Status of the Domestic Heating Compliance Guide

[Softus]

Why have you changed "upon" to "on"?

 

[denso13]

Me? I haven't changed anything It's a direct quote from the 1984 act. Word for word

 

[Softus]

In that case the April 2000 DETR Consultation Paper (reference 0 CD 0013) must have quoted the act incorrectly.

 

[denso13]

In that case the April 2000 DETR Consultation Paper (reference 0 CD 0013) must have quoted the act incorrectly.

Yes they have. They have also used a "the" instead of a "that" which is in the act. Heads should roll!!

 

[megawatt]

D_Hailsham wrote:

Who will start a topic on what a DIYer may or may not do? Competent person - CORGI registered etc etc.

Any offers?

Softus's Reply:

Are you ****ing joking?

Hands up all those who were thinking the same ... Classic

 

[D_Hailsham]

The legal status of Approved Documents is given in Section 7 of the Building Act 1984. Basically, whilst their use in not mandatory, where the provisions contained in the Approved Document have been followed they can be relied upon as meeting the requirements of the Building Regulations.

Thank you for backing me up

There is an interesting case where the Secretary of State was asked to determine if an extension to an Historic House met the Part L requirements. It all hinged on what were "reasonable requirements"

If you think that then you haven't understood the consideration. It "hinged "on whether the use of double glazing was an example of inappropriate extension works that could be prejudicial to important historic character.

May I respectfully suggest that you read the determination again ?

1.The original proposal was for an extension to an historic house with single glazed windows.
2. The Local Council rejected the plans as they needed more info on Compliance with Part L
3. The Council then said that double glazed windows were required and used Approved Document L1 to back this up:

The Council stated that, with regard to compliance with Requirement L1 and the guidance in Approved Document L1 ("Conservation of fuel and power in dwellings") relating to historic buildings, in its view double glazed units were available to match your existing windows which would provide a U value of 2.0 w/m2K and that would not prejudice the character of your property. This performance is indicated in Approved Document L1 as reasonable provision in ordinary circumstances.

Please note the Council is invoking the Approved Document to back up its assertion

4. The next proposal is for single glazing but with additional energy saving measures elsewhere in the extension.

i.e. the thermal insulation provided in the ground floors, walls and roofs of the extensions (you would appear to be referring to both extensions) to levels above those stated in Approved Document L1 as reasonable provision in ordinary circumstances.

5. The Council rejected this but said that they would accept single glazed windows provided compensating measures were taken additional to those proposed above.

It is this additional work that the Determination is all about

16. The Secretary of State takes the view that the issue to be determined is whether there is a sufficient case for accepting that your proposal to fit single glazed windows and doors in the new extensions, together with the compensatory thermal insulation measures in the other building fabric (i.e. the ground floors, walls and roofs), is reasonable provision for compliance with Requirement L1.

6. In the end the Secretary of State comes down on the side of the Council.

The whole argument was about whether the Council's requirements were "reasonable"; and the Secretary said that they were.

Who will start a topic on what a DIYer may or may not do? Competent person - CORGI registered etc etc.

Any offers?

You don't think I was being serious do you?

 

[Agile]

Is this Lord Hailsham come back to haunt us with continued legal arguments?

 

[Balenza]

I wouldn't expect an answer from Softus anytime soon as he will be off googling information.
His classic response on this forum when he meets a superior adversary is to rip the post into unreadable nonsense. (As we have already witnessed on this thread)
And that is exactly what we will see next.

 

[chrishutt]

His classic response on this forum when he meets a superior adversary is to rip the post into unreadable nonsense.

How would you know?

 

[Softus]

The legal status of Approved Documents is given in Section 7 of the Building Act 1984. Basically, whilst their use in not mandatory, where the provisions contained in the Approved Document have been followed they can be relied upon as meeting the requirements of the Building Regulations.

Thank you for backing me up

I don't why you think denso13 was backing you up - the information he/she posted certainly doesn't further the discussion, it just adds to the stalemate like yet another Rugby Union forward heaving himself into an immobile ruck.

There is an interesting case where the Secretary of State was asked to determine if an extension to an Historic House met the Part L requirements. It all hinged on what were "reasonable requirements"

If you think that then you haven't understood the consideration. It "hinged "on whether the use of double glazing was an example of inappropriate extension works that could be prejudicial to important historic character.

May I respectfully suggest that you read the determination again?

I don't see why I would want to - my post referenced the consideration. Notwithstanding that, you're taking this topic away from the original point, and the determination that you seem to like does nothing to resolve it.

If you want to take this discussion any further, I suggest that you give a precise definition to the phrase you're relying on, that being "legal status". My assertion is that there is no definition that is valid and correct.

 

[Balenza]

I rest my case.