Sleepless nights after dozens of birds move in beneath roof solar panels in Chingford home.

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Stephen Fishenden's bedroom is directly underneath nesting pigeons Stephen Fishenden's bedroom is directly underneath nesting pigeons

A couple said they have endured 12 months of sleepless nights and deteriorating health due to dozens of noisy pigeons setting up home beneath solar panels on their roof.

Stephen Fishenden and wife Linda, 65, of Wittenham Way in Chingford, say they have lived through “hell” since the birds began to seek shelter beneath the energy-saving panels, which were fitted by a contractor working for council homes manager Ascham Homes.

Mr Fishenden first complained to Ascham Homes in March last year about the “horrendous” noise keeping them awake at night and his wife’s deteriorating health.

The 65 year-old said: "I specifically asked at the time if we would have any problems with birds and was reassured they would not be a problem.

"It has been hell and has made my wife ill. She’s asthmatic and is having to use her pump more regularly.

"We are both constantly awake and have had hundreds of sleepless nights. It is particularly horrendous in the morning."

Following further complaints, the couple said a contractor visited the property in late November and told them he would provide a quote for the scaffold tower, but never returned.

A spokeswoman for Ascham Homes has apologised for the delay and blamed the weather.

She said: "Mr Fishenden contacted Ascham Homes at the end of March last year about the issue with pigeons nesting under the solar panels at his property.

"One of our contractors visited the property shortly afterwards to inspect and recommend the appropriate bird-proofing measures.

"The costs to access the roof with scaffolding in order to carry out the works have been approved by Ascham Homes.

"We do apologise for the delayed completion of this work, it is scheduled to be carried out as a priority as soon as the weather becomes drier, and the contractors are able to access the roof safely."

Mr Fishenden described the response is a "complete fabrication", insisting the contractor did not visit the property until nine months later.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:34pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

If they have just taken over, it may be a coo?
If they have just taken over, it may be a coo? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -20

8:05am Thu 20 Feb 14

TTMAN says...

So no roofing work is carried out this time of year due to it being winter?
So no roofing work is carried out this time of year due to it being winter? TTMAN
  • Score: 5

10:36am Thu 20 Feb 14

mdj says...

'The costs to access the roof with scaffolding in order to carry out the works have been approved by Ascham Homes'

There are a thousand roofs with similar systems in this borough, paid for by this council with £7 million borrowed over 25 years. This retrofit, which is to rectify a design flaw that the supplier should pay for, makes even more nonsense of the economics of what is simply a green PR gimmick.

But it's only our money, so why should Ascham Homes get out of bed to sue the supplier?

If these panels produce the energy promised, they will just about pay the interest on the loan, leaving the debt untouched. Except that the benefit will go to the lucky tenant whose roof faces south, not the people paying the loan - that's us, dear reader!

A small part of the same sum spent on insulating this elderly housing stock would save far more carbon emissions than the power yet to be generated from panels that may well not last the promised time.
'The costs to access the roof with scaffolding in order to carry out the works have been approved by Ascham Homes' There are a thousand roofs with similar systems in this borough, paid for by this council with £7 million borrowed over 25 years. This retrofit, which is to rectify a design flaw that the supplier should pay for, makes even more nonsense of the economics of what is simply a green PR gimmick. But it's only our money, so why should Ascham Homes get out of bed to sue the supplier? If these panels produce the energy promised, they will just about pay the interest on the loan, leaving the debt untouched. Except that the benefit will go to the lucky tenant whose roof faces south, not the people paying the loan - that's us, dear reader! A small part of the same sum spent on insulating this elderly housing stock would save far more carbon emissions than the power yet to be generated from panels that may well not last the promised time. mdj
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Thu 20 Feb 14

mdj says...

I'd be interested to see explanations for the negative comments.
I'd be interested to see explanations for the negative comments. mdj
  • Score: 1

8:22pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Mdj. I have no issue with your criticism of the incompetence of the forever incompetent Ascham homes but to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement particularly in light of the recent weather patterns. So I see no way to vote up and down so I'll continue to treat the up vote/down vote controls as having the usefulness of an ashtray on a motorbike.

