This time it's about Oil Boilers

[Flyfisher]

Fair enough, but it's the inconsistency that concerns me. Shouldn't listed/unlisted buildings be treated the same when it comes to solar panels?

Er - no.

We can disagree on that.

And the precedent hasn't been set in reality - all has to be taken on a case by case basis. It's not a good one though and I think that the Lord Chancellor maybe realising it now - too late.

Er - yes. The decision has been made and that, by definition, sets a precedent. Of course all things are on a case by case basis, but now future cases can cite this decision as a precedent. With luck, the precedent might not endanger too many future cases, but one thing is certain, it isn't going to help (depending on your viewpoint, I suppose)

 

[Nemesis]

Listed buildings and unlisted buildings are not treated the same on a number of issues. You can argue that isn't the case but you would be wrong.

The JR decision is actually for quite a rare case and overriding national interest of this sort is rarely able to be cited. It will be interesting to see if the new planning application is now withdrawn or carries on.

You don't really seem to have a great deal of sympathy, or certainly empathy, with the conservation of historic buildings - is that the case? It certainly isn't what comes across in this site.

 

[Flyfisher]

Listed buildings and unlisted buildings are not treated the same on a number of issues. You can argue that isn't the case but you would be wrong.

I agree with you, but that wasn't the case I was arguing. I was arguing that (maybe) the siting of solar panels should be treated the same for listed and unlisted buildings. As long as there is no fabric damage involved, they'll look just as "ugly" (depending on your viewpoint) on a listed roof as an unlisted roof. Inconsistencies tend to bug me that way.

You don't really seem to have a great deal of sympathy, or certainly empathy, with the conservation of historic buildings - is that the case? It certainly isn't what comes across in this site.

Well, my plans for repairing my GII* listed property hasn't incurred the wrath of the responsible CO so far, so I don't think I'm quite the maverick you paint me out to be.

Don't mistake someone who asks questions instead of blindly following your party line as lacking in empathy. It's not my fault they going to rip the Middlesex Guildhall to pieces; that was a decision made by far more knowledgeable people than me. Would you suggest I blindly follow that example and 'empathise' with them?

 

[Nemesis]

I'm not sure what 'party line' I 'blindly' follow. That of sound conservation and respect for history and historic structures? If so mea culpa but I make no excuses for that.

I don't think your argument for listed v unlisted buildings has much merit really. Listed buildings are the subject of stringent planning controls which other unlisted buildings are not. It needs to be considered on a case by case basis. A historic building listed for the importance of its roof possibly has less of a case that a bungalow with concrete tiles on a modern housing estate.

The MG case was based on a fine legal point which wasn't to do with the the alterations to the building or otherwise. The decision to use this building was more of a political one than that connected with conservation, and many possibly far more informed than you are think it a very bad decision.

It remains to be seen whether or not the pressure brought to bear has any influence now on the Lord Chancellor. I think he may be considering that he made a grave error of judgment, although of course we could say that about many political decisions with hindsight.

Wars etc.

 

[skier-hughes]

He could also be thinking thank god we've got that one sorted, now what's next on my to do list.

 

[Nemesis]

I doubt that Graham - I think there is a great deal else going on with the case.

It's a very bad thing though I am sure you will agree, to destroy such an important interior?

The statement of importance by English Heritage on August 26, 2004 classed the three main court interiors as "unsurpassed by any other courtroom of the period in terms of the quality and completeness of their fittings".


Cultural vandalism really, I am sure you agree with that? Philistinism possibly?


[Open Image] [Hosted by PhotoGalaxy.com]

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't think your argument for listed v unlisted buildings has much merit really. Listed buildings are the subject of stringent planning controls which other unlisted buildings are not.

And vice-versa, of course, hence the many inconsistencies.

It needs to be considered on a case by case basis. A historic building listed for the importance of its roof possibly has less of a case that a bungalow with concrete tiles on a modern housing estate.

