Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Debate On Standard Of New Builds


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#41 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 09:38 AM

View PostRoger440, on 16 November 2015 - 08:56 PM, said:

Ive always struggled with the cavity idea.

[...] Why do i need a cavity
It ties in with what others are saying - volume house builders build in the cheapest way possible, which means a prescribed method that ticks boxes and that everyone understands and they can easily buy "skills" to erect.

#42 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 09:40 AM

Watched the programme last night - pretty much as expected. Those thermal images of Luke Mahon's house were horrific, the reading was obscured by paperwork but I think it was suggesting 17C on the outside face!!!?! Or maybe it was 7C. Actually that's probably more likely, but still bad *stands down*.

#43 declan52

declan52

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • LocationCo. armagh

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:08 AM

View Postgravelld, on 17 November 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

Watched the programme last night - pretty much as expected. Those thermal images of Luke Mahon's house were horrific, the reading was obscured by paperwork but I think it was suggesting 17C on the outside face!!!?! Or maybe it was 7C. Actually that's probably more likely, but still bad *stands down*.
Follow him on twitter @myhousesucks. Some off the work done in that fellas house is an absolute disgrace. They are obviously using either apprentices or guys who rock up with a bag of tools and claim to be joiners/plumbers etc. Most of the other people on the show are also on twitter and show the same very poor standard of work in their houses.

#44 notnickclegg

notnickclegg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,126 posts
  • LocationHampshire/Surrey Borders

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:11 AM

View PostProDave, on 16 November 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

Nobody will buy any fridge unless it has an A+++ energy rating, so why don't buyers of a new house all insist on an A rating for the house?

I don't think that's as true as you think/hope. Here's the range of fridge freezers available at Currys right now, by rating:

Attached File  Fridges.png   7.19K   0 downloads

The moveable feast of energy ratings doesn't help - people buying an A+ rated fridge (which is most of them assuming the breakdown roughly reflects the market) mostly think they're buying something of above average performance. And sadly, many will go for brands, looks, size and just about anything else before worrying about energy consumption.

It's the same as cars. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would buy something like a Range Rover (particularly petrol) given the terrifying fuel consumption, but they're hugely popular: http://www.autocar.c...range-rover/mpg

Jack

#45 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:22 AM

View Postdeclan52, on 17 November 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

Follow him on twitter @myhousesucks. Some off the work done in that fellas house is an absolute disgrace. They are obviously using either apprentices or guys who rock up with a bag of tools and claim to be joiners/plumbers etc. Most of the other people on the show are also on twitter and show the same very poor standard of work in their houses.

Part of the problem is that the builders that the developers use won't pay the going rate for skilled tradespeople. Around here, brickies get around £140 to £160 a day, labourers between £60 and £80 a day. The builders the developers are employing pay at most £100 a day for brickies.

The result is that they end up with brickies who are either too useless to get any other work or who are fresh out of college with little or no site experience.

I don't know what they pay other trades, I just got the low down on the rates they were paying brickies from a couple of chaps we used, but I suspect it's the same sort of rate. The failings may then come down to the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" problem.

#46 DamonHD

DamonHD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:27 AM

I have tried personally to persuade the people who run the EU energy-savings scheme to do as happens in Japan and the US, that the standard for a given letter rises over time so that you can't/shouldn't buy anything under C and A means 'best' (eg something like in the top quartile) when you buy. Simple to understand.

And then we should do that with house standards too, and mark as unfit for habitation anything below (say) D on the new rolling scheme, unless there's a very good reason why it cannot be improved (eg it's a castle). Existing EPCs can be regraded automatically until they expire (and beyond).

And *every* new building should be fully tested. I watched social housing go up near me, with little to convince me of their thermal properties, then saw the tenants get sky high bills (several thousand pounds) from inappropriate heat pump installs, and Ed Davey had to intervene. I asked him to ask the HA if they had any idea what *actual* standard the dwellings achieved. I know that at least one of those bills is still being paid off by people who really can't afford it.

Rgds

Damon

#47 Alphonsox

Alphonsox

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • LocationCounty Down, NI and Forest of Dean, England

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:29 AM

Unfortunately the program made no attempt to determine how widespread (if at all) the build problems were. I think trying to generalise from a single house to "all new builds are crap" is unjustified given the evidence presented.

#48 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:54 AM

View Postdeclan52, on 17 November 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

Follow him on twitter @myhousesucks. [...]
Yeah, I was doing already. Quite amusing the stuff he was retweeting this morning, looks like TW got a bit of a kicking. I especially liked the timing of this one: https://twitter.com/...351843396710400

#49 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 11:00 AM

View PostAlphonsox, on 17 November 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

Unfortunately the program made no attempt to determine how widespread (if at all) the build problems were. I think trying to generalise from a single house to "all new builds are crap" is unjustified given the evidence presented.
Agree, and similarly it's incorrect to say "no-one cares about energy efficiency" (Luke Mahon clearly does, although expecting a "super insulated" house from TW might be expecting a bit much - depends on your definition of 'super'). It's just the way people speak/type, I don't think they actually mean that.

Edited by gravelld, 17 November 2015 - 11:00 AM.


#50 declan52

declan52

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • LocationCo. armagh

Posted 17 November 2015 - 11:20 AM

I think it's more a case of the people buying the houses fell hook line and sinker for all the BS spun in the promotions. One of the big selling points was energy efficiency and considering his house had none he had a point. How much better than building regs it would be if it was all done I doubt it would be much. It said his epc was a B83 I think with a possibility of getting an A98 odd so they must have spun some shat on the epc certificate to get that high a score as he had no PV.
As far as labour goes it shouldn't matter what you get paid you should still have a bit of pride in what you do. There was a motar bed on the bottom of one of the houses that must have been 50mm and it was just left the way the motar pushed out. I couldn't have looked at that every time I walked by. You would have thought being at the front of the house the foreman would have made them rake it out.

