Material changes that could affect you all...

[christianb]

It's a wonder that all our beloved period properties managed to get built and are still standing after hundreds of years without the benefit of modern structural analysis software, building regulations, BCOs and all the other bureaucratic and professional palarver associated with building anything these days.
And £1100 bat surveys . . . . just in case.

True, true. Mind you, all the cr*p ones fell down years ago. We're just left with the well-built survivors!

 

[Flyfisher]

Agreed. But at least people had the opportunity to build carp houses in days of yore, without all the laws and controls we seem incapable of doing without these days.

 

[Joiner]

Bif the level of confusion is the same everywhere. I'm feeling as guilty as hell for raising the issue, but assumed that someone was just going to tell me that it was old hat, hence my amazement at the shock expressed by some guys. If anything, the feedback on here has been the most positive!

I did phone Building Control (BC) this morning and learnt that they knew absolutely nothing and will know absolutely nothing until the thing is rolled out in about two weeks time. The head of department wasn't there and I spoke to the plan checking team leader who was "surprised" at what was proposed. I gave him the links. I'll phone again tomorrow morning and try and speak to the boss, because department managers sometime have more of an inkling of what's in the pipeline, but I'm not holding my breath.

I also phoned the Heritage department (the old Conservation department - they're called Heritage Officers in Shropshire now) and the officer I spoke to knew nothing about the changes. I gave her the links and phoned her back for an opinion an hour later and asked her opinion: "Scary!" She was printing out the Pilkington and BFRC downloads for distribution around the department. Her head of department was going to talk to the head of BC later.

One VERY faint glimmer comes in the form of an unconfirmed report from a mate who'd spoken to a mate of his who's a member of the BWF. The British Woodworking Federation was one of the consultees and apparently wanted to insert a clause exempting "hand made windows" so long as the glazing achieved the required u-value of 1.2, or whatever they're going to call it now (and don't ask for further details on that because you now know what I know). Given the Chinese whispers nature of this piece of info I'm not giving it a lot of credence, especially as it was also mentioned that "the big guys" wanted the clause removed. So, if there are any members of the BWF out there...

 

[Joiner]

I tracked down the source of that bit I posted earlier. It’s taken from here…

http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/category/environmental-issues/

To get to the relevent bit scroll down until you get to…

Interview with Alan Fielder of Edgetech

If you REALLY want to be depressed, then read on into the articles that follow. Do not be drinking coffee when you get to the final article because it will end up all over your keyboard and monitor.

I did get one laugh out of all this trawling around. If you followed those earlier links you’ll have seen James Strawbridge, tv presenter (’It isn’t easy going green’, his dad is Dick Strawbridge) and eco campaigner (I think he’s often described as an “eco warrior”). Said eco warrior is shown framed by a upvc window!

 

[Joiner]

Have just spoken to one of the Heritage department heads who said that the department manager had spoken with the head of BC yesterday, as soon as he'd read the links I'd sent over. Apparently BC (at least the managers) know what's coming but hadn't thought to discuss the implications with anyone else.

The guy I've just spoken with chairs the local branch of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) and they were also consultees during the consulation stage. He said that he'd submitted a paper putting the heritage concerns but heard nothing back. When part two of the consultation stage came around there was no mention of anything pertaining to heritage concerns!

Having now had the heads up the IHBC are starting a lobbying process to get the voices of concerned parties heard.

As I said, so much for consultation! Bit like "Don't worry, son, we'll give you a fair trial before we hang you."

 

[Flyfisher]

 

[AMc]

AMc,

This isn't about ignoring those regulations pertaining to the structural integrity of a building and, thus, the well-being of those within it. Please don't get the wrong impression.

This is about creating laws to protect people from, er, nothing whatsoever.

Lower fuel bills are good news for everyone regardless of your opinions on climate change. Poor people living in old houses are more likely to be impacted by fuel poverty than people with the same income in more efficient homes.

