Green Building Forum - New homes standard Tue, 19 Dec 2023 04:38:37 +0000 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289543#Comment_289543 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289543#Comment_289543 Mon, 17 May 2021 13:38:23 +0100 tony New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289544#Comment_289544 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289544#Comment_289544 Mon, 17 May 2021 13:43:43 +0100 Peter_in_Hungary
In the end it will need the cost of doing shoddy work to be more expensive than to do the job right in the first time.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289546#Comment_289546 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289546#Comment_289546 Mon, 17 May 2021 15:16:16 +0100 RobL
I half-know* somebody in a nearby village with oil heating, 20MWh/year for a 5 year old 3 bed semi. Which to my mind is obscene. The top floor sloping ceiling is apparantly cold to touch - how is that acceptable this day and age?

* Half know because they because they became disinterested in my offer of help, it's just not on their list of priorities - they're happier buying the oil than discussing fixing it with me! Mrs RobL says I am in danger of being an insulation nag :sad:]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289547#Comment_289547 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289547#Comment_289547 Mon, 17 May 2021 16:13:22 +0100 Jonti
the £300 comes from the economy of scale. Most builders are doing thousands of properties a year and so it is possible to have inspectors almost permanently in the field.

Peter i H,

the guarantee is worthless. If you complain then your in for a rocky ride and at best a bodged fix complete with gagging agreement.

I pity anyone who has bought a new house in the last 20 years from one of the big builders as it is very likely to be so defective as to be unsellable. On top of that many do not even own the ground it is built on.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289548#Comment_289548 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289548#Comment_289548 Mon, 17 May 2021 17:33:22 +0100 Artiglio
In the end it will need the cost of doing shoddy work to be more expensive than to do the job right in the first time.</blockquote>

The problem there is that the builders will then insist that it becomes an official dispute, this then makes the properties very hard to sell as well as devaluing them, its why they get away with individual deals with complainants who accept repairs etc under a non disclosure agreement. Plus if the disputes were bought into the public domain it’d cast a shadow over whole developments, mortgage providers would soon be compiling data on problem estates and be demanding additional checks as a part of surveys. Where such checks would be intrusive it’d be unlikely the vendor would want it done by the purchaser as who is liable for making good, so you’d end up with vendors having to commission comprehensive surveys or builders having to do so for entire developments that have a question mark over them. Opens such a can of worms that it really is very unlikely to ever happen.

Jonti - economies of scale or not are you really suggesting that a build can be monitored properly, recorded, verified and certificated for about 8 hours work? Plus you have to add on the extra costs of inssiting the various trades do everything properly which will take more time. Getting the builders to do it is just asking for issues and any external independant body is going to need to insure themselves. I really can’t see it being done for less than 5k ( properly) as a minimum and the fee being a percentage of sale price in more valuable parts of the country.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289560#Comment_289560 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289560#Comment_289560 Tue, 18 May 2021 07:58:57 +0100 Jonti
yes I am saying it is possible for that sort of money but it needs to be done on a national scale which means it has to be the government/council. I may have it wrong but you seem wedded to the idea of it being private companies and if this is the case I would agree with you that it is impossible for the private sector to deliver at such a price but then the private sector is not always the best way to to something as the present situation shows.

I think where we differ the most is I believe it is the government's responsibility to look after the interests of the public in this situation where as you seem to give the impression that the builders are the only consideration. As for mortgage lenders I believe you will at some point start to see them requiring structural surveys on houses built after 2000 as the shoddy standards start to create more and more problems. This is one of the next big scandals waiting to come out.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289564#Comment_289564 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289564#Comment_289564 Tue, 18 May 2021 09:05:43 +0100 philedge Posted By: JontiAs for mortgage lenders I believe you will at some point start to see them requiring structural surveys on houses built after 2000 as the shoddy standards start to create more and more problems.

I dont think mortgage lenders are/will be in the least bit bothered about about a house leaking a few hundred £ of energy a year. Builders are more than capable of building structurally and aesthetically adequate houses and those are the things that affect resale value which is alll mortgage lenders are interested in.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289610#Comment_289610 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289610#Comment_289610 Tue, 18 May 2021 20:46:25 +0100 Jonti Posted By: philedge
Posted By: JontiAs for mortgage lenders I believe you will at some point start to see them requiring structural surveys on houses built after 2000 as the shoddy standards start to create more and more problems.


I dont think mortgage lenders are/will be in the least bit bothered about about a house leaking a few hundred £ of energy a year. Builders are more than capable of building structurally and aesthetically adequate houses and those are the things that affect resale value which is alll mortgage lenders are interested in.

Both your statements are correct but nothing to do with my points. Mortgage lender will not give a mortgage on buildings that are not structurally sound. Buildings that get Self certified building regs certificates that later are found not to meet those building regs lose the certification. I don't believe lenders will lend on buildings without a valid building regs certificate.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289626#Comment_289626 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289626#Comment_289626 Wed, 19 May 2021 11:11:46 +0100 Artiglio The public sector has shown endlessly that it is incapable , just look at the state of much of the countries council housing stock and the appalling standards of workmanship it procures.
If this picture appears its an overflow pipe fitted to comply with legionella regs on a council block near me , rather than exit through the wall the contractor cut a corner out of the door. So eventually the door will need rapairing and job doing properly. Council say they are unaware until i let them know. I only found it after there was water ingress through the now damaged door in a storm.(picture too big to post)]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289651#Comment_289651 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289651#Comment_289651 Thu, 20 May 2021 08:44:46 +0100 Jonti Posted By: ArtiglioJonti, the current fiasco revolves around Grenfell a building built and managed by the public sector until it burnt.

