Interactive Full Building Survey Example

Survey dashboard

A detailed building survey should do more than catalogue defects. It should help the client understand the condition of the building, distinguish significant liabilities from routine maintenance and identify where expenditure should be prioritised.

Recorded asset condition

Executive summary

The property is a Grade II listed dwelling of traditional construction incorporating solid masonry walls, clay pantile roof coverings, rendered and exposed brick elevations and historic timber joinery. The building has evidently undergone successive phases of alteration, repair and maintenance.

Many principal elements remain serviceable. The survey nevertheless identified a significant programme of conservation-led repair, together with several matters requiring more immediate investigation.

Of greatest concern is the condition and geometry of the principal chimney stack. The stack exhibits a pronounced lean and twist in conjunction with deterioration of the masonry, mortar joints and upper weathering details. Its condition is such that isolated patch repair would not, in our opinion, provide an appropriate long-term solution.

Significant outward distortion is also present to the rear gable wall. The wall appears to have experienced longstanding movement and existing restraint measures cannot be assumed to provide adequate lateral stability. A structural engineer experienced with traditional buildings should therefore assess this element before substantial repair is undertaken.

The principal clay pantile roof coverings are generally serviceable, but numerous roof-to-wall and chimney junctions rely on rigid mortar fillets rather than appropriately formed flexible lead weatherings. Cracking, shrinkage and previous patch repairs are consequently present at a number of vulnerable junctions.

The lead-clad dormer arrangements are also imperfect. Existing detailing directs water towards historic timber window fronts, increasing the likelihood of repeated wetting, coating failure and eventual timber decay.

Rear and side masonry displays localised spalling, deteriorated joints and substantial areas of hard cement-rich pointing. The latter is poorly suited to softer historic masonry because it can restrict evaporation through the joints and concentrate weathering within the brick faces.

The rainwater disposal system requires improvement. Particular matters include suspected asbestos-containing gutter components, local deterioration of fascia and soffit material and the absence of effective rainwater collection to part of the rear eaves.

Internally, water staining below bathroom accommodation requires prompt investigation to establish whether leakage remains active. Electrical and gas installations were not tested as part of the building survey and should be independently inspected where satisfactory current certification cannot be produced.

Because the property is listed, the method of repair is as important as the identification of the defect. Repairs should generally favour retention of significant historic fabric, compatible lime-based materials, traditional weathering details and proportionate intervention.

Principal risks

The following matters materially influence our overall assessment of the property and should be considered when planning acquisition, repair expenditure and further investigations.

How to read the findings

Building survey findings

The entries below demonstrate how observations are developed into a diagnosis, an assessment of risk and a practical recommendation. Photographs can be enlarged, findings searched and condition ratings filtered.

ITEM 01 · ROOF COVERINGS

Main clay pantile roof

CR1

RECOMMENDED TIMESCALE · ROUTINE MAINTENANCE

Inspection observation. The principal roof slopes are finished with traditional clay pantiles. The coverings are broadly well aligned and appear generally serviceable. Localised weathering, surface discolouration and biological growth are present, but widespread displacement or failure of the main field of roof coverings was not observed.

Building pathology

Weathering is consistent with the age and exposure of traditional clay roof coverings. Reduced solar gain to some slopes may also contribute to biological staining.

Implications

Individual pantiles will inevitably deteriorate and may fracture or slip over time, particularly following severe weather, but wholesale renewal is not presently justified by the visible condition of the main coverings.

Recommended action

Continue normal maintenance and replace isolated damaged pantiles using compatible traditional clay units. Retention of sound existing coverings is preferable to unnecessary wholesale replacement.

Surveyor’s additional commentary

Traditional pantile roofs should be considered as complete weathering systems. Junctions, ridges, abutments, flashings and underlay can fail even where the principal tile field remains serviceable. Those elements are therefore assessed separately below.

