UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:54:00 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

The primary objective would be to see that a disabled person be
allowed the same freedoms to be independent that someone who is not
disabled has.


Indeed.

The council considered that preserving a wooden front door was more
important than that.


No, they considered that the person was using her disability as an excuse.


Are they medically qualified to judge? Even most consultant
physicians are not aware of the long term effects of polio and
management of it, let alone GPs. So I hardly think that council
bureaucrats will be experts on the subject.


There would have been several alternatives to fitting a uPVC door.

Therefore, in my view, they acted wrongly regardless of what
legislation about wooden doors says.


No.

Just because you are in a wheelchair doesn't mean you are an individual
person.


Everybody is an individual person.


You may be kind and caring, a complete moron, very intelligent or
pigheaded, just like anyone else.


Exactly; and that demonstrates that we are all different.



She had options available to her. Options that would have been cheaper than
an ugly uPVC door. She chose not to take them.

It's difficult to know what options would be possible in a given
situation. Post polio syndrome is something that is progressively
debilitating, varies from day to day in effect and in terms of what
the person is able to do.

It's interesting that none of her neighbours found the door
sufficiently ugly to make an issue out of it. As I read it, a lot of
trouble was taken to find something as best as possible in keeping. It
took a council jobsworth watchin a TV program several years later to
notice.

I come back to the central issue. A door is not as important as a
human being.


--

..andy

  #122   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:00:50 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

She had options available to her. Options that would have been cheaper

than
an ugly uPVC door. She chose not to take them.


An example:

http://www.otsystems.co.uk/

This would not only have allowed the original door to be used, but would
provide a much superior solution to the owner, as it would be much easier to
open than the uPVC one. Just press a button.


Perhaps it would have worked. Who knows? My point is not so much
about that, but an inappropriate and heavy handed use of a law which
should take second precedence to the needs of a disabled person.


I wouldn't mind one myself as I'm struggling from the car with a bag full of
shopping and a baby.


Don't let the council know. They'll be prosecuting you for having
babies.



--

..andy

  #123   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:04:52 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:42:23 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
The primary objective would be to see that a disabled person be
allowed the same freedoms to be independent that someone who is
not disabled has.

The council considered that preserving a wooden front door was
more important than that.


When we wanted to rebuild our church garden wall, repositioning the
gate to allow for the construction of a disabled access ramp the
response of the planning officer was "stuff the disabled; it's
preserving the existing wall that matters". OK these weren't his
exact words, but were his exact sentiments.



I hope that he was exposed for this and disciplined. Preferably by
being given the sack and having his pension rights taken away.

I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that I hope that he ends up in a
wheelchair himself one day because I wouldn't wish that on anybody;
but it is a close run thing.


--

..andy

  #124   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Peter Crosland
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

The primary objective would be to see that a disabled person be
allowed the same freedoms to be independent that someone who is
not disabled has.

The council considered that preserving a wooden front door was
more important than that.


When we wanted to rebuild our church garden wall, repositioning the
gate to allow for the construction of a disabled access ramp the
response of the planning officer was "stuff the disabled; it's
preserving the existing wall that matters". OK these weren't his
exact words, but were his exact sentiments.



If that was said, or implied, then the planning officer was quite wrong. Did
this happen recently and with what local authority? The main objective of
the listed building regulation regime has never been to preserve buildings
in an unaltered state. Sensible and realistic alterations should, and indeed
are, permitted. Was formal application made and if it was rejected was the
decision appealed. If not then you have no grounds for complaint.

Peter Crosland


  #125   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Mary Fisher wrote:
The suffragists' law breaking achieved nothing.

Merely the enfranchisement of women and the end in theory of male
domination of the political process. Not very important really as few
men or women seem capable of actually using it wisely.

Regards
Capitol


  #126   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Mary Fisher wrote:

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...

Yet here we have a situation, where somebody disabled and living in
their own home does something to maintain their independence.


But there would have been a much simpler and cheaper solution available
had
she not been simply bloodyminded. Some sort of mechanical or electrical
assistance to the door operation might have been an idea.

I don't agree that you should be able to completely flout the law just
because you are in a wheelchair.

I got the impression that "beating the council" was more important to her
than solving her problem.



That's what comes across.

Mary

Christian.

I get the feeling that both of the above posters believe in telling
other people how to live their lives. How sad, and what poor examples of
true humanity they seem to represent.

