Hi all, looking to put new windows in a new build that is in a recently
designated conser vation area. Local conservation officer has stated
that he is looking for timber windows. Given the sash style upvc ones
that are available can he insist on this as I am looking for low
maintenance. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell the difference
unless they got close up. Annoying factor is that only one of the
neighbouring six houses has the original timber windows. 4 are upvc and
one is aluminium.

Any views greately appreciated.

"legin" typed


Hi all, looking to put new windows in a new build that is in a recently
designated conser vation area. Local conservation officer has stated
that he is looking for timber windows. Given the sash style upvc ones
that are available can he insist on this as I am looking for low
maintenance. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell the difference
unless they got close up. Annoying factor is that only one of the
neighbouring six houses has the original timber windows. 4 are upvc and
one is aluminium.

Any views greately appreciated.

AIUI they would be on to you like a sack of bricks if you tried this in
Hampstead Garden Suburb. Don't know about other areas though.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"legin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi all, looking to put new windows in a new build that is in a recently
designated conser vation area. Local conservation officer has stated
that he is looking for timber windows. Given the sash style upvc ones
that are available can he insist on this as I am looking for low
maintenance. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell the difference
unless they got close up. Annoying factor is that only one of the
neighbouring six houses has the original timber windows. 4 are upvc and
one is aluminium.

Any views greately appreciated.


do what he says or do it twice, and second-hand new windows are worth very
little!

mrcheerful

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
"legin" typed


Hi all, looking to put new windows in a new build that is in a recently
designated conser vation area. Local conservation officer has stated
that he is looking for timber windows. Given the sash style upvc ones
that are available can he insist on this as I am looking for low
maintenance. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell the difference
unless they got close up. Annoying factor is that only one of the
neighbouring six houses has the original timber windows. 4 are upvc and
one is aluminium.

Any views greately appreciated.

If you have the vaguest interest in buildings at all then plastic
windows can be spotted from half a mile! They may be low (no)
maintenance but they are also highly obsolescent and will need
replacing in from 5 to max 20 years. Lots of studies show that trad
joinery is cheaper and lower maintenance than plastic, in the longer
term. Higher initial cost but lower cost overall over time. Also adds
to house value: estate agents "retaining original features" means
higher value.
Plastic windows are also an environmental disaster - not only spoiling
the built environment but also using oil reserves and creating a waste
disposal problem due to being unrecycleable and short life.
The more conservation areas the better for all of us!

cheers
Jacob

mrcheerful . wrote:
"legin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi all, looking to put new windows in a new build that is in a recently
designated conser vation area. Local conservation officer has stated
that he is looking for timber windows. Given the sash style upvc ones
that are available can he insist on this as I am looking for low
maintenance. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell the difference
unless they got close up. Annoying factor is that only one of the
neighbouring six houses has the original timber windows. 4 are upvc and
one is aluminium.

do what he says or do it twice, and second-hand new windows are worth very
little!

See for example:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1887772,00.html
http://www.macclesfield-express.co.uk/news/s/106/106074_homeowner_warned_your_upvc_window_doesnt_su it.html

And if you're in a conservation area, it's an absolute certainty that
someone will dob you in to the council if you go ahead and fit them.

David

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the right
of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will probably be
rejected.

--
Peter Crosland

If you have the vaguest interest in buildings at all then plastic
windows can be spotted from half a mile! They may be low (no)
maintenance but they are also highly obsolescent and will need
replacing in from 5 to max 20 years. Lots of studies show that trad
joinery is cheaper and lower maintenance than plastic, in the longer
term. Higher initial cost but lower cost overall over time. Also adds
to house value: estate agents "retaining original features" means
higher value.

'retaining original features' is generally regarded as estate agent speak
for 'in need of modernisation'.

