camelot-forum.co.uk

Should we tackle this problem on a home by home basis or could we tackle the mor serious shortcomings first, ie proceed on a task by task basis.

tony wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 6:33 pm Should we tackle this problem on a home by home basis or could we tackle the mor serious shortcomings first, ie proceed on a task by task basis.

Mix and match!

A lot of Victorian terraces have few redeeming features and are better off bulldozed. Round my way they’ve done this and improved some pretty scabby areas.

It’d have been nice if the new properties had heat pumps rather than gas boilers, came with air-tightness reports, and had solar. It’d also be nice if they weren't identikit, cramped, shit boxes. But there you go…

On the other hand a lot of our housing stock has value even if it isn’t well-insulated. I’d like to see some innovation WRT improving air-tightness and insulation.

Compolsory solar roofs -not just a token panel.
Better insulation standards .
Compulsory parking space.
Minimum sized garden
Rainwater harvesting
George

ecogeorge wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:56 pm Compolsory solar roofs -not just a token panel.
Better insulation standards .
Compulsory parking space.
Minimum sized garden
Rainwater harvesting
George

I am not sure if compulsory parking spaces are required.

In cities, at least, a lot of younger people don’t bother with car ownership an d I don’t see the point of them having to buy or rent a useless asset.

In addition, in parts of London, flats are developed and sold on the basis that owners/occupies will never have the right to buy resident parking permits for the surrounding streets.

ecogeorge wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:56 pm Compolsory solar roofs -not just a token panel.
Better insulation standards .
Compulsory parking space.
Minimum sized garden
Rainwater harvesting
George

I totally agree we need specified building standards. I’ve suggested previously 1kWp of solar per bedroom would be a suitable minimum. Maybe it could be expressed as “designed to produce 1,000kWh per bedroom per year.

I’d like to see specified bedroom sizes too. Looked around a show home a few years ago and the saleswoman showed us a “double bedroom”. Sure there was a double bed in there but there wasn’t room for bedside tables let alone wardrobe or chest of drawers.

I would like builders and subcontractors to follow approved standards, regulations etc and stop trying to build too quickly which in turn cuts corners.
I think councils need to get back to visiting sites, employing clerk of works and inspecting at various stages of builds.

Also insisting on witnessing door blower tests for every property.

Stinsy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 8:01 pm
A lot of Victorian terraces have few redeeming features and are better off bulldozed. Round my way they’ve done this and improved some pretty scabby areas.

Hmm..Bulldozing and rebuilding has got to be more expensive, and with a far greater carbon debt, than even expensive, extensive refurbing surely?

GarethC wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:02 pm

Stinsy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 8:01 pm
A lot of Victorian terraces have few redeeming features and are better off bulldozed. Round my way they’ve done this and improved some pretty scabby areas.

Hmm..Bulldozing and rebuilding has got to be more expensive, and with a far greater carbon debt, than even expensive, extensive refurbing surely?

But bulldozing and rebuilding has the advantage of being VAT free and the extra 20% helps a lot.

GarethC wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:02 pm

Stinsy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 8:01 pm
A lot of Victorian terraces have few redeeming features and are better off bulldozed. Round my way they’ve done this and improved some pretty scabby areas.

Hmm..Bulldozing and rebuilding has got to be more expensive, and with a far greater carbon debt, than even expensive, extensive refurbing surely?

I feel sure that will depend on how much needs doing to the premises in question - as usual not a one solution for everywhere. On older premises with perhaps shallow foundations, solid walls, open fireplaces suspended wooden floors or even flagstones direct to ground, old glazing & doors, sagging roof it may well be less expensive to emolish and rebuild rather than retrofit lots on different parts such as insulated floor, external CWI, sealing air leaks, new roof, reming chimneys (or more sealing - without tar stains/damp), central heating, new DG/TG windows & doors many of which may require fitting new kitchen/bathrooms, completely rewiring etc. On the other hand a slightly more recent premiss might only need injected CWI, more insulation in the attic, updated windows and doors and replacing the gas boiler with a HP.

Clearly not black and white as whether to renovate or replace.

There's such a wide diversity of building design / quality, from pre-fabs and chalets, to solid dressed stone builds that there's no one size answer, but if you want a house to be airtight, watertight and vermintight (if there is such a word), then a lot of the time it is cheaper to demolish and rebuild, simply because retrofitting an existing structure takes a lot of (expensive) manhours.

If a structure was essentially well made to start with and/or has a lot of character/architectural merit then that may justify the extra expense or upgrading.

Edit: oops, i should probably have put heat-tight in the list of questionable words too.