Regards
Capitol
  #127   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Christian McArdle wrote:

She had options available to her. Options that would have been cheaper than
an ugly uPVC door.



It is only in your opinion that a pvc door is ugly. More people would
probably opine that a pvc door is far more attractive and practical than
a wooden, aluminium or steel one. You are back to telling other people
how to live their lives again.

Regards
Capitol
  #128   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Andy Hall wrote:
Don't let the council know. They'll be prosecuting you for having
babies.


Particularly if you are also married!
( The single parent numbers in Scotland have apparently risen by 25%
since Nu Labur came to power)

Regards
Capitol
  #129   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Andy Hall wrote:
If it was that important, why didn't they act earlier? Simple answer
is people without enough to occupy their minds or the ability to enter
into gainful employment.

Not quite Andy. The reason is that there was too much money available
for the council to spend. This means that more unnecessary people are
employed to harass the rest of the taxpayers. First steps in any bloated
business are to reduce the budget, then the headcount. progress follows.

Regards
Capitol
  #130   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Christian McArdle wrote:

They're called conservation areas. Please don't buy a house in one. Some
people have taste and don't want to live next to your plastic windowed stone
clad monstrosity with a Sky dish on the front.

Ooh, touchy. Taste being a matter of opinion and fashion, some people
have it and some don't. IMO, you easily fall into the latter category.
Conservation areas for your enlightenment, are not owned as I described.
Mainly "wanna be's" IME buy a house in a conservation area. They're
too busy being image conscious to have any brave new ideas of their own.
They also tend to be Guardian readers, described as "the newspaper for
people who don't know how to think for themselves". "dIMM" reads it!

LOL
Regards
Capitol


  #131   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Christian McArdle wrote:
They came with a 100 year guarantee.

Worthless, they'll be dead by then. Also the manufacturer will have
gone out of business within 5 years.

Regards
Capitol
  #132   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Chris Bacon
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

Andy Hall wrote:
[snit OT tittle-tattle. Next! ]

  #133   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Toby Sleigh
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.


"Capitol" wrote in message
...

It is only in your opinion that a pvc door is ugly. More people would
probably opine that a pvc door is far more attractive and practical than a
wooden, aluminium or steel one


I for one, wouldn't
Toby



  #134   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:49 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

The primary objective would be to see that a disabled person be
allowed the same freedoms to be independent that someone who is
not disabled has.

The council considered that preserving a wooden front door was
more important than that.


When we wanted to rebuild our church garden wall, repositioning the
gate to allow for the construction of a disabled access ramp the
response of the planning officer was "stuff the disabled; it's
preserving the existing wall that matters". OK these weren't his
exact words, but were his exact sentiments.



If that was said, or implied, then the planning officer was quite wrong. Did
this happen recently and with what local authority? The main objective of
the listed building regulation regime has never been to preserve buildings
in an unaltered state. Sensible and realistic alterations should, and indeed
are, permitted. Was formal application made and if it was rejected was the
decision appealed. If not then you have no grounds for complaint.

Peter Crosland


There is every ground for complaint. This is an arrangement that is
rotten to the core.

It's simply another illustration of a jobsworth using legislation
inappropriately in an attempt to wield power over others.

If he thought for 500 milliseconds (or perhaps two weeks), he would
realise that his salary is being paid for by the very people he is
seeking to obstruct. In essence, they are his customers. He is
using the comfort of protected employment to abuse them.

Has he asked the people in the community whether they would rather
have an access ramp or an old brick wall? Certainly one would expect
the churchgoers to be in favour of the ramp. I suspect that a
survey of the rest of the local community would give answers mainly in
the positive to disinterested range in favour, and one or two wanting
it to be kept the way it is.




--

..andy

  #135   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:58:31 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:
If it was that important, why didn't they act earlier? Simple answer
is people without enough to occupy their minds or the ability to enter
into gainful employment.

Not quite Andy. The reason is that there was too much money available
for the council to spend. This means that more unnecessary people are
employed to harass the rest of the taxpayers. First steps in any bloated
business are to reduce the budget, then the headcount. progress follows.

Regards
Capitol


I see your point. However, with the exception of a few professionals
such as building control officers, who do seem to know their stuff
quite well and to behave sensibly; most of the other departments seem
to attract those who are unable to do a real job of work.

Actually, I'd start with reducing the headcount and putting a hatchet
through their pension schemes. Drastically. Then there would be
ample funds to spend on worthwhile things that people actually want.
Better yet; don't take the money from them in the first place and let
them decide for themselves.



