The "have a look at this!" thread II

rwcwilson

Davesnave wrote: »

While wood/multi-fuel burners are currently de rigueur, people do seem to stuff them into the most unsuitable houses, and this is a pretty good example of what I mean:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-64113100.html

Far from being "stunning," the huge black chimney is an eyesore from where I'm sitting. It doesn't do a lot for the exterior of the house either.

Or am I just grumpy and out of touch? :undecided

I personally found it amusing that the estate agent seemed to have become distracted by the neighbours hobbit hole whilst taking the pictures.

Davesnave

rwcwilson wrote: »

I personally found it amusing that the estate agent seemed to have become distracted by the neighbours hobbit hole whilst taking the pictures.

Yes, it was a bit cheeky photographing the neighbour's garden and view, but that's not unheard of in these parts.

One of my neighbours advertised their house with "access to a shared recreational area." The picture the agent used was of another resident's 1/2 acre field, probably because the recreational area was totally inacessible to anyone without a chain saw and brush cutter.

It didn't lead to harmonious relations!

WeAreGhosts

Probably one of the most ridiculous sets of photographs for a house I've seen.
These houses aren't exactly attractive in the daylight. They're much worse at night!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-71478206.html

Mickygg

WeAreGhosts wrote: »

Probably one of the most ridiculous sets of photographs for a house I've seen.
These houses aren't exactly attractive in the daylight. They're much worse at night!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-71478206.html

Fabulous use of blue sky and clouds, the clouds amazingly have not moved in both pics. Truely awful pics, a forced sale I bet.

Sandgrownun

WeAreGhosts wrote: »

Probably one of the most ridiculous sets of photographs for a house I've seen.
These houses aren't exactly attractive in the daylight. They're much worse at night!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-71478206.html

Holy mother of heck this is the most nightmarish set of estate agent photographs I think I've seen!!!!!

Contessa

Davesnave wrote: »

While wood/multi-fuel burners are currently de rigueur, people do seem to stuff them into the most unsuitable houses, and this is a pretty good example of what I mean:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-64113100.html

Far from being "stunning," the huge black chimney is an eyesore from where I'm sitting. It doesn't do a lot for the exterior of the house either.

Or am I just grumpy and out of touch? :undecided

That really is the elephant in the room. Ugly and unecessary IMO.

These are usually a sign that there's no mains gas but the description says heating is gas so perhaps bottled.

Contessa

WeAreGhosts wrote: »

Probably one of the most ridiculous sets of photographs for a house I've seen.
These houses aren't exactly attractive in the daylight. They're much worse at night!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-71478206.html

I can only imagine that the EA took such care and time to photograph the property that day merged into night.

Davesnave

Contessa wrote: »

That really is the elephant in the room. Ugly and unecessary IMO.

These are usually a sign that there's no mains gas but the description says heating is gas so perhaps bottled.

As it's a new small estate (2010) there will probably be a communal LPG tank rather than individual ones.

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

As it's a new small estate (2010) there will probably be a communal LPG tank rather than individual ones.

I've not heard of that.

How would/could that work? By the time different people had different ideas about what fuel they wanted to use/how much of it they were going to use/had assumed & decided they would be "self-sufficient"?

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I've not heard of that.

How would/could that work? By the time different people had different ideas about what fuel they wanted to use/how much of it they were going to use/had assumed & decided they would be "self-sufficient"?

It would work because the small estate would have a contract with a supplier and a radio unit on the tank would send a message when it needed refilling. Obviously, each house would be seperately metered. There are cost advantages in clubbing together and LPG is easier to install as a shared system than the alternatives.

I don't think any of those houses could be self-sufficient in any sense of the term. We get thousands of 'free' kW of heat each winter from the wood burner here, but we still need an oil boiler as back-up.