Brickwork 3

The Completed Works carried out by Babergh District Council in South Suffolk

Detailed below are our comments to Babergh District Council highlighting our concerns regarding the substandard workmanship carried out at Sproughton Water Mill by Babergh District Council.

In our Letter Dated 9th December 1996

11. The wrong mix of mortar has been used; the mortar mixture used by the bricklayers was 9.sand, 2.lime, and 1.cement, with a squirt of happy shopper concentrated washing up liquid. I personally watched and counted the mixture being used, on three different visits to the site while the bricklaying was being carried out, also confirming this with the labourer who was mixing up the mortar.

We hoped and expected that a building of listed status, a very important listed building, which had lime and putty mortar originally between the bricks, would have had this type of mortar and that it would have been use in any rebuilding, but quite clearly it has not been. A mortar mixture of 9:2:1 with a squirt of concentrated washing up liquid is not recommended by any professional building authority in the British Isles. So why has it been used at Sproughton mill, under the supervision supposedly of Mr Brian Morton of the Morton partnership and Mr Richard Ward senior conservation officer at Babergh District Council?

A mortar mixture of 9:2:1 it is the type used on present day modern houses with kiln baked hard bricks, which goes off extremely hard and suits the very hard modern bricks. To use this type of hard mortar mixture with cement, with 200 year-old soft red bricks is unsuitable and unacceptable practice, the mortar should be as porous as the brickwork around it. The hard impermeable mortar, which has been used, will create the trapping of moisture in the brickwork, thereby accelerating the deterioration of the bricks and increasing their vulnerability to damage as well as major spoiling of the face of the bricks. This has resulted in a visual mess and will cause the rapid deterioration of the brickwork and ultimately a big repair bill.

The mortar should be subservient to the brick, insuring it is weaker than the bricks, which it bonds together, much damage to the brickwork is caused by the use of cement mortars with soft red bricks.

Lime putty mortars are preferable with 200 year-old soft red bricks, because of their elasticity can yield to a very slight structural movements, Where as a cement base mortar would crack, with lime and putty mortars there porosity allows the wall to breathe. We have checked with the bricks and mortar section of English Heritage at Fort Brockhurst and they would never allow a mortar mixture of this type with soft red bricks on any listed building in the United Kingdom.

11a. Normally the drying procedure with 200 year-old soft red bricks is; they absorb water when it’s damp or it’s raining, it soaks into the brick through its face, soaks through the brick to the bottom of the brick, into the softer lime putty mortar, which allows the very fast disbursement of the water, out of the soft mortar joints. This is the normal wetting and drying cycle for a brick building of this type and period.

Now as the orignal 200 year old soft red bricks have been re-used, with a mixture of other second hand bricks, because the mortar is impermeable and lot harder than the soft red brick, the water which soaks through the face of the brick goes to the bottom of the brick as normal, there will be a build up of damp water at the bottom of the brick and the only way out is through the face of the brickwork.

This means the face of the 200 year old soft red bricks are working overtime, or twice as hard as they normally would do in the wetting and drying cycle. This will lead to the premature breakdown of the face of the soft red brickwork, in the future major damage will be see to be caused in winter with water and frost damage causing the bricks to spall, this will lead to a major maintenance problem in the future.

Below is the reply to us In Letter 27th February 1997 From Richard Ward, Senior Conservation Officer at Babergh District Council, who designed, supervised and approved these works, with Brian Morton of the Morton Partnership of Bethnal Green, London/Halesworth, Suffolk as Structural Engineer & Historical Buildings Specialists.

The Secretary of State has stated in the Section 54 appeal and reports that the Quality of the building works are, I Quote:- “Irrelevant” & “the standard of the work carried was reasonable” !!!!!!!!   What do you think ?

Quote from Babergh District Council: Letter 11th July 1997

Quote from Babergh District Council: Letter 14th Dec 1998

Quote from English Heritage: Letter 27th August 1997.

The Completed Works carried out by Babergh District Council in South Suffolk

Detailed below are our comments to Babergh District Council highlighting our concerns regarding the substandard workmanship carried out at Sproughton Water Mill by Babergh District Council.

