Want to build a new house in my back garden

[Peter Taylor]

IMM wrote

Nor under the bed, apparently.

That I agree with. That's why the price of houses is so high.

[John]

I was recently surprised to see a number of company car drivers have opted for twin cab pickups of the gas guzzling 4x4 ilk. apparently they are classified as commercial vehicles with appropriate tax breaks despite being kitted out with top spec incar entertainment and other goodies. I don't suppose they were quite what our tinpot gods thought would result in putting tax charges up on company cars!

[Huge]

The education system obviously doesn't, at least.

[Andy Hall]

Well.... yes..... However the timescales are going to be a lot longer.

A car has a lifetime of two or three years in the fleet market, and may last on the road for another ten. Therefore changes in taxation and other government meddling have an effect pretty quickly.

Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes will take much longer to have an impact.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[G&M]

You think a Barrett hutch is going to last that long ??

[Andy Hall]

Possibly not, but hopefully more than ten years.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

I never demonstrated that at all. Legislation can ensure progress keeps going along and state-of-the-art is used.

The housing problem could be solved in a few years if land was made feely available to build on. The government could ensure high building standards using the latest methods and the private sector would fill the need. Encourage selfbuilding and individula homes would emerge.

You can't focus that is certain. Eco is not on their agenda because they know nothing of it.

[IMM]

Very true. The government can encourage people to do thing by various methods.

[IMM]

Your lack of common sense amazes me. We are short of about 4 million homes. The government can easily make most of them eco homes. And also any extension can also be eco. Then there is the conservatories which are heated and burn fuel like crazy. There must be a way of preventing these from being built. Most people would rather have a proper roofed high insulated extension, so provision to make them easier to build rather than energy sucking conservatories is the way.

[IMM]

Wrong again. The reason house prices are so high is that an artificial (rigged) land shortage is here ramping up land prices. The UK has a land surplus. Read Who Own Britain by Kevin Cahill.

[Andy Hall]

In the case of houses, it would take decades to centuries to reach the point that eco houses could be the only choice. No doubt in 20 years, the technology situation will have changed anyway. It's not politically interesting for a government to legislate something that will take that long to have an effect. They are looking for opportunities that will have an effect within three years or better still three minutes.

There is the problem. Need. The customers who are buying do not perceive (for right or wrong) a *need* at this point for eco houses. Creating a product does not guarantee its sale.

I don't have a problem with self building or individual development as long as the properties produced are acceptable to those living near them.

It isn't an issue of focus, but of reality.

That's one of many reasons.

For a product to sell, a whole bunch of factors have to be in place. Availability and awareness are only two of them.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Hall]

I think that the boot's on the other foot here, but go on.

But would people buy them? Are you proposing legislation to enforce that as well?

It can be.

That's an overstatement. With double glazed low-E glass, the heat loss is reduced substantially. With solar gain taken into account, it isn't typically an order of magnitude more than a conventional room of the same size.

You seem to advocate large glass areas as part of an eco house on the argument of solar gain. At least be consistent.

That would really be a popular move for the government to make. There's even reluctance to bring construction within building regulations.

Would they? So why do most of them buy conservatories rather than building extensions?

I can think of three factors, and there are probably more -

- Because they like them (of course "like" is not an issue in a totalitarian world)

- Because bureaucracy does not normally need to be involved

- Because they can be built and completed pretty quickly

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Hall]

Staying out of their affairs being the most effective one.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Hall]

Are you on a royalty for this book or something?

I wouldn't give up the day job.....

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

That may be so. But the standard would have been created and a population educated towards it. You have to start somewhere.

The Canadian R-2000 is a "standard". How you achieve it is yours and the BCOs business.

It puts a feather in their environmental hat.

Lack of understand and poor focus yet again. Once agin. Eco is not on their agenda because they know nothing of it.

So you prefer Barratt pastiche. My God.

A product is made to standards. If all are to an eco standard then the public will know the standard and buy accordingly. In short, they will only have an eco choice in a new house. So, if a 100 homes are eco and next to them another 100 homes of similar size and spec that are not, the eco homes will command a higher price.

[IMM]

They would have no choice and 99% of people would love an eco house.

We need to cut CO2 emissions.

It is not. Compare a conservatory to a superinsulated extension.

You obviously know nothing of passive solar.

Because of planning regs and conservatories are cheap, being just kits. Can't you even see that?

[IMM]

Exactly. Preventing land from being built on, by people who need spacious cheap accommodation is a gross infringement of civil liberties.

[IMM]

message

No. Hve you read it?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Mmm. In winter it is tho. You can get a U value o about 0.2 out of a well insulated wall: best glass I have seen is around 2.

OK, that doesn't take into account solar gains, true, but...

People in glass houses...ahahaha

[Andy Hall]

They have achieved that already to the extent of window dressing for the Kyoto Protocol. That's all they actually care about.

Since I've been involved in the design, engineering, marketing and selling of products at various times, I do have an appreciation of what is involved.

Awareness is one factor but there are many more. I've made that point and if you wish to disagree then I'll agree to differ.

I didn't say that at all. I said acceptable to people living nearby, which is entirely reasonable.

There is a great deal more to it than that.

Only if educated on the benefits, if the association with the sandals and earth parents brigade is removed, if they like the designs and if they are close to the facilities desired.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all. You are looking at this from one perspective only and making the assumption that energy saving is as high on everybody else's agenda as it is on yours. Unfortunately this is not the case.

If you take all of the factors into account it is by no means as clear.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl