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