down the old ceilings, and putting new slabs up ourselves. Got a plasterer in to finish it, was a lovely job.

selfbuild17

seamus wrote: »

2.4m is only a recommendation, not a requirement.

If you read the Technical Guidance Documents, you will find that kind language throughout (i.e.”should be”, “recommended”, etc) The TGDs give a de-facto method for compliance with the building regulations. The building regulations themselves are vague.

Try obtaining a fire safety certificate ignoring the recommendations in TGD B just because of that language and you’ll be told that if you want to vary from the TGDs, you’ll have to provide engineered calculations to prove that the building will be safe.

How do you prove that the house will have sufficient ventilation if you reduce the ceilings below 2.4m as recommended in TGD F?

TGD B suggests that the minimum head height on a route of escape should be greater than 2.0m to allow safe passage, is it ok to ignore that recommendation too just because of the language?

alan1963

I work as a plasterer in the UK, often I over skim Artex by knocking off the worst of the sharp low points with a old scim trowel, then I paint on a good coat of PVA and then re-scim with Board finish, job done.

Rows Grower

selfbuild17 wrote: »

If you read the Technical Guidance Documents, you will find that kind language throughout (i.e.”should be”, “recommended”, etc) The TGDs give a de-facto method for compliance with the building regulations. The building regulations themselves are vague.

Try obtaining a fire safety certificate ignoring the recommendations in TGD B just because of that language and you’ll be told that if you want to vary from the TGDs, you’ll have to provide engineered calculations to prove that the building will be safe.

How do you prove that the house will have sufficient ventilation if you reduce the ceilings below 2.4m as recommended in TGD F?

TGD B suggests that the minimum head height on a route of escape should be greater than 2.0m to allow safe passage, is it ok to ignore that recommendation too just because of the language?

I'm sensing a bit of backtracking here, we've gone from minimum of 2.4m by law, to the law says it's okay to have 2.0m for safe passage.

selfbuild17

Rows Grower wrote: »

I'm sensing a bit of backtracking here, we've gone from minimum of 2.4m by law, to the law says it's okay to have 2.0m for safe passage.

TGD F recommends 2.4m general ceiling height for adequate ventilation. TGD B recommends min 2.0 head height for safe passage, this is typically applicable where height might get restricted in localised areas such as door heads, stair opes, etc

Not sure who you think is backtracking, just giving you the facts

Rows Grower

selfbuild17 wrote: »

TGD F recommends 2.4m general ceiling height for adequate ventilation. TGD B recommends min 2.0 head height for safe passage, this is typically applicable where height might get restricted in localised areas such as door heads, stair opes, etc

Not sure who you think is backtracking, just giving you the facts

So what are the actual facts?

What are the laws, what are the recommendations?

Are ceilings on stairways exempt?

selfbuild17

Rows Grower wrote: »

So what are the actual facts?

What are the laws, what are the recommendations?

Are ceilings on stairways exempt?

I used the word generally. Generally, ceiling heights should be 2.4, there are of course areas where this can get reduced down to 2.0.

The exact wording of the law in relation to ventilation in buildings is as follows:

Adequate means of ventilation shall be provided for people in buildings. This shall be achieved by
a) limiting the moisture content of the air within the building so that it does not contribute to condensation and mould growth, and
b) limiting the concentration of harmful pollutants in the air within the building.

The wording of the law/regulation is vague. To aid people in ensuring that they carry out works in compliance with the above m, the Techincal Guidance Documents are published which give recommendations in how to comply with the above Regulation. In the vast majority of cases, designers will follow those technical guidance documents so that they can be sure that their interpretation of the law cannot be challenged. You are of course free to diverge from those recommendations if you wish however the onus is then on you to prove that your building complies with the Regulation above. That is a very difficult thing to do and is not practical in the majority of cases, especially in small domestic jobs. The TGDs use wording like “should be” because the TGDs are recommendations however you would be foolish to think you should diverge from them unless you have some advanced technical assement of your own house to prove that you are complaint with the vague wording of the Regulation above

If you want to build your house with 2.3m high ceilings, fire ahead. There’s nothing in the Building Regulations that specifically say that you can’t. You’ll just need to unequivocally demonstrate that your house is designed so that:

Adequate means of ventilation shall be provided for people in buildings. This shall be achieved by
a) limiting the moisture content of the air within the building so that it does not contribute to condensation and mould growth, and
b) limiting the concentration of harmful pollutants in the air within the building.

Rows Grower

selfbuild17 wrote: »

I used the word generally. Generally, ceiling heights should be 2.4, there are of course areas where this can get reduced down to 2.0.

The exact wording of the law in relation to ventilation in buildings is as follows:

Adequate means of ventilation shall be provided for people in buildings. This shall be achieved by
a) limiting the moisture content of the air within the building so that it does not contribute to condensation and mould growth, and
b) limiting the concentration of harmful pollutants in the air within the building.

The wording of the law/regulation is vague. To aid people in ensuring that they carry out works in compliance with the above m, the Techincal Guidance Documents are published which give recommendations in how to comply with the above Regulation. In the vast majority of cases, designers will follow those technical guidance documents so that they can be sure that their interpretation of the law cannot be challenged. You are of course free to diverge from those recommendations if you wish however the onus is then on you to prove that your building complies with the Regulation above. That is a very difficult thing to do and is not practical in the majority of cases, especially in small domestic jobs. The TGDs use wording like “should be” because the TGDs are recommendations however you would be foolish to think you should diverge from them unless you have some advanced technical assement of your own house to prove that you are complaint with the vague wording of the Regulation above

If you want to build your house with 2.3m high ceilings, fire ahead. There’s nothing in the Building Regulations that specifically say that you can’t. You’ll just need to unequivocally demonstrate that your house is designed so that:

Adequate means of ventilation shall be provided for people in buildings. This shall be achieved by
a) limiting the moisture content of the air within the building so that it does not contribute to condensation and mould growth, and
b) limiting the concentration of harmful pollutants in the air within the building.

