No.1 by a country mile was the t&g timber ceilings in several areasThat's really interesting. Would you mind detailing what the three top issues in that house were?
I'm guessing things like External doors? Light fixtures? Floors?
Expect to pay in around 5 to 600 to include a comprehensive reportHow much should one of these tests cost?
What equates to 'decent' amount of work. The other options I see are
1. Insulate between the floorboards, though I'd rather just seal holes and use good insulating underlay on ground floor.
2. Insulate the roof space
3. Insulate between the walls / or some form of internal wall insulation.
What sort of reduction in a heating bill would you experience going from 1960s level air "tightness" to a decent standard nowadays, everything else being equal. €5-600 would almost cover our gas bill for a year.Expect to pay in around 5 to 600 to include a comprehensive report
Don't confuse insulation with air-tightness. For suspended timber floors, you would need to lift them insulate and seal all joints and around all edges. After that, look at all the obvious leakage points like external doors and windows, attic hatches, skirting, electrical fittings, switches, and all points where cables or pipes travel through walls or ceilings. Look for any cracks in walls or ceilings. To me, unless you address all of the above, an air-tightness test is a waste of money.
I find the opposite because prior to the test, the owners are unaware to the extent of the leakage rates and the impact these are having on their heat loss. A also find the test itself is a definite "eye opener" and have been told this on a very frequent basis.To me, unless you address all of the above, an air-tightness test is a waste of money.
What sort of reduction in a heating bill would you experience going from 1960s level air "tightness" to a decent standard nowadays, everything else being equal. €5-600 would almost cover our gas bill for a year.
You don't. "hole in wall" vents are proven time and again to be not fit for purpose in any kind of reasonably airtight house (say <5 m3/hr/m2@50). You generally need some form of a properly designed mechanical ventilation system.Here's what I don't understand. You go to this level of detail, and then drill bloody great holes in the walls as vents. What's the point? I understand if you're intending to build to passive house standards, to mechanical ventilation etc. But if not, why bother going beyond sealing floors, doors, windows?
You don't. "hole in wall" vents are proven time and again to be not fit for purpose in any kind of reasonably airtight house (say <5 m3/hr/m2@50). You generally need some form of a properly designed mechanical ventilation system.
In my opinion and given our moderate climate, this is still a major flaw in our building regulations.
It's nearly like asking what sort of cost for a family car there's so much it depends on but anything from 1.5 to 6k I would think.What sort of cost are you looking at for mechanical ventilation? 4 bed, 1800sq ft. Any ideas?
It's nearly like asking what sort of cost for a family car there's so much it depends on but anything from 1.5 to 6k I would think.
For sure. you need to strike a balance but be certain you don't solve one problem and create another especially when it come to moisture control.Thanks. I kind of knew it was a bit of a daft question. Feels like peeling an orange this refurb stuff. Like, you could go with not spending too much on airtightness, or ventilation. But if you go bananas on air tightness then you need to actively solve for ventilation issues that creates. I know the ultimate output of the more expensive approach is far superior...cheaper to run, healthier, more env friendly etc. But if it adds 20k to the price tag, its a fair chunk of change in overall budget.
Here's what I don't understand. You go to this level of detail, and then drill bloody great holes in the walls as vents. What's the point? I understand if you're intending to build to passive house standards, to mechanical ventilation etc. But if not, why bother going beyond sealing floors, doors, windows?
I find the opposite because prior to the test, the owners are unaware to the extent of the leakage rates and the impact these are having on their heat loss. A also find the test itself is a definite "eye opener" and have been told this on a very frequent basis.
To point out the obvious? That's the whole point, it's not obvious to the average person where the real issues are and how to address them. This is what I'm told by clients on a very regular basis. Comments such as "you have completely changed my thinking on where my problems are" are not uncommon.I'd consider charging €5-600 on a test to point out the obvious as veering dangerously towards an exercise in gouging. It would be far better if people were educated on how they can spend less money on fixing a few of the most common issues.
To point out the obvious? That's the whole point, it's not obvious to the average person where the real issues are and how to address them.