araticle on old buildings and energy ratings

[ljn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2007/05/08/phips108.xml

looks like old buildings migh not tick the boxes, even when they are energy efficient.

For example, in the araticle, it states:

"The main roof got a Very Poor because he said it had no insulation". But it is thatch, which is two feet thick and more in places, so how can this be? The assessor said he didn't count thatch, he only counted insulation applied to the top of the actual ceiling.

 

[Nemesis]

All rather farcical really - I certainly wouldn't worry about the HIPS pack, but I suspect many will and damage will ensue, especially where unlisted but traditional buildings are concerned.

 

[ljn]

I'm a bit concerned that if they slap a "green tax" on houses that arn't energy efficient, period propertiess may suffer and many may get demolished. This would aadd to the VAT exemption for new build.

OK, so we need to save the plannet, but if the Energy Efficiency doesn't take in factors such as the performance of thick solid walls or the insulating properties of a thached roof, efficient buildings may be replaced with less efficient new build. And what about the cost of demolishing the old building and recycling the waste and then building a new house with materials, transport etc. It just can't add up to a apositive outcome for the environment.

I think the energy efficiency surveyors need to take all factors into account. Yes, that would be impossible - so why not just look at energy bills to evaluate energy efficiency. ' sure many people living in old buildings hang around in jumpers rather than t-shirts in the winter and don't even think about air conditioning.

Even making "improvements" just don't seem to add up, even if you consider them in the long term- say 10 years

Now I'm ranting, but I also have a diesel car over 20 years old. If I scrapped it, I could get a model that uses less fuel, but what would the cost to the environment be to scrap a big car with all that oil, rubber and metal? add the cost of making a new car with more plastic metal aand rubber... I think the result would be in favor of the car industry and the planet would be worse off.

 

[stickybeak]

The RICS conservations bods are very concerned about the whole HIPS/Energy efficiency farrago and are actively working on the problem as we speak. It is not a problem confined just to listed buildings 'per se' but historic (i.e. traditionally built) buildings of all kinds.

A quick look at the RICS website found this:
<a href="http://www.rics.org/RICSW...th historic, large and usual properties</a>

(the RICS website says this will link to the article in question- if it doesn't work, go to http://www.rics.org and search for 'energy efficiency listed buildings' and it should come up about halfway down the search results)

which indicates that PPUK Agony Uncle Stephen Boniface is taking a lead in this area. Stephen, care to comment?

 

[Penners]

http://www.rics.org/RICSWEB/getpage.aspx?p=LuPZKAbPT0Kd0PlJ0R_Gbg

The above version of stickybeak's link worked for me - but be patient, it's a slow download.

 

[Penners]

From today's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/09/ntax09.xml

 

[Nemesis]

I think Stephen has commented on this site not so long ago about the lead he is taking in this.

 

[stickybeak]

.

 

[Nemesis]

And as Gervase has found, trying to get BCO's to take heed is very difficult.

 

[biffvernon]

For example, in the araticle, it states:

"The main roof got a Very Poor because he said it had no insulation". But it is thatch, which is two feet thick and more in places, so how can this be? The assessor said he didn't count thatch, he only counted insulation applied to the top of the actual ceiling.

I'm told that:

Ken[/url]"]in the manual the insulation of thatch is taken as half the thickness i.e 400mm thatch can be recorded as 200 insulation. the surveyor you quote was either wrong or working on the old recommendations. actually of course he was right because thatch roofs will have a gale blowing through them and only insulation at ceiling level will mean anything.
so thats clear then!

 

[plumbers mate]

So what hope a victorian terrace that's not listed, in a not brilliant area of town ... I see my future finances vanishing as I type.
The roof is lagged - probably needs more - that means criss crossing the other insulation which means the joists get hidden.
Does one (dead posh, what!) run strips of safety tape (the red/white or black/yellow stuff) along where the joists are hiding?

Is there any sort of insulation which will pass (failry easily) through a standard joist width access hatch? Other wise I have to haul it up one roll/bale at a time using a washing line through the (removed) glass skylight 16 foot above - that means a lot of trips across the joists, squeeze through the hatch (it's a lot smaller than it was 20 years ago) loop on another bale/roll and back up the ladder, through the roof space, haul it up ..... have a brew each time I'm on terra floorboarda.
If I could get the stuff up through either of the two access hatches rather than the above rigmarole it would be a lot easier - even if I have to pay out a little more.
Currently the insulation is Rocwool (or a clone) and there is NO WAY I will remove it. I'm scratching just thinking of it.

 

[Penners]

Does one run strips of safety tape (the red/white or black/yellow stuff) along where the joists are hiding?

One does whatever one chooses to ensure that one's foot doesn't make an unwelcome appearance in one's bedroom.

