But don't you see, the only reason these keep being built is because
people keep buying them! It's called 'the freedom to choose'.

Precisely. Please allow me to choose to live in an area without plastic
windows. If you want tatty materials, you have an amazing choice of houses
and estates. Don't take away my choice to live in a period area without
diabolical plastic tat.

Christian.

Andy Hall ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

This is simply untrue. What it means is that if you wish to prune or
fell the tree then you have to get permission and this is subject to
appropriate consideration rather than your whim! The application has to
be published and considered by the council and their officers. That
decision has the right of appeal just like a planning application does.

Good grief. What a lot of crap to deal with.

In practical terms, Tony's idea is the right one, so as not to have to
deal with a bunch of petty bureaucrats.

You don't *have* to. That's the wonderfully simple thing about it.

If you don't *want* to deal with Conservation Area restrictions, it's very
simple to not have to. Don't live in one. See, that easy?

If you're living in a house, and that house becomes part of a CA, then -
again, it's simple. Sell it. After all, the conservation area status will
have increased it's value! Winners all round!

Why in your wildest dreams would you imagine that anyone would want to
have to deal with that nonsense?

So let's just tarmac over the entire country with complete impunity.
Anything goes! MegaTesco on the top of Snowdon or in the middle of a SSSI?
Feel free, if you think you can make it turn a profit! After all, you can
build it as shoddily and cheaply as you like...

Anybody else remember Peter UnSavory and the complete dog's breakfast that
is now Land's End?

Oh great. So there's form filling and paper pushing as well. That
should justify several more wastes of space at the council offices.

Do you actually believe that all of this is a good idea?

Absolutely. It is why being a conservation area increases property value
over a similar property in a non-conservation area. People who like these
houses don't want to live next to a 2m satellite dish attached to stone
cladding and plastic windows and are quite happy to put up with stronger
planning restrictions to prevent that happening.

Those with a more individualist outlook who want such ugliness on their own
buildings (and their neighbours) have the choice of the other 99% of
properties that have no such restrictions. Please don't take the choice away
from those seeking out the 1% of properties that have such protection.

Christian.

On 2006-11-09 12:10:24 +0000, Adrian said:

Andy Hall ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

This is simply untrue. What it means is that if you wish to prune or
fell the tree then you have to get permission and this is subject to
appropriate consideration rather than your whim! The application has to
be published and considered by the council and their officers. That
decision has the right of appeal just like a planning application does.

Good grief. What a lot of crap to deal with.

In practical terms, Tony's idea is the right one, so as not to have to
deal with a bunch of petty bureaucrats.

You don't *have* to. That's the wonderfully simple thing about it.

If you don't *want* to deal with Conservation Area restrictions, it's
very simple to not have to. Don't live in one. See, that easy?

If you're living in a house, and that house becomes part of a CA, then
- again, it's simple. Sell it. After all, the conservation area status
will have increased it's value! Winners all round!

Why in your wildest dreams would you imagine that anyone would want to
have to deal with that nonsense?

So let's just tarmac over the entire country with complete impunity.
Anything goes! MegaTesco on the top of Snowdon or in the middle of a
SSSI? Feel free, if you think you can make it turn a profit! After all,
you can build it as shoddily and cheaply as you like...

Anybody else remember Peter UnSavory and the complete dog's breakfast
that is now Land's End?

You missed my point.

That was not about the merits or demerits of Conservation Areas but
about the behaviour of people who would seek to snitch on their
neightbours to petty bureaucrats.

The second point was the involvement of said bureaucracy in the whole
area of conservation. If the legislation said that they *must* and
*must always* behave in a certain way and follow a certain procedure
regardless of the circumstances then that is perhaps fair enough.
However, when the state of affairs is that it is an enabling
legislation so that they *may* take action if they wish then the
situation is arbitrary and unsatisfactory.

It should be consistent. Moreover, this whole area seems to attract
the pocket busybodies with too much time on their hands who seem to get
off on imposing their will on others. Generally these are people of
short height and short length as well.

Many thanks for all advice.

The conservation area police have now been unleashed! They seem to be
fairly keen, contrary to my original cynical view. They intend to pay a
visit today while the old sashes are still lying forlornly in the skip
outside the house, and the tupperware windows still have their sticky
labels on. Not sure whether they will go so far as to force a refit -
we'll see.

