On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:22:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I've looked at houses in both Scandinavia and the U.S. They are not
*that* innovative and when you talk to people about their views of
their construction industry, thy also feel that it is pretty
conservative.

All relative of course.

Exactly, and certainly not earth shattering.



The existing housing stock is an
economic reality,

Yes forced by the 1947 Town & Country Planning act, to keep the super
rich,
rich, and the rest of us in cardboard boxes.

I'm not getting into that silly nonsense again.

Once again you don't understand. Sad but true.

I understand all that I need to on that subject.




They better not with him around. The useless rip off construction
industry
is preying for him to go. My vote next time around goes to NL.

You're moving to Holland? When?

Are you on the same boat to Mars that Maxie and Jerry are on?

I didn't think that you would understand that one.


There are too few eco houses around to
make a living I'm sure. Come back in 10
years time and I'm sure Richard
will have an eco homes section.

He might well, but that's 10 years away.

That is when it will probably mature. It is on the way there. The
simple
fact you heavily insulated your house indicated that.

I didn't. It was already done to a sensible standard.

Your house is 10 years old? Sensible standard? Please?

18 in fact. Improvements have been made to it in terms of
insulation in order of economic considerations.
These do not put knee deep insulation in the loft or double glazing at
the top of the list. Don't bother to argue this point because I have
done the calculations in detail using several different approaches and
sets of data.


You could spend time educating
the great British public on
these matters,

I should, but greater authorities than me are already doing this.
The
people are eco aware and are getting better at it.

I think that that is stretching it.

It is not.

The government is having to
legislate new standards in order to be seen to be doing something
towards meeting the Kyoto political targets.

What you mean is that you want greater government action. So do we all.

No I don't. I would prefer greater government inaction by their being
less government.

So you mean you want low specced, cold and damp houses. How sad!

No of course not. The right way would be to encourage people to
improve their properties through education and financial incentive
based on sound scientific, economic and practical considerations; not
legislating because of political dogma and international treaties.



Through it being rammed down their throats, not for any economic,
scientific or altruistic reason.

Nonsense. Speak to anyone who has changed over from draughty single glazed
to sealed double.

Single glazing does not automatically equate with draughty. There is
nothing wrong with double glazing per sec, apart from the cheap
plastic stuff looking ugly. In terms of energy conservation for the
whole house and return on investment, it is not at the top of the
list.

The stupid aspect is when people hermetically seal their homes, do
nothing about the walls and then wonder why there is mould growing on
the wallpaper and water running down the walls.. We have a thread on
this subject every couple of weeks.




That depends on your definition of best. I travel extensively and
do look at houses and construction on occasions.

Do you break open the plaster and look behind?

No, I just see a few under construction.


There are different
methods and materials but these appear to be much more based on
availability and tradition than one being better than or more advanced
than another.

You need to do some more research.

No I don't.



The current government has grossly
overlegislated to the point that
many people are of the opinion that
when something is it is because it
is not in their best interest.

NO government wants to interfere with industry, unless it is not doing
its
job right.

As in legislating around electrical safety when there is no issue that
requires tackling for example?

The legislation is to get rid of cowboy operators, as what CORGI is doing.

That is one of the arguments being presented for it. The reality is
that it won't do that, nor will it make any noticable difference to
injuries. It is simply a control game for the sake of control,
entirely in character for your pugilistic pal.





---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:22:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I've looked at houses in both Scandinavia and the U.S. They are not
*that* innovative and when you talk to people about their views of
their construction industry, thy also feel that it is pretty
conservative.

All relative of course.

Exactly, and certainly not earth shattering.

You have to look harder.

The existing housing stock is an
economic reality,

Yes forced by the 1947 Town & Country Planning act, to keep the super
rich,
rich, and the rest of us in cardboard boxes.

I'm not getting into that silly nonsense again.

Once again you don't understand. Sad but true.

I understand all that I need to on that subject.

Sadly, not enough.

They better not with him around. The useless rip off construction
industry
is preying for him to go. My vote next time around goes to NL.

You're moving to Holland? When?

Are you on the same boat to Mars that Maxie and Jerry are on?

I didn't think that you would understand that one.

You are on that boat aren't you?

There are too few eco houses around to
make a living I'm sure. Come back in 10
years time and I'm sure Richard
will have an eco homes section.

He might well, but that's 10 years away.

That is when it will probably mature. It is on the way there. The
simple
fact you heavily insulated your house indicated that.

