Listed buildings and energy saving

[Nemesis]

Article in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/24/energyefficiency

While I would hope we all do what we can to save energy, I do think our historic buildings are a 'finite resource' and energy saving should not be at the expense of removing history. Yes it's difficult and decisions have to be made but I think proceed with caution.

However, I would feel rather more sympathy for the people featured in the article if there had been any suggestion that they had applied for LBC and had it turned down for secondary glazing. The article merely says they are 'prevented' from fitting secondary glazing as the house is II* listed. It says in order to make significant changes, they must get the 'consent of a conservation architect at their local council in Stroud'. Hmmmm.

The newspaper version of the article also has a picture of them peering out of the open metal framed leaded window. The frame has no draughtproofing, and is clearly very rusty. No wonder there are draughts.

I would suggest a major improvement could be wrought in the building if the frames were rubbed down and painted, and some draughtproofing applied.

The windows are small and I doubt that a vast amount of heat is escaping from the house through the glass.

 

[Lime]

I agree.
There is a certain advantage to be gained by new all-sealed double glazing. The isulation from draughts and heat loss is improved in one fell swoop.
However to make out that it is the "fault" of the original windows when they have been neglected and often misused for decades is plainly stupid.
Of course, the idea that the old windows are at fault is propounded by those with a vested interest to make money out of the situation and supported, rather ironically, by householders often too mean to have the old ones repaired properly.
The fact that the householder is then talked into debt for many years, often decades, to acquire the upvc solution in order to avoid paying out for the required repairs demonstrates the stupidity superbly.
(Compounded by the fact that many debts will be just paid off by the time the upvc has past it's useful life)

The main problem for householders of older property is that they are often given advice by those with a vested interest, those who know nothing about it and/or those that couldn't careless.
Builders are all in the job to make money and why should they care about old buildings when quite obviously in many situations the householders don't care through ignorance or misinformation either?

I have been told too many times by householders that the reason they had plastic windows put in was to avoid the painting and upkeep of the old windows.
But only weeks later the lady of the house is cleaning the traffic grime off the plastic when previously, with the old windows, she never cleaned them at all...just threw a bit of paint on them every 3 or 4 years.

The logic of it all escapes me.

 

[Moo]

The logic of it all escapes me.

Once upon a time (about ten years ago, actually) a friend and I witnessed an appalling bit of driving by a man in a white van. I was roundly cursing his stupidity when my friend calmly pointed out that you don't have to have too many A levels in order to pass the driving test.
We drove on in silence for a bit, until she suddenly exclaimed "do you realise that statistically over seventy per cent of other drivers are even more stupid than we are?"

It was a sobering thought.

 

[Nemesis]

As ministers urge greater efforts on energy saving and talk of new eco-homes, thousands of existing buildings are being denied basic improvements, and are producing unnecessary carbon emissions.

I have written a letter to the Guardian as I feel this is unduly alarmist. I have copied it in to the journalist concerned. I note it isn't Maeve the Heritage correspondent.

If anyone else feels so inclined an e-mail this evening or in the morning would all add weight.

letters@guardian.co.uk

david.adams@guardian.co.uk


Sometimes my letters even get printed.

Not quite Kieth Flett, but then I don't have a beard.


I also add- is this an example of a certain named 'club' (which is in reality I believe a business) acting on behalf of some of its members in making a fuss about something which in reality isn't such a big deal?

 

[Nemesis]

I have had an e-mail 'exchange of views' today with the Guardian's journalist.

He tells me the 'windows' people have tried draughtproofing but the design of the windows makes it very difficult.

I have drawn to his attention rust makes it very difficult to close them properly...

I gather they have had permission for secondary glazing refused and are going to appeal.

I have pointed that if all those people being 'denied' 'basic improvements' junk perfectly decent and repairable historic windows to be replaced with heaven knows what, it's not exactly an eco-friendly solution.

I've also suggested a few historic buildings he takes a look at where owners are trying to save the planet without removing the historic interest.

 

[Pford75]

I support the view that we don't want every owner of a historic building being scared into chucking their windows out and replacing them with uPVC.

But, I do have some sympathy with the people concerned (although none of us know the details). It would appear that they have explored draughtproofing options (if the journalist is to be believed) and they have then made an application for secondary glazing.

I'm sure most of us would say that secondary glazing is a better option than replacing the original windows...and that (done sensitively) it should be possible without altering the fabric of the existing window.

If (and I accept we don't know), there is a flat refusal from the CO to even consider seconday glazing, then I can see how this would be frustrating for the householders. On the one hand, the gov't preaches about energy conservation, but in practice obstructs someone trying to do just that.

If the secondary glazing were removable and didn't impact the fabric of the existing window...would it still required LBC?

 

[Nemesis]

The house seems to have tiny leaded windows in stone mullions. I have no idea what damage was planned to install, but this must have all been gone through with EH also.

I still reckon that some simple removal of rust so the windows actually meet the frames would help, and some stick on draughtproofing.

I actually think this was a publicity exercise from a certain 'club' and the journalist has fallen hook line etc.

As a result, their central heating system burns twice as much fuel as the average house, and produces twice the carbon emissions.

I also wonder about this - as we have noted with the HIPS energy reports, where historic buildings are concerned they are not reliable.

What is the 'average' house I wonder?

 

[Pford75]

Quote:
As a result, their central heating system burns twice as much fuel as the average house, and produces twice the carbon emissions.


I also wonder about this - as we have noted with the HIPS energy reports, where historic buildings are concerned they are not reliable.

What is the 'average' house I wonder?

I agree...this is obviously a completely unsubstantiated claim. Even if their fuel bills are higher than average (assuming we knew what average was), it's not possible to attribute this difference to the windows alone.

I just felt that if there had been more positive suggestions on 'how' (perhaps suggesting as you have, some maintenance of the windows)...rather than simply saying 'no', then the householders wouldn't feel so aggrieved?

We all know the eco-argument isn't going to go away....so surely it's better that we seek the least-destructive options rather than try to hold back the tide until gov't allows people to do some really insensitive things?

 

[Nemesis]

I suspect that some form of secondary glazing would be possible, it all depends on the details, possibly covering the entire window and fitted to the internal wall, but it may not be pretty.

I really have doubts it will halve the heating bills!

Sticking tape around the frames for the winter, or jamming loo roll in the gaps as I do, would help too!


At the weekend I looked at the details of a Grade II Listed house for sale not far from us. It's got thick walls and small windows, and is not by any means a wreck.

The energy efficiency rating was on the estate agent's details, in the same form as we see them on electrical applinces.

It came at the bottom. With suggested 'improvements' (unspecified) it came one step up the ladder.

How much any of this is in reality useful or accurate I have grave doubts, but how long will it be before some people are demanding all historic buildings be demolished as they are a danger to the future of the planet?!!

 

[Pford75]

My brother is an estate agent (we tend not to mention this in public :wink: )

He mentioned to me that although they have obviously seen a number of HIPS (they deal mostly in larger properties), he has yet to see any buyer demand changes (or even a price reduction) as a result of the HIP.

Maybe this will change as the market cools off?

 

[Nemesis]

The HIPS roll out to all properties starts very soon.

It will be interesting.

 

[biffvernon]

I noticed an estate agent had a poster in its window proclaiming Free HIPS. I don't think they were competing with the NHS.

This report is pertinant: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7113165.stm

Download the report, HOME TRUTHS: A LOW CARBON STRATEGY TO REDUCE UK HOUSING EMISSIONS BY 80%
from the Environment Change Institute at http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/

Of the homes we will inhabit in 2050, around 80 per cent
are already standing today and these have to be the main
focus for carbon-reduction policies. The Government
has comprehensively failed to set out effective policies to
significantly reduce emissions from the homes we already
live in.

