Time for MHM and AW to join forces

Apr 09, 2012 12 Replies

formatting link
the workloads !


"A spokesman for the DCLG said the measures would be ?mandatory? save for those with homes which already have high energy performance ratings."

Meaning that anyone with a large detached house in an exposed location will be unable to meet the requirements, since they are absolute, rather than relative.

More nanny state government interference - rather the opposite of what Cameron stated this government was about.

Oh wait, he's a lying bastard like the rest of them...

Oh - and what happens if your house already has the maximum insulation fitted?

One more reason never to involve building control in anything...

You can read what is actually proposed rather than the journo's take, and have your say, via

One point I don't think they have fully recognised is the incentive not to comply with current requirements. Eg if a new boiler were to require additional spending on other measures, then some may decide not to use a GasSafe fitter who notifies BC and starts the compliance process but a cowboy who doesn't. Ditto for new windows etc

THat was my first thought. Law of unintended consequences - just like Part P.

I might want to build a conservatory - but not for a few years. I wonder what constitutes "starting the work"? A concrete base? I could arrange that without too much hassle...

I thought installing new boilers was one of the last great energy saving schemes they tried out:-)

Only applies in England - head north boys.

OTOH perhaps not quite absolutely given the consultation documents include:

"It is important to note that if a building has already undergone energy efficiency improvements (a modern boiler, loft insulation, filled cavities), or if it is a relatively new building with a high energy performance, then there would be no further requirement."

Nothing. The proposed legislation allows for this possibility

tim

One bit that seems a bit daft, is that a change of boiler which in itself could represents a significant improvement in efficiency, is not counted as "enough" on its own.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required