Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Insulating the UK’s solid wall housing stock.

That looks fine. I don't think anyone could seriously object to that on aesthetic grounds.

Do you know if your neighbour has done anything to insulate the walls between them and the adjacent houses, which obviously can't be done externally?


I dunno, there's a lot not to like about the house on the left. That weird shadow gap around the window... The windows themselves are smaller (and a bit crap), which is an issue - we get little enough light here as it is. Also fundamentally ditches the brick aesthetic... And y'know, maybe that's something we have to do, but I'm not going to pretend to be happy about.
 
fundamentally ditches the brick aesthetic...
Half the houses in the street are rendered or pebbledashed anyway (including mine).

Also the windows in the street come in various heights. Pretty sure mine are about the same.
 
Half the houses in the street are rendered or pebbledashed anyway (including mine).

Yeah, I'm not much of a fan of that either tbh. I mean I would quite happily demolish a whole bunch of nice (looking) old housing and rebuild... I'm not fundamentally against changing the character of an area, and we could make housing stock one fuck of a lot better. But it would be vastly expensive both in cost and energy I think. And badly done of course, this being here.

And those windows are shit regardless, but that's him.
 
He did it himself. He's also layed a far too heavy front garden path that causes a dip in the (tarmac) pavement leaving an almost permanent puddle over a third of it so not surprised to hear it's a bit of a botch job.
You see these same shortcuts on professionally installed external insulation. It's hard to quantify just how much they compromise the overall effectiveness of the insulation but my feeling is that the money would often have been better spent elsewhere.
 
I dunno, there's a lot not to like about the house on the left. That weird shadow gap around the window... The windows themselves are smaller (and a bit crap), which is an issue - we get little enough light here as it is. Also fundamentally ditches the brick aesthetic... And y'know, maybe that's something we have to do, but I'm not going to pretend to be happy about.
To me, this is an argument for it being done collectively, to achieve proper standards and a common aesthetic rather than piecemeal by individual property owners or occupiers, not an argument for not doing it all (I realise you're not arguing for not doing it at all).
 
To me, this is an argument for it being done collectively, to achieve proper standards and a common aesthetic rather than piecemeal by individual property owners or occupiers, not an argument for not doing it all (I realise you're not arguing for not doing it at all).

It is kind of, yeah. With construction as it is it would be a total shit show though. But that probably applies to any solution.
 
I'm sure I read somewhere on urban about it being cost effective and more efficient to externally insulate entire terraces of houses
 
One reason that I don't think we should be ploughing ahead and defacing all of our older housing stock's front facades is that there may well come a technological solution that allows us to use much thinner insulation than we need now. There already exists aerogel, which is currently pretty expensive but this may change.
Another point in favour of waiting for new materials is that Kingspan/Celotex, which I believe is the standard material, is foul stuff that will probably pollute our environment until the end of time.
 
Another point in favour of waiting for new materials is that Kingspan/Celotex, which I believe is the standard material, is foul stuff that will probably pollute our environment until the end of time.
Possibly although the standard argument is that the reduction in pollution due to the energy efficiencies they allow outweighs this.

External insulation is often polystyrene which is a different material, but has its own problems. You can also do external insulation with wood fibre but then it has to be thicker.
 
teuchter Do you think things like brick slips (I'm not sure I'm using the right terminology) instead of simple render over external insulation is a viable alternative to maintain a varied or more traditional street scene?
 
teuchter Do you think things like brick slips (I'm not sure I'm using the right terminology) instead of simple render over external insulation is a viable alternative to maintain a varied or more traditional street scene?
yes they are an option - and I think there might be a good argument for using them instead of render on the basis that they will weather better - but if the aim is to recreate an attractive 150 year old facade you are not going to do it with brick slips. The bricks will not look the same, it'll not be practical to replicate decorative details and adding thickness to a facade has lots of knock on effects to other details, such as at roof eaves. If the aim is to preserve historic facades (and of course some people just don't think this is a worthy aim in the first place) then I would not see replicating with brick slips as a way of achieving it.

There are other options too, once you are considering alternatives to render. For example you can externally insulate and then do a skin of, say, tile hanging, on top of it. There might be cases where I'd say doing something like that would create a better end result than render. But that would be after having made the decision that the original facade appearance is not worth trying to keep.

