Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...ngnew sletter


--
John Stumbles

The ant has made himself illustrious through constant industry industrious
So what? Would you be calm and placid if you were full of formic acid?

On 19 June, 14:08, John Stumbles wrote:
Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...rigin=bldgbrea...

--
John Stumbles

The ant has made himself illustrious through constant industry industrious
So what? Would you be calm and placid if you were full of formic acid?

More attention on existing stock - i.e. insulate the solid walled
houses, now that cavities are being done.
The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior insulation of solid
wall homes.
Many old houses have a big gable wall with no windows that would be
ripe for this. Also, they need to stop the disagreements with
planning !
Simon.

On Jun 19, 4:12*pm, Simon wrote:

More attention on existing stock - i.e. insulate the solid walled
houses, now that cavities are being done.
The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior insulation of solid
wall homes.
Many old houses have a big gable wall with no windows that would be
ripe for this.

payback poor though


NT

John Stumbles coughed up some electrons that declared:

Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F


http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...ngnew sletter



Mental note - never fill in another BNA after I'm done with the current one!

On Jun 19, 7:10*pm, Tim S wrote:
John Stumbles coughed up some electrons that declared:

Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...rigin=bldgbrea....



Mental note - never fill in another BNA after I'm done with the current one!

Do I remember correctly that it said old buildings will need to be
brought upto new insulation standards to be extended? How ever will
that work?


NT

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...ngnew sletter



If they want more efficient houses, just tax heating fuels and electricity.
It seems to work well in the transport area and encourages smaller cars, and
reduces unnecessary journeys. The value of houses will then be more
proportionate to heating efficiency which will encourage insulation without
the need for any grants or subsidies or local government intervention.
Don't we currently have the lowest taxation on fuels and electricity in the
EU?

On 19 June, 19:09, NT wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:12*pm, Simon wrote:

More attention on existing stock - i.e. insulate the solid walled
houses, now that cavities are being done.
The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior insulation of solid
wall homes.
Many old houses have a big gable wall with no windows that would be
ripe for this.

payback poor though

NT

Thats the point. Nobody will do it without a grant.
Simon.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...ngnew sletter



If they want more efficient houses, just tax heating fuels and
electricity. It seems to work well in the transport area and encourages
smaller cars, and reduces unnecessary journeys. The value of houses will
then be more proportionate to heating efficiency which will encourage
insulation without the need for any grants or subsidies or local
government intervention. Don't we currently have the lowest taxation on
fuels and electricity in the EU?


A tax on the poor that cannot afford gas and elctricity never mind pay for
energy efficiency schemes to their houses.

Adam

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:26:44 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:10*pm, Tim S wrote:
John Stumbles coughed up some electrons that declared:

Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...rigin=bldgbrea...



Mental note - never fill in another BNA after I'm done with the current one!

Do I remember correctly that it said old buildings will need to be
brought upto new insulation standards to be extended? How ever will
that work?


NT

I've heard about this on a green building forum, but it was interpreted
there as requiring improvements to be made to the existing property
disregarding what has already been done and I dread the thought - we have
already done the easy fixes (cavity wall insulation, fully zoned heating,
loft insulation) and have double glazing throughout; we cannot afford to
extend at the moment, but with three young kids we will have to in the
future. When we come round to it, we'll be scrimping and saving every penny
we can to afford it and with the easy fixes done only more marginal and
expensive ones will be possible, so to make improvements to the original
house will either put the whole project out of our financial reach or force
us to reduce the scale of the extension to one that is sub-optimal for our
family.

SteveW

On Jun 20, 10:46*am, Simon wrote:
On 19 June, 19:09, NT wrote:

On Jun 19, 4:12*pm, Simon wrote:

More attention on existing stock - i.e. insulate the solid walled
houses, now that cavities are being done.
The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior insulation of solid
wall homes.
Many old houses have a big gable wall with no windows that would be
ripe for this.

payback poor though

NT

Thats the point. Nobody will do it without a grant.
Simon.

I quite agree that few will do it without a grant. But I'm not clear
why you think "The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior
insulation of solid wall homes." I guess I dont see the point.

Perhaps you mean a grant for the insulation panels alone, making it an
attractive choice only when rerendering is already being undertaken.


