The requirements are set out here and include

(c)[the heat pump] replaces the heat generating components of the original heating system installed in that property (where applicable), other than any—

(i)supplementary electric heater, including any immersion heater,

(ii)circulation pump, or

(iii)solar thermal collector.

So the legal question which arises is whether the gas fireplace is part of 'the original heating system'.  That's an interesting question!

Our wood burning stove wasn't removed and I would argue, if challenged, that it's not part of 'the heating system'.  If that argument succeeds then it should also succeed for a gas fireplace.  

I would require them to reinstate and if they refuse to do so ask them point you to the legislation that requires them to remove.  They may well cave in at this point or direct you to guidance, which you can reject on the grounds that it is the primary legislation that matters. 

James 

Whilst I'd love to agree with @jamespa, I think it's at least rather ambiguous.

The eligibility criteria state in the legislation that:

5.—(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a property is an eligible property where—

(a)it is a building,

(b)it is not social housing,

(c)if it[has had any heating system installed, and was, or will be, first occupied or used]before the date on which the relevant eligible plant is commissioned—

(i). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(ii)the system providing space heating or water heating, or both, of the property prior to the installation and commissioning of the eligible plant (the “original heating system”) is—

(aa)fuelled by fossil fuel(1), or

(bb)an electric heating system, and

[(iii)there has not been a previous grant from public funds for a heat pump or biomass boiler at the same address, and

(iv)there has not been a previous installation of a heat pump, or biomass boiler at the property as a measure promoted by an electricity or gas supplier for the purpose of achieving their home-heating cost reduction obligation under section 41B of the Electricity Act 1989 or section 33BD of the Gas Act 1986, and

(v)there is a valid energy performance certificate for the property],

A woodburning stove may provide space heating but it is not fuelled by fossil fuel and so could be argued - at least within the provisions of the legislation - to not be a part of the original heating system. On the other hand, a gas fireplace does provide space heating and is fuelled by fossil fuel so I suspect would be more difficult to argue against being part of the original heating system.

I hasten to add that I'm not a legal expert and so my educated guesses are no better than any other lay person's educated guesses.

As an aside, though, this raises an interesting question about how an installer is supposed to deal (legislation-wise) with an open Victorian fireplace. They were designed to burn coal - a fossil fuel - and most certainly provide space heating. The typical method of dealing with this is to buy a Chimney Sheep to block up the chimney in a way that doesn't risk a build-up of damp but it can easily be removed again repeatedly at will so isn't a form of "capping off". Is the installer supposed to cap the chimney off? Or remove and destroy the grate? Or brick up the fireplace? I'm dead certain none of these actually happen, but I wonder what the law theoretically requires.

Coming back into the realms of practicality again, is your gas fireplace one that gives a "real fire" look and feel similar to a woodburner when active? Or is the gas fireplace purely a functional heat-emitter? If its primary purpose is decoration and heat is just a byproduct, I'd argue that it doesn't form part of the original heating system, but if its primary focus is generating heat then it'd be difficult to maintain that argument.

Bearing in mind I have no expertise or prior knowledge, a cold reading of the following OFGEM installer guide:

Section 3.20. talks about evidence requirements.

The first bullet refers to a valid EPC which will show the prior heating system "a previous EPC for the property that lists a fossil fuel or electricity as the **main heating** fuel" (emphasis added by me).

On my EPC my gas boiler is listed as "Main heating" while my wood burner is listed as "Secondary heating", what does your EPC say about main and secondary?

I would conclude from that, that provided my main heating had been disposed of, and otherwise met the BUS rules, that would be allowable.

But please do your own research, I know not of what I speak.

Thank all for the reply. Our gas fireplace it’s fairly modern I think, was here before we bought the house. It can alone heat up the whole downstairs, although we rarely use it that way as we got radiator in the living room as well. So we used it just for decorative/extra comfort in winter. 

on the epc the primary heating is the gas boiler and radiator. And the secondary heating is room heater,main gas. 

I read all the legislation and it gives the option to keep wood burning stove but there isn’t anything regarding gas fireplace. 

I guess the argument can be put both ways. As not technically part of the main heating system it shouldn’t matter if it is removed or not. On the other side being gas it would make sense to make it compulsory to remove all gas heating sources. 

we are waiting the confirmation from the installer which hopefully will clarify to situation.

in the meantime thank you for the reply. 

Thanks

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Whilst I'd love to agree with @jamespa, I think it's at least rather ambiguous.

 

Im not sure we disagree - its definitely ambiguous.

That said the paragraph you quote is about whether the property is eligible for the upgrade, not what must be done during the upgrade.  While it might provide some guidance if any other part of the legislation is unclear, its not the key paragraph IMHO.

I think we agree that the material issue is whether the appliance in question is part of the 'original heating system', because the requirement is "[the heat pump] replaces the heat generating components of the original heating system installed in that property (where applicable)".   I think your distinction about whether its decorative or practical is relevant. 

• If its principally decorative then I would say that there is a very good argument that its not part of the heating system.
• If it functional and is necessary to heat the room then I would say it is.
• In OPs case it appears to be functional but not necessary to heat the room, because the central heating does that.  In this case the question becomes - is something that is supplemental, intended as standby, and isolated from the rest of an otherwise connected system, part of that 'system'. 

Definitely one for judges to determine ultimately, in the mean time worth having the argument with the installer IMHO, if it matters to OP that it remains. 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

...

That said the paragraph you quote is about whether the property is eligible for the upgrade, not what must be done during the upgrade.  While it might provide some guidance if any other part of the legislation is unclear, its not the key paragraph IMHO.

...

Hmm. This is a bit of a rabbit hole so I'm going to mention this with a bit of trepidation, hoping it doesn't start derailing. Here goes.

My thinking is that if eligibility is based on a particular type of system being replaced and one has a heat source that uses a different fuel then that heat source is de facto not part of the system that made the property eligible in the first place; it must be separate. That is the case with your (and my) wood burning stove. What an installer has to do during the upgrade all relates to the system that has already been defined as eligible for replacement, meaning that, since the stove is not part of it, the installer shouldn't touch it.

Obviously, in @rikiarn's situation this is not the case making the argument for the gas fire less clear cut than your wood burner. That was the point I was trying to make - wood burner and gas fire are not as close scenarios as they might seem, so beware of conflating too closely.

All a moot point, though, since there's still as you say plenty of ambiguity to keep any judges occupied.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

That was the point I was trying to make - wood burner and gas fire are not as close scenarios as they might seem, so beware of conflating too closely.

All a moot point, though, since there's still as you say plenty of ambiguity to keep any judges occupied 

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

This is a bit of a rabbit hole

All agreed!