I didn't. It was already done to a sensible standard.

Your house is 10 years old? Sensible standard? Please?

18 in fact. Improvements have been made to it in terms of
insulation in order of economic considerations.
These do not put knee deep insulation in the loft or double glazing at
the top of the list.

Misers are blind to true economics.

Don't bother to argue this point because I have
done the calculations in detail using several
different approaches and sets of data.

You have to underrated what the figures are and understand comfort
conditions too. You don't.

You could spend time educating
the great British public on
these matters,

I should, but greater authorities than me are already doing this.
The
people are eco aware and are getting better at it.

I think that that is stretching it.

It is not.

The government is having to
legislate new standards in order to be seen to be doing something
towards meeting the Kyoto political targets.

What you mean is that you want greater government action. So do we
all.

No I don't. I would prefer greater government inaction by their being
less government.

So you mean you want low specced, cold and damp houses. How sad!

No of course not. The right way would be to encourage people to
improve their properties through education and financial incentive
based on sound scientific, economic and practical considerations; not
legislating because of political dogma and international treaties.

There is some truth in what you say. Deregulate planning and access to land
and legislate to superinsulation levels. Then houses will be cheaper overall
and use little fossil fuel. Leaving it open to the free market to reduce
fossil fuel usage is like ****ing into the wind. Do think cowboy developers
and estate agents would go along? Sure they will.

Through it being rammed down their throats, not for any economic,
scientific or altruistic reason.

Nonsense. Speak to anyone who has changed over from draughty single
glazed
to sealed double.

Single glazing does not automatically equate with draughty. There is
nothing wrong with double glazing per sec, apart from the cheap
plastic stuff looking ugly. In terms of energy conservation for the
whole house and return on investment, it is not at the top of the
list.

Isn't it? Ask the estate agent of double glazing makes an impact.

The stupid aspect is when people hermetically seal their homes, do
nothing about the walls and then wonder why there is mould growing on
the wallpaper and water running down the walls.. We have a thread on
this subject every couple of weeks.

You have omit controlled ventilation.

That depends on your definition of best. I travel extensively and
do look at houses and construction on occasions.

Do you break open the plaster and look behind?

No, I just see a few under construction.

Look harder.

There are different
methods and materials but these appear to be much more based on
availability and tradition than one being better than or more advanced
than another.

You need to do some more research.

No I don't.

You certainly do.

The current government has grossly
overlegislated to the point that
many people are of the opinion that
when something is it is because it
is not in their best interest.

NO government wants to interfere with industry, unless it is not doing
its
job right.

As in legislating around electrical safety when there is no issue that
requires tackling for example?

The legislation is to get rid of cowboy operators, as what CORGI is
doing.

That is one of the arguments being
presented for it. The reality is
that it won't do that,

In your opinion.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:08:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

18 in fact. Improvements have been made to it in terms of
insulation in order of economic considerations.
These do not put knee deep insulation in the loft or double glazing at
the top of the list.

Misers are blind to true economics.

Where on earth did you find that expression?


Don't bother to argue this point because I have
done the calculations in detail using several
different approaches and sets of data.

You have to underrated what the figures are and understand comfort
conditions too. You don't.

It would help if you had written the sentence in English, but yes, I
have taken into account the comfort conditions as well as the
calculated information.



..

There is some truth in what you say. Deregulate planning and access to land
and legislate to superinsulation levels. Then houses will be cheaper overall
and use little fossil fuel. Leaving it open to the free market to reduce
fossil fuel usage is like ****ing into the wind. Do think cowboy developers
and estate agents would go along? Sure they will.


Legislate as much as you like. If people feel that it is
unreasonable or more specifically it hurts their pockets, then the
legislating power will rightly lose office.

As was once sagely "If you try to buck the market, the market will
buck you!"




Through it being rammed down their throats, not for any economic,
scientific or altruistic reason.

Nonsense. Speak to anyone who has changed over from draughty single
glazed
to sealed double.

Single glazing does not automatically equate with draughty. There is
nothing wrong with double glazing per sec, apart from the cheap
plastic stuff looking ugly. In terms of energy conservation for the
whole house and return on investment, it is not at the top of the
list.

Isn't it? Ask the estate agent of double glazing makes an impact.

Who said anything about selling the house?



The stupid aspect is when people hermetically seal their homes, do
nothing about the walls and then wonder why there is mould growing on
the wallpaper and water running down the walls.. We have a thread on
this subject every couple of weeks.

You have omit controlled ventilation.

Which people omit to do.


The current government has grossly
overlegislated to the point that
many people are of the opinion that
when something is it is because it
is not in their best interest.

NO government wants to interfere with industry, unless it is not doing
its
job right.

As in legislating around electrical safety when there is no issue that
requires tackling for example?

The legislation is to get rid of cowboy operators, as what CORGI is
doing.

That is one of the arguments being
presented for it. The reality is
that it won't do that,

In your opinion.

and in that of everybody who does not have a vested commercial or
political interest.





---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:08:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

18 in fact. Improvements have been made to it in terms of
insulation in order of economic considerations.
These do not put knee deep insulation in the loft or double glazing at
the top of the list.

Misers are blind to true economics.

Where on earth did you find that expression?

It is famous. God isn't it! Sums you up.

Don't bother to argue this point because I have
done the calculations in detail using several
different approaches and sets of data.

You have to underrated what the figures are and understand comfort
conditions too. You don't.

It would help if you had written the sentence in English,

spellchecker again.

but yes, I
have taken into account the comfort conditions as well as the
calculated information.

There is some truth in what you say. Deregulate planning and access to
land
and legislate to superinsulation levels. Then houses will be cheaper
overall
and use little fossil fuel. Leaving it open to the free market to reduce
fossil fuel usage is like ****ing into the wind. Do think cowboy
developers
and estate agents would go along? Sure they will.


Legislate as much as you like. If people feel that it is
unreasonable or more specifically it hurts their pockets, then the
legislating power will rightly lose office.

For making people have heating bills of £30? I think they will vote them in
time and time again if they did that.

As was once sagely "If you try to buck the market, the market will
buck you!"

The government will not buck the market. It controls it.

Through it being rammed down their throats, not for any economic,
scientific or altruistic reason.

Nonsense. Speak to anyone who has changed over from draughty single
glazed
to sealed double.

Single glazing does not automatically equate with draughty. There is
nothing wrong with double glazing per sec, apart from the cheap
plastic stuff looking ugly. In terms of energy conservation for the
whole house and return on investment, it is not at the top of the
list.

Isn't it? Ask the estate agent of double glazing makes an impact.

Who said anything about selling the house?

Most things in a house is geared to the selling price. Sadly.

The stupid aspect is when people hermetically seal their homes, do
nothing about the walls and then wonder why there is mould growing on
the wallpaper and water running down the walls.. We have a thread on
this subject every couple of weeks.

You have omit controlled ventilation.

Which people omit to do.

You do not omit controlled ventilation

The current government has grossly
overlegislated to the point that
many people are of the opinion that
when something is it is because it
is not in their best interest.

NO government wants to interfere with industry, unless it is not
doing
its
job right.

As in legislating around electrical safety when there is no issue
that
requires tackling for example?

The legislation is to get rid of cowboy operators, as what CORGI is
doing.

That is one of the arguments being
presented for it. The reality is
that it won't do that,

In your opinion.

and in that of everybody who does not have a vested commercial or
political interest.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:39:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Misers are blind to true economics.

Where on earth did you find that expression?

It is famous. God isn't it! Sums you up.

Really? It doesn't show up with a Google search. That's normally
your source of information.


Leaving it open to the free market to reduce
fossil fuel usage is like ****ing into the wind. Do think cowboy
developers
and estate agents would go along? Sure they will.


Legislate as much as you like. If people feel that it is
unreasonable or more specifically it hurts their pockets, then the
legislating power will rightly lose office.

For making people have heating bills of £30? I think they will vote them in
time and time again if they did that.

Regardless of what it cost to achieve that? I don't think so.



As was once sagely "If you try to buck the market, the market will
buck you!"

The government will not buck the market. It controls it.

The Greeks and the Romans thought that they could do that.......




..

You have omit controlled ventilation.

Which people omit to do.

You do not omit controlled ventilation

I know that one shouldn't, but people do, as well as adopting a
piecemeal approach to insulation. As a consequence, they get iinto
trouble with condensation for obvious reasons.




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , IMM
writes
The above post is IMHO unecesarily abusive.

It is not abusive at all.

I'm sure that RF has an extremely good
idea of what really is important to
buyers and sellers of houses.

I think it clear he hasn't. It was clear he didn't know the benefits and
how to sell the benefits. If I hired him, I would "tell" him how to sell
it. These guys are locked into a ser angle of viewing matters.