And as WouldBe says, render is generally the cheapest solution - which is why you see it most often.
 
I would say also, that it's not really arguments about aesthetics that are holding up the process of improving the energy efficiency of older housing stock. It's actually pretty hard for anyone to find a reliable route to getting an existing house improved. Some reasons for that
  • there is actually quite a lot of technical stuff (related to potential issues caused by insulating old buildings) that's not well understood, which means that even if you are quite well read on the subject, there are areas where it's difficult to say definitively what the best approach is, or assess the risk of problems developing.
  • because the best solution to each house tends to be somewhat bespoke, it can be quite expensive getting advice from someone who actually wants to do the job properly - they need to look at things thoroughly and not just follow a tick-box excercise.
  • a lot of the government incentive schemes don't encourage doing things properly at all, in fact they just encourage "quick fix" approaches where stuff is not really installed properly and ends up performing way worse than it should in theory
  • there are lots of companies out there who take advantage of these schemes, or general ignorance, and give people bad advice or sell them things that don't work as they should, or where the money probably would have been better spent elsewhere
  • the building industry itself is very slow in changing its habits, meaning that lots of 'easy wins' are wasted where just doing stuff a bit better (or slightly differently) would actually make a meaningful difference - this applies to newbuild too where insulation is simply not installed properly, so it doesn't perform as it should. There is not a lot of incentive for builders to "buy in" to the principles of energy efficient design because much of it is invisible in the finished product and they are always under intense time pressure to do things quickly and therefore cheaply.
  • although insulation is part of our building regulations, it (in my observation) is not something that building inspectors actually pay a lot of attention to enforcing, so again, there is not much incentive for builders to do stuff well.

Quite a lot of this was made explicit at Grenfell - which after all was an external insulation scheme. Of course the main issue there was fire safety but the enquiry has made it pretty clear the very low standard of workmanship, quality control, checking, building regs enforcement and so on that prevails in the building industry in this country. I find it a bit frustrating that much of the coverage of Grenfell enquiry is aimed at finding individuals to blame, or identifiying specific companies as villains. But the bigger picture it's revealing is the general culture in the building industry of just generally dong things badly. How you change that is of course not easy. But really it's that culture that is a major part of why we are failing to get our older housing stock upgraded.

These failures are present at design stages as well as construction stages, by the way.

So, I feel that arguing about aesthetics vs energy efficiency is a bit of a distraction. Firstly, that attractive brickwork might just end up getting covered with an installation that is half-baked and doesn't perform as it should. Secondly, there are all sorts of other aspects of the house that could be improved first, and maybe work is being done to them, but again it's not being done properly and lots of opportunity is being wasted. It would be more useful to focus attention on doing these things well.

There's a summary of what's called the "performance gap" here. Some of the findings from measuring as-built performance are truly terrible.

 
Last edited:
Much of UK housing consists of solid wall Victorian terraces and 1930s semis. The vast majority of these will be heated by gas boilers, and replacing these with electric heating is not viable as it stands. If air source heat pumps or whatever are the solution, then all these houses need to have their walls insulated.

External insulation is about six inches thick and costs around 20K. Where houses face directly on to narrow pavements this would require some wayleave or transfer of property rights to expand onto the pavements. The alternative is internal insulation which reduces the size of rooms and is less efficient.

The only alternatives to actually doing this would be replacing natural gas with cheap green hydrogen allowing similar boilers to be used, or making electricity for heating cheap enough that people on low incomes would be able to use it to heat these properties without insulating them.

So the question is how should a program of insulation be funded, and how is it going to be achievable in a realistic timescale given how shit the smart meter rollout has been and how tight the workforce is at the moment.
Livingston New Town, the houses are built with no fines concrete. Cheap and quick to build, but with zero insulation.
 
Another point in favour of waiting for new materials is that Kingspan/Celotex, which I believe is the standard material, is foul stuff that will probably pollute our environment until the end of time.

Possibly although the standard argument is that the reduction in pollution due to the energy efficiencies they allow outweighs this.

External insulation is often polystyrene which is a different material, but has its own problems. You can also do external insulation with wood fibre but then it has to be thicker.

Does anyone know what the fire risks are with these kinds of external insulation? Are Grenfell type inflammable materials still being used on low rise buildings?
 