Or perhaps the concrete bungalow is listed - I'm sure there are examples of 'ugly' listed buildings. But what is the 'importance' in terms of a roof? Outwardly, many tiled roofs look much the same, listed or non-listed, so the issue seems purely to do with aesthetics, which should apply to both listed and non-listed alike (certainly the underlying structure and construction of a listed roof might be of particular historical interest, uniqueness even, but I've already agreed that no damage to the fabric should be allowed).

So, I agree about the case-by-case basis but can't really see why a solar panel on a listed building should be judged differently to one on a non-listed building (notwithstanding the 'no damage' requirement). I don't see how that makes me lacking in empathy, unless listing is some sort of sacrosanct, mustn't-be-questioned dogma.

The MG case was based on a fine legal point which wasn't to do with the the alterations to the building or otherwise. The decision to use this building was more of a political one than that connected with conservation, and many possibly far more informed than you are think it a very bad decision.

I've already agreed with you that I think the MG case is sad and wrong.
Why bring it up again?

 

[Nemesis]

I omitted the word 'unlisted' before bungalow as I thought it didn't require saying in the context. In future I will try to recognise you need it all spelling out then shall I?

There are some historic roofs coverings which are rare and important and in my opinion it would be wrong to cover with solar panels. Aesthetically I don't care for solar panels on any building, but legally there is not the same control over unlisted buildings (outside conservation areas) so owners can fit them if they wish - as with satellite dishes and also uPVC windows and doors

I suppose there is a case to be made for allowing those on listed buildings which no longer have the originals. It's not something I personally would care to see but they are no more ugly or inappropriate than solar panels to some I suspect.

Indeed there are numbers of people who consider any sort of conservation wrong and we should be allowed to do what we like with buildings. There are those who have not progressed in thinking about why it is important to preserve buildings of our past since the debate over the introduction of the 1882 Ancient Monuments Act, which was attacked by some as being ‘to gratify the antiquarian tastes of the few at the public expense’.


I didn't actually spot you saying that about the Guildhall - I must have missed it. Why bring it up? In response to your post.

 

[NT]

"Unvented pressurized HW tank is the only way to go in my opinion (subject to sufficient water flow/pressure)."

Trouble is you're then into extra legalities and inspections because you're operating a tank under pressure. The main advantage of the thermal store is you get the same result, but without these issues. The other advantage is faster recovery.


"what are the pros and cons of pressurised-vs-unpressurised systems?"

With pressurised you lose the need for a header tank, so a littel space is gained. OTOH plumbing failures are more likely, cause greater problems, the boiler exchanger doesnt last quite as long, and pressure regulation can and does go wrong.

In short vented is the way to go unless you're really stuck for space.

Plumbers are pushing pressurised, it ups their future work opportunities. No surprise there.


NT

 

[Moo]

But the Guildhall decision impoverishes us all in my opinion - and English Heritage should be ashamed.

We can agree on that.

 

[nickc]

I had a pressurized HW tank in last house for 7 years with no problems. Benefits include fast recovery time and efficiency: it's well insulated and I think water under pressure heats quicker - is this Boyle's law? (O level physics was a while ago). Also useful is you have a 3 story house/loft conversion where header tank can't feed a top floor bathroom. Good to rid loft of header too - can insulate to your hearts content and no worries about condensation or leaks.

Not sure plumbers are pushing pressurized because of extra work. They've been standard in Europe for ages and virtually all new developments I see use them - can't just be space saving as the extra cost is about £500.

Problem with oil condensing boilers I was told, is simply that the technology is quite new and has been retro-fitted to existing boiler designs (at least in the UK). The metals which have to be used to cope with the corrosive condensate do not last as long and so estimated life is 10 years c.f. 20 years plus for most old fashioned boilers. Factor in the cost of a new boiler every 10 years and the cost gain diminishes.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I read something recently where the owner of a listed property was having trouble getting permission for roof mounted panels. They won in the end after reassuring the authorities that the installation was completely reversible, which made sense to me. Why should something that doesn't have any effect on the fabric of a building be refused? Is the pure 'look' of a roof more important that reducing energy consumption, even though the roof itself remains untouched (bar a couple of small holes and some mounting brackets - all easily reversible)?