Building Control is there to prevent shoddy, dangerous, short term and uneconomical work being done. I don't think a modern housing estate should be built out of the cheapest materials at the expense of long term running costs so I support controls to improve heat loss. I don't think you should be able to replace or add a new window with one that is less efficient than it economically could be without a sensible discussion about performance vs. aesthetics. I'm secondary glazing my single glazed windows which I've carefully restored at significant expense to improve their thermal efficiency and lower my fuel bills.

IIRC there is someone on here planning on reinstating window openings that have been bricked up with new single glazed non compliant windows. Unless you can be totally sure of the reason the openings were bricked in then this is potentially structural.

On here Listing is sacred, building control to be circumvented. I find this double standard irksome and counter productive. I'm very tired of people claiming that they don't like certain rules and regulations and so they're going to simply ignore them.

IMHO in a democracy you have a responsibility to make your voice heard to frame the rules particularly ones you don't like - hence my gratitude to Joiner for raising the issue and my offer to lend my voice to the argument for smaller craftsmen to be spared the more onerous regulation.

 

[Flyfisher]

IMHO in a democracy . . .

But there's a fine line between freedom and the tyranny of the majority. I dare say the majority of the population couldn't care less about preserving our built heritage and would rather the money spent on doing so be used elsewhere. Such a decision might be democratic but it's not what I'd like to see.

My issue with all this bureaucracy (and, of course, I accept that society requires a minimal level) is that it directly influences how people live their lives instead of addressing the root cause of whatever issue is trying to be fixed. Lower fuel bills are, I agree, generally a good thing for all sorts of reasons, including the ones you mentioned, but there are a myriad ways to achieve lower bills and people should be free to decide what's best for their own particular way of life.

Some people will choose DG and live in shorts and Tee-shirts all year around (indoors anyway!), others might buy thick curtains and wear an extra jumper during the winter. Imagine the outcry if Government passed a law stating that thermal underwear was compulsory during the winter months, even though it might be just as effective at reducing fuel bills as compulsory DG.

Bah!

 

[christianb]

Lower fuel bills are good news for everyone regardless of your opinions on climate change

Indeed. But that is a matter for the owner of a property. And these can be achieved in a multitude of ways.

Building Control is there to prevent shoddy, dangerous, short term and uneconomical work being done

Yes. And, being honest, I get on pretty damn well with all the Building Inspectors I've dealt with.

On here Listing is sacred, building control to be circumvented.

Yes, listing is "sacred", but the other bit isn't true.

I'm very tired of people claiming that they don't like certain rules and regulations and so they're going to simply ignore them.

And I'm staggeringly tired of a government which can't stop making new rules and regulations at the rate of ten a minute. And when they're as inane as many of them are, it is the damned duty of sensible people to tell them where to stick them.

The issue here is personal liberty. If it ain't hurting no-one else, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Joiner]

May I remind everyone that the issue isn't about achieving compliance with Part L, it's about having to PROVE that the bespoke windows we make are compliant, something we've never had to do before because LABCOs have been there to check that they are compliant. LABC are STILL going to be there (this isn't a FENSA-like self-policing measure that circumvents BC) but they'll just be checking for that effing BFRC label, instead of reading the unit manufacturer's glazing label stating the u-value, its make-up and what sort of gas it's filled with, or whether it's toughened or laminated, or whether the low-'e' pane is fitted to the inside pane, etc. etc., all of which information is STILL going to be present alongside that bloody BFRC label.

And thanks for that offer of support, but I think this is one that's going to be best approached on a regional level, given the differences in approach of both LABCs and Heritage departments in different areas.

I have to keep reminding myself and those on the edge of despair that until we actually get to read the document itself there may still be hope that a small measure of common sense was allowed into the final document. Slim I know, but we live in hope.

And that was a bloody brilliant cartoon!

 

[AMc]

>The issue here is personal liberty. If it ain't hurting no-one else, it really doesn't matter.
If my neighbour left their hose pipe running down the drain the fact that they could afford it and didn't flush their toilet as often as me often wouldn't cut much ice.

