This time it's about Oil Boilers

[Nemesis]

Thankfully I don't have to make them, so as has been said, ask the person who does.

I think that you have bored us all enough really on this one, and before you vanish up your own fundament maybe should give it a rest.

I have wine to drink and more important things to worry about than your solar panels.

I presume Gareth one day we will get the much promised update to PPG 15, although as Tessa seems more concerned with casinos than heritage heaven knows when.

I thought everyone with a listed building knew it by heart though... and of course all on Westminster DCC.

 

[Flyfisher]

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:

Thanks for sticking with this Gareth, it's good to have an informed opinion from someone working in this area and helps me (at least) understand how these decisions are made.

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

I see your point, and the potential for cross-purposes, but I wasn't (and wouldn't) try to defend this sort of alteration as a simple 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.

That wasn't specifically what I meant, but thanks for the explanation and I understand the rationale.

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.

Yes, this is the case I had in mind, and I can now better understand how 'philosophy' comes into the equation, although I admit to not really agreeing with it. It's a bit like the "if a tree falls in the woods when no one is there, does it make a sound" conundrum.

I can understand that a totally purist approach might treat the building in total isolation, but surely conservation has to have practical and pragmatic principles as well?

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.

I entirely agree it is about the visual impact, but I'm on the other side of the fence in claiming there is no visual impact if it isn't actually visible. But it seems that, from a regulatory perspective, it's an argument I'm likely to lose. But that's OK (sort of :wink: ) as long as I can understand the rationale . . . which was all I was asking for all along. Thank you for sticking with it.

 

[Nemesis]

Read EH's conservation principles. Than you can respond.

Much more use than wasting Gareth's and everyone else's time playing silly buggers on this site.

PS You will know they are there and they will look sh*te. It a sort of soul thing you see - either you have it or you haven't.

PPS - just when did you say that ripping the guts out of the Guildhall (despite PPG 15) was a Very Bad Thing? I maybe am missing that post...

 

[Flyfisher]

I have wine to drink and more important things to worry about than your solar panels.

Then go and drink your wine instead of posting irrelevant messages. It really isn't necessary to reply to every post, especially when you have nothing to add to the discussion.

Fortunately, Gareth has provided the answers and brought the discussion to a sensible close.

 

[Nemesis]

I think it's you who has wasted time in reality.

Much of what you write is nitpicking and silly irrelevancy but we have had fun with you. Hell it's Friday.

Oh - though just to annoy Graham I'd add these:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :shock: 8)

 

[middi]

Having had the opportunity to see the building in question Flyfisher, I must admit, Gareth has hade a very strong point regarding the offense it may cause to the public eye.

( especially that public that stares through the window of a low flying aircraft :wink: )

 

[Nemesis]

God and Tessa would know Middi.

(And Gareth and me I add... we would disapprove mightily. 8) )

 

[NT]

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.

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Thermal_Store

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Thermal_Stores_and_Heat_Banks


NT

 

[sidd]

Nickc
Other pros and cons of gas/oil: Gas allows you to cook on gas, which is cheaper than electricity, even induction, gas is less hassle to have delivered periodically, doesn't need a big tank, so that frees up space or saves you having to relocate the tank for latest building regs. Allow a lot more than £600 for an oil tank for a 50kw boiler. If you have an Aga or similar, then that changes the equation a bit.

 

[sidd]

Flyfisher
I have heard the stuff about condensing boilers being unreliable at the start, but have also heard that they are better now. And yes, for non-condensing, Grant and Kidd are close to condensing efficiency.

Mains pressure water saves on having expansion tanks in the roof, which are annoying for insulation purposes, assuming space in the loft is not an issue. You'll get better pressure at all taps than vented, but less pressure at the shower, as you can't have a pump with unvented. The thing is that you might use less hot water, so that could be a good thing. Also, with no cold water tank, there are fewer potential hygiene issues (dead mouse in the water tank again?) when you drink from or brush your teeth from a tap that is not mains.

In the last house I did up, I converted to unvented, and was very happy with it. A few fittings round the house needed replacing to cope with the extra pressure. There was some water leakage but since that was focused on the crack line as the house settled after some major work, I think that the pressure could be considered a contributing factor at most. The original gas boiler was fine, and even survived being moved to a new site as well.