I suspect that the precise details of how
the house is heated and how energy efficient
it is might make a low 30th
on the wish list (if that).


You would not need to tell me how to sell it. If your house has it, I
will sell its features and benefits, whatever they are. I sell what I am
given to sell, (should I choose to accept it g), to the best of my
ability, and to the best of its ability.

What I am saying is that, if you added these features to your house to
help it to sell, you wasted your money. If you added them to save
yourself £500 per year, and they do that, you got a good deal.

I am also saying that a saving of £500 per annum per year - i.e. the
benefit, is almost neither here nor there, in the things which excite
and motivate people to buy houses.

I dont know what you spent on your insulation and other eco friendly
improvements, so it is a bit difficult to quantify what you are talking
about. You could actually be making a mega mountain out of a little mole
hill for all I know, in a troll like manner, as they say g

All the best
--
Richard Faulkner

In article , Richard Faulkner
writes
In message , IMM
writes
Worst case example. Take a bog standard, structurally sound, in excellent
order 3 bed never been modernised in any way 1930s detached house, with
original kitchen, coal fires, doors, bathroom, etc, and NO insulation in the
loft. See how many people would interested to buy it at full price, the
same price as a new house in insulation to current building regs and high
efficeint heating system. NONE at all. Some will want a knock done price
to "renovate" it, to modern specs. Comfort conditions and expectations are
rising and expectations of low running cost are too. The point? Improved
comfort and running costs "do impact".

But adding just insulation, condensing boiler, double glazing, would not
have the same impact as adding ordinary C/H, new bathroom, new kitchen,
nice decorating and saving the original style windows.

House for house, the condensing boiler, insulation and windows would
probably not even recover their cost.

Well it would for me - all I need in a kitchen is a couple of power
points, a sink and not much else. Is it just my suspicion
that the ability of a purchaser to cook is inversely proportional
to the (perceived) amount of money that they spend on a 'fitted kitchen'

--
Andrew

In article , Richard Faulkner
writes
In message , IMM
writes
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher price.

Unfortunately, the chances are that buyers wouldn't believe it, and
would perceive the value that you do.

How much is £500 per year worth anyway?


So ask to see the gas bills - it's not difficult to prove how energy-
efficient a house is.

Hopefully one day, once the council tax becomes even more hated than the
poll tax (which personally I preferred) property taxes will be based on
an energy audit. A better insulated property with a low-NOX condensing
boiler would give a big discount. Those of you with your B&Q flat pack
'kitchens' and smeggy fridges, but zilch insulation will end up
subsidising me - brilliant.
--
Andrew

In article , Richard Faulkner
writes
In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

Savings in heating costs? What do you base your assumptions on. Sorry you
"certainty" on?

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can save
£500 per year on bills.

Have you tried? Have you had this experience? I gather not and you are
just guessing.

Tell them this house has virtually no heating bills making it super warm in
winter and very cool in summer (it works both ways), and summers are getting
hotter.

Also tell them that there is less to go wrong, which means less expensive
service bills, as the heating system is just a background system. Tell them
insulation never goes wrong and no service bills for it either.

Tell them the comfort levels are brilliant as their are no cold spots in
winter or hot spots in summer. Then see what their reaction is.

If you came across such a situation it is clear you wouldn't have a clue how
to highlight the virtues of such a house and sell it properly. God help
anyone hiring you to sell such a house.


The above post is IMHO unecesarily abusive.
I'm sure that RF has an extremely good idea of what really is important to
buyers and sellers of houses. I suspect that the precise details of how
the house is heated and how energy efficient it is might make a low 30th
on the wish list (if that).

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.

Thank you for the support Ed.

I have been doing this for 16 years, sell between 100 & 150 houses per
year, and have actually educated one, or two, local
developers/speculators into providing what people will pay the most
????
money for, without resistance. Some still think they know best.

New Contemporary Kitchen
= totally out-of-date and naff in five years time.
White bathroom suite with shower and nice simple tiling
Stripped wooden floors, or reasonable quality carpet (£10 per yd fitted)
You forgot 'laminated' flooring on solid floors, in place of underlay +
carpet thereby increasing the heatloss through the floor by a
significant %.
Nice newly decorated in plain pastel shades internal. Paint as
appropriate outside.
Cast iron Fireplaces
What the hell for if the chimney is no good ?.
Retain original windows where possible. Replace with White UPVC if not.
Try that on a listed building.
New C/H only if not already fitted.
New boiler if appropriate.
Damp proof course and timbers guarantee
Simple landscaping of gardens - gravel, railway sleepers, few shrubs,
Covered in dioxin and other
peoples crap - unless new, if which case they are not railway sleepers,
just lumps of wood, rather like estate agents brains.
window boxes, hanging baskets
Overhaul roof.
provide schedules of work & guarantees for work done as appropriate.

