Round my way, and I suppose this is increasingly common, I look at houses
and think "That has a nice bit of land but the house is crap - why can't I
knock it down and build a new one but a quality new one!" How difficult is
it to get permission to do this? Doesn't the new house have to reflect the
old house to such an extent that it defeats the purpose?


John.


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

Thanks, but with regard to newly built houses... are they build to
standards
as good as, say, 30, 50, or 70 years ago? Or are they built better? I
mean,
some new houses look old after only 5 - 10 years and I can't help
wondering
what they will look like in 20, 30, etc, years?



I'd say the insulation is better, but teh stenght is worse, and the
sound insulation - apart from double glazed windows - far worse.

Longevity? Not much different really. Old hopuses tend to be solid, but
cold.

New houses sound like living in a wooden drum, but are warm


YMMV.




John.


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Christian McArdle wrote:


A friend commented that new houses, being of timber construction, are
at
a bigger risk to things like dry rot in the frame and, because of
this,
their longevity is in question.


Timber frame is not, in itself, a problem. You will find that most

houses

more than 300 years old in this country are timber framed. Provided
ventilation and maintenance is good, timber framed houses can last a

very

long time.


Indeed. The one over the road is mentioned in the Domesday book. Shame
some plumber left a stripper plugged in and burnt half of it away a few
years back. They still have not sorted out insurance claims on that
one...

Rot and fire are the two enemies. Wheeras subsidence gets the block and
brick ones.

Privded timber is kept dry, old oak, or treated softwood should be good
for at least a hundred years. Morte like 300 typically. The BIG danger
is leaking rooves gutters and bargeboards etc.




Christian.