The vast majority of people viewing a house on seeing wooden windows would
adjust their offer to compensate for the fact that they would be replacing
all the windows.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1887772,00.html

She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more difficult to
open!

wrote:

If you have the vaguest interest in buildings at all then plastic
windows can be spotted from half a mile! They may be low (no)
maintenance but they are also highly obsolescent and will need
replacing in from 5 to max 20 years. Lots of studies show that trad
joinery is cheaper and lower maintenance than plastic, in the longer
term. Higher initial cost but lower cost overall over time. Also adds
to house value: estate agents "retaining original features" means
higher value.
Plastic windows are also an environmental disaster - not only spoiling
the built environment but also using oil reserves and creating a waste
disposal problem due to being unrecycleable and short life.
The more conservation areas the better for all of us!


You are of course talking out of your behind.

I have no problem with someone disliking uPVC windows, but don't try to
argue that they are more 'environmentally friendly' - not by a long way.


--
Grunff

"SimonJ" wrote in message
...


The vast majority of people viewing a house on seeing wooden windows would
adjust their offer to compensate for the fact that they would be replacing
all the windows.

What evidence do you have fort hat?

Mary

"SimonJ" wrote in message
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1887772,00.html

She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more difficult
to open!

This article is typical journalistic hyperbole, it has more holes in it that
net curtains.

Mary

wrote:
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

"legin" typed



Hi all, looking to put new windows in a new build that is in a recently
designated conser vation area. Local conservation officer has stated
that he is looking for timber windows. Given the sash style upvc ones
that are available can he insist on this as I am looking for low
maintenance. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell the difference
unless they got close up. Annoying factor is that only one of the
neighbouring six houses has the original timber windows. 4 are upvc and
one is aluminium.

Any views greately appreciated.

If you have the vaguest interest in buildings at all then plastic
windows can be spotted from half a mile! They may be low (no)
maintenance but they are also highly obsolescent and will need
replacing in from 5 to max 20 years. Lots of studies show that trad
joinery is cheaper and lower maintenance than plastic, in the longer
term. Higher initial cost but lower cost overall over time. Also adds
to house value: estate agents "retaining original features" means
higher value.
Plastic windows are also an environmental disaster - not only spoiling
the built environment but also using oil reserves and creating a waste
disposal problem due to being unrecycleable and short life.
The more conservation areas the better for all of us!

What a total pile of opinionated crap. Do you design for "Changing
rooms" in your spare time?

PVC windows have a life in excess of at least 30 years in the British
climate and designs can be far superior to wood. In all probability they
will last for well over a century. Maintenance is normally only a case
of replacing the sealing rubber when it shrinks. Wooden windows are
yesterdays technology and far more expensive when total cost through the
life cycle is considered. IME they all warp, rot, become draughty and
generally are a typical British unreliable high maintenance product.
Having seen the wooden product in the USA with exactly the same
problems, there's no way I'd go back to high maintenance wooden windows.
I think they come under the same category as Aga's, trendy at the
moment, but functionally obsolete.
The pvc is recyclable, the US does it. Anyway, why would you want to
recycle something which is perfectly functional?
Whenever I see a house without pvc windows, I immediately knock £20K
off the asking price to allow for replacement windows.
Conservation areas?, the Americans have a much better system, they tear
it down after 40 years and rebuild it with todays fittings and technology.
Not many real people want to live in museums, hence the demand for new
houses, sadly built with cheap and nasty wooden windows to reduce the
developers initial costs, so the buyers have to replace them with pvc
10-20 years later.

Regards
Capitol

Peter Crosland wrote:

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the right
of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will probably be
rejected.


But worth doing, just to upset them!

Regards
Capitol

wrote:
snip
Plastic windows are also an environmental disaster - not only spoiling
the built environment but also using oil reserves and creating a waste
disposal problem due to being unrecycleable and short life.
The more conservation areas the better for all of us!

To drag this off on a tangent (or allow it to fly free).

If your carpenter and installers are living in a modern society, then
they are also using oil to get to work every day, to grow their food,
....

You can't simply say "wood and lime good, cement and UPVC bad".

Yes, wood and lime may use less energy to produce than UPVC and cement.
But if they take more people to install, and those people use more
resources when installing them, it's a net loss.

Per capita UK emissions of CO2 are about 2500Kg.

I'd really like to see some numbers broken down accurately by building
type.

However.
Use cement, and build rigidly, and you've pretty much got to build on a
rigid structure, meaning hugely extensive foundations.