Is there any sort of insulation which will pass (failry easily) through a standard joist width access hatch?

You could use the ordinary fibregalss stuff that comes encapsulated in shiny plastic foil. If it won't pass through the hatch on a roll (and it does through mine - just) you could unroll it and pass it through like that. I reckon the plastic foil prevents about 90% of the itchy floating fibres.

 

[Stephen]

The following is not the official RICS view, but is the gist of the direction RICS is taking on this matter.

Energy ratings are a guide, but a rather crude guide. There will be many houses that are rate correctly according to the methodolgy but would be wrong in reality.

The reason is that some measures that score well on the rating assessment could have been poorly installed thus rendering the 'improvement' of virtually no benefit. For example I once inspected a house with modern double glazed windows but the owner complained of feeling cold. Examination revealed that the old sash boxes had not been filled or insulated and the only barrier between the interior and exterior were two thin pieces of plastic architrave around the window perimeter. In that case the double glazing was rendered useless by poor installation. The same can be found with poorly laid insulation in roofs, etc, etc, etc.

The energy rating makes no attempt at assessing the efficacy of the works, merely the presence of specific things (e.g. insulation).

It is now known that insulation and so called energy saving measures can be rendered ineffective by draughts, air loss, inappropriate use, leaving things turned on, etc, etc. I sit here writing and have just noted that when my wife went to bed she left a lampstand on while I have the main light on - I don't need both and have therefore turned the lampstand off. However, simple forgetfulness, couldn't care less attitude, etc can make a major difference to energy use.

The energy rating does not make any assessment of the use of the building. An owner of an uninsulated house may decide to turn off the heating and wear a thick jumper, but this makes no difference to the rating.

The advice RICS is giving is that property owners should not react in haste to a poor energy rating. Careful thought and considered professional opinion should be sought before any measures are taken to improve the rating. Some works to certain building types (e.g. historic buildings) could impact the functioning and performace of that building detrimentally; hence the need to be careful about any works to 'improve' the building.

There has been speculation about whether the government will use the ratings for fiscal reasons in future. As things stand if this happens there would be an outcry from professionals on the basis that the ratings are too crude for such use.

I hope the above is of some help.

 

[Penners]

Stephen - I wonder if you could please answer a question that I've posted in another thread:-

Do you know how the energy assessments for HIPS will be carried out? Is it simply a tick-box exercise? How will the inspector know how to rate "invisible" insulation assets?

For example, our Suffolk timberframe house has fibreglass in all of the cavities between the internal lining and the exterior rendering. In a case like that, will the inspector take the homeowner's word for it?

 

[Flyfisher]

There has been speculation about whether the government will use the ratings for fiscal reasons in future. As things stand if this happens there would be an outcry from professionals on the basis that the ratings are too crude for such use.

Not only are the ratings too crude but they are totally irrelevant - or disingenuous at best - for any possible future governmental fiscal reasons (i.e. taxes!!).

If a future government really decides to encourage lower energy consumption in our homes, surely it would be fairer, simpler and cheaper to just increase the tax on fuel instead of all this over-bureaucratic nonsense about rating all homes?

Then, those who choose to heat drafty houses to 75F will (rightly) pay more than those of us happy to live at 68F and wear a jumper with no-one being forced to shell out £500+ for a useless survey.

Same with cars really. Why tax a car with a 3 litre engine more than one with an 1100 engine? It's the fuel that should be the concern. That classic tabloid scourge of society, the 'mum in a 4x4 on the school run', probably uses far less fuel than the mondeo salesman clocking up 80k miles a year. The whole thing is either cock-eyed, or there's a hidden agenda.

The other issue for any possible future 'energy tax' based on our home ratings is what about those houses that are not put on the market. How long will the government wait for every house in the land to have a HIPs survey before losing patience and actually forcing everyone to pay for one whether they are planning to sell or not.

What next? An annual 'MOT' type test to ensure every home in the land is still conforming to its energy rating?

Talk about an over-regulated society

 

[Penners]

I totally agree, Flyfisher. I've been banging on about this ever since the road pricing fiasco was first mooted.

Tax fossil fuels - of all kinds. It's totally logical. The more fuel you burn, the more tax you pay. What's more, the tax collection machinery already exists, so there's no need for a further regiment of civil servants to run it.

But of course we're p*ssing into the wind. It won't happen. It's too simple, logical and low cost for the political mind.

 

[zunetunes]

And what about a house like our where the upper floor is in the eves. We've got insulation above the flat bit of ceiling, but nothing wherte the sloping bit is

 

[plumbers mate]

I can understand this for new homes or rebuilds but retrospective legislation like this is rubbish.