Local Authority Lunacy

[Gareth Hughes]

It's a darkish room - so what? there are darker and lighter rooms in my house too

thats a really helpfull answer.

As I said, buildings always have and will continue to be adapted to provide a useful purpose. What really gets up peoples noses is the total lack of consistent decision making in these sort of cases.

Then perhaps you could try reading my whole response rather than selecting one bit of it? My question as to why the room being dark is suddenly a problem when it presumably hasn't been a problem for years is not an unreasonable one.

Given that all cases are different, how can one apply your version of "consistent" decision making to all of them? What justification have the owners provided so far? And, as Stephen asked, why are you involved at this stage when it would be normal to get permission first, then involve the tradesman?

 

[chippy]

Of course there can be consistancy, I am talking about the interpretation of the governments guidlines, the trouble is you have COs who are lazy, badly trained and have no experience and then you have the rest, so I suppose your right, every case is different because there is no consistancy in the ability of local council COs. I've met at least one CO in the last few years who still thinks it's a good idea to use tile repairs in the sill of a timber frame, a lot cheaper but a rubbish job, the next CO insists on a proper job in an almost identical property. The chances are if these people went ahead and put the windows in the council would never know because as I have said in a previous post, in this neck of the woods they rarely come out to check anything.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Of course there can be consistancy, I am talking about the interpretation of the governments guidlines, the trouble is you have COs who are lazy, badly trained and have no experience and then you have the rest, so I suppose your right, every case is different because there is no consistancy in the ability of local council COs.

No, every case is different because every building is different. Please stop being so obtuse. Why is the room being a bit dark suddenly a problem?

Oh, and I think you're confusing the idea that a CO is a "public servant" with the idea that they must therefore always defer to the demands of "the public" no matter how wrong "the public" (or the particular members making the application) are. COs are there, ultimately, to protect the interests of the building.

 

[chippy]

Looks like they will be putting a bigger bulb in after all, and I'll go back to watching daytime TV.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Looks like they will be putting a bigger bulb in after all, and I'll go back to watching daytime TV.

Better be a bloody big CFL, since we are no longer "allowed" to buy incandescent bulbs! Stock up now whilst you still can....

I have still to find an acceptable CFL that even approximately matches the light output and quality of an incandescent bulb. Has anyone?

 

[Flyfisher]

Stock up now whilst you still can....

Almost too late: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8229476.stm
More bureacratic micro-management I fear.

However, on the original topic of LA lunacy, that assertion seems a bit strong (even to me :wink: ); they've only asked for more information to support the application, which is hardly unreasonable is it? Imagine you're a planning officer and an application to install a roof window lands on your desk: "I'd like to install a roof window to let in more light". What would be your response? "OK, why not" or "Hmm. I wonder what's behind this application and have all the options and implications been properly thought through" ? Especially given that the property is listed.

If the former, then the planning and listing processes might just as well be scrapped. If the latter, then asking for more information seems reasonable rather than lunacy and certainly better than a straight refusal.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Gloom's nice, it softens wrinkles. Everyone looks beautiful in dim light.

I'd just like to add a) I wish my house had been listed b) I wish that the roof lights had been refused permission, they're foul. I've a good mind to fill em in and have a bit more gloom.

 

[Stephen]

This is becomming a little overheated - unnecessarily.

Gareth's point is a fair one. There are many modern houses with internal bathrooms, etc with no window at all. One could argue that all these people need to do is to improve the artifical lighting (not very environmentally frinedly, but it is a solution).

What I think Gareth is doing is trying to prompt you to think beyond the simple "they need more daylight" justification - because it sounds as if it is insufficient by itself.

I understand your concern on various levels - they are clients that you wish to help, but also it is a job for you that at present you are prevented from doing. The simple fact however is that all they have to do is to spend a short while thinking it through and putting pen to paper (perhaps an eveing's work for them).

The need for improved light can be a justifiable reason (although as Gareth has pointed out this is not a new problem in this instance), but it seems that they have to go a bit further. They should think about including the need for improved ventilation (is there a condensation problem that perhaps needs to be overcome?). They should consider the points I made in my previous post.

The sooner they simply get on and spend a couple of hours writing something the sooner they might get permission and you can do the job.

 

[Lime]

Looks like they will be putting a bigger bulb in after all, and I'll go back to watching daytime TV.

Better be a bloody big CFL, since we are no longer "allowed" to buy incandescent bulbs! Stock up now whilst you still can....

I have still to find an acceptable CFL that even approximately matches the light output and quality of an incandescent bulb. Has anyone?

Bloody big CFLs do exist.
85 watts is quite big and it is a bayonet fitting.
http://www.bltdirect.co.uk/cat33_1.htm

I have posted such links before but I suspect most people dismiss the 85 watts as referring to the "equivalent" light output.
It doesn't.
The CFL lamps are rated at 85 watts with a supposed light output of 350 to 400watts.

 

[biffvernon]

The CFL lamps are rated at 85 watts with a supposed light output of 350 to 400watts.

Blimey. What are you doing? Growing cannabis?
Oh, maybe that would be justification for the roof-light.

 

[Moo]

Lots in the papers about this in the last few days. Apparently it is still perfectly legal to sell proper lightbulbs provided they are not for domestic use. So all we have to say is that we want them for our factory/workshop/office and no-one will get into trouble.

 

[robgil]

personally i don't see a problem with these lights , you can choose what colour temperature you want so you can simulate day light as well as evening light , they are cheaper to run , they emit more light (providing you shop around) for less energy consumption , they last longer , look better and they come in nicer boxes.

if you are having a problem with the kind of light they emit try a higher temperature , i have seen 6000 + kelvin which would be a very bright white light , just like the sun


as for growing pot with cfl's , a quick google and it actually looks as though people really do use them for this purpose. so if its a bulb that replicates day light you want cfl's seem to be the best solution i can see.

i doubt you would need anything as bright as these though.

http://www.greenshorticulture.co.uk/CFL-Lights-95/CFL-Grow-Lights-122/Budget-250W-CFL-System-800.asp

 

[Penners]

as for growing pot with cfl's , a quick google and it actually looks as though people really do use them for this purpose

And presumably they grow it in potting compost.

 

[robgil]

as for growing pot with cfl's , a quick google and it actually looks as though people really do use them for this purpose

And presumably they grow it in potting compost.

lets hope so.

another thing to take on board is that watts is the amount of energy consumed and not how much light is being emitted. i am no expert but
a 100 watt bulb does not give you 100 watts of light and two 100 watt bulbs can give you two different amounts of light intensity.

so , when you ask for a 100 watt bulb what you are asking for is a bulb that can consume 100 watts of energy rather than a bulb that can give you a certain amount of light.

or have i got that all wrong?

 

[MdB]

another thing to take on board is that watts is the amount of energy consumed and not how much light is being emitted. i am no expert but
a 100 watt bulb does not give you 100 watts of light and two 100 watt bulbs can give you two different amounts of light intensity.

so , when you ask for a 100 watt bulb what you are asking for is a bulb that can consume 100 watts of energy rather than a bulb that can give you a certain amount of light.

or have i got that all wrong?

The figure marked on the packet is the amount of power(*) that the bulb consumes. It also outputs this power too. Technically almost all of the output power is in the form of light, however a lot of this will be in the infra-red region which can't be seen (which is commonly called heat).

An incandescent bulb is typically 5% efficient in that only 5% of the power/energy that the bulb uses is output as visible light that the human eye can see. A CFL bulb is typically 20% efficient or a factor of 4 better.

Different bulbs of the same power rating can very much have different efficiencies at converting to visible light, even between bulbs of the same basic type. Indeed making a bulb that produces no visible light at all is possible. Unfortunately, many packets don't specify the actual light output though more are starting. You are looking for a figure in Lumens (not a straight forward unit. It depends on the sensitivity of the human eye)

* Note: power and not energy

 

[MdB]

if you are having a problem with the kind of light they emit try a higher temperature , i have seen 6000 + kelvin which would be a very bright white light , just like the sun

Most people complain about the high colour temperature lights and prefer the low temperature versions.

The high colour temperature parts have a lot of blue in their output (just like the sun) where as the cooler colour temperature parts have a lot of red in their output (just like incandescent bulbs). Just to confuse matters, the cooler colour temperature parts are refered to as producing a warmer output.

It is also worth noting that most people can't tell the difference between a cool colour temperature CFL bulb and an incandescent bulb in a blind test. Warm up time is still an issue though.

 

[Flyfisher]

As MdB rightly points out, filament bulbs are notoriously inefficient at turning electricity into light but if you take the radiated heat into the equation then they are, of course, 100% efficient. There is an argument that says you'll burn more heating fuel to compensate for the lackk of heat that CFLs produce and that this, plus the more energy-intensive manufacturing and disposal processes for CFLs, makes the overall energy savings rather less attractive than the simple lower wattage of the CFLs themselves might suggest.

 

[robgil]

to say that heat from incandescent bulbs is noticibly more than cfl's due to burning more heating fuel would indicate to me that you have all your lights on all the time , other wise it would only be down to one or two bulbs which , in my opinion shouldn't make a button of difference to your heating bills.

*nips out to switch the kitchen light off*

 

[MdB]

Nominally, if you have a thermostatically controlled heating system then switching either a CFL or a incandescent light on / off will make (approximately) no difference to your total energy usage as the heat generated by the bulb will cause an approximately equal drop in energy usage in the boiler. Electricity generation is approx 50% efficient which is similar to old boilers at generating heat. The electric is likely to be more expensive though.

It can be argued that the heat from the bulb will be at the top of the room where it will stay so the above is not necessarily correct.

 

[Flyfisher]

A couple of 100W lightbulbs at 5% lighting efficiency will provide 190W of heating and that heat will contribute to warming the room. If you have central heating as well then it will have to work 190W less hard to keep the room at the desired temp, so you'll save a little bit of gas or oil or whatever. Fit CFLs and you lose a lot of this heating so you'll burn a little more gar or oil or whatever.

I agree the amounts are small, but they still erode the claimed advantages of CFLs, as do their higher embedded energy content and disposal processes. Cherry picking energy saving figures from just one small part of the complex web of energy cycles can be misleading even though it might give a 'feel-good' factor. A bit like driving to the bottle bank to recycle glass bottles for which the raw materials are practically inexhaustible.