A rant sorry. I object to subsidising the fat cats spec. housing companies. Where is the opposition when you need them? At the party.

[coconutsaregood]

The new Building Regulation "energy saving" Part L now costs more to build an area of wall in a house extension than it would if building an area of wall in a new house. Are the existing house holders being used as test cases and with just 6 months' notice to boot? Where are the opposition MPs when it counts? I am surprised the Passive house enthusiast are not shouting foul here too. 

 

Limiting U-value for wall:  house extensions: 0.18;  new house: 0.26

No explanation given as far as I can find. Spec. house builders still enjoy the advantage of building economic houses. The rest of us must pay more for saving the planet.

 

This revision now makes the current thermal insulation prices uneconomical unless we are going to see gas prices go even higher. Has anyone come across an official reasoning for this hidden "TAX" on householders developing their existing recycled home? 

[ProDave]

The question here really is WHY are new houses still allowed to be built with such poor insulation levels?

 

It means the main mass market house builders are still allowed to build what most on here regard as poor houses.

 

Having just finished self building a house that exceeds even this new value for extensions, I can say it does not add much to the cost and it is really nice living in a house that is always warm and costs to little to heat.

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, coconutsaregood said:

Has anyone come across an official reasoning for this hidden "TAX" on householders developing their existing recycled home

I think the rational is to improve the overall dwelling.

Personally I don't have a problem with this sort of interference.

Setting national standards is the job of government, if it is a good idea, then parliament does not oppose it and it becomes law.

[coconutsaregood]

21 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I think the rational is to improve the overall dwelling.

Personally I don't have a problem with this sort of interference.

Setting national standards is the job of government, if it is a good idea, then parliament does not oppose it and it becomes law.

agree to interference, but fair interference please. I don't want to get into the equitable green debate, there are no winners on that one... no one has crystal balls.

[Radian]

28 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I think the rational is to improve the overall dwelling.

 

Ah, so the assumption is that a house undergoing improvement was probably built to a lower standard than if it were to be built now and this measure will balance things out a bit. I honestly don't think the folks behind this are bright enough to think of that.

 

The Lobbyists from the construction and development industry simply stuck their oar in at some point and those without such a powerful voice (nobody's listening to them anyway) would be easy game for assistance in meeting international obligations r.e. carbon reduction.

[markocosic]

Newbuilds also have an overall limit to pass; which can often mean doing better than the limit values on elements.

 

Extensions don't have an overall limit to pass; the assumption being that this would be impossible; hence the tighter limit values on elements.

 

Neither are difficult.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, coconutsaregood said:

no one has crystal balls

Maybe not. But the committee that created this will have looked at the science and statistics behind it.

There are many rules and regulations that seem a bit odd at first, but make sense after a while. A classic case is not having to display a vehicle road fund certificate in the window. Many people thought it could not work, but they did not realise that we have cameras doing the job, not Bobby on the street.

We should have complained about the over surveillance of ordinary people doing ordinary things, but the political interference played it's part by reinforcing irrational fears of 'safety'.

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Radian said:

I honestly don't think the folks behind this are bright enough to think of that

I don't think the BRE is overly political. 

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, markocosic said:

Neither are difficult

I agree. If a builder cannot do as suggested, or work out what is needed, they should be made to rethink their career.

[Radian]

6 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I don't think the BRE is overly political. 

 

Michael Heseltine privatised the BRE back in 1997. Call me a cynic but I would expect there to be a string or two still attached.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Radian said:

Call me a cynic

Cynic

[MikeSharp01]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

If a builder cannot do as suggested, or work out what is needed, they should be made to rethink their career.

Tend to agree but to be a little fairer HMG need to do the leadership thing and explain to the builders why this is a good thing so they can in turn explain to clients why it will cost more while at the same time ensuring there are incentives to train in how to deliver the new way forward. Sadly it looks like this is another surface move without anything underneath.