--

..andy



  #136   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Christian McArdle
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

They came with a 100 year guarantee.

Worthless, they'll be dead by then. Also the manufacturer will have
gone out of business within 5 years.


Nope. They're still around. They are manufactured and fitted by the same
company.

Christian.


  #137   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Pete C
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:12:50 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



Christian McArdle wrote:

They're called conservation areas. Please don't buy a house in one. Some
people have taste and don't want to live next to your plastic windowed stone
clad monstrosity with a Sky dish on the front.

Ooh, touchy. Taste being a matter of opinion and fashion, some people
have it and some don't. IMO, you easily fall into the latter category.


Ad hominen...

Conservation areas for your enlightenment, are not owned as I described.
Mainly "wanna be's" IME buy a house in a conservation area. They're
too busy being image conscious to have any brave new ideas of their own.


OK, let's hear some of your brave new ideas....

cheers,
Pete.
  #138   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Tony Bryer
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:35:56 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
I see your point. However, with the exception of a few
professionals such as building control officers, who do seem to
know their stuff quite well and to behave sensibly; most of the
other departments seem to attract those who are unable to do a
real job of work.


I worked in building control at a time when we were constantly having
staff cuts and frozen vacancies, with the effect that lots of work
went uninspected - on new houses it would be foundations, drains, dpc
and completion, probably nothing else. In that time personnel and
management services expanded from a handful of people to half a
floor, and they were never subject to similar stringencies when it
came to appointing staff.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]


  #139   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Tony Bryer
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:49 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
If that was said, or implied, then the planning officer was quite
wrong. Did this happen recently and with what local authority? The
main objective of the listed building regulation regime has never
been to preserve buildings in an unaltered state. Sensible and
realistic alterations should, and indeed are, permitted. Was formal
application made and if it was rejected was the decision appealed.
If not then you have no grounds for complaint.


This was 1996. The original wall (mid Victorian) had the gates at one
end next to the church door, thus preventing the construction of a
ramp, and had originally been a low wall with railings. In the last
war the railings had been removed and the spaces bricked in with non
matching bricks leaving a wall about 5' high which was unattractive
and not very reassuring to walk by after dark.

The new wall (http://www.twickenhamurc.org.uk/picture.htm) went back
to a low wall with railings and the gates moved to allow for the ramp
to be built. None of the neighbours objected. The local residents'
association were sent the plans before submission and not only raised
no objection but wrote a letter saying that they felt that what we
proposed would be a great improvement and this went in with the
application. So if ever there was an application that should have
been rubber stamped approved this was it IMHO.

But the LB Richmond planners were determined to fight it all the way,
first claiming that if the original architect had wanted gates in the
middle he would have done so (there was probably a tree there in
18xx) and secondly claiming that the mismatched wartime infill was
part of our heritage and 'told a story'. After going to meeting with
them and hearing this and their "stuff the disabled" comment I was
fuming. A bit of work in the library revealed a relevant law case,
South Lakeland DC v. Sos, so I wrote back to the planners quoting
this, asking them to determine the application forthwith, and saying
that if it was refused I would appeal and ask for costs. The approval
came back a week or so later.

But of course the truth is that none of this should have been
necessary: if I had been acting as a fee-charging professional for a
client they would have ended up with a four-figure bill.

But this is not untypical: back in 1991 Chartered Surveyor was
telling readers planning schemes in LB Richmond to "assume you're
going to appeal before you put in the application'

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]


  #140   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Peter Crosland
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:49 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
If that was said, or implied, then the planning officer was quite
wrong. Did this happen recently and with what local authority? The
main objective of the listed building regulation regime has never
been to preserve buildings in an unaltered state. Sensible and
realistic alterations should, and indeed are, permitted. Was formal
application made and if it was rejected was the decision appealed.
If not then you have no grounds for complaint.


This was 1996. The original wall (mid Victorian) had the gates at one
end next to the church door, thus preventing the construction of a
ramp, and had originally been a low wall with railings. In the last
war the railings had been removed and the spaces bricked in with non
matching bricks leaving a wall about 5' high which was unattractive
and not very reassuring to walk by after dark.