Use lime, and allow the building to flex, and you can reduce these.

The 'right' way to solve this I suspect is prizes.

Set goals, which might be CO2 emission, operating cost, price,
.... for a house.

Scrap _all_ building/fire/planning regulations for these, and instead rely
on a detailed engineering survey to ensure they meet the spirit of the regs.
Rewrite the regs if required.

Award a prize for the 'best' house of several million.

Copy.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...


Per capita UK emissions of CO2 are about 2500Kg.

I'd really like to see some numbers broken down accurately by building
type.

However.
Use cement, and build rigidly, and you've pretty much got to build on a
rigid structure, meaning hugely extensive foundations.

Use lime, and allow the building to flex, and you can reduce these.

The 'right' way to solve this I suspect is prizes.

Set goals, which might be CO2 emission, operating cost, price,
... for a house.

Scrap _all_ building/fire/planning regulations for these, and instead rely
on a detailed engineering survey to ensure they meet the spirit of the
regs.
Rewrite the regs if required.

Award a prize for the 'best' house of several million.

What a sensible post!

Mary

Copy.

On 22 Jan 2006 20:47:54 GMT Ian Stirling wrote :
Set goals, which might be CO2 emission, operating cost, price,
.... for a house.

Scrap _all_ building/fire/planning regulations for these, and
instead rely on a detailed engineering survey to ensure they meet
the spirit of the regs. Rewrite the regs if required.

The energy regs change in April. A quick and dirty summary of the
requirement is: work out the CO2 emissions for a house of your
proposed size built to the 2002 regs. The estimated CO2 emissions
from your house have to be 20% less than this. How you achieve this
is up to you - more insulation, better windows, condensing boiler,
solar panel are all options

One of the changes is to allow manufacturer's certified figures for
windows: the very best windows now have a negative energy figure -
the solar energy they let in exceeds the heat that leaks out.

More on this at http://www.bfrc.org/Contents.htm

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2006 20:47:54 GMT Ian Stirling wrote :
Set goals, which might be CO2 emission, operating cost, price,
.... for a house.

Scrap _all_ building/fire/planning regulations for these, and
instead rely on a detailed engineering survey to ensure they meet
the spirit of the regs. Rewrite the regs if required.

The energy regs change in April. A quick and dirty summary of the
requirement is: work out the CO2 emissions for a house of your
proposed size built to the 2002 regs. The estimated CO2 emissions
from your house have to be 20% less than this.

That's interesting.

How you achieve this
is up to you - more insulation, better windows, condensing boiler,
solar panel are all options

Our solar panel was connected last Sunday and it's working!

One of the changes is to allow manufacturer's certified figures for
windows: the very best windows now have a negative energy figure -
the solar energy they let in exceeds the heat that leaks out.

I think our windows must be like that even though we have a lot of glass. At
night, when they could leak heat perhaps, the curtains are drawn in heated
rooms.

More on this at http://www.bfrc.org/Contents.htm

Thank you,

Mary

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the
right of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will probably
be rejected.


But worth doing, just to upset them!


Not half as much as it will upset the appellant if the appeal fails and the
council, quite rightly, ask costs and get them!

Peter Crosland

She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more difficult
to open!

This article is typical journalistic hyperbole, it has more holes in it
that net curtains.


The only thing full of holes is the argument that the defendant put put up.
The bottom line is she will end up in prison with a far bigger bill than if
she had the sense to obey the law.

Peter Crosland

SimonJ wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1887772,00.html

She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more difficult to
open!

The daft prat could have got a joiner in to ease the door at a fraction
of the cost of a replacement, and it would then keep going indefinitely
just given a bit of normal maintenance.

cheers

Jacob

Tony Bryer wrote:
On 22 Jan 2006 20:47:54 GMT Ian Stirling wrote :
Set goals, which might be CO2 emission, operating cost, price,
.... for a house.

Scrap _all_ building/fire/planning regulations for these, and
instead rely on a detailed engineering survey to ensure they meet
the spirit of the regs. Rewrite the regs if required.