From the inspector's report on a recent appeal decision against refusal of (retrospective) LBC and planning permission for the installation of solar panels on a grade II building:

I saw that the black shiny appearance of the panels contrasted harshly with the mellow, more natural colour and softer texture of the roof tiling, making them appear as incongrouos and dominant additions. In my view, they detract from the complex but vernacular form of the roof, which is a very important element of this building ...

...I conclude that the installation of solar panels on the roof of (the building) is visually and architecturally unacceptable. They are detrimental to the special architectural and historic character of the building and adversely affect its appearance. To allow them to remain would be to diregard the duties imposed by (the 1990 Act, PPG15 and the local council's policy)...

...I am aware of the benefits of solar panels as a source of renewable energy, and the encouragement given to such schemes. However, this consideration does not outweigh the harm to the listed building that I have identified if the panels were to be retained.

As for the panels being "reversible", when will the change be reversed? Once it's had consent, the answer could easily be "never".

We have allowed solar panels on listed buildings, but only when not visible from the ground. Listed buildings, even though there are nearly half a million of them, and buildings in Conservation Areas, are a very small percentage of the total building stock and it is elsewhere that the introduction of visually intrusive new technologies needs to be encouraged.

 

[Nemesis]

Of course in some circumstances, as I posted in another thread, you can break the law and get away with it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2046268,00.html

Britain's law lords have been a rare and valiant check on the burgeoning power of the executive, working from a scruffy corridor in the Palace of Westminster. This week disaster struck. A sycophantic judge gave them permission to break the law on listed-building consent "in the national interest", so they could destroy the old Middlesex Guildhall opposite parliament for an inflated palace to their self-aggrandisement. The judge, incidentally, refused protesters the right to appeal, laughably, to the law lords. In a ruling worthy of the Burma junta, he implied that there would be no point. Within five years of this edifice complex, I guarantee the law lords will be a mere subdivision of Lord Falconer's new Ministry of Justice.

Good to see that appeal decision though - thanks for that Gareth.

 

[Nemesis]

Here's a building I can't see anywhere that solar panels could be in sympathy with and look acceptable on the roof:

http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/pdf/163_Swarkestone.PDF


Wonderful building, which belongs to the Landmark Trust as a holiday let and thankfully there's little chance of solar panels or uPVC or indeed a satellite dish.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Here's a building I can't see anywhere that solar panels could be in sympathy with and look acceptable on the roof:

http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/pdf/163_Swarkestone.PDF

On the flat roof, hidden from the ground by the parapet?

 

[Nemesis]

Well I thought of that, but as it's a viewing terrace it might not be too good there either!

Possibly also not very effective there.

Certainly not on the leadwork which is wonderful!

 

[Flyfisher]

Thanks for that clarification Gareth. You mention, though, that LBC has been granted where the solar panels are not visible, which seems fair enough. But what would be the position for an application where the roof in question is on a private property not visible from any public location, i.e. effectively 'invisible' to anyone except the owners.

My point about 'reversibility' was that such panels could be completely removed with no detriment to the building fabric if it was subsequently desired. Perhaps, in the above context, by new owners?

 

[Nemesis]

I doubt that in reality the geography of where the building is would have great sway regarding what can be done... otherwise that argument could be extended to all manner of unsuitable alterations and additions on the grounds they aren't visible in the public realm.

Nice upholding though of an appeal re uPVC sent around this morning, but it's long and requires typing out.

 

[Flyfisher]

I can see the justification of not allowing an alteration, but cannot see a justification for an effectively invisible and totally reversible addition.

 

[Nemesis]

Have a look at the building I posted the link to above - do you think solar panels on the lead towers should be allowed, on the grounds that it isn't visible from the road?