For a balanced analysis of the pros and cons of investing in solar panels versus insulation benefits this article is a good read.
http://www.greenbuil
dingadvisor.com/blog
s/dept/musings/energ
y-efficiency-retrofi
ts-insulation-or-sol
ar-power

Ignore the carbon costs. The cost of non-renewables is only heading in one direction and it isn't down!
Mdj. I have no issue with your criticism of the incompetence of the forever incompetent Ascham homes but to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement particularly in light of the recent weather patterns. So I see no way to vote up and down so I'll continue to treat the up vote/down vote controls as having the usefulness of an ashtray on a motorbike. For a balanced analysis of the pros and cons of investing in solar panels versus insulation benefits this article is a good read. http://www.greenbuil dingadvisor.com/blog s/dept/musings/energ y-efficiency-retrofi ts-insulation-or-sol ar-power Ignore the carbon costs. The cost of non-renewables is only heading in one direction and it isn't down! Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

TTMAN wrote:
So no roofing work is carried out this time of year due to it being winter?
Show me a roofer working on a roof in the rain and I will eat my trilby.
[quote][p][bold]TTMAN[/bold] wrote: So no roofing work is carried out this time of year due to it being winter?[/p][/quote]Show me a roofer working on a roof in the rain and I will eat my trilby. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -8

10:36pm Thu 20 Feb 14

mdj says...

' to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement ..'

...Which is why I didn't. I was criticising the council, with typical incompetence, ruining the whole idea in the minds of uncommitted people by choosing a scheme that will waste money hand over fist, that as we can see here was poorly designed, and will deliver much poorer value for money than a coherent programme of insulation.
Simply waiting three years until panels halve in price would deliver a better result.
And fixing new kit on an old roof is plain idiocy that no responsible surveyor would recommend.

If the question were asked ,'How could we best spend £7000 of borrowed money on a house to minimise its energy demand?', this would be about the last answer on the list.

A PR gimmick is a PR gimmick: the fact that it's a greenwash gimmick too doesn't change that.
To label something 'green' isn't a permit to switch off one's brain and buy whatever the salesman shows us, especially when spending other peoples' money.
' to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement ..' ...Which is why I didn't. I was criticising the council, with typical incompetence, ruining the whole idea in the minds of uncommitted people by choosing a scheme that will waste money hand over fist, that as we can see here was poorly designed, and will deliver much poorer value for money than a coherent programme of insulation. Simply waiting three years until panels halve in price would deliver a better result. And fixing new kit on an old roof is plain idiocy that no responsible surveyor would recommend. If the question were asked ,'How could we best spend £7000 of borrowed money on a house to minimise its energy demand?', this would be about the last answer on the list. A PR gimmick is a PR gimmick: the fact that it's a greenwash gimmick too doesn't change that. To label something 'green' isn't a permit to switch off one's brain and buy whatever the salesman shows us, especially when spending other peoples' money. mdj
  • Score: 2

10:46pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

mdj wrote:
' to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement ..'

...Which is why I didn't. I was criticising the council, with typical incompetence, ruining the whole idea in the minds of uncommitted people by choosing a scheme that will waste money hand over fist, that as we can see here was poorly designed, and will deliver much poorer value for money than a coherent programme of insulation.
Simply waiting three years until panels halve in price would deliver a better result.
And fixing new kit on an old roof is plain idiocy that no responsible surveyor would recommend.

If the question were asked ,'How could we best spend £7000 of borrowed money on a house to minimise its energy demand?', this would be about the last answer on the list.

A PR gimmick is a PR gimmick: the fact that it's a greenwash gimmick too doesn't change that.
To label something 'green' isn't a permit to switch off one's brain and buy whatever the salesman shows us, especially when spending other peoples' money.
Al 1976 has probably bought some solar panels and is trying to justify his extravagance. At least he will dave 76 pence after 30 years and put his savings towards a packet of crisps.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement ..' ...Which is why I didn't. I was criticising the council, with typical incompetence, ruining the whole idea in the minds of uncommitted people by choosing a scheme that will waste money hand over fist, that as we can see here was poorly designed, and will deliver much poorer value for money than a coherent programme of insulation. Simply waiting three years until panels halve in price would deliver a better result. And fixing new kit on an old roof is plain idiocy that no responsible surveyor would recommend. If the question were asked ,'How could we best spend £7000 of borrowed money on a house to minimise its energy demand?', this would be about the last answer on the list. A PR gimmick is a PR gimmick: the fact that it's a greenwash gimmick too doesn't change that. To label something 'green' isn't a permit to switch off one's brain and buy whatever the salesman shows us, especially when spending other peoples' money.[/p][/quote]Al 1976 has probably bought some solar panels and is trying to justify his extravagance. At least he will dave 76 pence after 30 years and put his savings towards a packet of crisps. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -13

10:49pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

At least the pigeons will be warm in Winter Al?
At least the pigeons will be warm in Winter Al? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -13

7:19am Fri 21 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
mdj wrote:
' to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement ..'

...Which is why I didn't. I was criticising the council, with typical incompetence, ruining the whole idea in the minds of uncommitted people by choosing a scheme that will waste money hand over fist, that as we can see here was poorly designed, and will deliver much poorer value for money than a coherent programme of insulation.
Simply waiting three years until panels halve in price would deliver a better result.
And fixing new kit on an old roof is plain idiocy that no responsible surveyor would recommend.

If the question were asked ,'How could we best spend £7000 of borrowed money on a house to minimise its energy demand?', this would be about the last answer on the list.

A PR gimmick is a PR gimmick: the fact that it's a greenwash gimmick too doesn't change that.
To label something 'green' isn't a permit to switch off one's brain and buy whatever the salesman shows us, especially when spending other peoples' money.
Al 1976 has probably bought some solar panels and is trying to justify his extravagance. At least he will dave 76 pence after 30 years and put his savings towards a packet of crisps.
Mdj,

Where I think your argument is overly simplistic is to write off solar panels (which not having a south facing roof I don't own) as not making economic sense. As per the article I provided previously describing them as losing money hand over fist is unfair.

You compare a poorly installed feature against a coherently installed one and say the other solution would be better. That is a straw man argument. A poorly installed item will be worse, but it will also be worse than a coherently installed set of solar panels and those would not necessarily be worse value than a set of insulation and the benefits of providing an alternative method of supply than nonrenewables are wider.

Cornbeefur pkease try and find somewhere else to play.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' to dismiss solar panel fittings as a green gimmick is a curious statement ..' ...Which is why I didn't. I was criticising the council, with typical incompetence, ruining the whole idea in the minds of uncommitted people by choosing a scheme that will waste money hand over fist, that as we can see here was poorly designed, and will deliver much poorer value for money than a coherent programme of insulation. Simply waiting three years until panels halve in price would deliver a better result. And fixing new kit on an old roof is plain idiocy that no responsible surveyor would recommend. If the question were asked ,'How could we best spend £7000 of borrowed money on a house to minimise its energy demand?', this would be about the last answer on the list. A PR gimmick is a PR gimmick: the fact that it's a greenwash gimmick too doesn't change that. To label something 'green' isn't a permit to switch off one's brain and buy whatever the salesman shows us, especially when spending other peoples' money.[/p][/quote]Al 1976 has probably bought some solar panels and is trying to justify his extravagance. At least he will dave 76 pence after 30 years and put his savings towards a packet of crisps.[/p][/quote]Mdj, Where I think your argument is overly simplistic is to write off solar panels (which not having a south facing roof I don't own) as not making economic sense. As per the article I provided previously describing them as losing money hand over fist is unfair. You compare a poorly installed feature against a coherently installed one and say the other solution would be better. That is a straw man argument. A poorly installed item will be worse, but it will also be worse than a coherently installed set of solar panels and those would not necessarily be worse value than a set of insulation and the benefits of providing an alternative method of supply than nonrenewables are wider. Cornbeefur pkease try and find somewhere else to play. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

9:48am Fri 21 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

E.g. http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/news/11
026579.Solar_panels_
could_save_council_c
ash/
Hopefully they'll make a better fist of it
E.g. http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 026579.Solar_panels_ could_save_council_c ash/ Hopefully they'll make a better fist of it Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

10:33am Fri 21 Feb 14

mdj says...

'Where I think your argument is overly simplistic is to write off solar panels..'

Again, Alan, I didn't .
This scheme, judged on its merits, is a waste of money. Other schemes - very few so far - are not. Anything that depends on a subsidy that may be abolished at any time is poor economics, and incentivises inefficient actions, as shown here.

We will never be at a stage where generating new energy - however 'green' in reality or hype - is a better use of money than deflecting the need for it by more efficient usage of what we have. The speediest way to get rid of dirty energy production is to remove the demand for it.

It's very clear that the roof in the pictures will need extensive repair before the 25 years are up. Is it even insulated up to current standards? The cost of removing these panels and putting them back - assuming they survive the experience - will outweigh several years of benefit.
Solar panels get cheaper year on year. In about five years the economics will look very different, I'm sure.
Work out what 25 years interest on £7 million comes to, and set it against the supposed 'free' energy. You definitely wouldn't spend your own money on such terms!
'Where I think your argument is overly simplistic is to write off solar panels..' Again, Alan, I didn't . This scheme, judged on its merits, is a waste of money. Other schemes - very few so far - are not. Anything that depends on a subsidy that may be abolished at any time is poor economics, and incentivises inefficient actions, as shown here. We will never be at a stage where generating new energy - however 'green' in reality or hype - is a better use of money than deflecting the need for it by more efficient usage of what we have. The speediest way to get rid of dirty energy production is to remove the demand for it. It's very clear that the roof in the pictures will need extensive repair before the 25 years are up. Is it even insulated up to current standards? The cost of removing these panels and putting them back - assuming they survive the experience - will outweigh several years of benefit. Solar panels get cheaper year on year. In about five years the economics will look very different, I'm sure. Work out what 25 years interest on £7 million comes to, and set it against the supposed 'free' energy. You definitely wouldn't spend your own money on such terms! mdj
  • Score: 1

11:40am Fri 21 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Mdj,

The statement "We will never be at a stage where generating new energy - however 'green' in reality or hype - is a better use of money than deflecting the need for it by more efficient usage of what we have" is a very flawed one.

It is equivalent to "We will never be at a stage where generating new income is better than deflecting the need for income by being more efficient".

So with a growing population we should just cut energy use? Should we as a country cease attempts to boost GDP and just cut everything. Both are important and simple economics says that growth is important.

I certainly wouldn't invest my money in a company that did not seek to increase its income through growth but sought to merely reduce its expenditure.
Mdj, The statement "We will never be at a stage where generating new energy - however 'green' in reality or hype - is a better use of money than deflecting the need for it by more efficient usage of what we have" is a very flawed one. It is equivalent to "We will never be at a stage where generating new income is better than deflecting the need for income by being more efficient". So with a growing population we should just cut energy use? Should we as a country cease attempts to boost GDP and just cut everything. Both are important and simple economics says that growth is important. I certainly wouldn't invest my money in a company that did not seek to increase its income through growth but sought to merely reduce its expenditure. Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

5:36pm Fri 21 Feb 14

mdj says...

'So with a growing population we should just cut energy use?'

Our own energy use fell by about 10% over the last decade or so,while our population insanely leaped by 3.9 million.

Germany is projecting an energy demand 25% less by 2050; we, on the other hand are projecting a 66% increase.
If you understand the expression 'commodity footprint', you will agree that this represents dangerously obsolete thinking .
I think these facts side by side say a lot about the poor quality of our leadership, and the limitations of their vision.
I don't think that Germany is planning on getting poorer, merely to use energy more intelligently. You boost GDP by doing more with less.

A while back I switched the three 60W spots in my kitchen for 4 at 3W. Such gains are possible over many areas.
'So with a growing population we should just cut energy use?' Our own energy use fell by about 10% over the last decade or so,while our population insanely leaped by 3.9 million. Germany is projecting an energy demand 25% less by 2050; we, on the other hand are projecting a 66% increase. If you understand the expression 'commodity footprint', you will agree that this represents dangerously obsolete thinking . I think these facts side by side say a lot about the poor quality of our leadership, and the limitations of their vision. I don't think that Germany is planning on getting poorer, merely to use energy more intelligently. You boost GDP by doing more with less. A while back I switched the three 60W spots in my kitchen for 4 at 3W. Such gains are possible over many areas. mdj
  • Score: 1

6:14pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Mdj,

Glad you used Germany. It illustrates my point very well about the need for renewables.

http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
012/may/30/germany-r
enewable-energy-revo
lution

Percentage changes are also the statistical approach which hides the true fact.

As you have stated our population is growing here which is a good thing if we hope to have any pensions for the aging population.

What you fail to mention is that Germany's electricity use is currently Double the UK's.

So a 50% reduction by Germany is an aspiration that in 36 years they might have reduced their energy usage to what the UK's currently is! Not so impressive stats when you use the numbers.

Factor in the small matter of the UK being predicted to have the largest population in Europe by 2050 and the increase in energy demand from the UK is less surprising again. With a larger population than Germany we are predicting to have a lower commodity footprint than they currently do.

Their GDP is obviously currently better than our own too. Their target for renewable energy? 80%
Mdj, Glad you used Germany. It illustrates my point very well about the need for renewables. http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/may/30/germany-r enewable-energy-revo lution Percentage changes are also the statistical approach which hides the true fact. As you have stated our population is growing here which is a good thing if we hope to have any pensions for the aging population. What you fail to mention is that Germany's electricity use is currently Double the UK's. So a 50% reduction by Germany is an aspiration that in 36 years they might have reduced their energy usage to what the UK's currently is! Not so impressive stats when you use the numbers. Factor in the small matter of the UK being predicted to have the largest population in Europe by 2050 and the increase in energy demand from the UK is less surprising again. With a larger population than Germany we are predicting to have a lower commodity footprint than they currently do. Their GDP is obviously currently better than our own too. Their target for renewable energy? 80% Alan_1976
  • Score: -2

11:55pm Fri 21 Feb 14

mdj says...

'As you have stated our population is growing here which is a good thing if we hope to have any pensions for the aging population.'

'It's a disastrous Ponzi scheme, as any statistician could tell you:
'" "The UN calculates that to keep the UK dependency ratio at 4.09:1 (as in 2000) the UK would need to have 59,775,000 immigrants by 2050, increasing the population to 136 million. At the end of that period, immigration would need to be running at 2.2 million a year, and still growing exponentially. To carry out this strategy of replacement migration, the UK would thus need to import another 130 million by 2100, doubling the population to about a quarter of a billion!" And so on, ad infinitum.'

You seem to assume that I am against clean energy. This is a conversation you need to be having with someone of whom this is true.
'As you have stated our population is growing here which is a good thing if we hope to have any pensions for the aging population.' 'It's a disastrous Ponzi scheme, as any statistician could tell you: '" "The UN calculates that to keep the UK dependency ratio at 4.09:1 (as in 2000) the UK would need to have 59,775,000 immigrants by 2050, increasing the population to 136 million. At the end of that period, immigration would need to be running at 2.2 million a year, and still growing exponentially. To carry out this strategy of replacement migration, the UK would thus need to import another 130 million by 2100, doubling the population to about a quarter of a billion!" And so on, ad infinitum.' You seem to assume that I am against clean energy. This is a conversation you need to be having with someone of whom this is true. mdj
  • Score: 1

7:42am Sat 22 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

No mdj I make no such assumption. I assume that you are against investment in new sources as per your repeated comments criticising it, doing more with less etc.

As to the tangent of aging populations the figure of a dependency ratio is based upon a fixed age for retirement and comes from a 15 year old report...
No mdj I make no such assumption. I assume that you are against investment in new sources as per your repeated comments criticising it, doing more with less etc. As to the tangent of aging populations the figure of a dependency ratio is based upon a fixed age for retirement and comes from a 15 year old report... Alan_1976
  • Score: -1

1:45pm Sun 23 Feb 14

mdj says...

' I assume that you are against investment in new sources,,

Another of your assumptions; as I said, I'm against political PR gimmicks, whatever their context, that do not solve the problem in question and waste other peoples' money - yours and mine in this case.

If the Council proposed taking money directly from your pocket to pay someone else's biil, I doubt you would still applaud the idea.

Even carrying out the same exercise in three years time, when panel prices will be much lower than now, would transform its value for money. The money saved would insulate these houses and fix their roofs first, gearing up the value of the energy supplied later.

'the figure of a dependency ratio is based upon a fixed age for retirement and comes from a 15 year old report.'

Well, the maths doesn't date; if the retirement age rises as it has to , the arguments for immigration get even thinner.
' I assume that you are against investment in new sources,, Another of your assumptions; as I said, I'm against political PR gimmicks, whatever their context, that do not solve the problem in question and waste other peoples' money - yours and mine in this case. If the Council proposed taking money directly from your pocket to pay someone else's biil, I doubt you would still applaud the idea. Even carrying out the same exercise in three years time, when panel prices will be much lower than now, would transform its value for money. The money saved would insulate these houses and fix their roofs first, gearing up the value of the energy supplied later. 'the figure of a dependency ratio is based upon a fixed age for retirement and comes from a 15 year old report.' Well, the maths doesn't date; if the retirement age rises as it has to , the arguments for immigration get even thinner. mdj
  • Score: 2

2:02pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Mdj,

"We will never be at a stage where generating new energy - however 'green' in reality or hype - is a better use of money than deflecting the need for it by more efficient usage of what we have"

Your words. Not mine. If you believe otherwise since you wrote that then clearly my assumption is wrong...
Mdj, "We will never be at a stage where generating new energy - however 'green' in reality or hype - is a better use of money than deflecting the need for it by more efficient usage of what we have" Your words. Not mine. If you believe otherwise since you wrote that then clearly my assumption is wrong... Alan_1976
  • Score: -3

4:18pm Sun 23 Feb 14

mdj says...

Yes, they are my words: generating energy to heat a building that isn't insulated to the maximum level will always be folly. We can also now design buildings that generate their own (greatly reduced) energy need; check out the ZED concept.
We currently waste a vast amount of our generating capacity. A notable example was the 'dash for gas' of the 90s, which squandered one of our cleaner energy sources by turning it into electricity with a massive efficiency penalty via the transmission losses, when it could have been turned into heat at 100% efficiency at the point of use.
'Growth' is a horribly misleading word that conflates improved economic well-being with increased material consumption - primitive thinking that we need to put behind us. It seems our policy makers have not.


Countries with a higher standard of living than ours have for years managed to achieve this with lower energy consumption than ours.
The new generating capacity we will need will - let us hope - be clean capacity to replace the dirty capacity that we need to relegate to the past. as soon as possible. These arguments haven't really changed in the last forty years.
Yes, they are my words: generating energy to heat a building that isn't insulated to the maximum level will always be folly. We can also now design buildings that generate their own (greatly reduced) energy need; check out the ZED concept. We currently waste a vast amount of our generating capacity. A notable example was the 'dash for gas' of the 90s, which squandered one of our cleaner energy sources by turning it into electricity with a massive efficiency penalty via the transmission losses, when it could have been turned into heat at 100% efficiency at the point of use. 'Growth' is a horribly misleading word that conflates improved economic well-being with increased material consumption - primitive thinking that we need to put behind us. It seems our policy makers have not. Countries with a higher standard of living than ours have for years managed to achieve this with lower energy consumption than ours. The new generating capacity we will need will - let us hope - be clean capacity to replace the dirty capacity that we need to relegate to the past. as soon as possible. These arguments haven't really changed in the last forty years. mdj
  • Score: 2

4:41pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Mdj,

As per the original article I sent you the costs of insulating buildings to the maximum level is itself folly as the costs involved in doing so can far outweigh the benefits you get from seeking other sources particularly in older properties. You are fixating again on reduction of use as the only solution. I
Mdj, As per the original article I sent you the costs of insulating buildings to the maximum level is itself folly as the costs involved in doing so can far outweigh the benefits you get from seeking other sources particularly in older properties. You are fixating again on reduction of use as the only solution. I Alan_1976
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree