Material changes that could affect you all...

[Joiner]

http://www.pilkington.com/resources/partl12pp.pdf

And follow all the links and references for the full implications!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Is the statement "Listed buildings and those in conservation areas must comply" true?

I thought from previous comments on here, that as usual the CO would trump Building Control in these matters.

If it isn't true, then Pilkington are at best disingenuous with that statement.

 

[Joiner]

Pilkington are never disingenuous. They don't need to be.

 

[Flyfisher]

Is the statement "Listed buildings and those in conservation areas must comply" true?

I read all that as being a summary of the proposed regulation changes in 2010. In that sense, I presume the statement is true in terms of the current draft of the new regulations. We'll have to wait until the final regulations are ratified and become legal requirements later this year to really know for sure.

But it wouldn't surprise me. It seems illogical to bang on about reducing carbon emissions in order to save the climate yet ignore the energy inefficiency of a large section of the existing housing stock.

Of course, there are loads of anomalies, inaccuracies perhaps, in the detail, but Government can't get bogged down with such things. It has to set the strategic vision and let events take their course. Both Government and industry see climate change as a big opportunity and this is just one example of a major company positioning itself to take maximum advantage. It's what companies do and the Govenment will likely be entirely supportive of such "green" initiatives, especially if they can generate economic activity to help pull us out of recession - which, of course, leads to economic growth and an increase in energy consumption. It's madness, of course, but that's the nature of the our economic and social systems and Government is powerless to do anything except encourage it.

 

[Joiner]

The impact on people living in and restoring period properties will be in the availability of tradesmen to make their windows. The significance of the changes that will come in October of this year is that, unlike FENSA, which covers the business, the new accreditation process will be for each TYPE of window made.

There are already indications that local authority Building Control officers (LABCOs) will defer wholly to the scheme of accreditation because it’s the easiest option. No one I’ve spoken to can say how that will impact on Listed buildings or Conservation generally, largely because many LABCOs and COs seem unaware of the full implications of the tightening of the Regs on small traders.

The issue has been the subject of concerned discussion on a number of forums, especially those populated by the trade likely to be affected – woodworking – many of whose members had no idea of how the changes would impact on them personally.

It isn’t a matter of compliance, but of PROVING compliance, and that will have both practical and financial impact on one-, two-, three-man operations, who seem to form the bulk of the conservation joinery sector, certainly in terms of the truly bespoke work associated with period properties.

I did some trawling this morning, having woken at 4.45 with the whole issue buzzing round inside my head. The average cost of obtaining ISO9001 is around the £700 mark, and that's just for obtaining initial registration with one of the "ready made kits".

You then need to get your design(s) passed by one of the companies on the list of approved assessors to be sure it/they will obtain the final accreditation. I could find no price for that little service.

And then final accreditation by BFRC…

http://www.bfrc.org/

Which will cost how much?

So, briefly, this is what your tradesman needs to be doing…

http://www.bfrc.org/trade/getWindowsRated.aspx

Remember, the accreditation will be for EACH TYPE of window made. I make about a hundred wooden windows a year, many for jobs needing Listed Building Consent. Hardly any job is the same as the other. I'm currently working on my last job before retiring at the end of the month that has two different types of window on two different elevations, two of the neighbouring properties have upvc windows. All the windows I'll be fitting (and which will be signed off by LABC under Notice) will comply with Part L. Under the new regime I’d need certificates for each of the window types, and that would have been good for that building only, unless another customer came along and wanted identical windows.

There you go.

 

[biffvernon]

I don't make window types. I only make windows. Each one is different. I guess we just become outlaws.


Here's one little bit

2. The energy rating eg. -3kWh/(m²·K) in this example the product will lose 3 kilowatt hours per square metre per year.

from the bfrc site at http://www.bfrc.org/trade/energyRatings.aspx

Maybe physics has changed since I went to school but how does -3kWh/(m²·K) become 'the product will lose 3 kilowatt hours per square metre per year'? I thought K meant degree Kelvin not year. Is this the level of expertise we can expect from the bfrc?

 

[biffvernon]

Oh I've just read on a bit further. Here's the whole bit:

When you get a product rated with the BFRC you will be given a unique label

This label will display the following information:

1. The rating level – A, B, C, etc…
2. The energy rating eg. -3kWh/(m²·K) in this example the product will lose 3 kilowatt hours per square metre per year.
3. The window U value eg. 1.4W/(m²·K)
4. The effective heat loss due to air penetration as L
eg. 0.01 W/(m²·K)
5. The solar heat gain eg. g=0.43

Simply put this will determine how well a product will perform the functions of:

* Helping you contain and conserve heat within your building in the winter
* Keep out the wind
* Resist condensation
* Contribute to improved sound insulation

Well, putting it simply, that's crap. Or can someone tell me which of the points 1 to 5 'determine...improved sound insulation'?
And they want me to associate my windows with this outfit!

 

[chuckey]

Its a load of BS, just a ploy for Pilks to sell more of their expensive glass. Its a shame that the goverment is so naive as to support their marketing ploy.
P.S Biff I think point 4 (heat loss due to air ingress), sorta leads one to think that outside sound can travel on this ingressing air. So yes and no (not a one to one relationship).
Frank

 

[Flyfisher]

So really, I'm wasting my time thinking about a wood-burning CH system because none of the above seems to take in account the source of the heat that's being lost through SG windows. My draughtly old single-glazed house could actually be completely carbon neutral if I install a wood burning CH system and, being mainly timber-framed and 450 years old, among the greenest houses in the country, yet at some point a well-meaning jobsworth is going to come around, armed with a Pilkington flyer and government backing, to tell me that I could/should/must improve things with DG.

 

[worms]

Maybe physics has changed since I went to school but how does -3kWh/(m²·K) become 'the product will lose 3 kilowatt hours per square metre per year'? I thought K meant degree Kelvin not year. Is this the level of expertise we can expect from the bfrc?

Yes, I am struggling to think what the derivation of K meaning year might even be?

 

[Joiner]

Some fancy ducking and diving there, but heads in the sand = kicks up the asses.

Blaming Pilkington for it is missing the target entirely.

Anyway, just in case you really need a rude awakening to a number of initiatives that have come out of some pretty robust lobbying by the environmental movement, pick the bones out of this, taking particular notice of the last bit...

Building Control Guidance Note
Subject
CONSERVATION OF FUEL AND POWER 2006.
Guide 5 – APPROVED DOCUMENT L1B Conservation of fuel and power – Work in existing dwellings.
24
Issued 07/04/06
Rev
Page
1 of 11
From 6th April 2006 there are significant changes to the Building Regulations that cover the Conservation of Fuel and Power in buildings. Energy performance relating to works and extensions in existing buildings is based on a revised elemental approach in which insulation and efficiency thresholds are set for individual parts of the building envelope and services.
There are requirements for standards to be achieved for ‘Thermal Elements’ (walls, floors and roofs), ‘Controlled Fittings’ (windows, doors and similar fittings) and ‘Controlled Services’ (heating, hot water, ventilation systems and lighting). Regulations apply whether as part of an extension, dividing a house into flats, replacing windows, extending a heating system or applying render to a gable wall, or changing a buildings energy status.

Extract of L1. GUIDANCE ON THERMAL ELEMENTS.
Thermal Elements - (Refer to Guide 24 – (2) for further guidance) refers to a wall, floor or roof that separates the heated or cooled space from the outside. Works relating to thermal elements can arise in building an extension, a material change of use, a material alteration, changing a buildings energy status or when carrying out other renovation works. Refer to guide 24 (2).

The requirements for ‘Thermal Elements’ represent a significant change in regulation since it requires efficiency improvements whenever a roof, wall or floor is replaced or renovated. Thus the replacement of render or tile hanging to a wall will require insulation works to be undertaken at the same time. The AD gives guidance on the U values that should be achieved depending on whether an element is newly constructed, rebuilt, retained, replaced or renovated. NOTE: consider carefully the potential for condensation problems and the controls necessary to prevent it when upgrading existing construction).

Renovation of ‘Thermal Elements’: is defined as the provision or replacement of a construction layer, such as external render, tile hanging or internal plaster. It would not include decorations or re-pointing brickwork. Where 25% or more of an elements surface area is to be renovated the whole element should be thermally improved (see AD L1B Table 4 (b) extract below).
Back to t

 

[MdB]

Our neighbours have been caught by that. As they had removed the render from their stone walls, the were forced to fit celotex and plasterboard to meet the regs. They were not happy as it significantly reduced the size of the rooms and completely changed the character. On the plus side, the fuel bills for a three bed semi used to be £2k per year and still didn't heat the house well. It should be a lot less once they are finished.

 

[Flyfisher]

So much for an Englishman's home being his castle. :roll:

 

[Pford75]

And all the more barbaric to those of us (and there are some) who have yet to be convinced by either side in the global warming debate. Given the lies and deception uncovered at CRU, how many historic buildings will be destroyed over the coming months/years?

Frankly, I'm surprised that local councils haven't already begun descending on householders and forcing them to block chimneys and rip out single glazing and install plastic. Horrific? yes....but doesn't it just fit with so many local council initiatives?

 

[biffvernon]

Given the lies and deception uncovered at CRU,

There were none. Do try pulling your head out of the sand.

Improving the energy performance of our housing stock is terribly important but there is an enormous problem with the well-intentioned strategy that has produced these Building Regulations. Adding insulation lowers your fuel bill for the same temperature or increases the temperature for the same fuel bill. Reality suggests that most people will spend a little less on fuel and have a warmer house. You might think this is a win-win. But the strategy is trying to achieve lower CO2 emissions not improve wealth and comfort. If the money saved on fuel bills is spent on stuff rather than being stuffed under the mattress (no good lending it to a bank - that just allows others to spend it) then the carbon is still burnt but somewhere else in the economy.

The only way to stop people emitting more CO2 is to make fossil fuels much more expensive through some form of taxation and rationing such as TEQs. Then individuals can choose whether to buy home insulation, thermal underwear, what little fuel they are allowed or just get cold like our forebears did.

And then there is a whole other agenda. Peak Oil. We just are not going to have the fuel, irrespective of climate concern.

 

[Flyfisher]

Given the lies and deception uncovered at CRU,

There were none. Do try pulling your head out of the sand.

The rights and wrongs of the matter are almost irrelevant compared with the damage it has done to the climate change lobby, coupled with the damp squib that was Copenhagen. Even assuming the science is 100% correct, the real challenge is to persuade people to do something about it. I think that things have moved backwards in the respect over recent months.

Improving the energy performance of our housing stock is terribly important but there is an enormous problem with the well-intentioned strategy that has produced these Building Regulations. Adding insulation lowers your fuel bill for the same temperature or increases the temperature for the same fuel bill. Reality suggests that most people will spend a little less on fuel and have a warmer house. You might think this is a win-win. But the strategy is trying to achieve lower CO2 emissions not improve wealth and comfort.

I'mn not convinced the strategy really is to lower CO2 emissions as such, at least that's not what's driving all these initiatives. The strategy is to boost the economy on the back of the "green opportunity" that the government constantly promotes. What could be a better message: "let's save the planet by building a vast new 'green' economy". A spin-doctor's dream.

If the money saved on fuel bills is spent on stuff rather than being stuffed under the mattress (no good lending it to a bank - that just allows others to spend it) then the carbon is still burnt but somewhere else in the economy.

Absolutely. I've been saying that for years. Unfortunately the logical conclusion is that the greenest thing to do is to shrink the economy and reduce our standards of living, which is the exact opposite of every government's - indeed, every-one's - instinct and aspiration.

The only way to stop people emitting more CO2 is to make fossil fuels much more expensive through some form of taxation and rationing such as TEQs. Then individuals can choose whether to buy home insulation, thermal underwear, what little fuel they are allowed or just get cold like our forebears did.

. . . all of which is, of course, political suicide. It's also the reason why people grab onto any ***** in the 'greens' armour such as the CRU affair because the reality is that there is nothing the greens can offer except bad news.

And then there is a whole other agenda. Peak Oil. We just are not going to have the fuel, irrespective of climate concern.

Eventually, of course. The big question is when. Very soon and we may not have to worry about climate change (perhaps God put just enough fossil fuel in the ground to kick-start our industrial revolution but not enough to ruin the planet :wink: ). But I had a very interesting evening recently with a friend of a friend who works in the oil industry, on the exploration side of things. He had absolutely no concerns about oil and gas running out in his children's lifetimes.