That is some high class back pedaling there kid, well done.

malinheader

I think it will be a nightmare trying to get the boards on level over an uneven surface as has already been said.either strip the whole lot or scrape and bond is the way i would go. Good luck.

selfbuild17

Rows Grower wrote: »

That is some high class back pedaling there kid, well done.

I think the problem may be your inability to grasp some simple concepts. Maybe stick to the day job

Mahogany Gaspipe

Rows Grower wrote: »

That is some high class back pedaling there kid, well done.

You were given a comprehensive response so put a sock in it.

Rows Grower

selfbuild17 wrote: »

I think the problem may be your inability to grasp some simple concepts. Maybe stick to the day job

Could be, thanks for all the advice.

You could do with some brushing up on your skills of how you interpret the written word yourself. It appears to me the main issue of the guidelines you have highlighted could be solved by a window vent.

Cost of which is around 10 euro for a PVC one, installation time is about 10 minutes once you have a cordless or electric drill.

selfbuild17

Rows Grower wrote: »

Could be, thanks for all the advice.

You could do with some brushing up on your skills of how you interpret the written word yourself. It appears to me the main issue of the guidelines you have highlighted could be solved by a window vent.

Cost of which is around 10 euro for a PVC one, installation time is about 10 minutes once you have a cordless or electric drill.

And how do you then prove to your certifying engineer/architect/mortgage provider/solicitor/ building control officer/future house purchasers that it complies with the Regulation outlined. You can’t really. And that is why building designers effectively have to keep within the “recommendations” of the Technical Guidance Documents.


By the way, you might want to consider reading back over the thread and reviewing your whole attitude “kid”. There was poor advice given here suggesting that it is a good idea to cherry pick the parts of the TGDs that suit because of the language used. I was only trying to give an informed opinion on the situation, I don’t owe you anything.

PCros

Thanks all for the advice!

Just regarding the 2.4m height - putting up another board would surely only add on millimetres here right?

dathi

Rows Grower wrote: »

Could be, thanks for all the advice.

You could do with some brushing up on your skills of how you interpret the written word yourself. It appears to me the main issue of the guidelines you have highlighted could be solved by a window vent.

Cost of which is around 10 euro for a PVC one, installation time is about 10 minutes once you have a cordless or electric drill.

the technical guidance documents are not "guidelines" they are the defacto means of complying with the "law" of the building regulations. there are other ways of complying with the law but if you deviate from the technical guidance documents for example by lowering the ceiling and installing your 10 euro vent then the onus is on you to show with mathematical modeling/engineers reports that you have complied with the law

Rows Grower

PCros wrote: »

Thanks all for the advice!

Just regarding the 2.4m height - putting up another board would surely only add on millimetres here right?

About 12.5mm.

Rows Grower

dathi wrote: »

the technical guidance documents are not "guidelines" they are the defacto means of complying with the "law" of the building regulations. there are other ways of complying with the law but if you deviate from the technical guidance documents for example by lowering the ceiling and installing your 10 euro vent then the onus is on you to show with mathematical modeling/engineers reports that you have complied with the law

I understood that, it would not be an issue.

Calahonda52

So a question:
If a court case is taken on foot of some non-compliance with the TGDs: what Irish Statute law will be referenced?

If you are going to argue about the Law here: please post the link to the law: from here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie

next question, where does it say stuff like this
if you deviate from the technical guidance documents for example by lowering the ceiling and installing your 10 euro vent then the onus is on you to show with mathematical modeling/engineers reports that you have complied with the law

seamus

selfbuild17 wrote: »

And how do you then prove to your certifying engineer/architect/mortgage provider/solicitor/ building control officer/future house purchasers that it complies with the Regulation outlined.

You wouldn't have to.

Unless the layout or structure of the house differs massively from the original plans, a purchaser is not going to look for an engineer's certificate that your kitchen renovation is within regs.
Or that the electrics in your bathroom were fitted by an REC.

The OP is asking whether he can just lay new boards over his old ceiling. The resultant ceiling height is never going to be an issue, now or in the future. This discussion is irrelevant.

dathi

Calahonda52 wrote: »

So a question:
If a court case is taken on foot of some non-compliance with the TGDs: what Irish Statute law will be referenced?

If you are going to argue about the Law here: please post the link to the law: from here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie

next question, where does it say stuff like this
if you deviate from the technical guidance documents for example by lowering the ceiling and installing your 10 euro vent then the onus is on you to show with mathematical modeling/engineers reports that you have complied with the law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/9/made/en/print

3) A Certificate of Compliance on Completion shall be—

(a) in the form specified for that purpose in the Sixth Schedule, and

(b) accompanied by such plans, calculations, specifications and particulars as are necessary to outline how the works or building as completed—

(i) differs from the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted for the purposes of Article 9(1)(b)(i) or Article 20A(2)(a)(ii) as appropriate (to be listed and included at the Annex to the Certificate of Compliance on Completion), and

(ii) complies with the requirements of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations,