On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:36:56 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .



In the case in point the woman had a number of
opportunities to rectify matters but chose not to do so.

For a very good reason.

Which was?

She was unable to use the heavy door. What would have been the point
in replacing the apparently well chosen lighter one?



The decision to
prosecute was taken after consideration by the Council. In the face of
refusal to comply with the law they had little choice but to do so. All
the
costs fell on the culprit rather than on other Council tax payers.

There is always a choice about whether to apply the law.

This one is very clearly inappropriate.

That's a subjective view.


It is, based simply on the point that a disabled human being should be
more highly valued than a wooden front door if it comes to a choice
between the two as it has in this case.



--

..andy

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:40:16 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Unless it were a eucalyptus or leyland it's unlikely to grow much more after
25 years. I wonder if they'd becovered under conservation :-)


They are :-(

The species doesn't matter, if the tree is over 7.5 cm thick (I think)
1.5 metres above ground level in a CA, then it's protected.

Cheers,

John

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:43:00 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

In the case in point the woman had a number of
opportunities to rectify matters but chose not to do so.

For a very good reason.

Which was?


The decision to
prosecute was taken after consideration by the Council. In the face of
refusal to comply with the law they had little choice but to do so. All
the
costs fell on the culprit rather than on other Council tax payers.

There is always a choice about whether to apply the law.

This one is very clearly inappropriate.

That's a subjective view.


He really has no idea Mary. The fact is that all he has no rational argument
to put but just sheer bigotry. Best ignore him. Even better kill file him!


I would put it to you that you are the one with no idea, Peter.

There is a completely rational point based on how somebody with a
serious disability has been treated in comparison with a wooden front
door.

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.

A sensible local authority would have realised that the obvious
precedence is to the needs of the disabled person.

It surprises me that anybody can be so insensitive as not to realise
that.

It's noticable that whenever a question is asked in which officialdom
and regulation could possibly become involved in a situation, you
always seem to be first in line to point this out.


Tell me, are you a planning official or traffic warden or something?

At the very least, the bigotry, is wholly on your part.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:35:44 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..


How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two.

Lots, actually, since I've been involved for many years with PHAB -
Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied.

What's your point?


Simply that this should take precedence over the titting around by
petty bureaucrats with nothing better to do.

What - the number of polio folk I know?

I still don't understand ...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:36:56 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..



In the case in point the woman had a number of
opportunities to rectify matters but chose not to do so.

For a very good reason.

Which was?

She was unable to use the heavy door. What would have been the point
in replacing the apparently well chosen lighter one?

She'd been ableto use it before, hadn't she?

On 23 Jan 2006 00:19:18 -0800, wrote:


Capitol wrote:

Maintenance is normally only a case
of replacing the sealing rubber when it shrinks.

This is true at about 5 / 10 years. Much longer than that then the
replacement profiles start being un-obtainable, and all sorts of other
things fail - hinges, catches and the surface of the plastic itself.

My upvc windows and doors are 15 years old and haven't needed
*anything* replaced in that time,

Cheers,

John

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:58:47 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:35:44 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...


How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two.

Lots, actually, since I've been involved for many years with PHAB -
Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied.

What's your point?


Simply that this should take precedence over the titting around by
petty bureaucrats with nothing better to do.

What - the number of polio folk I know?

I still don't understand ...


Inappropriate application of legislation to a situation. The needs of
a disabled person should take precedence over making an issue out of a
front door.

This can be dressed up in whatever way one likes. How many of us can
honestly say that we have never broken any law in any way? Very few,
I suspect. Is the law always applied with utmost rigour when
somebody is detected breaking it? Of course not.

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

Clearly the law was broken, no question about that.

My point is purely and simply about the difference between right and
wrong. THe right thing to have done here would have been for no
action to have been taken, or at the very most, a small fine given
with that being an end to the matter.

Emmeline Pankhurst broke the law as did Emily Wilding Davison. This
was on a different scale and in a different era, so can't be directly
compared. It does, however, illustrate that sometimes it is necessary
to take action outside the law and accept the consequences to expose
misuse of them.

Set into that perspective, the machinery of the state (or more
accurately the petty minded bureaucrats who have been inappropriately
given the power to implement it), are at least morally wrong to have
made a wooden front door more important than a disabled human being.

However one might try to dress it up, that is what they did, and it
was wrong.


--

..andy

How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two.

Lots, actually, since I've been involved for many years with PHAB -
Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied.

What's your point?


Simply that this should take precedence over the titting around by
petty bureaucrats with nothing better to do.

What - the number of polio folk I know?

I still don't understand ...


Inappropriate application of legislation to a situation. The needs of
a disabled person should take precedence over making an issue out of a
front door.

No Andy, you said,
" How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most
of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two."

I wondered what the point of that was. I still wonder.



