Double glazing in a listed building?
Discussion
Equus said:
Elderly said:
In these days of climate emergency and the need to reduce the quantity of fossil fuels used,
is it sensible not to always allow the use of thin panel double glazing?
It depends.is it sensible not to always allow the use of thin panel double glazing?
a listed farmhouse, one of the most historically important features of which was that some of its windows were still glazed with genuine, cast Elizabethan glass.
Then there's the Grade II* listed ............
If you make blanket rules, they need to be applicable in all circumstances.
Like the Ivory Bill (which recently received Royal Assent) which imposes a blanket ban, but (after consultations)
has a number of exemptions.
Something similar could be put forward with this scenario?
Maybe ..... Grade 1 - no exemptions.
Grade 2* - only if ......?
Grade 2 - Allowed, so long as the glass being replaced isn't the ORIGINAL glass.
Just a thought
.Edited by Elderly on Friday 21st February 12:59
Lotobear said:
Mono laminate thermal single glazing is an option which is often acceptable to CO's in my experience if they won't allow double glazing.
I wasn't familiar with the term so have just been looking at the Histoglass website.They appear to do 4mm glass with a coating, 3.6U vs 5.6-5.8 for normal single glazing. And a laminated product, 8-9mm thick, oddly also 3.6U. It appear both products use an internal surface coating, which is therefore susceptible to damage during installation and cleaning.
Given their thin double glazing is 10-13mm thick and 1.9U-1.5U going from 8mm to 10mm for a 2.6 to 1.9U improvement, and no coating, seems a no brainer. A lot of frames designed from 4mm glass could be adapted to take 10mm glass.
Lotobear said:
...it's his personal hobby horse....
One of the issues is the almost absolute power of CO's and a lack of national policy guidance on the vexed issue of double glazing in listed buildings. Some national clarity and consistency is needed IMO.
While I understand their may be some local considerations, it is absolutely madness that individual people's opinions are standing between people fitting 10mm dg units to listed buildings.One of the issues is the almost absolute power of CO's and a lack of national policy guidance on the vexed issue of double glazing in listed buildings. Some national clarity and consistency is needed IMO.
Daniel
Elderly said:
Something similar could be put forward with this scenario?
Maybe ..... Grade 1 - no exemptions.
Grade 2* - only if ......?
Grade 2 - Allowed, so long as the glass being replaced isn't the ORIGINAL glass.
Just a thought
The Listing system doesn't work like that. You could have a Grade II listed property, but still find that (yes, even non-original) glazing was very important to its character.Maybe ..... Grade 1 - no exemptions.
Grade 2* - only if ......?
Grade 2 - Allowed, so long as the glass being replaced isn't the ORIGINAL glass.
Just a thought
Your proposal would mean a complete overhaul of the current legislation and a re-appraisal of every single listed building in the country.
...Whereas, as I've already responded on the other thread you tried to derail, the current system already allows/requires Conservation Officers the flexibility to consider cases individually, and as appropriate.
Equus said:
I can't dispute that this is a very real issue... but it would be very blinkered to assume that glazing is in any way a 'special' problem within the wider context of LBC.
I wasn't clear in my posting, I was using glazing as a specific example of one inconsistent application of listed building control arising from a particular fixation of one individual CO in one far flung LPA, cited simply because it gives me more trouble than anything else. Paradoxically, and to reinforce/make the point, he is suprisingly lax about certain others matters whereas neighbouring authorties might take a polar opposite stance.So there is a general issue (not restricted to glazing), IMO, of inconsistency based upon the personal preference/philosphy of individual CO's which would probably benefit from national PPG
Lotobear said:
I wasn't clear in my posting, I was using glazing as a specific example of one inconsistent application of listed building control...
So there is a general issue (not restricted to glazing), IMO, of inconsistency based upon the personal preference/philosphy of individual CO's which would probably benefit from national PPG
Yes, sure... understood, and I agree with you totally.So there is a general issue (not restricted to glazing), IMO, of inconsistency based upon the personal preference/philosphy of individual CO's which would probably benefit from national PPG
Elderly said:
Can you suggest an equitable solution for the above issue?
Certainly: If you don't like it, don't buy a Listed building. As Lotobear says, you might consider additional national PPG, but that comes with its own disadvantages and (usually) a whole bunch of unintended consequences, and is contrary to the current political trajectory of Planning control (the intention of the NPPF was to make PPG simpler and more flexible, not more constraining).
Any other solution would take massive additional resources, which the public are not willing to pay for.
Equus said:
Elderly said:
Can you suggest an equitable solution for the above issue?
Certainly: If you don't like it, don't buy a Listed building. I truly wish that the sort of house that I purchased more than 30 years ago could have been found 'non-listed',
but all its other advantages far outweighed the constrictions of Listing.
Your earlier answer to my proposal was: " Your proposal would mean a complete overhaul of the current legislation and a re-appraisal of every single listed building in the country.".
If the present legislation is wrong, why shouldn't it be overhauled in a sensible and pragmatic manner;
do you never want to fight or change a situation that you see as unjust?
And why a re-appraisal of every single listed building in the country, wouldn't there only have to be an appraisal when LBC is sort for a particular building?
Elderly said:
... all its other advantages far outweighed the constrictions of Listing.
Then why whine about those constrictions, if you knew what you were buying into?Elderly said:
If the present legislation is wrong, why shouldn't it be overhauled in a sensible and pragmatic manner;
do you never want to fight or change a situation that you see as unjust?
As the Spartans said to Philip II.... "if".do you never want to fight or change a situation that you see as unjust?
I have been in and around the Planning system for long enough to know that overhauls seldom result in the improvements you expect. Usually the opposite.
So, taken on balance, I do not believe that the current system is wrong. The only sensible way to remove power from the CO's is to do what we did with the Planning Officers, and turn them from intelligent and pragmatic professionals into tick-box functionaries underpinned by a massively bureaucratic system of checks and balances.
Elderly said:
And why a re-appraisal of every single listed building in the country, wouldn't there only have to be an appraisal when LBC is sort for a particular building?
Because if you're removing powers from the LPA's, the alterations would be happening without an LBC being 'sort'. I thought that was your whole point?Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff