Andy Hall wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
I appreciate aesthetic quality and would prefer that if this door did
indeed have merit that it would have been retained.

This wasn't possible in this case, and there was a clear conflict
between legislation relating to access for the disabled and
conservation.

What was that, then.

If one builds a new house, one is required by law to implement a whole
raft of things for disabled access.

OK...


If one makes a change to one's own property when one is disabled in
order to continue to live independently and not be a burden to the
state, one is fined.

But the change involved breaking the law, for no good reason, rather
than keeping to it.

This is OT (again), & you're on a hiding to nothing (again), so
I'm going to drop this. Feel free to continue in uk.p.disability,
which I look at. I'll keep an eye out.