Monty Gerhardy

@Kevin 123 wrote:

In twenty years…. all a quality pvc window will need is an occasional cleaning.

Some of my postings may have been slightly tongue in cheek but this makes a Shinner pontificating on Irish neutrality sound persuasive.
Wooden windows are “idealistic”? Stained softwood six stories up may be optimistic but idealistic?
Firstly security: I know of at least two timber window systems readily available in Ireland that have a Secure by Design licence requiring testing to BS7950. Timber doors with PAS 23 & 24 ratings. Likewise timber AOV’s tested to BS 476-22.
Most modern timber windows have a ‘flush joint’ sash rather then the ‘covered joint’ sash of prevalent in plastic windows. The flush joint is inherently harder to pry open.
Insulation: The best plastic windows have poorer U-values then the best timber windows. (Admittedly 28mm glazing – and associated convection heat transfer – isn’t going to help your case either but then again the traditional upvc marketing spiel was “don’t worry about the mechanical joints, just feel my cavity width….”). Timber windows with a U value of 1.0 are available!
Maintenance: Go back to the beginning of the thread and see the link to the LCA from Mohammad Asif et al at Napier for interesting data on the useful service life of plastic windows. Likewise similar data published by Islington Council last year (https://www.islington.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=2345)
also gives a circa 25 year useful service life for plastic windows. The report goes on to state; “based on the experience of maintenance needs with existing housing stock, Camden Council estimate a life expectancy of 60 years” for timber windows.

One of the few times I would regard timber windows as impractical is when windows can’t be reached from a cherry picker – in these situations give serious consideration to alu-clad timber. None of those stained finishes has a warranty worth the name and opaque finishes will most likely need refinishing after 7/8 years.

If you want to take this discussion into embodied energy content, end of life disposal and environmental impact etc, be my guest. I would contend this aspect of fenestration is even more important given future energy usage and associated factors. That’s when the idealism comes into it and increasingly, realism.

Is mise le meas,

Monty

@ctesiphon wrote:

There was a book published in the late 1990s on the history of Irish windows, called ‘The legacy of light’, written by Nessa Roche.

That was basically a coffee-table guide to Irish Georgian fenestration. To the best of my recollection the history stopped abruptly with Bauhaus which was covered in a couple of sentences.

The conservation dept. at Durham (I think) County Council provide a very good booklet on traditional window styles in that part of the world, much of which is relevant to this country. Unfortunately I lent my copy out and never got it back so I can’t tell you the exact title but I think it cost less then ten quid including postage.

Is mise le meas,
Monty

@Thomond Park wrote:

The use of the word any is very clear and its intention could not be clearer

Therein lies the nub of the problem.
This thread has had three considered opinions that the windows in Wynns look rather good. If you mention double-glazing to the conservation office at DCC they would have a shit-haemorrhage yet section 84 para. 2a calls for “ the promotion of a high standard of civic amenity and civic design” and para 2c “renewal ….upgrading of shop frontages” .

FWIW I think the plastic parting bead beads on the windows at Farmleigh are far more visually obtrusive then the windows at Wynns.

Is mise le meas,
Monty

@Graham Hickey wrote:

So is it just up to the opinions of the building inspector signing off works or planner inspecting planning permissions for both new and existing buildings – i.e. their interpretations of the guidelines?
It’s up to them to decide if they’ll allow something or not as there is little laid down in stone in regulations?

I wouldn’t expect a planning officer to provide an opinion on this. The architect or other competent person who sign-off on the building being compliant should bear that responsibility.
The guidance is open to interpretation but the intent is absolutely clear. If you are not going to err on the side of caution then you had better have a very good reason why not. Aesthetic considerations wouldn’t impress in a coroners court.

Is mise le meas,
Monty

@Devin wrote:

I checked out the Wynn’s windows myself too since Monty mentioned them….was reasonably impressed, although as with all double-glazed multi-pane sashes, the glazing bars skim over the surface of the glass, resulting in a slightly fake look. But at least they have copied the V-shaped sectional profile on the outside, formed by the putty in a traditional sash.

Its certainly possible to get double-glazed multi-pane sashes with individual insulated glass units but its not recommended. The problem is that such units require very ‘heavy’ glazing bars to support the weight of glass and to meet modern performance standards for wind-loading – the frame is not allowed to deflect more then 1/175 of its length. Generally the resultant glazing bar is so wide it looks shite. Anything that doesn’t look shite almost certainly hasn’t been performance tested. Single glazing has less stringent requirements and so facilitates thinner glazing bars. A minefield indeed.

At least the Wynns windows have dispensed with the superfluous spacer bar between the glazing bars. This is only noticeable when viewed at a very acute angle.

