Canopy roof

[Jothetaxi]

We are unhappy with the finish to our roof canopy.  The building contractor added the flashing after rendering, then sliced and sealed the flashing into the render as a finish.  Our understanding from our drawings was that a bellcast bead would be used at the bottom of the render, overlapping the flashing (as shown in the canopy profile drawing).

The render is silicone render. The left wall of the canopy is also insulated. We believe the contractor used SPS Envirowall.

 

We are looking for options tidy this up, as it the main focus point to the entrance of  the house.

 

Any suggestions would be gratefully received.

 

Detail 6 - Front Porch Canopy.pdf

[Roundtuit]

My first observation is that they haven't used the ventilation system as specified, and secondly, there doesn't appear to be any flashings on the side walls which seems odd.  Have you had the conversation with the contractor to ask why they deviated from the drawings?

[Jothetaxi]

30 minutes ago, Roundtuit said:

My first observation is that they haven't used the ventilation system as specified, and secondly, there doesn't appear to be any flashings on the side walls which seems odd.  Have you had the conversation with the contractor to ask why they deviated from the drawings?

Thank you for the reply and thank you for the observation - we hadn't noted there is no flashing on the side wall.  

 

The contractor's excuse was ' he did it in the more traditional way'. Obviously this is an unacceptable response. We are following up with the contractor as we know it is a deviation. We know they rushed to complete the job; the canopy was the last area to be completed. Nobody oversaw the sequence of work, meaning  this area was left as an afterthought.

[Mr Punter]

On the drawing the flashing is not long enough to cover the top row of tiles.

 

Having a roofed canopy addition on a timber frame with a rendered finish is always going to be very tricky to sequence and detail.  It looks like the architect put this in the Too Difficult pile and left it for "others" to mess up.

[Redbeard]

I may have misread the dwg. It seems like, as drawn,  there's a ventilated void, meaning that the render must be on a renderboard on battens. If a typical renderboard is no more than 15mm thick (and often less) then there's precious little to grind into. Or was the detail changed and the EWI was rendered directly onto the insulant, in which case it is not built as drawn and cannot function (in a 'vented fashion') as intended.

 

Or have I read it all wrong? Is the answer to the mystery in 'E.W.3'?

[Jothetaxi]

 

14 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

On the drawing the flashing is not long enough to cover the top row of tiles.

 

Having a roofed canopy addition on a timber frame with a rendered finish is always going to be very tricky to sequence and detail.  It looks like the architect put this in the Too Difficult pile and left it for "others" to mess up.

Thanks for reply. This is probably why the architect is saying the finish is to a satisfactory standard.

 

Any ideas on how it can be rectified to look reasonable? or are we talking a full re-design of this area?

 

To us it just looks a mess.

[Mr Punter]

30 minutes ago, Redbeard said:

I may have misread the dwg. It seems like, as drawn,  there's a ventilated void, meaning that the render must be on a renderboard on battens. If a typical renderboard is no more than 15mm thick (and often less) then there's precious little to grind into. Or was the detail changed and the EWI was rendered directly onto the insulant, in which case it is not built as drawn and cannot function (in a 'vented fashion') as intended.

 

Or have I read it all wrong? Is the answer to the mystery in 'E.W.3'?

 

I don't think you have misread.  It looks like a thin coat render onto mesh on carrier board, so probably 6mm thick.  God knows what has gone on and what to do.  I would go back to the architect and ask for their suggestions.

[Iceverge]

That drawing seems to carry some magical thinking in a few areas . 

 

I'm really not certain what went on in this area. It doesn't fill me with confidence that your designers details were up to scratch. 

 

 

 

Do you have any specification as to what the builders were working to? Any pictures during construction? 

 

What is your specific objection to the work? Aesthetics or is it unsafe or leaking? 

 

What may help is if you have any wider drawings of the same area. Particularly sections. 

Edited yesterday at 12:04 by Iceverge

[Jothetaxi]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. As the home owners we don't have the technical expertise to fully comprehend the technicalities of what is going on in the drawings, but it seems like the architect also has some questions to answer here?

 

Having had rendering undertaken on our previous properties, as well as seeing local properties in our area with similar canopy finishes, we noted the use of a bell cast bead over the flashing and then noted it wasn't used on our canopy.   We noted the addition of a bell cast bead, at the end of a render finish, creates a clean and even finish when it meets flashing and a tiled roof line. To be honest, the initial impression was about the aesthetics of the roof finish and render (plus chipped tiles). In simple terms, we think it looks a mess.

 

 

 

 

[Redbeard]

5 hours ago, Roundtuit said:

there doesn't appear to be any flashings on the side walls

 

... or is it just out of sight? There appears to be a slight 'shadow', which might be a flashing, but the camera angle is not quite right to see.