NT

On Jun 19, 7:56*pm, Owain wrote:
NT wrote:
Do I remember correctly that it said old buildings will need to be
brought upto new insulation standards to be extended? How ever will
that work?

You have to spend 10% of the extension cost on improvements to the existing.

That is easily achieved by fitting one window with cling-film double
glazing from Russ Andrews.

Owain

One problem with film dg is it often causes condensation, which then
starts rotting the frame. Taking the frame repair cost into account
the end result is then greater energy and money loss.


NT

On Jun 20, 2:22*pm, Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:26:44 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:10*pm, Tim S wrote:
John Stumbles coughed up some electrons that declared:

Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...rigin=bldgbrea...

Mental note - never fill in another BNA after I'm done with the current one!

Do I remember correctly that it said old buildings will need to be
brought upto new insulation standards to be extended? How ever will
that work?

NT

I've heard about this on a green building forum, but it was interpreted
there as requiring improvements to be made to the existing property
disregarding what has already been done and I dread the thought - we have
already done the easy fixes (cavity wall insulation, fully zoned heating,
loft insulation) and have double glazing throughout; we cannot afford to
extend at the moment, but with three young kids we will have to in the
future. When we come round to it, we'll be scrimping and saving every penny
we can to afford it and with the easy fixes done only more marginal and
expensive ones will be possible, so to make improvements to the original
house will either put the whole project out of our financial reach or force
us to reduce the scale of the extension to one that is sub-optimal for our
family.

SteveW

Yes... we already have a raft of such measures in place in the BR. By
ignoring BR one can build decent housing at around a quarter the cost.
Sadly its not generally permitted in Britain.


NT

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:42:52 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:56*pm, Owain wrote:

That is easily achieved by fitting one window with cling-film double
glazing from Russ Andrews.

Owain

One problem with film dg is it often causes condensation, which then
starts rotting the frame. Taking the frame repair cost into account
the end result is then greater energy and money loss.


NT

The oxygen-free variety has been found to be demonstrably better though...

--
Geo

ARWadsworth wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...ngnew sletter


If they want more efficient houses, just tax heating fuels and
electricity. It seems to work well in the transport area and encourages
smaller cars, and reduces unnecessary journeys. The value of houses will
then be more proportionate to heating efficiency which will encourage
insulation without the need for any grants or subsidies or local
government intervention. Don't we currently have the lowest taxation on
fuels and electricity in the EU?


A tax on the poor that cannot afford gas and elctricity never mind pay for
energy efficiency schemes to their houses.

In which case subsidise them: then its up to them whether they save
money by investing in insulation, or not.

We have no choice at the moment: its take what the government gives you
back out of taxes it takes (inefficiently) or get nothing.

Democracy consists in giving the money to the people, and letting them
excercise their choices: If they want to subsidise fair trade bananas,
let them.




Adam

Steve Walker coughed up some electrons that declared:


I've heard about this on a green building forum, but it was interpreted
there as requiring improvements to be made to the existing property
disregarding what has already been done and I dread the thought - we have
already done the easy fixes (cavity wall insulation, fully zoned heating,
loft insulation) and have double glazing throughout; we cannot afford to
extend at the moment, but with three young kids we will have to in the
future. When we come round to it, we'll be scrimping and saving every
penny we can to afford it and with the easy fixes done only more marginal
and expensive ones will be possible, so to make improvements to the
original house will either put the whole project out of our financial
reach or force us to reduce the scale of the extension to one that is
sub-optimal for our family.


The answer might be to "start" now. Once started, IIRC, the plans remain
fixed to the current regs.

Can anyone confirm the ins and outs of this, WRT to planning. I know that
WRT building regs, once started, there is no onus to complete in any finite
time frame.

Not sure about planning. You also need a definition of "start" but I believe
it can be quite minimal, like digging the trench for the foundations of
something...

Worth getting verification that I'm right, before relying on it but it's an
idea...

Cheers

Tim

NT coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Jun 20, 10:46*am, Simon wrote:
On 19 June, 19:09, NT wrote:

On Jun 19, 4:12*pm, Simon wrote:

More attention on existing stock - i.e. insulate the solid walled
houses, now that cavities are being done.
The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior insulation of
solid wall homes.
Many old houses have a big gable wall with no windows that would be
ripe for this.

payback poor though

NT

Thats the point. Nobody will do it without a grant.
Simon.