I definitely want to use unvented in my new system, unless I change my mind.

 

[sidd]

I noticed the Gibson Mill project which had solar panels on the roof on the principle that there was nowhere else suitable to put them, and it was reversible with negligible impact. http://www.buildingforafuture.co.uk/summer06/gibson_mill.pdf

And I think it has been done well. The lack of contrast between the slate and the panels is pretty good, and the panels running the length blend in with the roof better than a 2m wide wart. I think this shows COs are listening and open to ideas, and while that is the case, listed home owners are more likely to engage in dialogue than stick 2 fingers up and just install the solar panels where they feel like it, secure in the knowledge that the press would leap on any prosecution.

 

[Nemesis]

It's as I keep saying - it is on a building by building basis, and the fact one building is given permission can't be seen as a precedent for others. The very industrial nature of the mill (which I think Gareth, as SPAB MIlls Section Chairman will know well) as well as the roofing material might have been a factor in allowing installation. In that case also the eco strategy for the building's re-use would have helped.

Any owner who does install panels without consent however is likely to have action taken and adverse press reports can't sway a local authority, which has a statutory duty of stewardship of the historic environment. Indeed, in the case which Gareth quoted above there was quite a bit of adverse press coverage I recall, the owner having the benefit of being able to say what he wished while the CO of course was, as usual, cast as the bad guy hindering progress and preventing the owner from saving the planet.

In that case though, despite the press reporting, the CO's stance was vindicated.

I don't personally care for solar panels on roofs of historic buildings, on some buildings as you say they are not quite the sore thumb they are on others. Had this been a small cottage with thatch I think they could not have been quite so unobtrusive. The lead roofs in the example I posted earlier I think would have been very spoiled by such an addition.

I have also seen them mounted on the ground, at an angle, and it's something I am interested in considering - I have attractive slate roofs which I don't wish to spoil with solar panels.

 

[middi]

I must admit I am also not a great lover of " conservation " roof lights on any historical roof building, ( or any other building for that matter).

I would prefer to see lovely unbroken roof lines, apart from the odd chimney here and there.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is up to the CO to judge each case on it's own merit and we should respect the fact that there is someone there whose job is purely try and stop these building from being slowly chiseled away .

Mind you, Henry the VIII wives would have loved one or two roof lights, if only to look at the stars whilst they had to lay back and think of England.

 

[Nemesis]

And as well as preventing them being, as you so righlty put it, chiselled away, another aspect of the work of Conservation Officers is to try to bring derelict ones back into productive use.

In the Gibson Mill case, this is an excellect example, the justification for allowing the panels (although I don't like them) is clear - they do provide electricity and hot water for a building a long way from the mains, and one whose rationale as a rescue was to demonstrate sustainability and self-sufficiency.

Yet I doubt the Trust will be seeking permission to install panels on some of its Grade I buildings where the architectural merit is what is important.

 

[sidd]

In that case though, despite the press reporting, the CO's stance was vindicated.

Do you think a more impartial way of putting that would have been that the CO's stance was upheld legally, which is different from the debate over whether the law and CO interpretation of the law is fair and relevant in 2007. A canny CO would probably avoid the potential for bad press, but if it is happening, he certainly shouldn't back down just because of the bad press.

They keep telling us we live in a democracy, and while the press has many flaws, it sometimes represents (rather than shapes) public opinion. Any politician or CO who doesn't care what the public thinks is in for a rough ride. And public opinion is gathering pace on this one.

I don't want to give the impression that I like the look of solar panels, and I doubt anyone here actually likes them. But everyone has their own personal equilibrium between aethetics and utility. My wife often accuses me of not caring about aesthetics if we disagree about the look of something. I privately think I care more about aesthetics than her, but I also care a lot about practicality, which is less important to her.

I think she and everyone in the world are entitled to their view, and so long as people do their own thing in a way that doesn't diminish others' quality of life, then that's OK. In the case of physical alterations to listed buildings which can not be reversed by a future owner, I agree fully that they should be carefully vetted. And providing that is not an issue, and no one who overlooks the building cares, then I don't see what the problem is.