The new wall (http://www.twickenhamurc.org.uk/picture.htm) went back
to a low wall with railings and the gates moved to allow for the ramp
to be built. None of the neighbours objected. The local residents'
association were sent the plans before submission and not only raised
no objection but wrote a letter saying that they felt that what we
proposed would be a great improvement and this went in with the
application. So if ever there was an application that should have
been rubber stamped approved this was it IMHO.

But the LB Richmond planners were determined to fight it all the way,
first claiming that if the original architect had wanted gates in the
middle he would have done so (there was probably a tree there in
18xx) and secondly claiming that the mismatched wartime infill was
part of our heritage and 'told a story'. After going to meeting with
them and hearing this and their "stuff the disabled" comment I was
fuming. A bit of work in the library revealed a relevant law case,
South Lakeland DC v. Sos, so I wrote back to the planners quoting
this, asking them to determine the application forthwith, and saying
that if it was refused I would appeal and ask for costs. The approval
came back a week or so later.

But of course the truth is that none of this should have been
necessary: if I had been acting as a fee-charging professional for a
client they would have ended up with a four-figure bill.

But this is not untypical: back in 1991 Chartered Surveyor was
telling readers planning schemes in LB Richmond to "assume you're
going to appeal before you put in the application'



Noted. However, the event you refer to happened fifteen years ago and has
little relevance to the situation today. There has, quite rightly, been a
major change in attitudes to, and legislation regarding, disability since
then. To use this incident as though it typifies current practice is
disingenuous. Of course there are individual planners who behave in the
wrong way just as there are wrongdoers in any profession. Having said that
in the case under discussion I have seen no published evidence to suggest
that this is the case. In fact the reverse is true because although a
criminal offence was committed when the door was replaced without permission
the local authority has given the woman repeated opportunities to put
matters right. The only reason they have prosecuted is that she has flatly
refused to rectify matters. Having exhausted all reasonable avenues the
local authority it is difficult to see what other course of action the could
take. Not to do so would be to open the floodgates for other unauthorised
alterations to listed buildings. The fact that the culprit is disabled does
not excuse breaking the law. As others have said there are several other
ways in which her difficulty in opening the door could have been achieved.
Furthermore the problem could have been solved for much less cost than the
fine and costs she has already incurred. To sum up she has brought the whole
problem on herself by her intransigence and stupidity.


Peter Crosland




  #141   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:59:29 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:49 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
If that was said, or implied, then the planning officer was quite
wrong. Did this happen recently and with what local authority? The
main objective of the listed building regulation regime has never
been to preserve buildings in an unaltered state. Sensible and
realistic alterations should, and indeed are, permitted. Was formal
application made and if it was rejected was the decision appealed.
If not then you have no grounds for complaint.


This was 1996. The original wall (mid Victorian) had the gates at one
end next to the church door, thus preventing the construction of a
ramp, and had originally been a low wall with railings. In the last
war the railings had been removed and the spaces bricked in with non
matching bricks leaving a wall about 5' high which was unattractive
and not very reassuring to walk by after dark.

The new wall (http://www.twickenhamurc.org.uk/picture.htm) went back
to a low wall with railings and the gates moved to allow for the ramp
to be built. None of the neighbours objected. The local residents'
association were sent the plans before submission and not only raised
no objection but wrote a letter saying that they felt that what we
proposed would be a great improvement and this went in with the
application. So if ever there was an application that should have
been rubber stamped approved this was it IMHO.

But the LB Richmond planners were determined to fight it all the way,
first claiming that if the original architect had wanted gates in the
middle he would have done so (there was probably a tree there in
18xx) and secondly claiming that the mismatched wartime infill was
part of our heritage and 'told a story'.


What complete nonsense. Large numbers of houses had their railings
nicked by the government for WW2 munitions etc.
The reality was that large amounts of them sat rusting in railway
yards for years until eventually they were disposed of for scrap.

I've heard this from numerous people in numerous towns.

In most cases, replacement, if it happened was with small walls and
fences.


After going to meeting with
them and hearing this and their "stuff the disabled" comment I was
fuming. A bit of work in the library revealed a relevant law case,
South Lakeland DC v. Sos, so I wrote back to the planners quoting
this, asking them to determine the application forthwith, and saying
that if it was refused I would appeal and ask for costs. The approval
came back a week or so later.


Excellent. These people, with their arbitrary behaviour based on
nothing of value should be put in their place.
Great job.




But of course the truth is that none of this should have been
necessary: if I had been acting as a fee-charging professional for a
client they would have ended up with a four-figure bill.


