ARCHITECT'S REPORT OF INSPECTION OF 56 CARLISLE PARK, BALLYNAHINCH, ON 30 OCTOBER 1978
22. As Mr Rice had removed some plaster, rendes and blocks to reveal the construction of the party wall and the panel to the heating pipe duct of his own chimney breast the Architect was able to visually make a detailed inspection of relevant areas. Following his inspection of the house he noted:-
(i) the cupboard beneath the stairs, which abuts onto the party wall and in the vicinity of the chimney stack of No 54 the party wall revealed, was constructed of a cellular clay block, the cellular structure being horizontal in relation to the length and bedding face of the block; the bedding joint varied from ¾" to 1" thick - preferred thickness 3/8" to ½"; the party wall seemed to be constructed of two leafs of the cellular block, in this particular area no means were evident of the two leafs being bonded together;
(ii) the construction of the party wall exposed in the kitchen was of cellular clay blocks, laid with cellular structure horizontal; the bedding joint varying between ¾" to 1", some perpends were dry jointed - in fact butt jointed - also the vertical joint between the leafs was dry jointed (ie no mortar between the blocks);
(iii) the right hand side of chimney breast exposed in the lounge, revealed a heating pipe duct (not in the original construction), and cellular clay blocks used in the construction of the breast and fireplace, with joints varying between ¾" to 1" thick;
(iv) the flue inspected by touch (insertion of hand) revealed a number of crevices, and this led to the belief that the gathering of the flue over the fire hearth was not satisfactory (it should however be mentioned that this was not the original fireplace);
[This represents page 8 of the Report]
(v) in the first floor front bedroom immediately above the fireplace in Mr Rice's lounge, floor boards had been removed revealing the top of the chimney breast, the part of the flue which was within the floor construction had not been rendered as required by the building byelaws;
(vi) according to Mr Rice, the previous owner of No 56 had poured sand into crevices and pipe holes to prevent the seepage of smoke into No's 56 and 58, it appeared that the sand remedy the area of party wall in the roof space, confirmed that the whole of the wall was constructed had not been successful;
(vii) the area of party wall in the roof space, confirmed that the whole of the wall was constructed with clay cellular blocks, with a clay facing brick used to stagger the perpend joint of each course, the bedding joints vary from ¾" to 1", also the perpend joint varied from a dry butt joint (seemingly?) to a ¾" thick mortar joint, there was no evidence of a clay brick or block used to bond together the two leafs of the party wall, in the vicinity of the chimney to No 54; a number of cellular clay blocks had been removed from one leaf of the party wall; the chimney of No 56 projected within the roof space from the party wall between No's 56 and 58 and that section of the chimney which passed through the roofspace was constructed of cellular clay blocks and clay facing bricks, and was in areas covered with a cement rendering; and
(viii) the party wall was not a cavity wall and he offered the opinion that it should have been so.
23. With regard to the terralux building blocks used in 56 Carlisle Park it was his conclusion, based on assessment of the trade literature sheet (which had been available at the time of erection of the dwellings) and from inspection of the dwelling No 56, that this particular cellular clay block should not have been used in the construction of the chimney breast and stack, because of the possibility
[The above represents page 9 of the Report]
of fire and or hot gases being conducted via the cellular horizontal ducts to other parts of the dwelling. He also pointed out that these blocks being open ended did not readily bond and because of dimensions did not 'course' with standard clay bricks, hence the excessive bedding joints.