Emmeline Pankhurst broke the law as did Emily Wilding Davison. This
was on a different scale and in a different era, so can't be directly
compared. It does, however, illustrate that sometimes it is necessary
to take action outside the law and accept the consequences to expose
misuse of them.

The suffragists' law breaking achieved nothing.

Mary

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.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:59:50 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:36:56 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...



In the case in point the woman had a number of
opportunities to rectify matters but chose not to do so.

For a very good reason.

Which was?

She was unable to use the heavy door. What would have been the point
in replacing the apparently well chosen lighter one?

She'd been ableto use it before, hadn't she?



I don't know whether you know, but it is very common for people who
contracted polio decades ago to be affected by Post-polio syndrome.

Symptoms include fatigue, slowly progressive muscle weakening and even
atrophy.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/p...post_polio.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/...syndrome.shtml

Numbers of people affected in the UK are relatively small and there
are very few doctors who know anything about it.

The point is that polio is not something that necessarily leaves a
stable disability.


--

..andy

Have you noticed an odd thing about "libertarians" who go on about
personal choice, freedom, bureaucracy, nanny state etc: they all want
to do stupid antisocial things such as wreck the environment by
spoiling old buildings, drive Lardrovers over green lanes, drive
faster than speed limits and ban speed cameras, make life difficult for
the inadequate by reducing benefits and welfare etc etc. You know the
list if you read the Mail or are a Jeremy Clarkson fan.
Potentially dangerous loonies IMO. I'd string em all up! (No I wouldn't
really - I'd force them to cycle a lot, live in communes and get in
touch with the earth with a diet of muesli and soggy home made brown
bread)

cheers

Jacob

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:45:09 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:




How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two.

Lots, actually, since I've been involved for many years with PHAB -
Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied.

What's your point?


Simply that this should take precedence over the titting around by
petty bureaucrats with nothing better to do.

What - the number of polio folk I know?

I still don't understand ...


Inappropriate application of legislation to a situation. The needs of
a disabled person should take precedence over making an issue out of a
front door.

No Andy, you said,
" How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most
of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two."

I wondered what the point of that was. I still wonder.

The point is that it is entirely possible and reasonable that somebody
who was once able to open a heavy door, can no longer do so.





Emmeline Pankhurst broke the law as did Emily Wilding Davison. This
was on a different scale and in a different era, so can't be directly
compared. It does, however, illustrate that sometimes it is necessary
to take action outside the law and accept the consequences to expose
misuse of them.

The suffragists' law breaking achieved nothing.

I disagree.

It actually had the effect in the short run of making some
parliamentarians think that women could not be trusted with the vote
if they were willing to commit suicide in order to obtain it.

Whether one can say that it directly led to change is debatable, but
there is no doubt that the unreasonableness of male only voting was
exposed.


--

..andy

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:49:52 +0000, 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.

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.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:45:09 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:




How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most
of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two.

Lots, actually, since I've been involved for many years with PHAB -
Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied.

What's your point?


Simply that this should take precedence over the titting around by
petty bureaucrats with nothing better to do.

What - the number of polio folk I know?

I still don't understand ...


Inappropriate application of legislation to a situation. The needs of
a disabled person should take precedence over making an issue out of a
front door.

No Andy, you said,
" How many people do you know with post Polio syndrome who spend most
of
their time in a wheelchair? I now know two."

I wondered what the point of that was. I still wonder.

The point is that it is entirely possible and reasonable that somebody
who was once able to open a heavy door, can no longer do so.

All the polio people I know have been partly paralysed since they were
young, if anything they are better able to do things now than they could
years ago. They have developed their upper bodies by using them.





Emmeline Pankhurst broke the law as did Emily Wilding Davison. This
was on a different scale and in a different era, so can't be directly
compared. It does, however, illustrate that sometimes it is necessary
to take action outside the law and accept the consequences to expose
misuse of them.

The suffragists' law breaking achieved nothing.

I disagree.

It actually had the effect in the short run of making some
parliamentarians think that women could not be trusted with the vote
if they were willing to commit suicide in order to obtain it.

It was the first world war which showed how vital women were to society and
the economy..

Whether one can say that it directly led to change is debatable, but
there is no doubt that the unreasonableness of male only voting was
exposed.

That had always been the case.

What do you think led to male suffrage? Not law breaking!

Mary


--

.andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:59:50 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:36:56 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
m...



In the case in point the woman had a number of
opportunities to rectify matters but chose not to do so.

For a very good reason.

Which was?

She was unable to use the heavy door. What would have been the point
in replacing the apparently well chosen lighter one?

She'd been ableto use it before, hadn't she?



I don't know whether you know, but it is very common for people who
contracted polio decades ago to be affected by Post-polio syndrome.

Symptoms include fatigue, slowly progressive muscle weakening and even
atrophy.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/p...post_polio.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/...syndrome.shtml

Ah, it's on Google so it must be true!

Except that it isn't, necessarily.

Numbers of people affected in the UK are relatively small and there
are very few doctors who know anything about it.

That's because people don't contract it these days. Not many doctors know
about all sorts of archaic diseases.

But you do :-)

The point is that polio is not something that necessarily leaves a
stable disability.

If that's what you meant you should have said so.

Polio, like other conditions, can be used as a tear jerker to try to
influence the gullible.

If the woman couldn't manage a door she could have had help from social
services or polio or other charities but I do wonder how she managed in the
rest of the house.

We don't know - you don't know. The newspapers tell readers what they want
them to know -and sometimes some. Anything to sell the rag.

I'm off to bed, I have problems of my own. Perhaps I should contact the
paper ...

Mary

owdman wrote:
drive Lardrovers over green lanes

You aRE Sheddi AICMFFPP&BAs.

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.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:02:43 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


The point is that it is entirely possible and reasonable that somebody
who was once able to open a heavy door, can no longer do so.

All the polio people I know have been partly paralysed since they were
young, if anything they are better able to do things now than they could
years ago. They have developed their upper bodies by using them.

PPS varies by person in terms of whether it happens at all as well as
the period after original infection. That can be 50-60 years; so
some of the people you know now could well be affected in the future.





It actually had the effect in the short run of making some
parliamentarians think that women could not be trusted with the vote
if they were willing to commit suicide in order to obtain it.

It was the first world war which showed how vital women were to society and
the economy..

Even more so, the second.



Whether one can say that it directly led to change is debatable, but
there is no doubt that the unreasonableness of male only voting was
exposed.

That had always been the case.

What do you think led to male suffrage? Not law breaking!


A collection of issues, but I believe this to be one, even if only
indirectly.

--

..andy

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:11:23 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

She was unable to use the heavy door. What would have been the point
in replacing the apparently well chosen lighter one?

She'd been ableto use it before, hadn't she?



I don't know whether you know, but it is very common for people who
contracted polio decades ago to be affected by Post-polio syndrome.

Symptoms include fatigue, slowly progressive muscle weakening and even
atrophy.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/p...post_polio.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/...syndrome.shtml

Ah, it's on Google so it must be true!

Except that it isn't, necessarily.

If you research it, you will discover that it is a recognised
disability in its own right in U.S., essentially for demographic
reasons - there are around 300,000 people with it there.



Numbers of people affected in the UK are relatively small and there
are very few doctors who know anything about it.

That's because people don't contract it these days. Not many doctors know
about all sorts of archaic diseases.

That's part of the reason and also because the numbers involved are
relatively small in the UK because of the smaller population vs. the
U.S.




But you do :-)

I'm afraid so, yes.



The point is that polio is not something that necessarily leaves a
stable disability.

If that's what you meant you should have said so.

I thought I did. However, I sometimes forget that most people
haven't heard of PPS.


Polio, like other conditions, can be used as a tear jerker to try to
influence the gullible.

Of course it can, but before suggesting that it might be an idea to
look into what can happen.


If the woman couldn't manage a door she could have had help from social
services or polio or other charities but I do wonder how she managed in the
rest of the house.

24 hour care? Doubt it, and probably doesn't need that. Realistically,
she may get certain aids to use in the house - perhaps a stair lift -
who knows. Unfortunately, social services departments really don't do
that good a job in this kind of situation. You wouldn't believe the
mountain of paperwork that has to be filled in and the cajoling
required in order to get even the simplest thing.



We don't know - you don't know.

I don't know for sure in her case, but would certainly give her the
benefit of any doubt in terms of an inability to open a large and
heavy door now that she perhaps was able to open in the past.



The newspapers tell readers what they want
them to know -and sometimes some. Anything to sell the rag.

I'm off to bed, I have problems of my own. Perhaps I should contact the
paper ...


... or even the lady concerned...

--

..andy

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:15:28 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

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.

In that, we will have to differ. I am convinced that she had a very
good reason and that the law was inappropriately and insensitively
applied.



This is OT (again),

It was a thread concerning what happens in respect of buildings in
conservation areas. In that context, the discussion was very much on
topic.

& you're on a hiding to nothing (again),

... simply expressing a view.....


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.

I may well raise a thread there at some point.


--

..andy

Just for the record Mary I work with a guy who had Polio at an early age
and now has Post Polio Syndrome. Also my father had PPS the last few
years before he died, he also contacted Polio at age 17. So it does exist
and what Andy meant was not many doctors know of PPS as yet.

Dave

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:19:51 +0000, Dave Stanton
wrote:


Just for the record Mary I work with a guy who had Polio at an early age
and now has Post Polio Syndrome. Also my father had PPS the last few
years before he died, he also contacted Polio at age 17. So it does exist
and what Andy meant was not many doctors know of PPS as yet.

Dave


Exactly.


This is an interesting article .

http://www.oxfordmuse.com/selfportrait/portrait78.html

The paragraph about the future (towards the end) has a very familiar
ring to it...


--

..andy

The planning permission is worded " Before any developement commences,
representative samples of the type and colour of materials to be used
on the external elevations of tyhe proposed dwelling shall be deposited
with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority."
It further states "The windows to the south east and north west
elevations of the propsed dwelling hereby permitted, shall be glazed
with obscure glass and not altered at any time thereafter unless agreed
in writing with the Local Planning Authority."

Initially a meeting took place on site and the brick samples and slate
samples were shown to the Planning Officer who agreed with the samples
that were presented. The officer seemed quite relaxed about the build
and when asked even admitted that they had omitted to insert the
permitted developement clause!!

I will ring the officer today and arange a site visit.

Regards
Legin

otherwise, form a company, sell shares and purchase a village where all
the inhabitants are prepared to pay for their beliefs.

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.

Christian.

Some of us have had CA status foisted on us - last December in my
case. No one asked me whether I wanted this. Fortunately my
neighbour is a planning officer in another borough and got wind that
it was happening.

I live in what should be a conservation area. We've chopped down much of the
arboretum that was the back garden and we're getting the loft conversion
done PDQ, before it happens anyway. In fact, once we've finished the work,
we'll probably apply to the council. ;-)

Christian.

My earliest memories are of terrible draughty uncomfortable
howling windows!

Perhaps your experience of ancient windows that hadn't been maintained in
many decades has coloured your opinion. My parents installed new wooden sash
windows in their house about 10 years ago. They are still entirely
draughtproofed and look absolutely fantastic now. They haven't so much as
touched up the paint yet. They came with a 100 year guarantee.

Christian.

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.

Christian.

"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.

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.

This also seems to be the objective of her supporters as well!

Peter Crosland

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:49:47 GMT John Anderton wrote :
The species doesn't matter, if the tree is over 7.5 cm thick (I
think) 1.5 metres above ground level in a CA, then it's protected.

That's basically it. There's an exception for fruit trees grown as
such.

--
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]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:06:13 +0000 Chris Bacon wrote :
Cripes! So if you've got uPVC then you're stuck with it. Not
what I'd expected.

If your building is listed the listing applies to the building at the
time of listing - so it would then be an offence to replace the PVC
window with wood without first getting listed building consent*. There
was a case some years back of a man in Bath (IIRC) who repainted his
door in dark green having carefully researched what the colour would
have been when the house was built. He was made to change it back.

--
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]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:46:40 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
The church could be adapted without costing a huge amount and
without spoiling its (OK probably to our tastes horrid Victorian
Gothic) character. It's been done a lot.

In many cases you end up making the best of a bad job. If you had a
cleared site and unlimited money would you put back what is there
now? No, because needs have changed.

If there was a local will for community activities
that would have happened already.

Our buildings are used for much of the week. But there are issues
like off-street parking which we could have if the council would let
us, but they won't. So the person who was running children's dance
classes had to park illegally, unload all her equipment, then find
somewhere to park, come back, run the class and then repeat the
process. At the margin this hassle means you don't carry on - she
didn't.

--
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]

In article
Christian McArdle wrote:
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 was going to suggest that - it would be easier for her than the new
ordinary door, would have retained the original door, and she could
probably have got a grant to cover at least some of the cost. If she'd
discussed it with the council before doing anything they might even have
been able to arrange it for her.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:58:46 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

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 don't either, but where there is a conflict, as in this case, I
think that the human being should take precedence over aesthetic
issues.



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


I got the impression that the council was being bureaucratic and
bloody minded.

Nobody had an issue with what she had done for several years.

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.




--

..andy

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:55:49 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
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.



I don't agree. However, sooner or later one has to say that enough
is enough to these petty minded jobsworths.




--

..andy

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:33:05 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

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.

This also seems to be the objective of her supporters as well!


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.

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

In that respect, if there is a way that ultimately those involved at
what ever level, be it in government or the small minded individuals
who initiated this inappropriate prosecution are put into their
rightful place and hopefully fired, then I am all for it.


--

..andy

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:33:53 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:06:13 +0000 Chris Bacon wrote :
Cripes! So if you've got uPVC then you're stuck with it. Not
what I'd expected.

If your building is listed the listing applies to the building at the
time of listing - so it would then be an offence to replace the PVC
window with wood without first getting listed building consent*. There
was a case some years back of a man in Bath (IIRC) who repainted his
door in dark green having carefully researched what the colour would
have been when the house was built. He was made to change it back.


This is complete nonsense.

The people behind it, really do need to be taken down to a realistic
level.


--

..andy

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

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

Christian.

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.

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

Christian.

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.

--
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]