Dont bother with the extra expense of insulation, condensing boilers
You will after 2005 - just wait for the next building regs revisions.
etc.

All to do with presentation.
So buyers are stupid ?

Buyers attach little, or no, value to potential savings on energy bills,
and have a tendency not to believe any claims, even if true.

These are all factual recommendations for my local area, modified over
the years as tastes and demands change. people who do not take my advice
do not make as much money, or sell as quickly, as those who do.
Always buy the worst house in the best area, and avoid the 'best' house
in the worst area. Never believe what an estate agent tells you.



--
Andrew

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:39:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Misers are blind to true economics.

Where on earth did you find that expression?

It is famous. God isn't it! Sums you up.

Really? It doesn't show up with a Google search. That's normally
your source of information.

A true intellectual like me already knows these things.

Legislate as much as you like. If people feel that it is
unreasonable or more specifically it hurts their pockets, then the
legislating power will rightly lose office.

For making people have heating bills of £30? I think they will vote them
in
time and time again if they did that.

Regardless of what it cost to achieve that? I don't think so.

It cost no more to achieve a super low energy house than any other crap
building regs house. That has been proven time and time again.

You do not omit controlled ventilation

I know that one shouldn't, but people do, as well as adopting a
piecemeal approach to insulation. As a consequence, they get iinto
trouble with condensation for obvious reasons.

Incompetence is incompetence.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
...

Thank you for the support Ed.

I have been doing this for 16 years, sell between 100 & 150 houses per
year, and have actually educated one, or two, local
developers/speculators into providing what people will pay the most
money for, without resistance. Some still think they know best.

New Contemporary Kitchen
White bathroom suite with shower and nice simple tiling
Stripped wooden floors, or reasonable quality carpet (£10 per yd fitted)
Nice newly decorated in plain pastel shades internal. Paint as
appropriate outside.
Cast iron Fireplaces
Retain original windows where possible. Replace with White UPVC if not.
New C/H only if not already fitted.
New boiler if appropriate.
Damp proof course and timbers guarantee
Simple landscaping of gardens - gravel, railway sleepers, few shrubs,
window boxes, hanging baskets
Overhaul roof.
provide schedules of work & guarantees for work done as appropriate.

Dont bother with the extra expense of insulation, condensing boilers
etc.

You have been looking at those birds on the property TV progs.

All to do with presentation.

Superficial bull**** you mean. If two identical houses were for sale with
exactly the above features you say sells in your area, and one had £500 a
year heating bills and one was £30, and was so well insulated it also kept
the house cool in summer, and had an "eco" tag, which one do you think they
would go for?

I have impression you wouldn't know how to sell a house like that because
you couldn't recognise the benefits of such a house. Well not from what you
have said here anyway. I don't think you have ever come across such a
house, as they are so rare. You may have, and didn't recognise the
benefits.

Buyers attach little, or no, value to potential savings on energy bills,
and have a tendency not to believe any claims, even if true.

If backed up by bills and a surveyors report confirming warm in winter cool
in summer too? Please???

There is some truth in what you say. If say a single 1980s house in the
middle of a street was uprated to triple glazing, 300 mm of cellulous
insulation and cavity wall insulation, and make pretty well air tight. A
house like that, that looks similar to all others in the road most likely
may go for more if the agent sold it on its running economy, naturally warm
and cool aspects, but not a great amount.

An individual selfbuilt eco house that looks very different and attrcative
would most definitely command more than the large 1930s, expensive to run,
draughty 5 bedroom jobs near by.

These are all factual recommendations for my local area, modified over
the years as tastes and demands change. people who do not take my advice
do not make as much money, or sell as quickly, as those who do.

In 10 years time the situation will probably be quite different as
insulation values are hyped right up in new homes, and with so many being
built too. I know many people who do not even look at house over 20 years
old when buying, as they are so cold, draughty and expensive to run. Many
people have experienced modern homes that are cheapish to run and just plain
warmer, to old ones, and they are reluctant to buy old again. Besides all
the structural problems old houses can give.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes
The above post is IMHO unecesarily abusive.

