Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#121
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
upvc windows in conservation area.
Andy Hall wrote:
[snit OT tittle-tattle. Next! ] |
#133
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Windows | Home Repair | |||
Linux is Driving me $#@!!!! nutz!!! | Metalworking | |||
LCD film window coverings? | Home Ownership | |||
vibration sensors on upvc windows? | UK diy | |||
[OT] Car insurance craziness | UK diy |