The energy regs change in April. A quick and dirty summary of the
requirement is: work out the CO2 emissions for a house of your
proposed size built to the 2002 regs. The estimated CO2 emissions
from your house have to be 20% less than this. How you achieve this
is up to you - more insulation, better windows, condensing boiler,
solar panel are all options

One of the changes is to allow manufacturer's certified figures for
windows: the very best windows now have a negative energy figure -
the solar energy they let in exceeds the heat that leaks out.

More on this at http://www.bfrc.org/Contents.htm

What everybody overlooks with energy saving measures is that fitting
double glazing is about the least cost effective energy saving measure
you can put inplace, compared to all the other things such as replacing
old boilers with condensers, insulation, draught proofing etc. You can
prove this for yourself if you do the calcs for your house.

cheers

Jacob

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more difficult
to open!

This article is typical journalistic hyperbole, it has more holes in it
that net curtains.


The only thing full of holes is the argument that the defendant put put
up.

Her reported argument is what I meant. We don't KNOW that it was actually
the case. Do we? It certainly doesn't make sense.

Mary

The bottom line is she will end up in prison with a far bigger bill than
if she had the sense to obey the law.

Peter Crosland

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:51:14 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the
right of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will probably
be rejected.


But worth doing, just to upset them!


Not half as much as it will upset the appellant if the appeal fails and the
council, quite rightly, ask costs and get them!

Peter Crosland


Why "quite rightly"?

These people are jobsworths who abuse their position and restrict the
freedom of the very people who pay their salaries.

This is not to say that there does not need to be sensible planning
control to prevent monstrosities, but quite often these people in
planning departments exceed the intent of the legislation and behave
arbitrarily.

It would be worth the investment to put them through the wringer on
the hope that they are slapped down.







--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:51:14 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the
right of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will
probably
be rejected.


But worth doing, just to upset them!


Not half as much as it will upset the appellant if the appeal fails and
the
council, quite rightly, ask costs and get them!

Peter Crosland


Why "quite rightly"?

These people are jobsworths who abuse their position and restrict the
freedom of the very people who pay their salaries.

This is not to say that there does not need to be sensible planning
control to prevent monstrosities, but quite often these people in
planning departments exceed the intent of the legislation and behave
arbitrarily.

It would be worth the investment to put them through the wringer on
the hope that they are slapped down.

Are you going to do it, Andy?

Reminds me of belling the cat. I seem to be all nostalgic tonight ... but
not so much that I don't agree with Peter.

Mary








--

.andy

She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more
difficult to open!

This article is typical journalistic hyperbole, it has more holes in it
that net curtains.


The only thing full of holes is the argument that the defendant put put
up.

Her reported argument is what I meant. We don't KNOW that it was actually
the case. Do we? It certainly doesn't make sense.

Mary

The bottom line is she will end up in prison with a far bigger bill than
if she had the sense to obey the law.

It a long running saga that has been reported at length in The Tines and
elsewhere. A Google search will reveal more. In essence her argument is that
she should not have to obey the law relating to listed buildings. She has
put up all sorts of arguments none of which stand up to even cursory
scrutiny. An absolute classic case of pig headed stupidity all too common in
planning disputes where the building owner thinks they are above the law.
Almost without exception it ends up with them losing and with a large bill.
Why do they do it?

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:58:18 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more difficult
to open!

This article is typical journalistic hyperbole, it has more holes in it
that net curtains.


The only thing full of holes is the argument that the defendant put put up.
The bottom line is she will end up in prison with a far bigger bill than if
she had the sense to obey the law.

Peter Crosland


The thing that is full of holes is the legislature which speaks out of
both sides of its mouth, ably assisted by an army of public sector
jobsworths who are incapable of earning a proper living and spend
their time interfering in people's lives.

On the one hand, there is a whole lot of legislation mandating door
widths, electric fitting heights and accesses into public buildings
for the disabled.

On the other, we have nonsense like this where a disabled person is
fined for adapting her home in a reasonable way to remain independent.

The government inspector concerned should be ashamed and quite frankly
should be fired.


--

..andy

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more
difficult to open!