#51 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 11:58 AM

Quote

One of the big selling points was energy efficiency and considering his house had none he had a point. How much better than building regs it would be if it was all done I doubt it would be much. It said his epc was a B83 I think with a possibility of getting an A98 odd so they must have spun some shat on the epc certificate to get that high a score as he had no PV.

That's more to do with the limitations of EPCs, as they stand, as discussed above.

#52 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 17 November 2015 - 12:09 PM

View PostDamonHD, on 17 November 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

I.....and mark as unfit for habitation anything below (say) D on the new rolling scheme, unless there's a very good reason why it cannot be improved (eg it's a castle). Existing EPCs can be regraded automatically until they expire (and beyond).


In a couple of years up here, all private rented properties will have to have an EPC of E or better. So a landlord currently letting a house with EPC F or G (and a lot of the old cottages are like that) will either have to improve it, or stop renting it.

Edited by ProDave, 17 November 2015 - 12:09 PM.


#53 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 12:12 PM

Is that Scotland only?

#54 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 12:36 PM

View Postgravelld, on 17 November 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

Yeah, I was doing already. Quite amusing the stuff he was retweeting this morning, looks like TW got a bit of a kicking. I especially liked the timing of this one: https://twitter.com/...351843396710400

Wonder who that is. He's possibly cruising for a bruising making non-specific criticisms.

F

#55 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 12:49 PM

View Postdeclan52, on 16 November 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:


It's more of a rough guess as the cost of materials, more insulation, tapes, membranes and the cost of a mhrv system. Plus you would have the cost of someone or a company to do this work. Then the builder will be looking a few extra pound if he is to supervise all this work so £10,000 mightn't be that far away.

Need to clarify Price and Cost here.

I took your "add 10k to the price at very little extra expense" to mean selling price and build cost. That was a misunderstanding?

But people won't pay £10k extra for a more insulated house. That is until they have been seared by at least one big BE (Bad Experience), but that is likely to be to do with cold rooms in the roof or temperature swings. That is comfort not cash.

Ferdinand




#56 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:07 PM

View Postnotnickclegg, on 17 November 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:



I don't think that's as true as you think/hope. Here's the range of fridge freezers available at Currys right now, by rating:

Attachment Fridges.png

The moveable feast of energy ratings doesn't help - people buying an A+ rated fridge (which is most of them assuming the breakdown roughly reflects the market) mostly think they're buying something of above average performance. And sadly, many will go for brands, looks, size and just about anything else before worrying about energy consumption.

It's the same as cars. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would buy something like a Range Rover (particularly petrol) given the terrifying fuel consumption, but they're hugely popular: http://www.autocar.c...range-rover/mpg

Jack

I thought the A++ bands were about 10% better per plus, which lets me work out the purchase price trade off.

I think Plonker-Tonka sales are driven by perceived safety for me, people who like the high position (anecdotally mainly ladies afaik), speed humps, and towing caravans. And something to do with the requirements for children in cars (of which I do not know the detail). And by self-builders towing minidiggers and playing in the mud.

I know someone who has just declared that his Toyota RX400 thing is inadequately quick when overtaking so he's going for a tweaked Range Rover to give more towering performance.

Edited by ferdinand, 17 November 2015 - 01:13 PM.


#57 notnickclegg

notnickclegg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,126 posts
  • LocationHampshire/Surrey Borders

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:16 PM

View Postferdinand, on 17 November 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

I thought the A++ bands were about 10% better per plus, which lets me work out the purchase price trade off.

Never heard that before. If it's true, it needs to be explained better and/or more widely publicised!

View Postferdinand, on 17 November 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

I think Plonker-Tonka sales are driven by perceived safety for me, people who like the high position (anecdotally mainly ladies afaik), speed humps, and towing caravans. And something to do with the requirements for children in cars (of which I do not know the detail). And by self-builders towing minidiggers and playing in the mud.

But all of those "pluses" can be achieved by cars that get an awful lot more miles from a litre of fuel than a petrol Range Rover does.

Aside from anything else, I can't imagine driving such a big car where I live. Half of the roads barely allow room for two medium sized cars to pass comfortably, but there are a huge number of Range and Land Rovers about.

Jack

#58 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:20 PM

I think there's also more consciousness about driving on ice and snow than before.

Witness all the stuff about winter tyres now.

We used to get packed snow roads widely locally - borders of Derbyshire at about 600ft - but never had more than front wheel drive.

Another anecdote is someone who went in for the winter tyres spent their time towing their neighbours off their drives.

I had the 10% per plus rule of thumb from someone at Appliances Direct.

F

Edited by joiner, 17 November 2015 - 10:36 PM.
"towing" for "toeing"


#59 Crofter

Crofter

    Regular Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPip
  • 592 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:36 PM

Of course the market in vehicles is dictated by the buying habits of those wealthy enough to actually buy a brand new car.
Somebody forking out £60k on a car might not be too bothered about running costs- although they should, and do, worry about depreciation.
Somehow we need the same thing to apply to housing. But as housing is almost always an investment, not a depreciating asset, that's not how the market works.

#60 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:50 PM

View PostCrofter, on 17 November 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

Of course the market in vehicles is dictated by the buying habits of those wealthy enough to actually buy a brand new car.
Somebody forking out £60k on a car might not be too bothered about running costs- although they should, and do, worry about depreciation.
Somehow we need the same thing to apply to housing. But as housing is almost always an investment, not a depreciating asset, that's not how the market works.

I don't know where to get the numbers, but surely the vast majority of big 4x4 sales are used?

used sales are 75% of cars sold, and there are any number of Range Rovers etc available in the 5k to 20k price range.

F