I believe that my windows should have a service life of more than my expected occupation of this house so it's my responsibility to make sure that when I'm spending thousands of pounds they work well for the next owner regardless of my sartorial decisions and theirs. It's just as important that the building maintains as much historic integrity as I can preserve which is why my new windows are double glazed and my original windows were refurbished and will be secondarily glazed.

 

[christianb]

Although we might be going off-topic and digressing...

If my neighbour left their hose pipe running down the drain the fact that they could afford it and didn't flush their toilet as often as me often wouldn't cut much ice

That would make your neighbour a nutter. But if you couldn't smell their rancid dunny, it's none of your business what they do.

I believe that my windows should have a service life of more than my expected occupation of this house so it's my responsibility to make sure that when I'm spending thousands of pounds they work well for the next owner regardless of my sartorial decisions and theirs.

You pretty much get what you pay for. If it makes you happy, do it. If not, don't. But don't second-guess what future owners might want.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Quite.

IIRC there is someone on here planning on reinstating window openings that have been bricked up with new single glazed non compliant windows. Unless you can be totally sure of the reason the openings were bricked in then this is potentially structural.

That might be me. I wouldn't dream of undertaking such a thing without the professional opinion of a structural engineer or two, and nor could it be done until the render's off (hopefully then revealing what's happened there) and ground levels have been lowered - so it's a long way away.

The windows are so sited as to make or break the appearance of the house. It's critical they echo the Victorian sashes above. I'll go to a good deal of effort to make sure that happens as far as it possibly can.

 

[JoceAndChris]

My issue with all this bureaucracy (and, of course, I accept that society requires a minimal level) is that it directly influences how people live their lives instead of addressing the root cause of whatever issue is trying to be fixed. Lower fuel bills are, I agree, generally a good thing for all sorts of reasons, including the ones you mentioned, but there are a myriad ways to achieve lower bills and people should be free to decide what's best for their own particular way of life.

Some people will choose DG and live in shorts and Tee-shirts all year around (indoors anyway!), others might buy thick curtains and wear an extra jumper during the winter. Imagine the outcry if Government passed a law stating that thermal underwear was compulsory during the winter months, even though it might be just as effective at reducing fuel bills as compulsory DG.

Bah!

Well said, and I'd prefer that law, of course - or even a maximim amount of fuel per capita- rather than meddling with the way our beautiful houses look.

 

[Joiner]

I'm no longer that concerned about the Heritage issues because the head of our Heritage department phoned me earlier and said that he'd forwarded the links I sent him to a number of Heritage bodies who are now on watch to see what actually comes out in the new Regs. He said the issues of concern had “slipped under the radar”, probably because the environmental lobby was shouting so loudly that no one else’s voice could be heard.

Anyway, English Heritage have been forewarned, as have a number of other bodies, so the big guns are primed, just in case no provision has been made for older properties and the survival of the small craft workshops who make the joinery for them.

 

[AMc]

There must be a place for handmade windows in both conservation and one off new build so hopefully a compromise can be reached. I'm glad that the alarm has been raised, thanks for your posting Joiner!

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . . a number of Heritage bodies who are now on watch to see what actually comes out in the new Regs.

It must surely be a gazillion times more difficult to change any regulations once enacted than to influence them before they come into force. Seems like the glazing industry has had the upper hand in all this.

 

[Joiner]

It is possible to get them amended, although there are doubtless some very noisy vested interests out there who would see any such moves as a 'watering down'. That said, the sheer presence and influence of the Heritage groups, notably EH, gives cause for cautious optimism.

It's very much a case of put your faith in the Lord but keep your powder dry!

 

[Joiner]

http://www.glassglobal.com/news/the_bfrc_window_energy_rating_scheme-14276.html

Says it how it is generally, and I'm writing to them to make the case for buildings that come within Heritage, so if enough people do the same the message might filter through.

Good addresses to write to make your case for a major re-think. The more the merrier in this case.

 

[Joiner]

It's out. Haven't had chance to read it yet because my internet connection is down on my PC and this noteook screen is too small to read such a large document easily...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/partlf2010conresp...