This article is typical journalistic hyperbole, it has more holes in it
that net curtains.


The only thing full of holes is the argument that the defendant put put
up.

Her reported argument is what I meant. We don't KNOW that it was actually
the case. Do we? It certainly doesn't make sense.

Mary

The bottom line is she will end up in prison with a far bigger bill than
if she had the sense to obey the law.

It a long running saga that has been reported at length in The Tines and
elsewhere. A Google search will reveal more. In essence her argument is
that she should not have to obey the law relating to listed buildings. She
has put up all sorts of arguments none of which stand up to even cursory
scrutiny.

Quite.

An absolute classic case of pig headed stupidity all too common in
planning disputes where the building owner thinks they are above the law.

Almost without exception it ends up with them losing and with a large
bill. Why do they do it?

I've no idea, I wouldn't. But I don't think I have a right to break the law.

Mary

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:56:59 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:51:14 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the
right of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will
probably
be rejected.


But worth doing, just to upset them!


Not half as much as it will upset the appellant if the appeal fails and
the
council, quite rightly, ask costs and get them!

Peter Crosland


Why "quite rightly"?

These people are jobsworths who abuse their position and restrict the
freedom of the very people who pay their salaries.

This is not to say that there does not need to be sensible planning
control to prevent monstrosities, but quite often these people in
planning departments exceed the intent of the legislation and behave
arbitrarily.

It would be worth the investment to put them through the wringer on
the hope that they are slapped down.

Are you going to do it, Andy?

Reminds me of belling the cat. I seem to be all nostalgic tonight ... but
not so much that I don't agree with Peter.


This one isn't likely to affect me since I don't live in a
conservation area.


However, in the past, I have successfully mounted a campaign against
the abuse of power by a planning department regarding building of an
unsuitably located access road to a sports stadium in a park owned by
said council.

Essentially, they were acting as judge and jury in their own cause and
without proper consultation with those likely to be affected by the
works.

Unfortunately for them, several departments screwed up.

- They didn't account for the fact that the road was to be built
within a specified distance of what was then a motorway. As it
happened, the motorway was elevated and the other side of a railway
line, but certainly at the time, the legislation was not specific. It
would have required an application to the Secretary of State.

- The road was to run through an avenue of protected lime trees. We
approached a professor of botany at the local university who was
prepared to go on record that it was likely that the excavations and
traffic would damage the roots and endanger the trees.

- They didn't carry out a proper traffic census.


...... and so on.

Money was raised, a solicitor engaged, plus friendly reporters from
the local newspapers and TV station. Councillors and the local MP
were brought on board.

A public meeting was arranged.

An alternative plan was put together and given to the jobsworths a few
days before the meeting.

They came along and pretty much immediately agreed to the alternative
proposal.


So it is possible to stop this ridiculous abuse of power. It's a
matter of having the will and presenting the case properly.
Also, a way for the jobsworths to save face is helpful.

Considering the case of the lady in Oxfordshire, while I don't
particularly like the thought of genuine heritage items being replaced
with crap, she did so with something that was convincing enough for TV
use so can't have been a total monstrosity.

Given that replacement with a lighter door allows her to maintain her
independence in her house (not anybody else's house), I think that
this should over-ride the conservation issue.

The council didn't *have* to make an issue out of it, but could have
acted with common sense and a degree of compassion.

A sensible solution would have been for the original door to have been
stored somewhere to be reinstalled at some date in the future when she
no longer needs the house.

It seems that the magistrate probably agreed, since the fine was only
£300.



--

..andy

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:03:01 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

She might find that once in jail, her front door was even more
difficult to open!

This article is typical journalistic hyperbole, it has more holes in it
that net curtains.


The only thing full of holes is the argument that the defendant put put
up.

Her reported argument is what I meant. We don't KNOW that it was actually
the case. Do we? It certainly doesn't make sense.

Mary

The bottom line is she will end up in prison with a far bigger bill than
if she had the sense to obey the law.