Does anyone know what the fire risks are with these kinds of external insulation? Are Grenfell type inflammable materials still being used on low rise buildings?
Yes, rightly or wrongly it's not considered to be a major issue as long as fire engine ladders can reach the windows. But also if it is a rendered finish that is a fire-proof covering so I think it's unlikely to be a problem - Grenfell had both flammable insulation and flammable panels over the top.
 
Does anyone know what the fire risks are with these kinds of external insulation? Are Grenfell type inflammable materials still being used on low rise buildings?
Yes, but the fire risk depends on how they are installed. At Grenfell it was installed with an air cavity in front of it which became very significant in how the fire spread. Plus it had what turned out to be flammable cladding in front of that. In the standard external insulation with render build-up, there's no air gap so no easy route for fire to get in. The render would have to physically fall off before the insulation could really catch fire. I expect that would happen eventually in a serious fire but not with the speed seen at Grenfell and by that point you'd need to have everyone out of the building anyway.
 
You can use brick slips but it costs a lot more than plain render. :(
This is a place down the road from where I used to live in Leeds that was done with brick slips. As an end terrace I guess it got pretty cold previously. Doesn’t look that great tbh, mortar and brick colour are a poor match.

A78C1B7F-4326-4038-9BA9-115AC735229F.jpeg
 
This is the quality of "insulation" going in to a 5* hotel in London. Despite my best efforts to get a good result out of the contractor on site, no better could be achieved. I could do better myself and I've built a single brick wall in my life. Abysmal.

shitbricks.jpg


shitbricks2.jpg

As far as I can tell, the only way to get a reliable insulation job out of the UK construction industry is either a) prefabricate the whole facade in a factory beforehand (which is what we're doing on the next job) or b) encase the entire building in 6" of expanding foam and then hack out a hole for the fornt door.
 
Yuk, but I guess it is probably driven by price. It was already expensive to do so they got cheaper brick slips rather than better matching ones. Of course you can't quite match hundred year old weathered brick anyway, but you could get closer than that for sure.

(In reply to Dogsauce btw)
 
My last place was from a similar era (1904 but to a Victorian design typical of 1890s onwards) and I just stuck kingspan and multifoil insulation everywhere when renovating the place, all sealed up with foil tape. It did help in the rooms I treated. The multifoil stuff only added about 2-3cm thickness to the walls (thin battens one way, screwed into carved channels in the plaster where I hadn’t completely removed plaster then multifoil ‘quilt’ then battens nailed on the other way to hold in place, then plasterboard with skim. Floors and stud walls were filled up with mineral wool.

Our current place is about 100 years older with walls around 6-700 thick and quite a bit of it underground. Listed to fuck so difficult to do much other than add discrete and expensive secondary glazing, but it’s actually pretty warm as it is. There’s a more modern one-room extension on the back (1870s) which is standard thickness solid walls, and we’re planning to use something called aerogel board on that when renovating it, as we have to have something very thin there or it will block a door coming into the room. Waiting for planning approval on that ine…
 
Yuk, but I guess it is probably driven by price. It was already expensive to do so they got cheaper brick slips rather than better matching ones. Of course you can't quite match hundred year old weathered brick anyway, but you could get closer than that for sure.

(In reply to Dogsauce btw)
Houses like that one aren’t much more than a hundred grand round there, so there’s a limit to how much value you can add with work like this, I suspect a labour of love rather than a considered financial investment (a bit like my fifteen grand bathroom in a similar place).
 
Not dissimilar to Crispy's photo, this is from something I'm involved with at the moment.

Screenshot 2021-09-27 at 12.58.09.jpg

At the bottom is some flimsy polystyrene insulation boshed in at an angle as part of an original 90s build. Above that is a bit of new wall with what the contractor puts in by default to meet building regs now. Some rigid insulation in there would provide better insulation, but would be more expensive and slower to build. The only way to change it now would be to rebuild that section of wall. Why didn't the contractor ask what to put in that cavity before going ahead with it? Because most people don't care and wouldn't know the difference anyway. I will try and persuade the owners of the house that it's worth putting some insulated plasterboard on the inside of the blockwork to improve the performance of this bit of wall... which will sit next to some triple glazed windows they have invested in. The effectiveness of the triple glazed windows will depend partly on how exactly they are installed relative to the insulation layer. It's yet to be seen whether the window company will propose good details for this, or whether I will need to try and argue for some changes, which they will regard as fussy, and then blame me for any difficulties that result from them installing the windows in a way which is focused on getting the best performance out of them, instead of the way that is quickest and easiest for them.

