Questions for Listed Property owners

[ArchiTech]

Hi my name is Andy I am a final year Architectural Technology Student at Brighton University and was wondering if I could ask those of you that own listed buildings some questions.

I am researching if there are ways to 'Improve carbon footprint in listed buildings without destroying character' and with Part L1b of the Building Regulations stating it is possible to increase energy efficiency in listed buildings, but only without risk to character of the building.

Have any of you tried to increase the efficiency/carbon footprint of your properties?
Have you had any problems when trying to do so?

If you have made any alterations could you please say the what kind and for what type of property

Thank you
Andy Sin

 

[Craig]

Hi Andy.

We have done the obvious things - loft insulation, seals on sash windows, thicker curtains, more efficient boiler, etc. which are all easy and do nothing to the building that is damaging if done right. We have drylined the inside of solid brick wall rooms where its possible (bathrooms, for instance).

Dont know if its within your scope, but do you also look at the use of mechanical cooling as well as heating? Part L seees to focus on heat retention, rather than cooling, and so people insulate their buildings to a very high degree - and then install air con. Now how is that allowed???

Putting back shutters/blinds (external or internal) can benefit heat gain both ways?

 

[Nemesis]

I am unsure how far you spread 'Listing' but Edinburgh World Heritage Trust has been involved, with others, in research and practical work doing exactly that.

There is to be a conference disseminating findings next week

http://www.ewht.org.uk

http://www.changeworks.org.uk/content.php?linkid=373

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Hi my name is Andy I am a final year Architectural Technology Student at Brighton University and was wondering if I could ask those of you that own listed buildings some questions.

I am researching if there are ways to 'Improve carbon footprint in listed buildings without destroying character' and with Part L1b of the Building Regulations stating it is possible to increase energy efficiency in listed buildings, but only without risk to character of the building.

Have any of you tried to increase the efficiency/carbon footprint of your properties?
Have you had any problems when trying to do so?

If you have made any alterations could you please say the what kind and for what type of property

Thank you
Andy Sin

You may find this useful:

http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/historicbuildings

 

[Flyfisher]

There is, of course, the important consideration that a (say) 450 year old house built largely from oak and non-cementitious materials already has an incredibly smaller carbon footprint than any new house built to all the latest regulations.

Carbon footprint calculations are (or should be!) much more than just working out how much central heating costs can be saved by (eg) installing new double glazed windows to the latest regulations.

 

[Craig]

Agree - and the anecdotal sound bites seem to support that this is ignored.

Also how the building is used.

 

[Jon Maine]

Andy,

Firstly, the use of lime on the interior and exterior of the walls keeps them dry, therefore transmit less heat.

Secondly I have used a combination of underfloor heating and a ground source heat pump on a green tariff. This has been coupled with new old style windows which seal quite well i.e. no draughts (single leaded glazing though).

Draft exclusion, albiet a bit limited on the external doors.

Also woodburning stoves to burn managed timber.

I have had the luxury of rescuing a building at risk which had to be repaired so comprehensively that I could incorporate all of this without compromising origional features as it all had to be taken apart to be repaired anyway. Worked for me but not always possible.

Check out http://www.merchants-house.co.uk I am afraid it has not been updated for a while as we are almost finished now but should enlighten you to what has been done.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm sure a call to EWH will give further details on the projects carried out in historic buildings there also, in association with a housing trust, in listed buildings in the World Heritage Site.

 

[Penners]

Our listed house already had extensive secondary and (in parts) double-glazing when we bought it. It's a Suffolk timberframe structure, and it also had rockwool insulation material stuffed into the cavities between the outer rendering and inner lining.

Loft insulation was somewhat underspecified, so we added an additional layer to give approx 300mm throughout.

Problems? One major one. As we've now put the house on the market, we've had to have a HIP prepared. The energy assessment bod who came to inspect said that he wasn't permitted to allow for the wall cavity insulation in his calculations (even though I offered to let him drill a hole anywhere he liked in the house, to prove its existence). He's only allowed to assume that the walls are to the specification demanded by the Building Regulations at the time the house was built.

As it's an early 18th century building, I found this utterly risible.

As a conseqence, the energy rating of our house is WRONG.

 

[Nemesis]

But someone has charged you for it and is making money out of it - so who cares?


:roll:

 

[Penners]

who cares?

Guess? :evil:

 

[Nemesis]

But you are only the poor sucker paying - HM Gov doesn't care.

 

[Penners]

HM Gov doesn't care.

What?!

That nice Mr Darling was saying only the other day that they care deeply about my income tax, my fuel poverty, my house price...

I feel so disillusioned.

 

[Flyfisher]

Is it possible that the HIP surveyor was mistaken in his/her interpretation of the 'rules? I know we tend to be cynical about the HIPs thing but this example really is ludicrous.

Does the same principle apply to, say, a 60's cavity-walled house built before insulation was required by the prevailing regs?
On this basis, it seems hardly worth bothering with the inspection at all - just do the report based on the age of the house. Clearly ridiculous.

I would probably refuse to pay for a report that is demonstrably wrong, although I appreciate that's easy to say but is probably unwanted hassle for anyone seriously trying to sell. But I would certainly write my own comments on the report and I would also write a letter of complaint to whichever body is in charge of licensing these surveyors. I know they probably didn't draft the rules but I thought the old "only following orders" was a largely discredited defence in the face of something so clearly wrong.

 

[Nemesis]

If you re-read the HIPS sticky I think this is dealt with there, if I recall correctly.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11626

 

[Flyfisher]

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.

So the assessor could/should have overridden the software's default assumption in accordance to the actual situation at Penners' house.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm not sure that's mandatory.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Loft insulation fitted.
Electric heating replaced with a wood boiler, installed in an outbuilding to avoid any damage to the house. We were allowed to install central heating, with pipework mainly hidden in the walls which were being replastered anyway.
Low energy lightbulbs.
Secondary glazing fitted to most windows (minor screw-hole damage to window frames)
Building heated to a lower temperature than most homes we visit, compensated by wearing warm clothing. (this keeps the in-laws away too!)
Wood burning stove fitted into an open fire-place. On the negative side, we occasionally burn coal in the stove.

 

[Penners]

Is it possible that the HIP surveyor was mistaken in his/her interpretation of the 'rules? I know we tend to be cynical about the HIPs thing but this example really is ludicrous.

Wrong? I have no idea, as there isn't any history of such things to go on.

Ludicrous? Yes.

When I told my estate agent that I was worried about the effect that the unjustifiably low energy rating might have on our house sale, his response was, "Oh, I really shouldn't worry about it. Nobody pays any attention to it anyway. Most houses are coming out at about the same rating as yours, and the great majority of buyers aren't even asking to see the HIP."

It's a damn shame, because if this whole HIP thing had been properly thought through and implemented, I actually think that it could have been a worthwhile scheme. Instead of which it's a laughing-stock. And at £350 a flippin' expensive one.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not sure that's mandatory.

. . . which is why I wrote 'could/should' instead 'bl**dy well ought to'.

Surely there can be no excuse for knowingly compiling a factually incorrect report? Not for HIPs, not for anything. Does no-one take any responsibility for anything these days?

It's a damn shame, because if this whole HIP thing had been properly thought through and implemented, I actually think that it could have been a worthwhile scheme. Instead of which it's a laughing-stock. And at £350 a flippin' expensive one.

I tend to agree. I wonder if you could refuse to pay the £350 (or withhold a proportion) due to the factual incorrectness? Or maybe sue the assessor for damages on the basis that the incorrect report caused prospective buyers to reduce their offers?