Mark this finding as reviewed

ITEM 03 · ROOF COVERINGS

Roof abutments and mortar weathering

CR2

RECOMMENDED TIMESCALE · WITHIN 3 YEARS / AS ASSOCIATED WORKS PERMIT

Inspection observation. A number of roof-to-wall junctions rely upon rigid mortar fillets in place of properly formed flexible lead weatherings. Cracking, shrinkage, open joints and evidence of previous patch repairs are present.

Building pathology

Clay pantiles, masonry walls and adjoining roof structures respond differently to thermal, moisture and structural movement. A rigid mortar junction cannot accommodate this differential movement indefinitely and therefore tends to crack away from one or both adjoining materials.

Implications

Once cracking develops, wind-driven rain can pass through the junction and affect concealed battens, rafters, wall heads and internal finishes. Repeated local patching rarely provides a durable solution.

Recommended action

Defective mortar fillets should progressively be replaced with appropriately detailed lead weatherings. Depending upon the junction this may include stepped flashings, soakers, aprons and back gutters. Leadwork should be designed and installed in accordance with good practice including the principles of BS 6915.

Mark this finding as reviewed

ITEM 04 · ROOF COVERINGS

Lead-clad dormer windows

CR2

RECOMMENDED TIMESCALE · WITHIN 3 YEARS

Inspection observation. Existing lead detailing to the dormers directs rainwater towards and across the timber window fronts. Local deterioration of decorative coatings and timber joinery is evident.

Building pathology

The geometry of the existing leadwork provides inadequate projection and drainage away from the timber face. Repeated wetting accelerates failure of paint coatings and raises the moisture content of vulnerable timber.

Implications

Continued exposure increases the likelihood of localised timber decay, failed glazing compounds and eventual water penetration to the dormer construction.

Recommended action

Renew or modify the leadwork to provide improved falls and positive drips clear of the timber face. Historic joinery should be repaired and retained wherever reasonably practicable rather than automatically replaced.

Mark this finding as reviewed

ITEM 05 · CHIMNEYS

Principal chimney stack

CR3

RECOMMENDED TIMESCALE · PRIORITY / IMMEDIATE PLANNING

Inspection observation. The traditional brick chimney stack exhibits a pronounced lean and rotational distortion. Mortar joints are weathered and localised deterioration is present to upper masonry, flaunching and associated weathering details.

Building pathology

The present condition appears to reflect long-term exposure and historic movement in combination with deterioration of mortar, flaunching and weathering details. The distortion is substantially greater than ordinary irregularity associated with historic brick construction.

Implications

Further deterioration may reduce stability and create a risk of falling masonry. Defective weathering also increases the potential for moisture penetration into the stack and adjoining roof construction.

Recommended action

A coordinated repair should be developed rather than relying upon isolated patching. Subject to conservation requirements and safe access, this is likely to involve careful dismantling to a sound level and reconstruction using compatible masonry and mortar, together with renewed flaunching, pots and lead weatherings.

Why patch repair is unlikely to be sufficient

Repointing can address eroded joints but does not correct substantial geometric distortion or restore stability where the masonry as a whole has moved. Repair strategy therefore needs to respond to the structural condition of the stack rather than merely its surface appearance.

Mark this finding as reviewed

ITEM 07 · RAINWATER GOODS

Gutters and suspected asbestos-containing material

CR3

RECOMMENDED TIMESCALE · INVESTIGATE BEFORE DISTURBANCE

Inspection observation. Sections of existing guttering may contain asbestos-containing material. In addition, part of the rear main roof lacks effective eaves collection and local deterioration is present to fascia and soffit material.

Building pathology

Aged rainwater components and incomplete collection can permit repeated wetting of external walls and eaves. The composition of suspected asbestos-containing material cannot be confirmed by visual inspection alone.

Implications

Uncontrolled rainwater can accelerate masonry, joinery and decorative deterioration. Disturbance of asbestos-containing material without appropriate controls may present a health risk.