It a long running saga that has been reported at length in The Tines and
elsewhere. A Google search will reveal more. In essence her argument is that
she should not have to obey the law relating to listed buildings. She has
put up all sorts of arguments none of which stand up to even cursory
scrutiny. An absolute classic case of pig headed stupidity all too common in
planning disputes where the building owner thinks they are above the law.
Almost without exception it ends up with them losing and with a large bill.
Why do they do it?


The lady has had polio and is in a wheelchair, Peter.

She should not be put into a position of being unable to use her home.



--

..andy

In article . com,
writes:

The daft prat could have got a joiner in to ease the door at a fraction
of the cost of a replacement, and it would then keep going indefinitely
just given a bit of normal maintenance.

I spent a year trying to get a joiner, before giving up.
Probably called about 20, 1 turned up and measured, never
to be heard from again. Ended up having to do the job myself.

--
Andrew Gabriel

It a long running saga that has been reported at length in The Tines and
elsewhere. A Google search will reveal more. In essence her argument is
that
she should not have to obey the law relating to listed buildings. She has
put up all sorts of arguments none of which stand up to even cursory
scrutiny. An absolute classic case of pig headed stupidity all too common
in
planning disputes where the building owner thinks they are above the law.
Almost without exception it ends up with them losing and with a large
bill.
Why do they do it?


The lady has had polio and is in a wheelchair, Peter.

I am well aware of that.

She should not be put into a position of being unable to use her home.

Her disability is no excuse for breaking the law.

Peter Crosland

In message , Peter
Crosland writes
It a long running saga that has been reported at length in The Tines and
elsewhere. A Google search will reveal more. In essence her argument is
that
she should not have to obey the law relating to listed buildings. She has
put up all sorts of arguments none of which stand up to even cursory
scrutiny. An absolute classic case of pig headed stupidity all too common
in
planning disputes where the building owner thinks they are above the law.
Almost without exception it ends up with them losing and with a large
bill.
Why do they do it?


The lady has had polio and is in a wheelchair, Peter.

I am well aware of that.

She should not be put into a position of being unable to use her home.

Her disability is no excuse for breaking the law.

Maybe one has to ask who and what the law's there to protect ?

--
geoff

Our front window needed replacing when we moved in a couple of years
ago, as the house is in a conservation area i phoned the council and
asked about fitting a upvc window, eventually they said they couldnt
force me to fit a wooden window although they would prefer one to be
fitted, a conservation area should not be confused with a listed
building.

On 22 Jan 2006 14:23:50 -0800, wrote:


|What everybody overlooks with energy saving measures is that fitting
|double glazing is about the least cost effective energy saving measure
|you can put inplace, compared to all the other things such as replacing
|old boilers with condensers, insulation, draught proofing etc. You can
|prove this for yourself if you do the calcs for your house.

But the almost perfect draughtproofing on ours compares very well with the
less than perfect version it replaced. Must save a as much money as the
windows themselves.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
17,000 free e-books at Project Gutenberg! http://www.gutenberg.net
For Yorkshire Dialect go to www.hyphenologist.co.uk/songs/

I agree about the draughtproofing - that is the reason for the apparent
perceived benefits of new draught sealed windows whatever they are made
of. The double glazing contribution is small.

cheers
Jacob

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:

But the almost perfect draughtproofing on ours compares very well
with the less than perfect version it replaced. Must save a as
much money as the windows themselves.

I would agree. We had 14 1970-ish steel windows replaced
with d-g, at a fearsome cost. The improvement in morning
comfort is remarkable though...... we don't even know now
how cold it is outside until we open the front door. And
no more condensation on the insides every cold morning.

--
Tony Williams.

Capitol wrote:
wrote:
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

"legin" typed



Hi all, looking to put new windows in a new build that is in a recently
designated conser vation area. Local conservation officer has stated
that he is looking for timber windows. Given the sash style upvc ones
that are available can he insist on this as I am looking for low
maintenance. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell the difference
unless they got close up. Annoying factor is that only one of the
neighbouring six houses has the original timber windows. 4 are upvc and
one is aluminium.

Any views greately appreciated.