Is mise le meas,
Monty

@Graham Hickey wrote:

You say Monty that “a defensible case could be made for replacing like with like” – is this your opinion or is it the actual legislation? Thanks

Its my opinion and I would like to make clear that I was talking about a specific type of window – the vertical slider. A like for like replacement of the top-hung casements in the photos would not be defensible.
The only legislation is Part B1 of the second schedule to the Building Regulations 1997;
“A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building, capable of being safely and effectively used.” Everything else in the Technical Guidance Document is what is says on the label, guidance.

In the case of existing buildings TGD B states; “In the case of material alterations or changes of use of existing buildings, the adoption of the guidance in this document without modification may not, in all circumstances, be appropriate. In particular, the adherence to guidance including codes, standards or technical specifications, intended for application to new work may be unduly restrictive or impracticable. Buildings of architectural or historical interest are especially likely to give rise to such circumstances. In these situations, alternative approaches based on the principles contained in the document may be more relevant and should be considered.”

In addition to the previously mentioned general safety requirement there is also the precautionary principle to consider, “Where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, or injury to human health, adequate protective measures must be taken without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent.”

Although the guidance provides for alternative approaches it is obvious that these should be based on fundamental fire engineering principles. Anything less then that then the person responsible for installing the window would have problems in the event of a fire related fatality.

I’ll make some enquiries and see what I can come up with. There was certainly one case going through the courts here last year that would have been pertinent.

Is mise le meas,
Monty

Some very entertaining opinions there folks.

As somebody ‘in the window industry’ I’m not quite sure where to start. It would be tempting to elaborate on the cutting edge strategies for replacement window companies in the UK – that is positioning windows as home décor and encouraging an 8-9 year lifespan – but I think that would cause even further grinding of teeth.

Looking on the bright side though, after viewing the pictures that have been posted – and what a gallery of shame it is – I would be of the opinion that many of the replacement windows illustrated are likely to be illegal.

The 2002 revision of TGD L specifically brought replacement windows under the auspices of the Building Regulations. In the documents guidance for technical risks and precautions it is stated that “the guidance in relation to fire safety in TGD B should be taken fully into account. In particular, it is important to ensure that windows, which are required as secondary means of escape in accordance with Section 1.5 of TGD B, comply with the dimensional and other requirements for such windows as set out in paragraph 1.5.6. of TGD B.”

Turning to TGD B para. 1.5.6b – “The bottom of the window opening should be not more than 1100mm and not less than 800mm (600 mm in the case of a rooflight) above the floor of the room in which it is situated.”

The bottom of the top-hung casements in the photographs look to my eye to be more than 1100mm above floor level and would struggle to provide an acceptable egress opening even if they were at a usable level . The windows with the opening vent in the position of the lower sash would appear to struggle to have a net clear opening of 450mm in height which I would take as the absolute minimum height for an egress opening.

Given that each habitable room has to have an alternative means of escape and this is more often then not the window then you can appreciate the issue at stake.

Anything installed prior to 2002, or in commercial premises, would fall under general consumer protection legislation or Workplace (health and safety) Regulations 1992-Regulation 14. The following references here are to specific UK legislation but I believe we have something very similar;
Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 provides (amongst other things) that it is an offence to supply goods which fail to comply with the general safety requirement. In determining whether goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement, courts can have regard to various references, including British Standards, and can do so irrespective of whether those standards have been incorporated in safety regulations.
General Product Safety Regulations 1994 (GPSR). Where products are supplied for domestic use they must comply with the ‘general Safety Requirement’ of the above Regulations, which require consumer products to be reasonably safe. Again this may be achieved by conforming with BS6262: Part 4 with reference to the approved Document N of the Building Regulations 1991.
In the light of these two pieces of consumer legislation, for all practical purposes BS6262: Part 4, although nominally a code for recommended good practice, can be regarded as a legal requirement for any glass sold directly to the general public for use in critical locations.

Although the example refers to safety glass the principle applies equally to fire-safety. No glazier in his right mind would install non-safety glass to a critical location. Likewise nobody in their right mind should be installing a window at variance with the requirements set out in TGD B.

If such installations are brought to the attention of the local building control office then they would be extremely foolish to ignore the situation.

I saw mention of ACA’s being a partial solution. If the O’Connell St ACA is anything to go by I’d have me doubts. I have been observing one prominent façade having the original (post 1916) sash-windows replaced over the course of the last year and double-glazed windows installed. I’d be very surprised if anybody in Wood Quay new anything about it.
As to the suggestion of making the reinstatement of windows a planning condition I think the fenestration debacle of the ‘renovated’ St Columba’s hospital in Sligo is an example of how seriously this is taken. To the best of my knowledge it was Freddie O’Dwyer of all people who provided the Duchas input on this project. (I would commend Westport and its activist planning dept as a notable example of how successful this strategy can be).

I would be in favour of zero VAT to encourage the take up of energy efficient windows in general – there are ratings schemes available. Furthermore I would also recommend tax credits for suitable replacement windows in designated locations. The stick of enforcement should also come with a few carrots.

Is mise le meas,

Monty