Wood burners - and open fires

[Dave2002]

Nor I. One or two as models? It would just take a serious internal fire and you would have one or none. In what sense are listed buildings, in general, 'a problem' - even if they don't lend themselves to high standards of insulation?

However not all older houses really are worth keeping. Perhaps the listing does indicate merit - though not always.

Some listed buildings are both uncomfortable and expensive to live in. Perhaps if it were allowed to make some changes many of them could be made much more comfortable for their occupants.

I realise that not everyone would agree, but is there really any point in trying to retain every old house as it was, rather than provide what might in some cases be much better options? On the other hand one "solution" really could be to demolish old houses, and replace them with new ones. That could be a good solution, but very often isn't. That approach was adopted in a part of Stockholm - I think around the 1960s-70s, and in retrospect older buildings which had significang historical and artistic value were demolished, and replaced by very boring "modern" buildings. Afterwards it seems that was regretted.

[Anastasius]

.
"Many houses are provided with sash-windows. Their frequent occurrence seems strange to a foreigner. If he be an architect he will invariably ask how it is possible to construct them, so that they fit. The answer is simply that they do not fit, sash-windows never fit — that’s why they are used. The use of sash-windows and of open fireplaces, a perfectly medieval way of heating, may be considered as an outcome of the proverbial English conservatism. But considering the matter from the standpoint of an Englishman it may be admitted that there is a certain method in his madness. As he considers it absolutely necessary that the living-rooms be constantly ventilated it must be admitted that it is quite logical to use open fireplaces which can only draw when the air in the room is continually renewed; but that means that the windows must not fit closely, a quality therefore that cannot be considered a drawback but rather a virtue in sash-windows. It is worthy of notice that double windows are rarely used, not because they are too expensive, but because rather a draught than stuffy air. An Englishman going to American or Continental countries where the rooms are better heated and less ventilated than in England suffers terribly. He will long for his lightly constructed houses where the damp winter air whistles through the rooms accompanied by the rattle of the doors and the windows."

Steen Eiler Rasmussen [1898-1990] : 'London: The Unique City' chapter 12 [1934]

.

Or, as I did, install vents on either side of the fireplace to provide the necessary air/oxygen. Oras the Dutch do, even more elegantly, install a double-skinned concentric flue that draws air (already preheated by the outgoing exhaust air) down the same flue to feed the fire.

[Anastasius]

but is there really any point in trying to retain every old house as it was, ...

Yes. It's called aesthetics !

[Dave2002]

Yes. It's called aesthetics !

Yeah - sure. So go and live in the woods in an old style black house, and if you feel like it get a whole lot of your mates to make replicas and make a village or town of them, and live a life style which might have been appropriate - and uncomfortable - about 4-500 years ago. That's why there are a number of so-called open air museums, so we can retain a knowledge and appreciation of old houses, without actually having to force anyone to live in them.

I'm not suggesting that every old house is knocked down, or should be modified to modern standards, but rather that if a house is to be retained it should be reasonably functional and appropriately comfortable and economic for its occupants.

I suppose your house has electricity. I notice it was built before electricity supplies were commonplace.

[gradus]

Or, as I did, install vents on either side of the fireplace to provide the necessary air/oxygen. Oras the Dutch do, even more elegantly, install a double-skinned concentric flue that draws air (already preheated by the outgoing exhaust air) down the same flue to feed the fire.

What a good idea but careful design needed to avoid drawing sluggish smoke back down the cold air supply. Like you we have an air supply through the external wall next to the wood burner.

[oddoneout]

However not all older houses really are worth keeping. Perhaps the listing does indicate merit - though not always.

Some listed buildings are both uncomfortable and expensive to live in. Perhaps if it were allowed to make some changes many of them could be made much more comfortable for their occupants.

I realise that not everyone would agree, but is there really any point in trying to retain every old house as it was, rather than provide what might in some cases be much better options? On the other hand one "solution" really could be to demolish old houses, and replace them with new ones. That could be a good solution, but very often isn't. That approach was adopted in a part of Stockholm - I think around the 1960s-70s, and in retrospect older buildings which had significang historical and artistic value were demolished, and replaced by very boring "modern" buildings. Afterwards it seems that was regretted.

Not all listed houses are old, the listing can be for all sorts of reasons many of which don't preclude making improvements to energy efficiency. In terms of the general housing stock listed houses aren't that relevant; those who buy them/live in them(some are rented from the likes of the National Trust) either know what they are letting themselves in for - or very quickly learn! They form a very small part of the overall housing numbers. As more is discovered and understood about how old building styles and materials function, and as materials development progresses, more options become available for such buildings, and similar others.
My work place is a very large Grade 2 listed building, with extremely high ceilings and many huge sash windows. The windows were mostly not opened due to size and risk of damage to both humans and windows. Two things that made a considerable difference were insulating the loft spaces( a mammoth undertaking thanks to bat roosts and swifts nesting, which made for careful timing!), and use of a special silicone sealant to close the gaps in the sash windows, as changes to the glazing were not an option. The reduction of draughts and the retention of heat made life on the upper office spaces much more comfortable. Sun coming in along the access corridor can make it too hot at times so doors are left open to encourage the warm air into the side rooms. The effect downstairs in the parts open to the public are less obvious due to having to have doors open(even before Covid requirements), and there the problems of walls that have been covered with modern materials and so are damp comes into play; the fabric takes a long time to heat up when the heating goes on in autumn and after the winter break.
A much more pressing issue is the poor standards of design and build in modern houses. Building Regs have their limitations(the worst of which were demonstrated most recently by Grenfell) - undue influence from developers about standards set(how to explain the minimal requirements otherwise?), too few staff to carry out meaningful checks(except it seems on individuals building for themselves), so it is just a token house on an estate that is checked and tested, and however good the theoretical standards are poor workmanship will undermine them. Advanced eco measures are not always a good solution unless they are appropriate for the intended occupants lives, which means knowing how real people live and what their perceptions and expectations are, particularly important for social housing. They also may need much more follow up and problem solving than ordinary houses. A highly acclaimed(by architects etc) development in the city has had mixed reactions from those rehoused there. The control systems need a sizable manual, and haven't always worked as needed(low heating costs are good but being able to have a cool house in warm weather is also important) or expected, and the standard of workmanship and fittings hasn't been consistently good. Simple things like not being able to put in fittings to hang items such as TVs on the wall(risk of puncturing internal membranes) aren't going to be welcomed by all, even if it's a trade -off for lower heating bills.
Building good quality general housing, using eco tweaks that are known and work, needs to happen before worrying about passivhaus etc. Addressing the current abysmal attitude to self build would also do much to improve matters, since those building for themselves will construct to much higher standards than any volume builder. Sadly, so long as matters to do with housebuilding and planning continue to be driven by the demands of the few big developers there won't be any movement or improvement.

[Dave2002]

Not all listed houses are old, the listing can be for all sorts of reasons many of which don't preclude making improvements to energy efficiency.

Listing buildings can lead to what seem utterly stupid decisions at times.

Example - made up - but possibly typical: An applicant wants to make changes to his/her house. It is listed. It dates from (say) 1790. In 1992 a lean to porch was added to the house. It is poorly designed, poorly made.

The owner wants to remove that and otherwise make improvements and alter the house to conform to an earlier appropriate style on the grounds that it will make the house more usable, and reinstate - to some extent - a suitable in keeping look.

Planning permission is refused unless the porch is retained or renovated.

This may seem artificial, but I've seen cases like that.

[Old Grumpy]

Yeah - sure. So go and live in the woods in an old style black house, and if you feel like it get a whole lot of your mates to make replicas and make a village or town of them, and live a life style which might have been appropriate - and uncomfortable - about 4-500 years ago. That's why there are a number of so-called open air museums, so we can retain a knowledge and appreciation of old houses, without actually having to force anyone to live in them.