In our Letter Dated 9th December 1996

12. Fundamental design fault. Creating a hard corner in a listed building, when there was not one before, and changing the character of a listed building. Before the work started, all the lime putty mortar in the walls and foundation, where of equal consistency, and the building could move and breathe together, as it has done for the last 200 years.  However, Babergh District Council has now created a major problem to this mill, they have added a solid (none moving or breathing) corner, made out of a cement mortar mixture with steel reinforcement in it, which does not breathe or move equally with the rest of the building.

This is now a major problem for this mill, where the old part of the mill meets the new part, at the weakest point major cracking will occur, and you will only be able to resolve this problem for good by removing the solid corner.

This is totally unacceptable to us, to inherit from Babergh District Council this major problem caused by Babergh District Council, we expect you to resolve it as soon as possible.

The work carried out by Babergh District Council designed and supervised by a Mr Richard Ward senior conservation officer at Babergh District Council and Mr Brian Morton of the Morton Partnership, Bethnal Green, London, is not as outlined in your schedule of works, with the section 54 (5) notice dated 22nd May 1996.

Below is the reply to us In Letter 27th February 1997 From Richard Ward, Senior Conservation Officer at Babergh District Council, who designed, supervised and approved these works, with Brian Morton of the Morton Partnership of Bethnal Green, London/Halesworth, Suffolk as Structural Engineer & Historical Buildings Specialists.

Above in 11(xi) is an amazing comment from Babergh District Council that all these works:-

Demolishing a corner of a Listed Building

Changing the Window Levels,

Changing the Window Sizes,

Brickwork with very wide vertical joints,

Cut bricks in the brick arches,

Using Cement mortar Not Lime & Putty mortar as Original

Removing & Discarding all the Orignal Windows,

Compaction Piling around a Listed Building

Babergh District Council says:-The proposed works were agreed with Ian J Hume, Chief Engineer at English Heritage, before the works were carried out. Which was all carried out Without Planning & Listed Building Consent and is against the Law!

The Completed Works carried out by Babergh District Council in South Suffolk

Detailed below are our comments to Babergh District Council highlighting our concerns regarding the substandard workmanship carried out at Sproughton Water Mill by Babergh District Council.

In our Letter Dated 9th December 1996

D. Remove boarding from windows and replace all windows as original.

Below is the replys to us  In letters 9.10.1996 & 27.2.1997 From Richard Ward, Senior Conservation Officer at Babergh District Council, who designed, supervised and approved these works, with Brian Morton of the Morton Partnership of Bethnal Green, London/Halesworth, Suffolk as Structural Engineer & Historical Buildings Specialists.

The most talked about listed building in the UK

Historical Building Specialists Comments on Brickwork

Photograph above shows that all the windows were in place and intact before Babergh District Council demolished this corner, all without listed building consent. Babergh District Councils quote:- that the windows were in need of repair or modifications are clearly untrue.

The Secretary of State has stated in the Section 54 appeal and reports that the Quality of the building works are, I Quote:- “Irrelevant” & “the standard of the work carried was reasonable” !!!!!!!!   What do you think ?

Detailed below are our comments to Babergh District Council highlighting our concerns regarding the substandard workmanship carried out at Sproughton Water Mill by Babergh District Council.

In our Letter Dated 9th December 1996

Inside Mill 1. No oak pad plate, under the main beam to the 1st & 2nd floors on the North wall as in the rest of the mill.

Below is the reply to us In Letter 27th February 1997 From Richard Ward, Senior Conservation Officer at Babergh District Council, who designed, supervised and approved these works, with Brian Morton of the Morton Partnership of Bethnal Green, London/Halesworth, Suffolk as Structural Engineer & Historical Buildings Specialists.

This Comment by Richard Ward at Babergh District Council showes better than any other, the full depth of his Qualifications and his Building Knowledge, if any !

The Secretary of State has stated in the Section 54 appeal and reports that the Quality of the building works are, I Quote:- “Irrelevant” & “the standard of the work carried was reasonable” !!!!!!!!   What do you think ?

Quote from Babergh District Council: Letter 11th July 1997

Quote from Babergh District Council: Letter 14th Dec 1998

Quote from English Heritage: Letter 27th August 1997.

WWW.SPROUGHTONWATERMILL.COM

The most talked about listed building in the UK