 

Is your architect engaged to draw and specify only, or to have a supervisory role? If the latter then the arch't should be able to tell you what has been built and what should have been built.

 

How was the contractor engaged? If it was effectively 'build this (house) according to these (plans)' then you can reasonably argue that they haven't.

Edited yesterday at 15:32 by Redbeard
misspelling!

[Roundtuit]

2 hours ago, Redbeard said:

 

... or is it just out of sight? There appears to be a slight 'shadow', which might be a flashing, but the camera angle is not quite right to see.

You can't see the side walls properly, but you can see the tiles. I'd expect to see flashing over the tiles, but maybe there's some sort of tray underneath?

[ADLIan]

Vertical flashing and soakers looking at tile type?

[-rick-]

You always learn something new on this forum.

 

I looked at the photos and my initial thought was 'looks pretty good compared to some of the things I see around here, this is probably something that is annoying now but you'll forget about it in a couple of months and it'll be fine' and yet others are highlighting lots of issues.

[Jothetaxi]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. As the home owners we don't have the technical expertise to fully comprehend the technicalities of what is going on in the drawings, but it seems like the architect also has some questions to answer here?

 

Having had rendering undertaken on our previous properties, as well as seeing local properties in our area with similar canopy finishes, we noted the use of a bell cast bead over the flashing and then noted it wasn't used on our canopy.   We noted the addition of a bell cast bead, at the end of a render finish, creates a clean and even finish when it meets flashing and a tiled roof line. To be honest, the initial impression was about the aesthetics of the roof finish and render (plus chipped tiles). In simple terms, we think it looks a mess.

 

16 hours ago, -rick- said:

You always learn something new on this forum.

 

I looked at the photos and my initial thought was 'looks pretty good compared to some of the things I see around here, this is probably something that is annoying now but you'll forget about it in a couple of months and it'll be fine' and yet others are highlighting lots of issues.

Thanks for your reply but we are not happy with it - we will always look at it thinking we are not happy with it.

We are detail people who spent a lot of time, money and energy working with the architect on the plans so we expected them to be followed. 

 

[-rick-]

2 minutes ago, Jothetaxi said:

Thanks for your reply but we are not happy with it - we will always look at it thinking we are not happy with it.

We are detail people who spent a lot of time, money and energy working with the architect on the plans so we expected them to be followed. 

 

Sure. To be clear, I wasn't saying you should accept it, I was saying that was my initial thought. Having read this thread I changed my mind.

[Redbeard]

On 24/02/2026 at 11:15, Jothetaxi said:

This is probably why the architect is saying the finish is to a satisfactory standard.

But the dwg shows a ventilated void. One assumes that is to keep the timber frame 'happy'. You have not got that, it would appear, and the architect, not having seen the builder achieve what the dwg says they should achieve (a ventilated void), as far as I can see, is of the view that it's to a 'satisfactory standard'. I can accept that a cut-in flashing can be OK (though see my earlier comment re render-board and the likely depth of the 'chase') but it neither satisfies you aesthetically nor provides the ventilated void (AFAICS) which the architect specified. The 'finish' may be to a satisfactory standard (to the architect, but not to you, the client) but the 'middle' -the provision of a ventilated void - isn't there, as far as I can see from a none-too-close-up pic. Please correct me if there is some other sort of vent provision in what has been provided.

 

Oh, and almost as an aside, out of interest, what happens at the other end(s) of the 'continuous vent' marked on the detail? To explain, while it appears that you may not have the 'in', do you have the 'out' at the top? The pic does not go high enough for us to see.

[Redbeard]

Thinks... Or are the tiles on counter-battens and battens so that the vent path is from eaves to top of wall?

[Jothetaxi]

4 hours ago, Redbeard said:

But the dwg shows a ventilated void. One assumes that is to keep the timber frame 'happy'. You have not got that, it would appear, and the architect, not having seen the builder achieve what the dwg says they should achieve (a ventilated void), as far as I can see, is of the view that it's to a 'satisfactory standard'. I can accept that a cut-in flashing can be OK (though see my earlier comment re render-board and the likely depth of the 'chase') but it neither satisfies you aesthetically nor provides the ventilated void (AFAICS) which the architect specified. The 'finish' may be to a satisfactory standard (to the architect, but not to you, the client) but the 'middle' -the provision of a ventilated void - isn't there, as far as I can see from a none-too-close-up pic. Please correct me if there is some other sort of vent provision in what has been provided.

 

Oh, and almost as an aside, out of interest, what happens at the other end(s) of the 'continuous vent' marked on the detail? To explain, while it appears that you may not have the 'in', do you have the 'out' at the top? The pic does not go high enough for us to see.

Thank you - I shall take some more photos and look to see if I have any during the construction phase.