Part L1b Building Regs - In Practice?

[malcolm]

I'm getting a bit nervous about Part L 1B of the building regs which appear to say that if you re-plaster more than half an external wall then you are required to apply for building regs and they may require you to hack all the plaster off and dry line and insulate to improve thermal performance.

I've ordered the Old House Eco Handbook which will hopefully give some clues about how this might be achieved without causing damp problems, mould, rotting the 17C timber frame etc.

In my case it is more of an issue because the building is undergoing a change of use (pub to house) and the same regs require the whole thing to be upgraded to modern regs - make everything mouldy and rotten and replace the horrid drafty 100 year old windows with some nice UPVC (I'm in a conservation area fortunately so can save the windows). There are caveats - they don't require anything that will damage the building, or will not achieve a 15 year payback.

How have these building regs worked in practice for those of you who have restored building recently? Do they cause real hassle or is possible to find sensible arrangements?

 

[Roger H]

Hi Malcolm,

I assume you've had a look at the english heritage guidance on implementation and exemptions from part L?

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...=XMNvP9laWQkJ_fE3kUvnLQ&bvm=bv.56343320,d.ZG4

 

[malcolm]

I've just read it again. It's useful and will likely help discussions with the building control officer. There should be a fair scope for insulation by doing sensible things. I'm hoping to go for an independent building control inspector so will have the chance to interview the inspector on their views before taking them on.

Still nervous about what I could be forced to do.

 

[Roger H]

If you are lucky you will have a cooperative Building Control Officer who will be able to take into account the need to protect such a building of traditional construction from adverse impacts of some of the possible requirements of Part L.

A combination of increased insulation in your roofspace for example, draft stripping or secondary glazing to single glazed windows, the specification of AAA rated heating (with MHRV?) and lighting systems, underfloor insulation where possible and so on, are the sort of measures which a BC should entertain - supported by your conservation officer, or your own reasoned argument.

 

[spooksbooks]

That's a very interesting document. I am perhaps in a similar position, having just re-united two halves of a Victorian property, I now want to pull out the beautiful UPVC double glazing that was installed a couple of years ago :x and reinstate traditional single glazing (perhaps less drafty) to match the rest of the house.



Where there were box sash windows, the box frames still exist and, although damaged, these may well be repairable. Where there were casements, none of the original frames remain.

It is encouraging to see that the English Heritage document supports the replacement of unsuitable elements, such as these UPVC windows, with new elements that don't comply with Part L, but will match the original elements of the property.

Before I dig myself into a big hole over this, I would be interested to know if anyone has had any experience of convincing Building Control that it is reasonable to re-fit with single glazing rather than double glazing and whether they received much support from their Conservation Officer? Our house is not listed, or in a conservation area or even in England (Welsh), but it is certainly a "traditionally constructed building" and of an unusual style.

 

[Roger H]

Hi Spooksbooks.

Comendable but you will struggle to convince the BCO on that one. How about some slim section double glazing e.g. http://www.histoglass.co.uk/content/Thin-Double-Glazing?

Roger

 

[skier-hughes]

We aren't listed, but are 500 years old.
CO wanted us to put single glazing in to replace worn out aluminium dg.
BCO said put a case forward, how will you offset the loss of heat caused by single glazing.
I wrote a four page document, including all things like thick curtains, sustainability with wood, solar heating for water, wood burners reducing oil usage etc etc.
His final reply, John Prescott says everyone has to have double glazing so you have to.

Total waste of my day!!

 

[spooksbooks]

This subject really makes my blood boil. I appreciate that I could put slim section double glazing in, but it wouldn't look the same and where's the enviromental worth in installing something that has a life expectancy of just a few decades? I doubt my house would still be standing if there had been a need to replace the original glazing every 30 years!

Looking at the company's installation specification, the seals on double glazing don't get on very well with linseed oil! The concept of applying two puttys in an atempte to keep the linseed oil paint away from the modern sealants looks very suspect to me - they obviously shouldn't be used inconjunction with each other.

Perhaps I will try to get my house listed?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Put in whatever windows you want (so long as they're not horrid plastic or ugly modern replacements). Maybe we are being spied upon 24/7, but I should think councils have better things to do than chasing homeowners for improving their houses albeit in a way that is not inline with the simplest readings of ambiguous regulations. Don't feel victimised for trying to be a good citizen, just do the right thing.

 

[malcolm]

It's all very confusing. For windows it seems just replacing the glass is not notifiable but the frames are. So bung single glazing in your existing and then apply to change the frames? My reading might not be right. I'd be thinking about negotiating secondary glazing.

Looking today at how much I might need to budget. My simplistic thought is I pay £1500/year on gas at the moment (320m2 in band D, half is heated) and should be able to half that so I'll have to budget up to £10k. It's a bit of an ouch, but I will have to spend a fair bit to reduce the bills - got them down a good 30% already without spending money, next 30% is easy, 30% after that starts getting expensive.

But it looks like the payback is calculated based on how much energy I could use which is about £6000/year according to an online calculator. So I can be made to spend £40k on the basis of a 15 year payback. Worries me as that is my total budget.

Guess the best thing is to stop worrying and talk to the building control guy. Planning target decision date was today so shouldn't be long. This sort of thing should have influenced the decision whether to buy the place in the first place but none of the expensive professionals picked it up.

 

[Flyfisher]

Presumably Building Control is involved because of the change of use. In practice, I can't see why BC would ever need to be involved when an internal wall is replastered. How would they, or anyone else, ever know?

Is it possible to complete all the necessary work for the change of use and get it all signed off before you, er, 'decorate' the place?

 

[Flyfisher]

But it looks like the payback is calculated based on how much energy I could use which is about £6000/year according to an online calculator. So I can be made to spend £40k on the basis of a 15 year payback. Worries me as that is my total budget.

Who decides how much energy you "could" use? I'm sure we could all dramatically increase the amount of energy we use in our homes if we could afford it and wanted to heat the whole house to tee-shirt and shorts temperatures all the year round. Alternatively, we could quite legitimately choose to only heat one room, wear thermal undies and thick pullovers and use an electric blanket in the bedroom. And is BC really going to monitor your energy usage for the next 15 years to ensure the calculated payback is on target? I also can't see how anyone can force you to spend money you can't afford or haven't got. Hmmm.

 

[malcolm]

Our illustrious leader Mr Cameron suggests wearing a jumper. Most of us will also be wearing a fleece on top of that. It's an old house thing. According to British Gas I already use less energy than my neighbours who generally have more modern houses with much better energy ratings. They also have a lot more money. After I insulate I'll likely turn the temperature up. I'll be really cosy and the cat will most likely spontaneously combust.

I'm actually in support of energy saving and the nudges that the powers that be put on us. I've even ordered a book. I know I'm wasting a lot of energy and would like to deal with it because it's expensive. But I'd also like to be able to budget and have no idea what is in store for me and even if it will mean abandoning the project.

After that I'm keen to be able to plan what I need to do. There has been no work here for 6 months for fear of having to do it all twice.

 

[Flyfisher]

I also absolutely agree with improving our homes to save energy but there can be a big difference between improvement and compliance with some arbitrary standard. We've done a lot of work to improve thermal improvement but I doubt we meet modern standards and it may not even be possible - well, not without substantial reconstruction of the house. Fortunately, we're listed so there is some appreciation of the tradeoffs involved.

Actually, the way energy prices are rising, I can envisage the modern fashion for central heating to gradually decline anyway and people moving back to how things were only a few decades ago - but that's probably another topic entirely.

 

[MatthewC]

I'm confused by some of the above experiences. A few weeks ago Gareth posted this link http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/hpg/compliantworks/buildingregs/ (which is probably joined somehow to the detailed link given by Roger).

As a summary of Part L applicability to old buildings, I think it is very clear and deserves a good read; I'll only quote one bit: "The aim for these buildings should be to improve energy efficiency as far as is reasonably practicable with prejudicing the character of the building or increasing the risk of long-term deterioration". Moreover, "these buildings" includes buildings that are old but not listed.

Matthew

 

[skier-hughes]

**Without** ???? :wink:

 

[MatthewC]

**Without** ???? :wink:

Yeeeeees....? I corrected one typo in that quote but didn't spot that.