Could you please point out where in this thread that very sad episode has been mentioned? I thought the thread was about 'new home standards'. Maybe you have the wrong thread.

Try reducing the size of the photo so it posts.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289657#Comment_289657 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289657#Comment_289657 Thu, 20 May 2021 13:14:13 +0100 Artiglio
My point is that failures of building regulation and control have been very much highlighted by what happened at grenfell, where it was decades of failure by public bodies that eventually resulted in the disaster, many of those years where they had full control.

As such I don’t feel that handing it all back lock stock and barrel to the public sector is appropriate. I’m merely giving substance and context to my opinion, or is that not allowed if the thread does’nt contain direct references to my references?]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289666#Comment_289666 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289666#Comment_289666 Fri, 21 May 2021 09:50:02 +0100 Jonti New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289704#Comment_289704 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289704#Comment_289704 Sat, 22 May 2021 16:38:03 +0100 Artiglio
yes I am saying it is possible for that sort of money but it needs to be done on a national scale which means it has to be the government/council. I may have it wrong but you seem wedded to the idea of it being private companies and if this is the case I would agree with you that it is impossible for the private sector to deliver at such a price but then the private sector is not always the best way to to something as the present situation shows.

I think where we differ the most is I believe it is the government's responsibility to look after the interests of the public in this situation where as you seem to give the impression that the builders are the only consideration. As for mortgage lenders I believe you will at some point start to see them requiring structural surveys on houses built after 2000 as the shoddy standards start to create more and more problems. This is one of the next big scandals waiting to come out.</blockquote>

Jonti- second line .

Local authority building control decided to effectively remove themselves from the market when they decided they didn’t want to offer insurance backed guarantees ( ie accept liability for their service).
Everything is possible but councils decided it wasn’t for them. My local council works on an officers time costing around £70 and hour, the last time i asked for a quote for them to do the bc on a small 3m x 3m extension it was over £500 pounds. Local authorites are incredibly inefficient.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289705#Comment_289705 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289705#Comment_289705 Sat, 22 May 2021 19:46:14 +0100 Peter_in_Hungary Posted By: JontiI see no evidence that the private sector is/has done a better job than the public when it comes to BC and examples from elsewhere show the state can do an excellent job when it is so motivated.
But motivation to to a good job is often squashed by other factors such as budget constraints and / or profit lines, case loads, a lack of understanding of implications of poor quality, peer pressure, cronyism etc.

IMO the old method of building were a lot more forgiving. 60 cm stone walls with an inch of render inside and out with timbers oversized by 30% to 50% and attics so wind swept that any damp was blown away was so much more forgiving than modern structures that are calculated down to the minimum material weight a size to save money with high tech materials and features needing precise installation. Unfortunately the modern building methods are frequently undertaken by those with a work ethic and understanding more suited to the old method of building - and in part driven by budgets to get things done ahead of schedule.

Going back to Grenfell - how many of those doing the window refit or the cladding install appreciated the implication of shoddy work? Why was the lack of wet riser ignored for so long? It takes a brave whistle blower to say ' wait a moment, what my respected colleagues have been signing off for the past years is wrong ' on the other hand you also have the case where - 'Joe signed this off last time and nothing has changed so it is all OK.' and so the errors continue.

And with regard to mortgage lenders, imagine the outcry if a lender reduced the loan to value %age of a big builders product because of build quality. Mind you such a thing could focus minds !! If cars were built like houses the carnage on the roads would be a scandal and steps would quickly be taken. Perhaps a system of recall should be established for mass produced houses.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289708#Comment_289708 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289708#Comment_289708 Sat, 22 May 2021 20:30:28 +0100 Jonti
so we agree then.

Peter i H,

Agree on the old methods. As to Grenfell it seems to me that more people involved in that project failed to do their job properly than actually did a good job. In the end it comes down to shoddy to none existent checks on the quality of the build and companies putting profit before all else.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289709#Comment_289709 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289709#Comment_289709 Sat, 22 May 2021 21:14:41 +0100 Artiglio
I can only assume you’re some sort of troll, as i showed in the quoted text you clearly said i was wedded to the idea of the private sector. Where as in another post you say “wedded to the private sector! Where did I say that?”

We have very different views , but a discussion about them would seem too obtuse to be possible.]]>
New homes standard http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289712#Comment_289712 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16899&Focus=289712#Comment_289712 Sun, 23 May 2021 08:33:25 +0100 Jonti
I think I understand now why we are struggling to understand each other. I am writing about what I believe should be happening and you about what you believe is happening. I think we both agree on what is happening. Where we differ is I have put forward what I believe is a workable idea where as you have offered no suggestions on what might be a way to bring about a change for the better.

My experience of conducting productive discussions on such sites as this is to try and find some basis of consensus to build from hence my comment about us agreeing. I do believe we both want BC to work properly. However, it is difficult to know what you believe to be the solution as you haven't given one as far as I can fathom. On top of that your reasons as to why my idea does not work appears to be that it isn't happening at the moment. I have read and re-read your comments but still cannot find anything else.

it seems your last comment is more 'slash and burn then run' than constructive discussion. I am sorry that you think I have been trolling you which is certainly not my intention.]]>