Compulsory double glazing?

[ilikecobwebs]

I've just been told that, now, if you need to replace a whole window in your house, that you MUST install a double-glazed one, and that you can't avoid it unless your house is listed. Surely this isn't going to suit many period homes? Is this a fait accompli (or whatever the French is) for the plastic brigade?
I'm not looking, thank goodness, to replace mine (1870's house) but am now questioning what the position might be in the future when we wish to sell our house . Our windows are all original, wooden, single-glazed and some with that old "wiggly" glass still in. Three of them are fairly big, at six foot square. There's nothing wrong with them and I'm furious at the thought of being forced to spend out for some kind of secondary glazing in order to satisfy these ridiculous new carbon footprint regs. Its like trying to shoehorn old houses into new building regs. Can someone clarify?

 

[rogerh]

As you say, it only applies to new installations so you won't be forced to install secondary glazing and it won't affect any future sale of the house. I'm not defending the new regulations but double-glazing doesn't require plastic frames.

 

[bower1]

It doesn't require plastic, but I found on my last house that the (very) few people who fitted wooden windows were not FENSA registered, so had to pay the council £130 for building certificate. To many people that will make fitting wood even less tempting.

 

[biffvernon]

You personally don't have a problem since you are not replacing the windows. There are many ways of achieving the U-values required for work under Building Regulations and none of them need involve plastic.

Unfortunately, humankind has a problem with climate change. The problem is so great that it could prove terminal for a large proportion of us.

 

[NT]

What are the ways in which climate change would be terminal?

NT

 

[biffvernon]

Depends where you are. For 60 million people in Bangladesh - wet feet.
For the rest of us, unprecedented global economic recession leading to breakdown of the worlds agricultural systems and the death of a large proportion of humankind. Have a nice day.

 

[ilikecobwebs]

Climate change could be terminal for certain parts of the world if the sea-levels rise, creating severe floods; we've already experienced nasty droughts, tornadoes and floods in this country, so we're not out of the woods by a long way.
I assume biffv is suggesting that we should be more serious about DG in order to conserve heat and reduce the consumption of fuels. Yes that is a good thing; What I am trying to point out is that by mentally associating DG with plastic fitments (which is the direction that most people head in), the new regulations will encourage the removal of more and more original features in our old houses, because people think that they are doing the right thing....irrespective of whether they are new installations or not. Wood is promoted as a"bad thing" by DG companies, hence the push to rip it out.

Sadly, by replacing original timber with plastic, they are going to stir the problems up even more, because we all know (on this forum at least) that plastic doesnt live forever, is environmentally unfriendly and how in heaven's name do you cope with all the stuff at the local tip when the units have to be replaced every 15-20 years or so?
Bower1's problem with non-registered timber-window people only serves to highlight the fact that wood is struggling to gain/keep favour with local councils. I read somewhere that over 2/3rds of timber joinery companies are owned by pvc-merchants. If that's the case, we've got problems, because pvc is always going to be promoted over wood, despite the fact that it doesnt do the environment any good. Market forces again dictating the pace, despite the screams of conservationists. Something needs to change.

I'm relieved to know that I won't be pushed into having to make expensive additions within/to my current home. But I do worry about what we could inherit from other people when we elect to move house in a few years' time.

 

[Nemesis]

In our last house we conserved and repaired our lovely, elegant and unusual old sashes, hoping that the new owners, who seemed delighted that we had retained original features when they bought, would also treasure them. They were draught free and rot free and rattle free.

At night we closed thick curtains, and given the smallness of the windows (as with many period properties) I suspect energy loss was minimal compared with the amount of energy any replacements would use over the decades.

Sadly, the new owners ripped them out and the house is now disfigured by uPVC.

The truth is that many fall for the claims of uPVC merchants that these things are 'green'. See below. Scary. Those with little knowledge of the situation are convinced they are doing their bit by fitting them into saving the planet.

It's my view that original historic windows should be retained and repaired and draughtproofed - alongside secondary glazing, shutters and curtains, it's possible to make them pretty efficient.

Sadly,a walk down any street of pre-WWI houses in Britain today will show just how successful the plastic window merchants have been in their marketing campaigns, and once historic features are junked they are lost forever.

 

[ilikecobwebs]

Geez, that's a god-awful leaflet. Makes you want to cry. Its also frightening that people can be brainwashed into considering them as "environmentally friendly". Business and marketing will be the environment's undoing at this rate.

 

[Nemesis]

And may explain why there aren't many original windows left in Carlisle - and many historic villages in a wide area around where this was distributed.

It's got now so that you can spot the listed buildings by the fact they have original windows - although I can take you to a number where even those are now uPVC...

 

[rogerh]

Perhaps one for the Advertising Standards Authority.

 

[Penners]

It's interesting that one of their bullet-points is "no more painting".

Makes you wonder why B&Q now sells a special paint for uPVC window frames.

 

[NT]

Depends where you are. For 60 million people in Bangladesh - wet feet.

Do you not think there is any higher ground than Bangladesh in India?

For the rest of us, unprecedented global economic recession leading to breakdown of the worlds agricultural systems and the death of a large proportion of humankind. Have a nice day.

Any particular reason to think this?

Some people will need to move, but it will occur over a period of decades, which is not a reason to expect the kind of breakdown you suggest. Most of us move some time in our life today, and I dont see much breakdown occurring because of it.


NT

 

[NT]

Climate change could be terminal for certain parts of the world if the sea-levels rise, creating severe floods;

Terminal for some low lying land, yes, and some will build sea defences. Terminal for the people en masse, no, people will move once the danger is evident.

As we see in the US, some will die before that occurs, but lets not lose sight of the fact that thats not out of the ordinary, a lot of people die in these kind of events today, and doubtless that toll will continue. Sad, very, but not a big change in any respect.

we've already experienced nasty droughts, tornadoes and floods in this country, so we're not out of the woods by a long way.

The UK has never run out of water within living memory. Sure the water companies would like you to cut down a bit, but thats not got anything to do with drought.

The high winds we've experienced are not a long term problem. If some houses sustain damage, new builds and repairs will be done to more suitable standards, and houses in more vulerable areas will have strapping retrofitted to prevent roofs coming off etc. As a percentage of a lifetime's expenditure this is miniscule.

As for Britain's floods, the death toll is is single figures, so thats not a threat to our country's survival! And its caused not so much by climate change, but by building in places we know will flood.


Is climate chang a problem? Yes. Is it going to slaughter the human species? No, why should it.


NT

 

[Moo]

Does anyone know whether, in the last century, natural disasters have killed more or fewer people than wars and genocides?

 

[biffvernon]

Do you not think there is any higher ground than Bangladesh in India?

Bangladesh has not been in India for quite a while.

I gather there are some hills to the north.

 

[Moo]

Biff - I think he meant the Indian sub-continent.

 

[Penners]

As for Britain's floods, the death toll is is single figures

NT, if you're going to argue a case you really should get your facts right.

In the east coast floods of 1953, 307 people in the UK were killed and almost 100,000 hectares of eastern England were flooded

 

[NT]

As for Britain's floods, the death toll is is single figures

NT, if you're going to argue a case you really should get your facts right.

In the east coast floods of 1953, 307 people in the UK were killed and almost 100,000 hectares of eastern England were flooded

I was thinking of more recent years, I suppose I should have said so. The emergency services are rather better equipped today than 50 years ago, we have mobile phones, we all have phones radio & tv and so on weather forecasting has come a very long way, etc etc, so it seems wrong to base the future on figures from back then.

But even if you say 300 per half century anyway, and we take that up a factor of ten for good measure, 3000 per 50 years is 60 a year. Still a very small percentage of todays unnecessary death toll. Not even in the right ball park for a mass wipe out event. You'd have to add a whole list of zeros to get that.


NT

 

[NT]

Do you not think there is any higher ground than Bangladesh in India?

Bangladesh has not been in India for quite a while.

I gather there are some hills to the north.

Biff - I think he meant the Indian sub-continent.

The point is on every continent, as sea levels rise and risks go up for low lying land, people will move - or in some cases build defences. Climate change wont just suddenly go boom overnight.

We'll lose land, yes, and thats valuable, but on a global scale we;ll still have most of it, and the land we have today can support 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more people than it does even with just todays technology.

Dont forget all those nice mountains that can be levelled to make more habitable land. Huge projects that take years, but if land is tight it will be worth doing.

Climate change is a cost, not a wipeout scenario. And the cost will be a fraction of lifetime income. There will be deaths in New Orleans type events, but the number per year of those is tiny compared to the real big killers.


NT