I quite agree that few will do it without a grant. But I'm not clear
why you think "The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior
insulation of solid wall homes." I guess I dont see the point.

Perhaps you mean a grant for the insulation panels alone, making it an
attractive choice only when rerendering is already being undertaken.


NT

It'll give the loft spray foam guys a new angle - just come and bury your
house in foam from the outside until it looks like an igloo. Cut holes for
windows and door.

NT wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:10 pm, Tim S wrote:
John Stumbles coughed up some electrons that declared:

Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...rigin=bldgbrea...



Mental note - never fill in another BNA after I'm done with the current one!

Do I remember correctly that it said old buildings will need to be
brought upto new insulation standards to be extended? How ever will
that work?


NT

That idea has been dropped. I guess the industry said that it would put
people off extending. Must have been, they are the only people this
government listens to. Not that I'm against improving energy efficiency.
Far from it. Just that when you are finding money for an extension is
not the time to be forced to do it.

Peter Scott

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:42:52 UTC, NT wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:56Â*pm, Owain wrote:
NT wrote:
Do I remember correctly that it said old buildings will need to be
brought upto new insulation standards to be extended? How ever will
that work?

You have to spend 10% of the extension cost on improvements to the existing.

That is easily achieved by fitting one window with cling-film double
glazing from Russ Andrews.

Owain

One problem with film dg is it often causes condensation, which then
starts rotting the frame. Taking the frame repair cost into account
the end result is then greater energy and money loss.

No, no....the gold coating stops the condensation. And the titanium
screws stop the rot.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

NT wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:46 am, Simon wrote:
On 19 June, 19:09, NT wrote:

On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Simon wrote:
More attention on existing stock - i.e. insulate the solid walled
houses, now that cavities are being done.
The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior insulation of solid
wall homes.
Many old houses have a big gable wall with no windows that would be
ripe for this.
payback poor though
NT
Thats the point. Nobody will do it without a grant.
Simon.

I quite agree that few will do it without a grant. But I'm not clear
why you think "The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior
insulation of solid wall homes." I guess I dont see the point.

I presume he means that if you can get a grant to have cavity wall
insulation done, then you ought to be able to get a grant to insulate a
solid walled property.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Steve Walker wrote:

I've heard about this on a green building forum, but it was interpreted
there as requiring improvements to be made to the existing property
disregarding what has already been done and I dread the thought - we have
already done the easy fixes (cavity wall insulation, fully zoned heating,
loft insulation) and have double glazing throughout; we cannot afford to
extend at the moment, but with three young kids we will have to in the
future. When we come round to it, we'll be scrimping and saving every penny
we can to afford it and with the easy fixes done only more marginal and
expensive ones will be possible, so to make improvements to the original
house will either put the whole project out of our financial reach or force
us to reduce the scale of the extension to one that is sub-optimal for our
family.

You can see the peddlers of marginal technologies are going to be
rubbing their hands with glee here. Many people in your situation will
be forced to spend money on anything even mildly "energy saving" so as
to be able to complete their plans.

Perhaps they will come up with some "offset" or "carbon credits" scheme.
Where in order to let you build an extension, you have to pay for cavity
wall insulation for the house over the road!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20 June, 20:57, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:46 am, Simon wrote:
On 19 June, 19:09, NT wrote:

On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Simon wrote:
More attention on existing stock - i.e. insulate the solid walled
houses, now that cavities are being done.
The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior insulation of solid
wall homes.
Many old houses have a big gable wall with no windows that would be
ripe for this.
payback poor though
NT
Thats the point. Nobody will do it without a grant.
Simon.

I quite agree that few will do it without a grant. But I'm not clear
why you think "The gov needs to start offering grants on exterior
insulation of solid wall homes." I guess I dont see the point.

I presume he means that if you can get a grant to have cavity wall
insulation done, then you ought to be able to get a grant to insulate a
solid walled property.

--
Yep, thats about the size of it.
Simon.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
om...