I'm not suggesting that every old house is knocked down, or should be modified to modern standards, but rather that if a house is to be retained it should be reasonably functional and appropriately comfortable and economic for its occupants.

I suppose your house has electricity. I notice it was built before electricity supplies were commonplace.

Funny you should say that...


... There are still houses in Northumberland without mains electricity https://www.northumberlandgazette.co...ricity-3109669

[oddoneout]

Funny you should say that...


... There are still houses in Northumberland without mains electricity https://www.northumberlandgazette.co...ricity-3109669

And living off-grid is an active choice for some in the 21st century, and probably will increase in coming years given half a chance.

[Bryn]

And living off-grid is an active choice for some in the 21st century, and probably will increase in coming years given half a chance.

Not so easy if you've had a COVID-19 vaccination with the nanobot tracker in it.

[oddoneout]

Listing buildings can lead to what seem utterly stupid decisions at times.

Example - made up - but possibly typical: An applicant wants to make changes to his/her house. It is listed. It dates from (say) 1790. In 1992 a lean to porch was added to the house. It is poorly designed, poorly made.

The owner wants to remove that and otherwise make improvements and alter the house to conform to an earlier appropriate style on the grounds that it will make the house more usable, and reinstate - to some extent - a suitable in keeping look.

Planning permission is refused unless the porch is retained or renovated.

This may seem artificial, but I've seen cases like that.

That can and does happen, but is not confined to listed buildings. While there may be a national framework for such things, including planning in general, the interpretation and decision making will be at local level and will therefore vary across the country. Attitudes to the importance of a building's narrative depend on many factors and it can be pot-luck as to how, and what kind of a decision is made. Again it will depend on the reasons for which the building is listed, but it is sometimes possible to change the decision that was originally made as further evidence comes to light or as renovation work exposes something that can't be retained in its original materials/form, or which is damaging the listed element. Influence can be brought to bear in other ways as well as we found out at work when changes were made to a part of the building which( we are certain) would never have been allowed to an individual making the same arguments(need to create new retail space - doubly galling as the project has in fact reduced what originally existed and can't now be expanded) for such a change.

[oddoneout]

Not so easy if you've had a COVID-19 vaccination with the nanobot tracker in it.

And being an anti-vaxxer wouldn't help given spy in the sky drone technology...

[Dave2002]

That can and does happen, but is not confined to listed buildings. While there may be a national framework for such things, including planning in general, the interpretation and decision making will be at local level and will therefore vary across the country. Attitudes to the importance of a building's narrative depend on many factors and it can be pot-luck as to how, and what kind of a decision is made. Again it will depend on the reasons for which the building is listed, but it is sometimes possible to change the decision that was originally made as further evidence comes to light or as renovation work exposes something that can't be retained in its original materials/form, or which is damaging the listed element. Influence can be brought to bear in other ways as well as we found out at work when changes were made to a part of the building which( we are certain) would never have been allowed to an individual making the same arguments(need to create new retail space - doubly galling as the project has in fact reduced what originally existed and can't now be expanded) for such a change.

Things get more and more complicated re planning. "Smart" operators know how to play the game.

Want to turn a shop into a block of flats? Apply for a change of use of shop [not all shops are the same...] - with a flat or two above for the shop keepers. Make sure - or just "accidentally" find out that the new business isn't viable. That might take a year or two. Then, having demonstrated that, apply to turn the whole building into apartments, with a new car park at the back. That would have been refused at the outset, but given the trajectory it's likely to succeed. Given the market value of the flats may now well exceed the original value of the shop - as a "demonstrated" non viable enterprise, someone makes money out of that.

Other examples - the many pubs which have closed and been converted to flats or knocked down and had new housing put on them. Then there are the somewhat dubious cases where a pub is demolished because of some ambiguity about permissions, and then the owners say "sorry" - we thought you'd given us permission", and then build new housing on the land so released.