[coconutsaregood]

9 minutes ago, markocosic said:

Newbuilds also have an overall limit to pass; which can often mean doing better than the limit values on elements.

 

Extensions don't have an overall limit to pass; the assumption being that this would be impossible; hence the tighter limit values on elements.

 

Neither are difficult.

You miss my point on economics. The Building Regulations Codes of Practice (in old money) before was set at an economic level. Now a premium is being paid to build for the equitable cause of saving the planet. I have put the case here before that there is point when insulation material no longer makes economic sense. We have passed that point now but the spec builders have not, yet it seems.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, coconutsaregood said:

have put the case here before that there is point when insulation material no longer makes economic sense.

Surely that depends on how, what, and why you calculate both the costs and prices of existentials.

If you value nature too low, you value everything too low.

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

incentives to train

Train or educate?

Sex education for school kids is considered a good thing.

Sex training, well that is more @pocster's bag 

[coconutsaregood]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

Surely that depends on how, what, and why you calculate both the costs and prices of existentials.

If you value nature too low, you value everything too low.

I am only here for the next 10 years, no children, and little pension. An unequal world and unequal response.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, coconutsaregood said:

am only here for the next 10 years

Shane, you won't see half the projects on here finished.

[CharlieKLP]

Is it possible to do a compensatory calculation where you are? That’s when you insulate your main house better and prove the heat loss from your new elements isn’t too bad.

 

 

[jayc89]

It'll be interesting to see how it's applied. There are numerous reports out there to suggest even achieving a wall u-value of 0.30 on older building fabrics is not a good idea in the context of internal wall insulation. 

[PeterW]

49 minutes ago, coconutsaregood said:

We have passed that point now but the spec builders have not, yet it seems.

Ok you need to read the whole of Part L, not just the limiting factors table. The limiting factor is the maximum - a new build will only be passed if it meets the whole unit spec and the overall target emissions values. 
 

With an extension it is different and you may be tacking a well insulated box onto a drafty cow shed - the difference is as a whole it will improve. It’s also very difficult without taking existing structures apart to understand their build up, so the regs use a risk averse approach and assume the existing fabric is poor. 

[Iceverge]

Just had a quick play with the numbers. 

 

On a 185m2 house walls to move walls from 0.26 to 0.18 would be another 12m3 of EPS beads. About £100/m3 installed. 

 

Your energy consumption would drop from 3421 to 2306kWh/year.  With gas at 8p/kWh and a 90% efficient boiler the difference is conveniently about £100 per year. 

 

Granted @coconutsaregood you plan to die in ten years so the 12 year payback is a little unfair in your case. 

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

90% efficient boiler

And that is being generous since it assumes the boiler is perfectly sized to the load and can consistently run at the laboratory tested efficiencies.

[coconutsaregood]

52 minutes ago, CharlieKLP said:

Is it possible to do a compensatory calculation where you are? That’s when you insulate your main house better and prove the heat loss from your new elements isn’t too bad.

 

 

thanks for your offer for help, I am in the game (or was in the building game) so designing and costing building is my thing. I was hoping to get a pointer as to the official politics behind the change.

[coconutsaregood]

50 minutes ago, jayc89 said:

It'll be interesting to see how it's applied. There are numerous reports out there to suggest even achieving a wall u-value of 0.30 on older building fabrics is not a good idea in the context of internal wall insulation. 

yep, interstitial condensation is a real problem for some cavity walls.

[coconutsaregood]

26 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Ok you need to read the whole of Part L, not just the limiting factors table. The limiting factor is the maximum - a new build will only be passed if it meets the whole unit spec and the overall target emissions values. 
 

With an extension it is different and you may be tacking a well insulated box onto a drafty cow shed - the difference is as a whole it will improve. It’s also very difficult without taking existing structures apart to understand their build up, so the regs use a risk averse approach and assume the existing fabric is poor. 

yes, that is the motive, from a logical object of saving the planet, but I want the official word.