If you have the vaguest interest in buildings at all then plastic
windows can be spotted from half a mile! They may be low (no)
maintenance but they are also highly obsolescent and will need
replacing in from 5 to max 20 years. Lots of studies show that trad
joinery is cheaper and lower maintenance than plastic, in the longer
term. Higher initial cost but lower cost overall over time. Also adds
to house value: estate agents "retaining original features" means
higher value.
Plastic windows are also an environmental disaster - not only spoiling
the built environment but also using oil reserves and creating a waste
disposal problem due to being unrecycleable and short life.
The more conservation areas the better for all of us!

What a total pile of opinionated crap. Do you design for "Changing
rooms" in your spare time?

PVC windows have a life in excess of at least 30 years in the British
climate and designs can be far superior to wood.

Difficult to demonstrate as the industry is barely that old. What is
certainly true is that very many plastic windows aged 15 years or more
have failed and been replaced.

In all probability they
will last for well over a century.

Laughable nonsense - just take a look at the pathetic condition of a 20
year old window if you can find one.

Maintenance is normally only a case
of replacing the sealing rubber when it shrinks.

This is true at about 5 / 10 years. Much longer than that then the
replacement profiles start being un-obtainable, and all sorts of other
things fail - hinges, catches and the surface of the plastic itself.

Wooden windows are
yesterdays technology

True, and todays and tomorrows

and far more expensive when total cost through the
life cycle is considered.

Untrue - there have been many studies of this.

IME they all warp, rot, become draughty and

Plastic windows also warp, deteriorate and become draughty - but are
harder or impossible to repair

The pvc is recyclable, the US does it.

Does it? How?

Anyway, why would you want to
recycle something which is perfectly functional?

When it is scrapped at about 20 years on.

Not many real people want to live in museums,

Period properties, conservation areas, listed buildings are all seen as
highly desireable and this is reflected in higher prices, all over
Britain. Too high IMO - my daughter recently bought a 20s brick house
(with plastic windows) in a pretty village, it was about half the price
of anything similar but old and stonebuilt with sash windows. A snip in
fact.

cheers

Jacob

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:13:27 +0000 (GMT), Tony Williams
wrote:

|In article ,
| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| But the almost perfect draughtproofing on ours compares very well
| with the less than perfect version it replaced. Must save a as
| much money as the windows themselves.
|
| I would agree. We had 14 1970-ish steel windows replaced
| with d-g, at a fearsome cost. The improvement in morning
| comfort is remarkable though...... we don't even know now
| how cold it is outside until we open the front door. And
| no more condensation on the insides every cold morning.

We installed our Double Glazing over several years as money became
available.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
17,000 free e-books at Project Gutenberg! http://www.gutenberg.net
For Yorkshire Dialect go to www.hyphenologist.co.uk/songs/

The planners can make it a condition if they wish. You then have the
right of appeal to an independent inspector. Mind you that will
probably
be rejected.


But worth doing, just to upset them!


Not half as much as it will upset the appellant if the appeal fails and
the
council, quite rightly, ask costs and get them!

Peter Crosland


Why "quite rightly"?

Because people who make appeals that are without foundation cost the Council
money to deal with. Why should the costs of their stupitity fall on
taxpayers generally?

These people are jobsworths who abuse their position and restrict the
freedom of the very people who pay their salaries.

You clearly don't understand the planning and listed building system in
general, and this case in particular. The woman had unauthorised work done
to a listed building. That is a matter of record. Doing, or allowing, such
work top be dome is a criminal offence and nothing to do with the planners
directly. Enforcement and prosecution are a matter for the Council's legal
department not the planners. In the case in point the woman had a number of
opportunities to rectify matters but chose not to do so. The decision to
prosecute was taken after consideration by the Council. In the face of
refusal to comply with the law they had little choice but to do so. All the
costs fell on the culprit rather than on other Council tax payers.

This is not to say that there does not need to be sensible planning
control to prevent monstrosities, but quite often these people in
planning departments exceed the intent of the legislation and behave
arbitrarily.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they behaved in anything but the
correct manner.

Peter Crosland

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:

We installed our Double Glazing over several years as money
became available.

I don't have the skill, (or the bottle), to install
new windows, especially in this house.

--
Tony Williams.