A lot of planning, particularly in urban areas, is very dodgy, but my guess is that similar "tricks" are done in rural areas too. A usual one is to try to convert agricultural land (generally low value) into building land (demonstrate viability and housing need) - and - surprise surprise - building land is far more valuable than agricultural land.

There is indeed a National framework for planning - the NPPF.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

[oddoneout]

Things get more and more complicated re planning. "Smart" operators know how to play the game.

Want to turn a shop into a block of flats? Apply for a change of use of shop [not all shops are the same...] - with a flat or two above for the shop keepers. Make sure - or just "accidentally" find out that the new business isn't viable. That might take a year or two. Then, having demonstrated that, apply to turn the whole building into apartments, with a new car park at the back. That would have been refused at the outset, but given the trajectory it's likely to succeed. Given the market value of the flats may now well exceed the original value of the shop - as a "demonstrated" non viable enterprise, someone makes money out of that.

There is indeed a National framework for planning - the NPPF.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...y-framework--2

No need to go to all that faff, just find an office block and develop under permitted development, example here https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/h...ng-permission/

I haven't read the NPPF in recent years(too depressing) but did respond to the consultation years ago(2010?) where it became clear the extent to which 'developer's charter' was being enshrined into planning law. At every juncture the phrase " determination in favour of development" cropped up. The much vaunted Neighbourhood Plans which were touted as giving communities control over local development clearly did nothing of the sort - the phrase used was " have regard to", subtext being "and ignore". If there was too much local opposition holding things up then there was recourse to the Secretary of State to override, and push it through. Several villages round my area have discovered the hard way just what a waste of time and effort it was producing the plans. The other thing that became clear was that NPPF definition of "sustainable" was not that understood by the public at large. All it means is that the developer considers that they can make enough money from the project, ie economic viability not sustainability.
I don't imagine any of the subsequent revisions and updates have made matters any better, in fact quite the reverse I imagine, given such delights as the office conversion scam. The major difficulty still exists that local planning departments have to all intents and purposes no control over what is built and where, except for individuals and small scale builders who don't have automatic recourse to the blunt weapon of finance and government backing available to the big developers. That won't change in the foreseeable future, donors and cronies will always win out.

[Dave2002]

No need to go to all that faff, just find an office block and develop under permitted development, example here https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/h...ng-permission/

I haven't read the NPPF in recent years(too depressing) but did respond to the consultation years ago(2010?) where it became clear the extent to which 'developer's charter' was being enshrined into planning law. At every juncture the phrase " determination in favour of development" cropped up. The much vaunted Neighbourhood Plans which were touted as giving communities control over local development clearly did nothing of the sort - the phrase used was " have regard to", subtext being "and ignore". If there was too much local opposition holding things up then there was recourse to the Secretary of State to override, and push it through. Several villages round my area have discovered the hard way just what a waste of time and effort it was producing the plans. The other thing that became clear was that NPPF definition of "sustainable" was not that understood by the public at large. All it means is that the developer considers that they can make enough money from the project, ie economic viability not sustainability.
I don't imagine any of the subsequent revisions and updates have made matters any better, in fact quite the reverse I imagine, given such delights as the office conversion scam. The major difficulty still exists that local planning departments have to all intents and purposes no control over what is built and where, except for individuals and small scale builders who don't have automatic recourse to the blunt weapon of finance and government backing available to the big developers. That won't change in the foreseeable future, donors and cronies will always win out.

Don't get me onto the Localism Act 2011 and later developments.

I'm not sure that I'm quite as negative about the "donors and cronies" as you seem to be, but I'm not far behind. Even worse in some cases, the developers may even put forward proposals by offshore companies - for investment - so that people who have absolutely nothing to do with the UK can make a profit out of developments which may not improve the lives of people living in the UK. Of course it is allowed for UK citizens, who are rich enough, to have shares in those companies.

At least in Switzerland they have the right idea, though they screw money out of people in other ways.

Thousands of tons of fish are rotten in the state of Denmark!