France
Tuesday 7th of June 201105:25:00pm
I really do look forward to my trips to France, the surveys are often colourful.
However, this one was more routine, an old dry rot outbreak and a little house longhorn beetle activity, the only things of note.
French building control is no way as regulated as ours in the U.K which guard against many of the misguided practices that appear common in France. A leaking rainwater drain was found to be passing underneath the timber floors, which had been the cause of the dry rot outbreak in this 1950s property.
However, I particularly love the rustique honesty of provincial rural French architecture and especially some of the repairs we observe. Like using the lid off a tin can to block a mouse hole in the corner of a floorboard or the use of a chestnut pale to prop-up a floor just. These are the 'running repairs' that are familiar the world over.
Of course our homes have too much value tied up in them to ever give such low-tech repairs consideration, however they are far more acceptable to me than some of the alternatives that are specified today.
Every week I read through specifications or hear of recommendations by damp and timber treatment companies that are either misguided or simply attempts to sell their products and services.
Decay organisms don't posses supernatural powers that can only be controlled by toxic annihilation.
Good building practices alone will prevent premature deterioration of materials, where that has failed, correcting building defects can be achieved without the need for chemical.
The French approach seems to be to either leave alone until something collapses or undertake the most vigorous chemical intervention imaginable. Solvent based timber preservatives are still widely used and can be purchased from most DIY stores. The smell of this stuff is quite overpowering even days after its application.
I believe the truth lays somewhere near the middle ground, minimum intervention is always best but timber preservatives do play an important role in the conservation of timber components. The problem still seems to be the ambiguous definition of the terms targeted, minimal and precautionary.
Many of the preservatives companies appear, at least in their marketing, to be becoming "greener" in their approach. Unfortunately, it appears just to be a green wash, as they still miss the point as was illustrated in a recent case study by one of our biggest national preservative companies, which I stumbled upon on their website.
Their identification of the fungus seems correct and the diagnosis fits but they then let themselves down by explaining how after drying out the timbers, they chemically treated the timbers to ensure the wet rot was eradicated. If the source of water ingress has been rectified, dry timbers won't decay, there was no need for the use of chemicals.
This shows a lack of understanding or confidence in building pathology and scientific research. Alternatively, it shows a financial need to sell chemical products and guarantees.
You can excuse the simplistic content or edited version of a website news update or a blog such as this one, but we witness scenarios like these everyday.
It could seem as a little idealistic but maybe one day, these repairs will be undertaken by a knowledgeable carpenter and not a chemical treatment company.
Apologises for the digression, which some may think a little unprofessional but it amazes me how the general public are still hoodwinked by such antics.
Back to France.... soon hopefully!