It is not abusive at all.

I'm sure that RF has an extremely good
idea of what really is important to
buyers and sellers of houses.

I think it clear he hasn't. It was clear he didn't know the benefits and
how to sell the benefits. If I hired him, I would "tell" him how to sell
it. These guys are locked into a ser angle of viewing matters.

I suspect that the precise details of how
the house is heated and how energy efficient
it is might make a low 30th
on the wish list (if that).


You would not need to tell me how to sell it. If your house has it, I
will sell its features and benefits, whatever they are. I sell what I am
given to sell, (should I choose to accept it g), to the best of my
ability, and to the best of its ability.

What I am saying is that, if you added these features to your house to
help it to sell, you wasted your money.

That is the Property Ladder mentality. Tart up, make a buck on some sucker
and get out. I have reservations on TV programmes telling people to
property developers. I see non on how to be an electrician or a lawyer.
Many have tried this property lark not knowing much about it and have lost
about 10 years worth of salary, so 10 years work down the drain.

If you added them to save
yourself £500 per year, and they do that,
you got a good deal.

Most people who add these energy features, do it save running cost money.
They know there is an x year return on capital, in many cases they were
replacing defecting parts of the house anyway and to upgrade to high energy
levels is not that expensive.

I am also saying that a saving of £500
per annum per year - i.e. the
benefit, is almost neither here nor there,
in the things which excite
and motivate people to buy houses.

Many people can just afford the mortgage, and when the £300 gas bill comes
in, it near cripples them. Paying an extra 10K on a house, which put not
that much on the mortgage repayments, which saves £500 a year on bills, is
attractive. It is just not sold that way.

I dont know what you spent on your insulation and other eco friendly
improvements, so it is a bit difficult to quantify what you are talking
about. You could actually be making a mega mountain out of a little mole
hill for all I know, in a troll like manner, as they say g

Some people strip out their lofts and install 100mm of glass fibre. The
extra expensive to 300mm of Rockwool is not that great to what benefits they
get in comfort and reduced bills. These people are not even considering
selling homes in the near future. It is not a matter of spending to ramp up
values to sell next week.

In the long term, people will benefit, and if they do sell in 10 years time,
a more educated buyer will be around. As in the e.g., I gave, any buyer
viewing a sound, excellent order, 100% 1930s house would not pay full whack
as they know a houses now have insulation in the lofts and double glazing.
They know these items are beneficial. They would knock the seller down, at
least to the price of the upgrades.

People want the minimum of the current regs. When they are hypes right up
in less than 2 years time, when people are familiar with those running costs
and comfort levels they will again knock down homes that don't cut it, just
like they now with a 100% 1930s house.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard Faulkner
writes
In message , IMM
writes
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which
one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

Unfortunately, the chances are that buyers wouldn't believe it, and
would perceive the value that you do.

How much is £500 per year worth anyway?


So ask to see the gas bills - it's not difficult to prove how energy-
efficient a house is.

Hopefully one day, once the council tax becomes even more hated than the
poll tax (which personally I preferred) property taxes will be based on
an energy audit. A better insulated property with a low-NOX condensing
boiler would give a big discount. Those of you with your B&Q flat pack
'kitchens' and smeggy fridges, but zilch insulation will end up
subsidising me - brilliant.

Things are moving that way.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:48:42 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard Faulkner
writes
In message , IMM
writes
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which
one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

Unfortunately, the chances are that buyers wouldn't believe it, and
would perceive the value that you do.

How much is £500 per year worth anyway?


So ask to see the gas bills - it's not difficult to prove how energy-
efficient a house is.

Hopefully one day, once the council tax becomes even more hated than the
poll tax (which personally I preferred) property taxes will be based on
an energy audit. A better insulated property with a low-NOX condensing
boiler would give a big discount. Those of you with your B&Q flat pack
'kitchens' and smeggy fridges, but zilch insulation will end up
subsidising me - brilliant.

Things are moving that way.



Where?


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:48:42 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard Faulkner
writes
In message , IMM

writes
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road,
and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which
one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

Unfortunately, the chances are that buyers wouldn't believe it, and
would perceive the value that you do.

How much is £500 per year worth anyway?


So ask to see the gas bills - it's not difficult to prove how energy-
efficient a house is.