 

[biffvernon]

Unfortunately the logical conclusion is that the greenest thing to do is to shrink the economy and reduce our standards of living...there is nothing the greens can offer except bad news.

Indeed. That's why the greens have always been unpopular and unsuccessful. It's an inconvenient truth that we have a problem that can probably only be solved by the end of the civilization that we know.

Very soon and we may not have to worry about climate change (perhaps God put just enough fossil fuel in the ground to kick-start our industrial revolution but not enough to ruin the planet :wink: ). But I had a very interesting evening recently with a friend of a friend who works in the oil industry, on the exploration side of things. He had absolutely no concerns about oil and gas running out in his children's lifetimes.

Sadly, there is more bad news. Your oil worker, like many in his industry, is wrong. Peak oil for conventional crude was May 2005 and for all liquids was July 2008. We're on a bumpy plateau with very little prospect of production exceeding the figures on those two dates again. The shape of the decline curve may be more determined by the ability of the world economy to adjust to rising prices but it is a decline curve. For an economy that is still utterly dependant on oil and on continued growth it's a question of whether it all ends noisily or the transition to a steady state economy can be managed peacefully.

Either way, the Buildings Regulations are of no significance. I'm not so cynical of government to agree that they are just a move to support the economy. There are plenty of people with good motivation devising these rules, they just do not see the bigger picture. And, of course, there is an enormous pressure on politicians not to frighten the horses.

Meanwhile, I will just have to sell windows to people who are prepared to ignore Buildings Regulations as there is no way that I can afford the testing malarkey.

 

[Pford75]

There were none. Do try pulling your head out of the sand.

Well, the information commissioner disagrees. As, surprisingly, does the Guardian (not exactly a 'sceptic' media outlet when it comes to global warming). At the very least, Phil Jones flouted information law because he simply didn't want to be challenged. In my mind, that is dishonest science and he should resign...if not fired. Faced with a FOI request, he instructed a colleague to delete all emails related to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC.....if something similar happened in a big oil company, how would the global warming lobby react?

I'm a fan of period property (which incidentally is what this forum is about). My frustration is that I am almost certain that period properties will be defaced and demolished in the name of 'global warming', yet scientists (on both sides) appear too far up their own backsides to practice proper science and have an intelligent debate....it's become dogma

 

[Lime]

My frustration is that I am almost certain that period properties will be defaced and demolished in the name of 'global warming', yet scientists (on both sides) appear too far up their own backsides to practice proper science and have an intelligent debate....it's become dogma

That is how I see it too.
There is too much money/funding at stake to discuss doubts.

In fact the whole debate is about money and not the proper worry... which is human population numbers.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not convinced that being past peak oil (if indeed we are) is incompatible with oil and gas not running out in our children's lifetime. There are still large reserves to be found (drilling starts around The Falklands soon - should be good for another conflict with Argentina) as well as the ones we already know about but just need energy prices to rise to become economic to extract. Then there's Antarctica - how long do you think the "no exploitation" agreements will last when the world starts really gasping for oil?

For an economy that is still utterly dependant on oil and on continued growth it's a question of whether it all ends noisily or the transition to a steady state economy can be managed peacefully.

Agreed, although I'd say the economy is utterly dependent on abundant energy. Obviously that means oil at the moment but it gives some hope that we can be weaned off oil in favour of another source of equally abundant energy. If we can find (and harness) such an energy source then I have little doubt we can successfully make the transition. If we can't find other energy sources then we won't be able to maintain (never mind increase) our current standard of living and things will become very ugly indeed. All of which leads me to conclude that we have to invest heavily in 'alternative' energy R&D. Sure, reducing energy consumption by a few percentage points won't do any harm but let's not fool ourselves that it's the answer. We need far more R&D urgency; a sort of "failure is not an option" approach.

I'm not so cynical of government to agree that they are just a move to support the economy. There are plenty of people with good motivation devising these rules, they just do not see the bigger picture.

Hmm. Not a great choice is it? A cynical government or a well-meaning but ill-informed/incompetent one.