NIMBY = Not in my back yard
NIYBY = Not in your back yard
NEBCA = Not even between consenting adults

My CO suggests panels off the house, but the cost and inefficiency of long (and I mean long) pipes to get to somewhere unobtrusive that is sunny takes away the practicality of the project. I'll probably end up waiting until PV is cheaper, so I can put both on the house at the same time; by which time the guidelines may be more flexible anyway.

 

[Nemesis]

I think in the case above the law and national guidance and the CO were both vindicated. The owner had acted illegally. The independent and impartial inspector found that to be the case.

Changes to the law and guidance will only come after major consultation - these things aren't something which happens overnight. You have the opportunity now to have your say in two consultations, I've posted links above.

I think in rather too many cases the press represents the lowest common denominator and is ill-informed. My own local paper is a case in point. They are there to sell papers. Again this week the letters page is full of people whinging about a major historic building in a conservation area and why they think it should be demolished. The fact that I and others have repeatedly stated why the law says it isn't so simple and it shouldn't be is ignored - thankfully the local authority also knows the law and refused the demolition application.

It's so easy to take pot shots in the press at CO's and conservation - lazy journalism often.

I do think though that people should consider carefully before buying a listed building what restrictions that could entail. Too often they haven't a clue. No-one buys a car without realising that they have laws to obey - I wonder why they buy houses then are surprised to find they have to comply with planning and conservation laws?

 

[sidd]

I don't know if there are any lawyers around? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know the specifics of the case, but my limited understanding of conservation law makes me think it is very vulnerable to challenge under European human rights law. Knowing that it is a criminal offence to change the "character" of a building without consent, and knowing that what constitutes a "character" change is not very well defined, I suspect that the burden of proof required in a criminal prosecution may be hard to attain if the defence is clued up.

The solution, as has happened elsewhere, is either to create a new civil offence with a lower burden of proof, or to redefine the criminal offence in very clear legal terms. I suspect the latter option is neither possible nor desirable for anyone except lawyers.

 

[Nemesis]

The bloke put solar panels up without consent. He broke the law, and the CO applied the law. The bloke appealed, and asked for retrospective permission. It went to a hearing. He lost. He can try the Human Rights angle but I doubt he'll get very far with it. And there are barristers out there quite happy to fight for conservation issues too who give time freely.

Me, I'd just try to understand that historic buildings are a finite and precious resource as stated in national guidance and consider that in most cases people buy them being well aware that there are international charters, democratically decided national laws, national and local planning policies and it's probably best not to sulk when the CO says no, whether it's solar panels on unsuitable locations, uPVC windows, or painting the building shocking pink.

 

[AMc]

RE: Pressurise hot water tanks.
We had a "Megaflo" made by Heatrae Sadia which was fitted in the basement because there was no space in the shapped V roof for a tank.
It was connected to a modern condensing gas boiler and worked for the first 5 years with no servicing beyond an initial warrantied repair to one valve. All the plumbing was new if that makes any difference. About twice a year we had to 'regenerate the air bubble' in the tank which means turning off the stop cock, draining a bucket of water out of an overflow and then turning the water back on.

We got mains pressure hot water in the hand basin 3 stories up, the bath 2 stories up filled very fast and the shower 1 storey up (Aqualisa if it matters) could bruise you if you turned it to the massage setting
I would definitely consider it in comparison to the feeble trickle we get from our vented system in the loft here.
Our current showers are electrically pumped to compensate for the lack of pressure, and even with 2 storeys of down there is no rate of flow in the kitchen.

Disclaimer - I'm not a plumber, maybe that Megaflow was about to die but as a user it showed no signs.

 

[sidd]

Thermal stores/Heat banks are looking very interesting indeed (thanks NT). I haven't finished my research (do I ever?) but these:

Torrent
http://www.gasapplianceguide.co.uk/gledhill_torrent_solar.htm

Pandora
http://www.heatweb.com/

look very interesting, as I think I can use them with an AGA and solar in due course. Whereas Megaflo can not be used with an AGA because of building regs.

I'm concerned about loss of hot water in a power cut (heat exchanger in Pandora seems to need power), but haven't had answers yet.

Also it is hard to quantify the impact of the higher operating temperature. That means greater heat loss, and for condensing boilers, they will probably never condense if doing hot water on its own. But for AGAs, not so much difference I guess. I'll post more when I get answers.