Hopefully one day, once the council tax becomes even more hated than
the
poll tax (which personally I preferred) property taxes will be based on
an energy audit. A better insulated property with a low-NOX condensing
boiler would give a big discount. Those of you with your B&Q flat pack
'kitchens' and smeggy fridges, but zilch insulation will end up
subsidising me - brilliant.

Things are moving that way.

Where?

Energy tax. Gordon Brown was hinting about it not too long ago.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:51:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Energy tax. Gordon Brown was hinting about it not too long ago.


With the number of taxes that he has added already, one more would be
hardly noticable.

I can just imagine a whole team of government energy Gestapo visiting
old ladies and locking them up for not having enough loft
insulation.......


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:51:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Energy tax. Gordon Brown was hinting about it not too long ago.

With the number of taxes that he has added already, one more would be
hardly noticable.

I don't like taxation. All they need do is legislate. Lan d Va;lue Tax mean
none of this, as there will be only one tax.

I can just imagine a whole team of government energy Gestapo visiting
old ladies and locking them up for not having enough loft
insulation.......

I know, they should have wrestlers hitting them with sticks.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:37:30 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I can just imagine a whole team of government energy Gestapo visiting
old ladies and locking them up for not having enough loft
insulation.......

Won't happen. The little old ladies will instead be given a handout to
pay for the loft insulation. And no doubt the New Deal will kick into
gear to provide the helpers to install the insulation.

PoP

Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:51:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Energy tax. Gordon Brown was hinting about it not too long ago.



With the number of taxes that he has added already, one more would be
hardly noticable.

I can just imagine a whole team of government energy Gestapo visiting
old ladies and locking them up for not having enough loft
insulation.......



It already is de-facto there in the tax and vat on fuel.

If that is slowly raised, the incentive to insulate gets more and more.




---


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
It already is de-facto there in the tax and vat on fuel.

If that is slowly raised, the incentive to insulate gets more
and more.

Wasn't one of Gordon's first actions to reduce it from 17.% to
5%?


--
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

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
It already is de-facto there in the tax and vat on fuel.

If that is slowly raised, the incentive to insulate gets more
and more.

Wasn't one of Gordon's first actions to reduce it from 17.% to
5%?

On insulation?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

In article ,
IMM wrote:
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess
which one would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a
higher price.

But the houses couldn't be identical, now, could they?

Most super insulated houses are timber framed. So have a short life. And
frequently require expensive maintenance/repairs.

--
*Born free...Taxed to death.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Wasn't one of Gordon's first actions to reduce it from 17.% to
5%?

On insulation?

No, on fuel. It couldn't be reduced any further, as although the EU allows
VAT exemptions on existing products, apparently you aren't allowed to remove
VAT from something that is already charged.

The reduction on fuel was a retrograde step, taken because lots of old
grannies complained. They'd have been better to implement the winter fuel
allowance instead. AIUI, the winter fuel allowance is greater than my entire
annual gas bill.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Wasn't one of Gordon's first actions to reduce it from 17.% to
5%?

On insulation?

No, on fuel. It couldn't be reduced any further, as although the EU allows
VAT exemptions on existing products, apparently you aren't allowed to
remove
VAT from something that is already charged.

The reduction on fuel was a retrograde step, taken because lots of old
grannies complained. They'd have been better to implement the winter fuel
allowance instead. AIUI, the winter fuel allowance is greater than my
entire
annual gas bill.

I recall the wicked witch Thatcher pandering to her voters here in the south
of England (they kept voting her in), and giving them a large fuel
allowance, and those in the north of England and Scotland less. The excuse
was that in the north of England and Scotland it was colder anyway.
Apparently the Merseyside(I read it may change its name to Liverpool
Bay)/Deeside region has the same climate as Surrey, Sussex, Kent. This was
ignored of course.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

Most super insulated houses are timber framed. So have a short life.

Um, there are plenty of timber framed houses around here many hundreds of
years old. A properly built timber framed house will last as long as bricks
and mortar.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Most super insulated houses are timber framed. So have a short life.

More old wives tales.

Um, there are plenty of timber framed houses around here many hundreds of
years old. A properly built timber framed house will last as long as
bricks
and mortar.

The oldest in the UK dates from the 11th century. Go to the old Medieval
market town like Ludlow, and see the timber framed house of over 500 years
old.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

In article ,
Christian McArdle wrote:
Most super insulated houses are timber framed. So have a short life.

Um, there are plenty of timber framed houses around here many hundreds
of years old. A properly built timber framed house will last as long as
bricks and mortar.

