If a terraced house had a slate roof with no underfelt, would this be something that most people would want fixed immediately i.e. taking off all the slates, and installing underfelt and replacing all the slates again.
Or is having no underfelt on a roof not a major problem, and something which can be lived with i.e. not usually considered an "urgent" problem.
Our roof (1930s) isn't felted. It's not a problem except where there are gaps in the slates. When we replace the roof (probably this year) we will felt it.
It is certainly not unusual to get roofs like this, especially in the North. The consensus seems to be that the lack of weatherproofness is offset by the excellent ventilation (which quickly dries out any water or snow that does blow in)! The roof space will also be pretty dirty.
I would say that if the roof looks in good condition (i.e. no broken or displaced slates, no rotten or broken timbers) then this is not a major problem. If you do need it doing, it is not normally hugely expensive (maybe a couple of thousand pounds?). tony
It's very common indeed in older properties and is not a problem in itself. Having felt provides a second line of defence in case a slips out of place. Not having it means that you need to be a bit more vigilant with keeping an eye on the roof from the outside and the inside, since a slipped slate may mean water starting to come in. Even then, if it is only one slate, the overlapping of the slates would mean that that is not usually a major issue for a few days until it can be fixed.
If the roof is in generally good condition, then it is reasonable to leave it alone. On the other hand if the slates appear crumbly at the edges or if you experience a lot of them slipping because the nails have rusted, then it can make sense to have the roof relaid. This involves taking the lot off, and the battens and then laying felt, battens, probably re-using some slates and replacing others with second hand good slates.
I would see what happens over the course of a year or so and then decide. Obviously if there are any signs of water coming in or slipped slates, these should be fixed.
No. It's something you would address if you needed to refit the slates for some other reason though.
Houses designed and built that way have survived hundreds of years, so of itself, it can't be considered "urgent". Repairing a leaking roof would be urgent though, e.g. if an unlined roof has misaligned or missing slates.
If the slates are in good condition and well fixed then it's not a problem at all. Once a slate slips though it needs to be attended to with rather more urgency than on a roof with sarking.
Without sarking the roof space will probably be dirtier as windblown atmospheric fallout (dust) will find it's way in. Stored items will need dust sheets over them.
Hi Susan: neither, it can be lived with indefinately. All original Victorian slate roofs are feltless.
There are 2 minor caveats with unfelted roofs:
Theyre almost always very old and the occasional slate will probably drop off and need refixing. Budget maybe £30 a year.
They let water wind and dust in, the wind dries out the water no problem. It just means you cant use wind blocking insulation up against the woodwork, as it would trap water.
If youre buying one, look at the slates, replace any broken ones, refit fallen ones. And if the roof has more than about 25% of slates fixed with visible metal tabs its time to consider reroofing.
There are lots of unfelted roofs still working without any problem.
Not a problem and anyway the slates have a much longer life than felt which was installed in the past. My slate roof has wooden sarking. When I installed some Velux windows I found the sarking was in perfect condition after 100 years. One problem you may come across is that surveyors will report seeing daylight. Possibly a true report but worthless without qualification which it never is. Its the through ventilation which keeps the roof timbers dry something some BCOs fail to recognise also when insisiting on roof vents.
Actaually the felt does eff all. Its there to stop the slates being blown off.
It does make the rough moree draughty even than a building inspectors mandatory eaves vents though, so you might rather want to insulate counter batten, insulate and board out the loft for snugness...
MUCVH better bang for your buck than re-felting.
Of couse, if the roof ever needs redoing in toto, by all menas felt it. Its not expensive.
Well it's not been urgent all these years has it?!
Providing the roof is intact and straight consider a foam type under tile job. That will insulate and hold everything in place BUT is a bitch if you ever do need to remove a slate cos it effectively glues them all together.
Our new (to us, built 1880) house doesn't have felt, and others in the same street have had problems after felting theirs due to lack of ventilation to the roof members. one thing about not having felt is there's plenty of space for air to get in and dry things out. If the house was built without one, just keep an eye out for missing tiles in high winds. If it originally had one though, I'd be inclined to get it re-felted pretty quickly.
For a short time, possibly. But removing ventilation from the rafters etc will almost certainly cause long term problems. It also prevents easy inspection for leaks.
Well you quote one reason yourself, when (not if) the roof needs repairing it won't be a straight forward job and you won't be able to reuse any of the slates.
The of course when (not if) water does penetrate the slates it can't dry out quickly and thus increases the chances that the rafters and/or laths are going to rot.
In the short term, yes. But when the roof finally fails it will be a much bigger and longer job thus more expensive.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.