Frankly, I would have done it and also made sure that their
misbehaviour was exposed to the widest extent.



But this is not untypical: back in 1991 Chartered Surveyor was
telling readers planning schemes in LB Richmond to "assume you're
going to appeal before you put in the application'




--

..andy

  #142   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:30:54 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:


Noted. However, the event you refer to happened fifteen years ago and has
little relevance to the situation today. There has, quite rightly, been a
major change in attitudes to, and legislation regarding, disability since
then. To use this incident as though it typifies current practice is
disingenuous. Of course there are individual planners who behave in the
wrong way just as there are wrongdoers in any profession.


This is not the behaviour of a professional person in any sense of the
word. Frankly, to give any planner or conservation officer the
apparently exalted position of "professional" other than that they
take money for their day's activities demeans the broader definition
of professional as someone who provides a worthwile service.


Having said that
in the case under discussion I have seen no published evidence to suggest
that this is the case. In fact the reverse is true because although a
criminal offence was committed when the door was replaced without permission
the local authority has given the woman repeated opportunities to put
matters right. The only reason they have prosecuted is that she has flatly
refused to rectify matters.


There are no matters to rectify. The law was applied arbitrarily and
inappropriately.

Having exhausted all reasonable avenues the
local authority it is difficult to see what other course of action the could
take.


The correct action would have been to have done nothing. Resignation
would have been even better.


Not to do so would be to open the floodgates for other unauthorised
alterations to listed buildings.


No it doesn't. Anybody with common sense and who is in touch with the
community who pays their salary would have acted far more sensitively
and simply ignored the issue. Had all of the neighbours or even one
neighbour complained it would have been a different matter. This
came to light years after the event because a jobsworth was watching
the TV.

The fact that the culprit is disabled does
not excuse breaking the law.


The use of the word "culprit" is an unnecessary insult.

The true culprits here are the jobsworths in local government and
those who would seek to support their bureaucratic nonsense come hell
or high water.


As others have said there are several other
ways in which her difficulty in opening the door could have been achieved.
Furthermore the problem could have been solved for much less cost than the
fine and costs she has already incurred. To sum up she has brought the whole
problem on herself by her intransigence and stupidity.


The only stupidity is the conflict of laws and the empowerment of
inappropriate people to uphold them.




--

..andy

  #143   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:59:28 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:35:56 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
I see your point. However, with the exception of a few
professionals such as building control officers, who do seem to
know their stuff quite well and to behave sensibly; most of the
other departments seem to attract those who are unable to do a
real job of work.


I worked in building control at a time when we were constantly having
staff cuts and frozen vacancies, with the effect that lots of work
went uninspected - on new houses it would be foundations, drains, dpc
and completion, probably nothing else. In that time personnel and
management services expanded from a handful of people to half a
floor, and they were never subject to similar stringencies when it
came to appointing staff.



Exactly. I have talked to people in various departments in local
authorities and the situation you describe is widespread.

Certainly every BCO I've talked to is a helpful source of how best to
tackle an issue without imposing unnecessary cost or unreasonable
restriction. When one considers that they have to work with
relatively generalistic legislation plus some guidelines that aren't
always completely sensible, I think that the results are pretty fair
and reasonable.


--

..andy

  #144   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Capitol
 
Posts: n/a
Default upvc windows in conservation area.



Toby Sleigh wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
...

It is only in your opinion that a pvc door is ugly. More people would
probably opine that a pvc door is far more attractive and practical than a
wooden, aluminium or steel one



I for one, wouldn't

I have already made the point that minority opinions are equally valid.

Today, I happened to go through the East End of London to the West
end. 90% of the victorian/Edwardian houses have been fitted with pvc
double glazing and look much better for it. Nuff said. The west end, of
course, to Christians disappointment, is a demonstration of the benefits
of applying stone cladding to unattractive brick and concrete buildings.
Incidentally, I prefer 2M steerable satellite dishes to fixed Sky ones.
The programme content is much more informative and free.

Regards
Capitol
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windows [email protected] Home Repair 7 January 21st 06 02:06 PM
Linux is Driving me $#@!!!! nutz!!! Gunner Metalworking 115 January 14th 06 08:49 PM
LCD film window coverings? Denis Home Ownership 0 March 7th 05 08:31 AM
vibration sensors on upvc windows? a UK diy 5 September 7th 04 06:11 PM
[OT] Car insurance craziness The Q UK diy 173 August 2nd 03 11:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"