Yes, but that's a properly built timber framed house using proper timber.
Most these days are neither.

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Yes, but that's a properly built timber framed house using proper
timber. Most these days are neither.

Well, the 1970s saw a load of nasty ones. Current ones are much better.

OTOH, I prefer masonry anyway. More thermal mass.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

Yes, but that's a properly built timber framed house using proper
timber. Most these days are neither.

Well, the 1970s saw a load of nasty ones. Current ones are much better.

No proof of that. The number of 1970s timber framed houses that had severe
problems is very small, far smaller than masonry built homes.

OTOH, I prefer masonry anyway. More thermal mass.

I prefer timber frame as it allows cellulous insulation to be sprayed into
the wall voids, giving superinsulation, air tightness and no full heating
system. Thermal mass? In the ground floor and lay sand in the floor voids.
This also suppresses sound too, so a double whammy. Much better way all
around, especially when using TJI "I" beams.

What a selling point! No full heating system, warm in winter, cool in
summer and fully sound suppressed throughout. See if any estate agent would
see those benefits and sell accordingly.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

What a selling point! No full heating system, warm in winter, cool
in summer and fully sound suppressed throughout. See if any estate
agent would see those benefits and sell accordingly.

Nah, they'd just knock off several thousand because it doesn't have GCH.
Besides, how can it get away with no heating at all? Even with perfect
insulation, with no heat source, it will settle to average outside
temperature. You can't rely entirely on human heating, as it would take time
to heat the thermal mass when you get in. However, it could be a case for
electric heating, as the losses are so tiny, that the reduced installation
and maintenance cost of a simple electric installation to quickly preheat
could outweigh the running cost (and environmental) benefit of gas.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

What a selling point! No full heating system, warm in winter, cool
in summer and fully sound suppressed throughout. See if any estate
agent would see those benefits and sell accordingly.

Nah, they'd just knock off several thousand because it doesn't have GCH.
Besides, how can it get away with no heating at all? Even with perfect
insulation, with no heat source, it will settle to average outside
temperature. You can't rely entirely on human heating, as it would take
time
to heat the thermal mass when you get in.

Usually a small kickspece fan heater under the stairs is enough to raise the
temperature, then people, TVs etc take over. You could have Full passive
solar too. In a new house easy to accommodate, with no extra cost.

However, it could be a case for
electric heating, as the losses are so tiny, that the reduced installation
and maintenance cost of a simple electric installation to quickly preheat
could outweigh the running cost (and environmental) benefit of gas.

That is a possibility. You have to do your calcs though. Also most
probably less capital cost to install. An air tight house would most
probably have a Heat recovery and vent system. It is a matter of having a
heater batter in the main duct. I would have a solar collector to assist
the electric DHW heating.

Simply spend your money on insulation rather than expensive heating systems.
And make sure you have an excellent design, which cost nothing at all.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:

If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess
which one would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a
higher price.


But the houses couldn't be identical, now, could they?

Most super insulated houses are timber framed. So have a short life.


Ah. Like the timber framed house across the road ,mentioned in teh
Domesday book.

Yup. 1000 years is really crap, when stonehenge is over 3000 years old.

Wooden ****e.

And
frequently require expensive maintenance/repairs.

Christian McArdle wrote:

Yes, but that's a properly built timber framed house using proper
timber. Most these days are neither.


Well, the 1970s saw a load of nasty ones. Current ones are much better.

OTOH, I prefer masonry anyway. More thermal mass.



I prefer wood. Less thermal mass :-)


Christian.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Most super insulated houses are timber framed. So have a short life.


Ah. Like the timber framed house across the road ,mentioned in teh
Domesday book.

Yup. 1000 years is really crap, when stonehenge is over 3000 years old.

Wooden ****e.

So it's a *super insulated* timber framed house, is it?

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Huge wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

Dave Plowman wrote:


In article ,
IMM wrote:


If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess
which one would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a
higher price.


But the houses couldn't be identical, now, could they?

Most super insulated houses are timber framed. So have a short life.


Ah. Like the timber framed house across the road ,mentioned in teh
Domesday book.


Irrelevant.

i) Modern houses aren't built from whole oak trees.



Mine is. So are others. Anyway teh bits that go are usually roof timbers
due to roofing problems. These are wood even in a block house.


ii) You're only looking at the ones that survived; it's a self-selected
sample.



Same with castles built of stone, and stonehenge. Block houses will also
fall down if left lonhg enough.