 

[Nemesis]

Minimum legal standards for homes: Energy
performance certifi cates, which rate houses from A
to G, are rolled out for every home in the UK (not just
those being sold or let) from 1 January 2008.
A minimum standard is set and progressively tightened
to transform the housing sector by making it illegal to
re-sell (or let) the most energy-ineffi cient houses.
Houses in bands F and G have such low levels of
thermal comfort they are offi cially a health hazard
– there are 3 million such homes in the UK today. They
have to be improved before they can be re-sold. No
G-rated property can be re-sold after 2010, no F-rated
after 2013 and no E-rated ones after 2016. By 2050 the
aim is that there is no house in the UK less than band
D, today’s average rating and that the rate of heat loss
in the average house has been halved. The poorest and
most vulnerable households are given unprecedented
support to ensure the necessary changes happen
quickly. The rest have access to long-term fi nancing
mechanisms and practical assistance.

Hmmmm.


English Heritage: Home Information packs and traditional buildings

From 1st August anyone selling a house with four or more bedrooms is legally required to put together a home information pack for potential home buyers. This will be extended to three bedroom houses from 10th September see http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1002882&PressNoticeID=2488 .


English Heritage offers three interim guidance notes to home inspectors and energy assessors on assessing the energy performance of traditionally constructed and historic homes. Approximately 25% of existing dwellings are of traditional construction and this includes most listed buildings.

The Home Information Pack guidance includes Energy Performance Certificates for historic and traditional homes, Advice for Domestic Energy Assessors, and SAP ratings for historic and traditional homes. All three are downloadable from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/hips

Energy Performance Certificates assess the likely energy performance of homes and are generated by a software package which takes data from a survey completed on site by the Domestic Energy Assessor. The software is designed primarily with modern dwellings in mind and makes generalised assumptions about all homes based on standard, usually modern, methods and materials of construction. Most importantly, it automatically assumes that all traditional building types are less energy efficient than modern ones, an assumption which has yet to be empirically validated.

In the guidance, English Heritage advises home owners to adopt such recommendations with caution and urges Domestic Energy Assessors to override them if necessary. Only those recommendations that the assessor is certain to cause no damage to the long term performance of the building or diminish its appeal should appear as final recommendations on the certificate. Individuals carrying out recommended work to a listed building should also secure consent before carrying out any works. Back

EH: Don't rush into energy saving changes

Commenting on the new requirements, Bill Martin, Conservation Director at English Heritage, said 'We all have a responsibility to make our homes more energy efficient and no building type should be exempt from this. Energy Certificates will help to raise awareness, but it is important for the public to know that the ways to achieve energy efficiency in modern housing are different from that in traditional houses.

'The current system of certifying all housing types using a standardised method which does not consider the fundamental differences in the fabric between old and modern buildings can produce incorrect and highly misleading assessments. Traditional buildings are likely to be rated low in energy efficiency and given a high estimate of fuel consumption under the present system, and we are concerned that the public will rush to make changes. We hope with these guidance notes home owners will have a better understanding of what the certificates really mean and be in a better position to judge how valid the recommendations are, avoiding costly and potentially illegal mistakes along the way.'

 

[DaveBrigg]

Have I read that correctly to imply that within 6 years, there will be 3 million properties in this country that it will be illegal to sell or let?
We have fitted secondary glazing by screwing acrylic sheets across the wooden frames, which was inspected by the CO last week without comment, and it has made a big difference to heat loss and comfort. Once removed, the screw holes can be filled and touched up to remove any trace that they were there.
I would disagree with the statement that "The poorest and
most vulnerable households are given unprecedented
support". If an old, inefficient building is 'vulnerable, why is VAT still charged on roof insulation, and why is a grant conditional on getting outside contractors to do the job, making it more expensive and possibly more damaging than the DIY option?

 

[ilikecobwebs]

(quote)No G-rated property can be re-sold after 2010, no F-rated
after 2013 and no E-rated ones after 2016. (end).

Is this intended as a suggestion or has some idiot actually started to try passing it as a law?
The government would love this, any excuse to bulldoze hundreds of thousands of so-called "useless" houses and erect more plastic bunny-boxes in their place.....a real strike at the heart of heritage. All they've ever wanted is to rid the country of old houses.
Its a load of *****, I'm really so sick and tired of all this energy-efficiency buzz-stuff. Everyone's gone stark raving mad. Whoever wrote this report.....do they really think people will accept the idea of make it illegal to sell certain-graded houses? I agree its about time VAT was scrapped for work done on old properties. Whatever is this country coming to?
I imagine my house would rate around D/E, because it aint got uPVC or double glazing, and we've just this week thrown out the radiator thermostat valves because they are absolutely useless, packed up within three years of fitting. My right hand turning the on/off valve is good enough. Guess I'd better move before 2016, then!
Presumably.......while the populus scrabbles to cut CO2 under threat of imprisonment, the government will be sanctioning the building of ever-more airports, with increasing numbers of aeroplanes and ever-more CO2 output.......summat wrong somewhere.

 

[Nemesis]

I suggest before panic sets in, the link Biff provided, from which I took the quote, is clicked on and read!

 

[Nemesis]

In order to get around the VAT problem, pathfinders schemes are demolishing perfectly good houses rather than refurbishing them. Is that a good idea? Is this value for taxpayers?

Paula Diggle: There is a policy choice for the Chancellor to make. We have limited room for policy manoeuvre on VAT rates: we cannot broaden any zero rating of VAT, and there is a limit to what we can do about 5% VAT. The only way we could equalise the rates of VAT would be to equalise upwards.

Q11 Chairman: Is that right, National Audit Office? I thought that in the briefing just given to me, it said that it is possible to vary VAT.

David Corner: We were told that it was possible and that certainly European legislation was not a barrier.

Chairman: Right. We will have to investigate that further, because it seems that the taxpayer is not getting good value if we are demolishing rather than refurbishing perfectly good homes. Thank you very much.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc106-i/uc10602.htm


UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 106-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Monday 19 November 2007



Housing Market Renewal: Pathfinders



department for communities and local government

PETER HOUSDEN, RICHARD McCARTHY, MICHAEL GAHAGAN and SIOBHAN McCOY

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Public Accounts Committee

on Monday 19 November 2007

Members present:

Mr. Edward Leigh (Chairman)

Mr. Richard Bacon

Angela Browning

Mr. David Curry

Nigel Griffiths

Keith Hill

Mr. Austin Mitchell

Dr. John Pugh

Geraldine Smith

Mr. Don Touhig

Mr. Alan Williams

Phil Wilson

________________



Sir John Bourn KCB, Comptroller and Auditor General, and Mr. Tim Burr, Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General, National Audit Office, were in attendance. David Corner, Director, National Audit Office, and Paula Diggle, Treasury Officer of Accounts, gave evidence.

 

[Raylea]

I live in a double bay fronted house, they are big, they are the original sash windows with no secondary glazing, the two rooms are identical they are 17foot by 14foot with high ceilings. Yes they can be draughty but a little thing called a pair of curtains get pulled acroos them and hey presto no more draughts and along with a fire burnig away we are like toast.

Raylea

 

[Nemesis]

Guardian letters:

Heritage choices


Wednesday November 28, 2007
The Guardian


You portray a stark choice between environmental conservation and heritage conservation (The carbon cost of protecting our heritage, November 26). But there are ways in which people can make their homes more energy efficient without necessarily harming their historic character and architectural integrity. English Heritage has produced guidance on historic buildings (see helm.org.uk ). English Heritage has no objection in principle to the use of secondary glazing; every case is judged on its merits. In the case of the Savages, whose house is listed grade II*, our concerns were not over the principle, but were based on having insufficient information to give a full understanding of the potential impact; and that such information as was included indicated internal frames of such bulky dimensions that they would have had an unnecessarily harmful impact on the appearance of the historic stone mullions. These concerns were raised with the Savages, but no further details or revisions were submitted.


Justin Ayton
Buildings inspector, English Heritage


http://www.helm.org.uk/

 

[biffvernon]

Can't say fairer than that.