Cheers!

Martin Pentreath

Andy Hall ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

You missed my point.

That was not about the merits or demerits of Conservation Areas

Fine.

but about the behaviour of people who would seek to snitch on their
neightbours to petty bureaucrats.

A conservation area lives or dies SOLELY on the enforcement. Given that we
don't disagree about the merits of the concept, we are only disagreeing
about the method of enforcement, right?

So - I repeat... Would you rather have local residents provide the council
with the information leading to that inforcement or would you rather pay in
your council tax for council staff to patrol in search of breaches?

Martin Pentreath ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

The conservation area police have now been unleashed! They seem to be
fairly keen, contrary to my original cynical view. They intend to pay a
visit today while the old sashes are still lying forlornly in the skip
outside the house, and the tupperware windows still have their sticky
labels on. Not sure whether they will go so far as to force a refit -
we'll see.

Good luck.

Phil L wrote:

It's his house not yours, if you don't like it, **** the hell off.

The bloke with the chavvy windows chose to live in a conservation area.
If he doesn't like it, /he/ should **** th hell off.

Ian

That was not about the merits or demerits of Conservation Areas but about
the behaviour of people who would seek to snitch on their neightbours to
petty bureaucrats.

Personally, I don't care as long as the plastic gets replaced with wood.

The crime of uPVCing existing wooden sash conservation area windows is
vastly greater than "snitching" on your neighbours. Your neighbours had the
choice to comply with the law or act like *******s. It was their choice.
What happened was that some wanky developer could save a few hundred quid by
fitting substandard ugly tat and did so. They do this sort of thing all the
time. Intentionally, knowing that they won't get caught. Each transgression
by a developer should result in proper four digit fines. A third offence
should involve five figure fines.

If the alternative to non-snitching is to end up with crappy ugly uPVC
windows next door, then I know what I would do.

Christian.

PS

Height: 6'3"
Length: in proportion ;-)

I shall leave the rest of you to battle out the rights and wrongs of
conservation areas, good luck to all. Do you think it would be cheeky
to ask the owners if I could take the old sashes out of the skip,
they're in good nick!

Martin Pentreath ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Do you think it would be cheeky to ask the owners if I could take the old
sashes out of the skip, they're in good nick!

Take 'em out, store 'em safe, then - when the council kick in with the
enforcement notice - flog 'em back to him...

Adrian wrote:

Take 'em out, store 'em safe, then - when the council kick in with the
enforcement notice - flog 'em back to him...

LOL!

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:07:06 GMT Pete wrote :
It's this thing called society:
"a particular community of people living in a country or region, and
having shared customs, laws, and organizations."

As opposed to the notion that "An Englishman's home is his castle"

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 09 Nov 2006 08:41:15 GMT Adrian wrote :
At my church we could rebuilt
the halls and provide some really first rate community facilities.
It's CA so no point in talking to the planners

Wrong.

Not here.

This is LB Richmond. When Chartered Surveyor Weekly (as was) profiled
LBRuT some years back its advice to readers was to start work on the
appeal before submitting the planning application as they'd almost
certainly end up appealing.

Ten years back I did a planning application for a new garden wall at
the church. Our tame architect talked to the planners first and
reported back that it would be a waste of time going further as they
were adamant that the existing (less than lovely) wall must stay. I
said that I would make an application on behalf of the church. I first
ran the plan by the local amenity society, whose response was that
what we proposed would be a great improvement. Do. the neighbours, no
objection. I then submitted the application with copy correspondence.
At this point it should have been almost a rubber stamp approval. But
no.

Two of us went to a meeting with the planners. I explained (again)
that part of the reason for the new wall was to resite the gate to
accommodate a new access ramp. One of the planners (I was glad I had a
witness or no one would believe me) said that he couldn't care less
about disabled people, saving the old wall was what mattered and they
were going to refuse the application. After bit of research in
planning law books I then wrote and said that if they did we would
appeal and ask for costs, quoting a pertinent law case. At this point
they approved it. Months of work; if it had been chargeable it would
have been in four figures, all for something that any sane person
would see is a great improvement over what was there before.

