Sunday, 10 January 2010

New research renews calls for the retention of original sash windows


For the first time in England, scientific evidence is available to counter some of the misconceptions about the energy efficiency of original timber sash windows, a unique feature of England’s built heritage which is under threat and fast disappearing.

English Heritage has released the findings of a study into the thermal performance of traditional sash windows using a 2x2 timber sliding sash window dating which had been rescued from a skip. The results showed that even the simplest repair and basic improvements would bring significant reduction of draughts and heat loss and that using a combination of these methods would upgrade a window to meet Building Regulations targets.

The principal findings are that:
  • simple repairs to mend cracks and eliminate gaps can significantly reduce the amount of air infiltration or draughts. On the window that was tested, air infiltration was reduced by one third;
  • air infiltration through a sash window in good condition can be reduced by as much as 86% by adding draught proofing;
  • heat loss through contact with the glass and frames can be significantly reduced by adopting simple measures like closing thick curtains and plain roller blinds. In the test, heat loss was reduced by 41% and 38% respectively;
  • more elaborate measures reduce heat loss even more and can improve windows to meet modern Building Regulations, which target a U value for windows of 2 or below. In a test with good quality secondary glazing, this value was 1.7. Well-fitted, closed shutters also produce similarly good results. The best result is when the two methods are used together, resulting in a 62% reduction in heat loss and a U-value of 1.6.
The research comes at a time when many public and privately owned historic buildings will be subject to refurbishment and retro-fitting to improve their energy performance in order to meet the Government’s ambitious climate change targets.

Dr Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of English Heritage, said: “It is very encouraging to see that more buildings are being refurbished to meet modern energy requirements, but all too often a drastic and insensitive approach has led to the degradation of our streetscapes. Many original timber sash windows have lasted more than two hundred years and are capable of lasting another century.  This piece of research provides the hard evidence that shows how easy it is to upgrade them and supports our call for their retention.”


Chris Wood, Head of Building Conservation and Research Team at English Heritage, who commissioned the research at Glasgow Caledonian University, said: “There is a lot of misunderstanding about the potential for historic buildings to be brought up to date. We hope this research will herald serious rethinking, and help homeowners and local authorities refurbish historic buildings with the confidence that modern standards can be met without compromising historic character.”

Read the full report.

4 comments:

  1. But, yet again, English Heritage and its supporters have failed to explain exactly why they don't want modern, sympathetically-designed uPVC sash windows used when replacing old timber versions? Considering that well designed uPVC sash windows (NOT mock sash casements) provide a MUCH better energy rating, are more secure, are almost completely maintenance-free, are around 30% cheaper than softwood equivalents and - crucially - are almost completely indistinguishable from timber windows, especially when viewing them from more than a couple of feet away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Most UPVC 'sash' windows aren't well-designed, of course, especially from an aesthetic perspective. Maintenance-free? Well maybe, up to the point where they fail and have to be replaced completely. Wooden sash windows can happily last a couple of centuries, if looked after. PVC ones might last a couple of decades (the salesmen aren't stupid - there's classic capitalist built-in obsolescence here). So you need to look at 'whole-life' energy efficiency and sustainability. On that basis, PVC, which is toxic to produce and toxic to dispose of, scores abysmally compared with wood. Even if the energy rating is better during use (and the point of the EH research is to question that), the 'whole-life' environmental cost of PVC is comparatively sky-high.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Most of what you say would make sense, if it were true. However, as usual, a lot of it is based upon misconception and received wisdom, without any facts to back it up.

    If you're truly interested in this subject and are willing to look at the other side of the debate, then have a look at the Fighting Back With Facts website. I don't expect you to accept everything it says as gospel - after all, it was produced by a member of the uPVC window community. However, there is plenty of independently researched factual information in there which - to my mind - instantly pops the automatic "wood is good, plastic is bad" mentality. At the very least it aims to bring real-world facts into the debate - something which English Heritage and - on the evidence of your last comment - The Georgian Group isn't quite so good at.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also, I completely refute your point about uPVC "sash" windows not being well designed. This is absolutely not the case, and proper uPVC sliding sash windows are almost indistinguishable from timber, especially from more than a couple of feet away (e.g. from the street). That's why so many planning authorities allow uPVC sash windows to be used in heritage areas.

    I think you are talking about mock sash windows, i.e. plastic casement two-pane windows (where typically one or both panes push out). These are completely different to true sash windows, and I agree that they are a very poor substitute.

    You're more than welcome to visit the Roseview website (I work for Roseview) to see examples of uPVC sash windows. The splash photo on the front page should be enough to demonstrate how authentic uPVC sash windows really are.

    ReplyDelete