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
Article about upcoming revisions to Parts L, G and F

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...ngnew sletter



If they want more efficient houses, just tax heating fuels and
electricity. It seems to work well in the transport area and encourages
smaller cars, and reduces unnecessary journeys. The value of houses will
then be more proportionate to heating efficiency which will encourage
insulation without the need for any grants or subsidies or local
government intervention. Don't we currently have the lowest taxation on
fuels and electricity in the EU?


A tax on the poor that cannot afford gas and elctricity never mind pay for
energy efficiency schemes to their houses.


The poor will always pay a higher proportion of tax than the rich. The poor
also spend more money per head on cigarettes and subscription TV than the
rich. It doesn't stop them smoking or watching Sky Sports.

The emphasis would be to reassign taxes to encourage energy efficiency
rather than ad hoc taxes, such as 50p per month on your landline.

Don't poor people have smaller houses and consequently have lower heating
bills? So all in all a very proportionate tax.

In article ,
NT writes:
On Jun 19, 7:56*pm, Owain wrote:
NT wrote:
Do I remember correctly that it said old buildings will need to be
brought upto new insulation standards to be extended? How ever will
that work?

You have to spend 10% of the extension cost on improvements to the existing.

That is easily achieved by fitting one window with cling-film double
glazing from Russ Andrews.

Owain
One problem with film dg is it often causes condensation, which then
starts rotting the frame. Taking the frame repair cost into account
the end result is then greater energy and money loss.

I did a glass panal above the front door with cling-film type double
glazing 23 years ago, and it's still in place, and in perfect condition.
I think that means it's lasted longer than much "proper" double glazing.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Steve Walker writes:

I've heard about this on a green building forum, but it was interpreted
there as requiring improvements to be made to the existing property
disregarding what has already been done and I dread the thought - we have

This was the case when proposed - don't know it it's changed.
It means anyone thinking of extending should probably avoid
doing anything relating to energy efficiency improvements before
starting on the extension, a thought which has crossed my mind a
number of times, and typical of the very poor quality regulation
which has been churned out for many years now.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:09:18 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

Don't poor people have smaller houses and consequently have lower
heating bills? So all in all a very proportionate tax.

Ah but smaller houses have higher heat losses in proportion to their sizes!

--
John Stumbles

What is a simile like?

Fredxx wrote:


The poor will always pay a higher proportion of tax than the rich. The
poor also spend more money per head on cigarettes and
subscription TV than the rich. It doesn't stop them smoking or
watching Sky Sports.

No doubt you can provide statistics to back up this claim - or have you OD'd
on the Daily Mail?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 21 June, 20:59, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

The poor will always pay a higher proportion of tax than the rich. The
poor also spend more money per head on cigarettes and
subscription TV than the rich. *It doesn't stop them smoking or
watching Sky Sports.

No doubt you can provide statistics to back up this claim - or have you OD'd
on the Daily Mail?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The poor spend a higher amount per head on the lottery !
Simon.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:22:40 +0100, a certain chimpanzee, Steve Walker
randomly hit a keyboard and produced:

I've heard about this on a green building forum, but it was interpreted
there as requiring improvements to be made to the existing property
disregarding what has already been done and I dread the thought - we have
already done the easy fixes (cavity wall insulation, fully zoned heating,
loft insulation) and have double glazing throughout; we cannot afford to
extend at the moment, but with three young kids we will have to in the
future. When we come round to it, we'll be scrimping and saving every penny
we can to afford it and with the easy fixes done only more marginal and
expensive ones will be possible, so to make improvements to the original
house will either put the whole project out of our financial reach or force
us to reduce the scale of the extension to one that is sub-optimal for our
family.

If the regulations for non-domestic work is anything to go by, there
will be a proviso that the improvements only have to amount to 10% of
the cost of the building work, and nothing can be required that is not
technically, functionally or economically feasible.

In other words, you'll only be required to carry out improvements that
will save more than they cost over 15 years*, or don't lead to
unacceptable loss of floor area or other technical problems. If you've
already done the 'easy fixes' you probably won't need to do much more.

*A shorter period is allowed for alternative technologies because
these are more capital intensive or have a much less well defined
payback period.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no one on the Internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"