Ten years on we are looking at more substantial changes. Lots of
people agree that if we could demolish all the halls and start over we
could end up with much better facilities - and IMO the overall
appearance could end up being much better than now. We also know that
such a scheme would inevitably end up being the subject of an appeal,
probably involving spending £25K before we even had a planning
consent. So this won't happen. Third rate halls etc used by numerous
community groups will end up as second rate. Were it not for the
planners they would be first rate: no amount of renovation will make a
to-narrow hall wide enough.

If you want to see the power of the planning and conservation brigade
to destroy just go to Twickenham town centre. The strategy was to
protect small shops by resisting all new development. People now spend
their money elsewhere and the shops that they were protecting are now
gone, replaced by charity shops or restaurants .. and more than a
handful of empty shops.

There are areas where planners do have a positive attitude, for
example John Lewis is in Kingston because the planners worked really
hard with JLP to make sure that their store came to Kingston not to
Sutton. But are they the majority or exception?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:32:43 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
This is simply untrue. What it means is that if you wish to prune or fell
the tree then you have to get permission and this is subject to appropriate
consideration rather than your whim! The application has to be published
and considered by the council and their officers. That decision has the
right of appeal just like a planning application does.

Precisely, you've confirmed what I said. It's no longer my garden, my tree,
and what I can do with it is subject to what a Council officer decides. And
it's not unknown round here for permission to do any work on trees to be
refused unless you are going to use an approved (£££) tree company to do the
work.

Wrong again. There is no blanket ban on tree felling but it is subject to
regulation. Provided your request is reasonable then there should be no
problem but there obviously is some paperwork to be dealt with.

Why should one have to be making the request in the first place? Faced with a
(hypothetical) nice tree that cuts out all the light from my lounge or sucks
up so much moisture that it runs my lawn, will I be allowed to cut it down,
or will the tree officer be more influences by the fact that six neighbours
appreciate it.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Nov 9, 9:26 am, Adrian wrote:
Aaron Borbora ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Really. I'd support Mrs T on society if it means the end of silly rules
like this that cost people money and keep us living in the past.

Woo! Let's all live in identikit ticky-tacky new-builds!

The houses in the CA were once new-builds and are probably identikit
victorian speculative build to boot. Some of 'em are pretty ticky-tacky
too.

Times change and peole should be allowed to move on.

MBQ

On Nov 8, 7:49 pm, "Martin Pentreath"
wrote:
Nullified wrote:
More to the point, pentreath (obviously a cousin of someone else on
uk.legal ;o) is actually *contributing* to the devaluation of the
neighbourhood - remember pentreath that you have to declare
disagreements with neighbours when flogging your (probably nothing
more than an overpriced barratt) homeHi nullified,

That is in fact an excellent point! Would a request to the council to
enforce the order (as opposed to a direct falling out with the builder)
need to be disclosed in the conveyancing process? At the risk of
further infuriating Grunff, Phil, etc the house is about seven doors
down, so not exactly an immediate neighbour.

Overpriced my house certainly is. However, Barratt were not building in
1870, although the victorian cowboys who put this place together were
are their spiritual ancestors.

So you *do* live in a Victorian identikit ticky-tacky house. Built to
make a quick profit.

MBQ

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:32:43 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
This is simply untrue. What it means is that if you wish to prune or
fell the tree then you have to get permission and this is subject to
appropriate consideration rather than your whim! The application has
to be published and considered by the council and their officers.
That decision has the right of appeal just like a planning
application does.

Precisely, you've confirmed what I said. It's no longer my garden, my
tree, and what I can do with it is subject to what a Council officer
decides.


I have NOT confirmed what you said but have rebutted it. The ownership of
the garden and tree is unaltered. It is subject to a normal, legal, and open
process just like any other planning application. Your suggestion that it is
simply at the whim of a single council officer is demonstrably false.

And it's not unknown round here for permission to do any
work on trees to be refused unless you are going to use an approved
(£££) tree company to do the work.

Wrong again. All that is required is that the work is done in the approved
manner and by a competent person. Any condition specifying a particular
contractor would in most case be unenforceable. You can make your own choice
as to who that is. Not exactly unreasonable is it?

Wrong again. There is no blanket ban on tree felling but it is
subject to regulation. Provided your request is reasonable then
there should be no problem but there obviously is some paperwork to
be dealt with.

Why should one have to be making the request in the first place?

Because that is what the law says.