Recommended action

Obtain appropriate material sampling before disturbance. Repair or replace defective rainwater goods and provide effective collection to the rear eaves with positive discharge to a suitable drainage point.

Mark this finding as reviewed

ITEM 08 · EXTERNAL WALLS

Historic brickwork and incompatible pointing

CR2

RECOMMENDED TIMESCALE · PLANNED CONSERVATION REPAIR

Inspection observation. Rear and side elevations contain spalled brick faces, open mortar joints and substantial areas of hard cementitious pointing.

Building pathology

Traditional softer brickwork was intended to function with relatively permeable mortar joints. Dense cement-rich pointing can inhibit evaporation through those joints and concentrate moisture and frost action within the adjacent brick faces.

Implications

Progressive spalling can result in avoidable loss of original masonry fabric. Water penetration through open joints can also increase moisture loading within solid walls.

Recommended action

Carefully remove defective inappropriate pointing where this can be achieved without damaging brick arrises. Repoint using a suitably specified lime mortar and selectively repair or replace severely deteriorated bricks using compatible units.

Mark this finding as reviewed

ITEM 09 · EXTERNAL WALLS

Distorted rear gable wall

CR3

RECOMMENDED TIMESCALE · PRIORITY STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT

Inspection observation. The rear gable exhibits pronounced outward barrelling, defective finishes and open joints. Existing historic restraint measures cannot be assumed to provide effective lateral restraint.

Building pathology

The observed form is consistent with longstanding lateral movement or inadequate restraint rather than superficial render failure alone. Defective weathering at the wall head may also have contributed to deterioration.

Implications

Without establishing the nature and extent of the movement it is not possible to determine whether existing restraint is adequate or whether further movement remains likely.

Recommended action

Obtain assessment from a structural engineer familiar with traditional masonry construction. Any restraint or strengthening scheme should be coordinated with conservation-led masonry repairs and improved weathering to the wall head.

Mark this finding as reviewed

No findings match your search.

Understanding the inspection

The source survey was principally visual and non-destructive. Finishes, fitted furniture, floor coverings and other fixed components were not removed solely to expose concealed construction. Where elements could not be inspected, this was reflected in the assessment and recommendations.

Building services were visually observed but were not comprehensively tested. Electrical, gas, asbestos, structural and other specialist investigations were recommended where the limitations of a visual building survey prevented a reliable conclusion.

Aerial and photographic inspection can significantly improve understanding of inaccessible elevations and roof areas but does not necessarily provide the same information as close physical inspection or opening-up.

Indicative cost allowances are provided for budgeting and prioritisation where appropriate. They are not contractor quotations, tender returns or guarantees of the final cost of work.

From inspection to a practical repair strategy

The purpose of a detailed building survey is not simply to identify everything that is imperfect. It is to establish what matters, why it has occurred, what may happen if it is ignored and what should reasonably be done next.

In this case, the principal liabilities relate to the distorted chimney, rear gable movement, vulnerable roof junctions, deterioration of historic masonry and deficiencies in rainwater management. These matters should form the core of the initial repair programme.

Other defects can be incorporated into a planned programme of cyclical conservation and maintenance rather than being treated as emergencies. This distinction is particularly important with historic properties, where unnecessary intervention can be as damaging as deferred maintenance.

Where further specialist input is required, the purpose of that investigation should be clearly defined. A structural engineer, electrician, plumber or asbestos specialist should be instructed to answer a particular unresolved question rather than being used as a substitute for overall building diagnosis.

That combination of inspection, building pathology, prioritisation and practical repair advice is the basis of Strut’s approach to complex property surveys.

Need this level of detail for your property?

Strut undertakes detailed surveys and building pathology investigations for historic, listed and technically complex properties. Our reports are designed to explain the building, diagnose defects and provide a practical route forward.

Our digital reporting environment is powered by InstaSurv™ . The technology provides the structure; the professional inspection, diagnosis and judgement remain ours.

Discuss your property survey →   Explore more report examples