And that's what pretty much every step of a build that involves insulation is like (especially when you're dealing with domestic stuff and small builders), a fight over details that almost everyone on site regards as pointless and fussy and just causing them hassle.
 
My dad was a lecturer in building services who specialised in low/zero carbon tech.
I'm pretty sure his doctorate was on this issue. From what I remember the same issue came up.
The technology to do this is all over the place and even if you get the tech right there aren't enough people who understand the tech to properly install it. Not at the level and rate we need.
 
The effectiveness of the triple glazed windows will depend partly on how exactly they are installed relative to the insulation layer. It's yet to be seen whether the window company will propose good details for this, or whether I will need to try and argue for some changes, which they will regard as fussy, and then blame me for any difficulties that result from them installing the windows in a way which is focused on getting the best performance out of them, instead of the way that is quickest and easiest for them.
Yeah we got some new windows put in recently and the installing company insisted they could only install on the outer wall of the cavity wall. That's what they always do and they weren't prepared to consider doing anything else, even though the original windows of the house are placed across the cavity. Seems to me their way basically creates a quite uninsulated edging to the window. Not that I'm convinced the originals are well insulated either, as I don't think the cavity wall insulation comes snugly up to the window frames. I'm guessing that both of these issues are normal and contractors don't care.
 
Yeah we got some new windows put in recently and the installing company insisted they could only install on the outer wall of the cavity wall. That's what they always do and they weren't prepared to consider doing anything else, even though the original windows of the house are placed across the cavity. Seems to me their way basically creates a quite uninsulated edging to the window. Not that I'm convinced the originals are well insulated either, as I don't think the cavity wall insulation comes snugly up to the window frames. I'm guessing that both of these issues are normal and contractors don't care.
yes it means the outer leaf of the wall makes a cold bridge around the perimeter of the window and aside from losing heat it's a good way of encouraging condensation to gather there. It's easier to install like that because you just put screws straight through the frames and into the masonry. But the windows should be at least partly overlapping with the cavity insulation and there should be insulated cavity closers all around the opening. Normally you use metal lugs or fixing brackets to allow you to fix the window in a location that's offset from the masonry. It's not very complicated to do, but if you haven't bought in to the idea that it matters, then it just seems like an annoying extra step, and another component to remember to order before doing the job.
 
Yes, but the fire risk depends on how they are installed. At Grenfell it was installed with an air cavity in front of it which became very significant in how the fire spread. Plus it had what turned out to be flammable cladding in front of that. In the standard external insulation with render build-up, there's no air gap so no easy route for fire to get in. The render would have to physically fall off before the insulation could really catch fire. I expect that would happen eventually in a serious fire but not with the speed seen at Grenfell and by that point you'd need to have everyone out of the building anyway.

There was a house fire in an externally insulated house that I can see from my computer room window. The external insulation was not damaged at all, never mind caught fire. I should imagine that the solid concrete wall didn't heat up enough on the inside. The fire brigade were there within six minutes of being called.
 
I've got an 1850s rab (stone/clay/stone) house with 2-ft thickish walls which even though in Cornwall was bitter in winter when I got here. The rooms were too small for baton-type insulation so I've put up insulating wallpaper. Only cost a couple of hundred quid and relatively easy to do once you've got the hang of it.

Fair amount of wool loft insulation plus secondary glazing (only a couple of houses with wood sash windows left in the road) using magnetic strips. Again pretty cheap although getting the measurements right was hard because all the windows are different sizes and a bit wonky.

Not sure how effective objectively but it's certainly taken the chill off. Conservatory warms the rest of the house up for most of the time, with wood-fired Rayburn heating for four-five months in winter and a 1-kW electrical fan heater upstairs when it's particularly cold.

Certainly wouldn't be good enough for a lot of people who seem to like 20 C all year round but I grew up in uninsulated house with coal fire, and get a headache in proper centrally heated houses anyway
 
Back
Top Bottom