This time it's about Oil Boilers

[skier-hughes]

But as you say Nemesis each one should be taken as a seperate case.

Fly's house is not the one you've linked to so that link has no bearing on whether you think he should be allowed to have solar panels on his roof or not.

 

[Flyfisher]

If they are not visible from any public property and if they do no damage to the fabric of the property and if they can be completely removed by a new owner, what grounds might there be for objection?

 

[Nemesis]

I suggest that you ask the CO for that...

But the link might give some people some idea that conservation isn't quite black and white and might just make them use the old grey matter a little to consider several scenarios.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

If they are not visible from any public property and if they do no damage to the fabric of the property and if they can be completely removed by a new owner, what grounds might there be for objection?

Listed Building issues have nothing to do with public visibility. Otherwise an owner could merrily demolish a non-publicly-visible listed building. Or gut the interior to which the public are not invited (that one happens quite a lot).

Listing is not done for the "public benefit", it's for the sake of the building itself - as with rules preventing development in open countryside - the consensus is assumed to be that these things are worth protecting for themselves. If you don't believe that that's the consensus view then you have the right to lobby your MP to get the law changed, just as others will lobby to strengthen it.

 

[Nemesis]

Of course currently we are as a nation being consulted on details in the the Heritage White Paper and EH's Conservation Principles so there's your chance to have your say.

 

[Flyfisher]

Back to new boilers;

My instincts agree with NT's view of a vented unpressurised DHW system, but I'd like to be more reassured than go with instinct alone.

Nick's comment about fast recovery time and efficiency were interesting, although I don't understand why a pressurised system would be inherently better insulated than an unpressurised one. I'm not sure about pressurised water heating up quicker, although I know it can be heated to a higher temperature before boiling (although I doubt this is relevant in a DHW context - we're not talking steam engines after all!).

But I do know pressurised systems are widely used outside the UK, I'm just not entirely sure why.

As for condensing boilers and condensate corrosion, wouldn't that be confined to the condensing unit alone? If so, I would hope it could be replaced rather than need an entirely new boiler. Something to investigate further I think.

 

[Nemesis]

Wot - no thank you to Gareth for giving you the benefit of his advice?

You will be responding though to DCMS and EH I presume? I've posted the links to the consultation docs in the past.

 

[Flyfisher]

If they are not visible from any public property and if they do no damage to the fabric of the property and if they can be completely removed by a new owner, what grounds might there be for objection?

Listed Building issues have nothing to do with public visibility. Otherwise an owner could merrily demolish a non-publicly-visible listed building. Or gut the interior to which the public are not invited (that one happens quite a lot).

Who said anything about demolishing anything? I specifically stated there should be no damage to the fabric. I don't know how to make it any clearer - no visibility, no damage, totally reversible.

 

[Nemesis]

I say this gently - Gareth was making a general point about the philosophy of conservation. The sort of thing enshrined in law and public policy really.


Listed Building issues have nothing to do with public visibility. Otherwise an owner could merrily demolish a non-publicly-visible listed building. Or gut the interior to which the public are not invited (that one happens quite a lot).

 

[Nemesis]

Here's EH:

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Conservation_Principles_2.pdf

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I realise that. But I wasn't asking for general philosophy, I was asking a specific question and hoping for a specific answer.

 

[Nemesis]

And here's the White Paper:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Consultations/2007_current_consultations/hpr_whitepaper07.htm


Of course no-one except your CO will be able to tell you that with any confidence, possibly after a LBC application.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

If they are not visible from any public property and if they do no damage to the fabric of the property and if they can be completely removed by a new owner, what grounds might there be for objection?

Listed Building issues have nothing to do with public visibility. Otherwise an owner could merrily demolish a non-publicly-visible listed building. Or gut the interior to which the public are not invited (that one happens quite a lot).

Who said anything about demolishing anything? I specifically stated there should be no damage to the fabric. I don't know how to make it any clearer - no visibility, no damage, totally reversible.

Oh, you mean physical damage to the building fabric, not permanent (albeit "reversible") visual damage to the character of the building. Sorry, I don't make a distinction between the two, othwise someone who decides to paint his listed house fluorescent pink and green in stripes wouldn't need consent.

I don't intend to get drawn into any further debate about this on this thread at least), or into a debate about what colours wouldn't require consent.

You should lay off Nemesis, and Nemesis, you should perhaps go and have a lie down. :lol:

 

[Nemesis]

Lie down? The night is but young and I have a bottle of wine to open...

Then maybe I'll reply to EH and the DCMS, although frankly I've had enough with responding to DCMS consultations for one year but that's not a public one and another can of worms entirely.

So maybe I'll just get pissed instead.

 

[Flyfisher]

Of course no-one except your CO will be able to tell you that with any confidence, possibly after a LBC application.

Of course the CO has the final say, but if no one is going to offer an opinion and just avoid the question with general philiosophy or alternative scenarios, then what's the point of this discussion forum?

 

[Nemesis]

Now there's a philosophical question for you..

Which maybe someone else will answer or you could try to do it yourself.

Or try asking the site owner.

PS my opinion is it would probably look sh*t but I don't like solar panels.

 

[Flyfisher]

Oh, you mean physical damage to the building fabric, not permanent (albeit "reversible") visual damage to the character of the building. Sorry, I don't make a distinction between the two, othwise someone who decides to paint his listed house fluorescent pink and green in stripes wouldn't need consent.

OK, I see your point about painting; even though it would be reversible (and yes, let's not discuss colours :wink: ) it would be a change to the fabric of the building. But that's not what I was thinking of. A solar panel is really just an 'add-on' rather than a 'change' to the fabric of the building.

I can understand (and sympathise with) the visual impact argument, but if it wasn't visible, what else could the objection be?

 

[Flyfisher]

PS my opinion is it would probably look sh*t but I don't like solar panels.

A straight answer at last. Thank you.

You have every right to dislike solar panels, of course, but surely prejudice is not a basis for sound conservation decisions? Besides, being invisible your opinion is not really relevant as you'll never be able to see them.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Oh, you mean physical damage to the building fabric, not permanent (albeit "reversible") visual damage to the character of the building. Sorry, I don't make a distinction between the two, othwise someone who decides to paint his listed house fluorescent pink and green in stripes wouldn't need consent.

OK, I see your point about painting; even though it would be reversible (and yes, let's not discuss colours :wink: ) it would be a change to the fabric of the building. But that's not what I was thinking of. A solar panel is really just an 'add-on' rather than a 'change' to the fabric of the building.

I can understand (and sympathise with) the visual impact argument, but if it wasn't visible, what else could the objection be?

Oh Hell, you win and I'll have to admit I can't resist responding, but I do think you're being a bit obtuse:

1.You could argue that an extra layer of paint would just be an add-on

2. If by "wasn't visible" you mean that when a person (not a member of the public but an invited guest) was standing in a normal relationship to the building they wouldn't be able to see the solar panels (because, for example, they were on a roof concealed by a parapet), then I buy your argument and those are the circumstances in which I have approved applications for solar panels in the past.

3. If by "wasn't visible" you mean that the public aren't able to see the building at all without trespassing, then your argument is irrelevant as public visibility is (as explained above in a post you dismissed as being just about general philosophy) not relevant to the listing of a building and therefore not relevant to the determination of an application to alter them.

So the issue is about the visual impact, but it's about the visual impact on the building full stop, not on the more limited specifics of public views of the building.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Here's the relevant bit of PPG 15 (it doesn't mention solar panels but it was written before solar power got out of the hands of the cranks and crackpots and started infecting normal folk :twisted: )

C.68 Minor additions to listed buildings: There are some standard external fixtures that require listed building consent when they affect the character of a listed building. These include satellite dishes, meter boxes, burglar alarms, security and other floodlighting, video cameras, and central heating and other flues, both standard and balanced. Only undamaging and visually unobtrusive positions for such fixtures should be agreed.