Faced with a (hypothetical) nice tree that cuts out all the light
from my lounge or sucks up so much moisture that it runs my lawn,
will I be allowed to cut it down, or will the tree officer be more
influences by the fact that six neighbours appreciate it.

Highly unlikely. In fact if you can provide proof that there is a good case
to prune or fell the tree then it will be allowed. What will not be allowed
is for you to do it on a whim. Strange that isn't it?

Peter Crosland

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Phil L"
saying something like:

Have you tried Rockall? - lovely sea views, fresh air and no people there
for you to harrass.

Got its own newspaper too.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/
--

Dave

On 09 Nov 2006 12:10:24 GMT Adrian wrote :
If you don't *want* to deal with Conservation Area restrictions, it's very
simple to not have to. Don't live in one. See, that easy?

If you're living in a house, and that house becomes part of a CA, then -
again, it's simple. Sell it. After all, the conservation area status will
have increased it's value! Winners all round!

You can have that both ways. If you don't want to live next to someone
else's choice of windows move away to a detached house nowhere near anyone
else. Or a Span estate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6129968.stm

"And then there are the residents' societies. Each homeowner becomes a
shareholder in the estate. The society is the defender of the Span faith and
a residents' covenant discourages any customisation - right down to hanging
baskets.

This means your neighbours have a final say on any changes that affect a
property's external look.

Some former residents complain of almost impossible restrictions,
particularly over proposed extensions that meet planning criteria - but not
subjective architectural judgements."

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:47:47 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
Highly unlikely. In fact if you can provide proof that there is a good
to prune or fell the tree then it will be allowed. What will not be
allowed is for you to do it on a whim. Strange that isn't it?

Very. I can plant a tree but I can't cut it down. If I was rich enough to
get one of these mature trees craned it, I could put it in today, decide
tomorrow I don't like and a council officer could insist that it stays.

I have made my response to the CA restrictions quite clear. There is now
just one tree in my garden. I will plant no more - I cannot take the risk
of being stuck with them if I change my mind in the future.

Is the idea that what I plant in my garden should be my business and no
one else's (short of tree roots damaging someone else's building) so way
out?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

If you're living in a house, and that house becomes part of a CA, then -
again, it's simple. Sell it. After all, the conservation area status will
have increased it's value! Winners all round!

You can have that both ways. If you don't want to live next to someone
else's choice of windows move away to a detached house nowhere near anyone
else. Or a Span estate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6129968.stm

Indeed. It wouldn't be for me, but I would fight for a Span resident's right
to enforce their convenants. If you don't like it, buy elsewhere. Don't muck
it up for people who want it.

Christian.

Peter Crosland wrote:
The ownership of
the garden and tree is unaltered. It is subject to a normal, legal, and open
process just like any other planning application.

Why should pruning my apple trees be subject to a planning application
?

What's the next step, not being able to cut the lawn without filling in
forms ?

Cheers,

John

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:32:43 -0000 Peter Crosland wrote :
This is simply untrue. What it means is that if you wish to prune or
fell the tree then you have to get permission and this is subject to
appropriate consideration rather than your whim! The application has
to be published and considered by the council and their officers.
That decision has the right of appeal just like a planning
application does.

Precisely, you've confirmed what I said. It's no longer my garden, my
tree, and what I can do with it is subject to what a Council officer
decides.


I have NOT confirmed what you said but have rebutted it. The ownership of
the garden and tree is unaltered. It is subject to a normal, legal, and
open process just like any other planning application. Your suggestion
that it is simply at the whim of a single council officer is demonstrably
false.

So he needs to ask someone else what to do with a tree be bought, planted
and is in his own garden? Seems to confirm what he said.

On 9 Nov 2006 06:35:47 -0800 John Anderton wrote :
Why should pruning my apple trees be subject to a planning application
?

If it's an apple tree grown for apples it isn't. If it's a cherry tree
grown for cherries, it isn't. If it's a flowering cherry it is.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
Just what is you f&^#ing problem? It's bad enough that we have these
idiotic conservation rules, without people like you going round reporting
others. Honestly, hand on heart, how is this impacting your quality of
life?

If you like stone cladding and plastic windows, don't buy and wreck a nice
period house, live in a souless estate so you can commit your taste
disasters elsewhere.
What's your taste got to do with him? Perhaps he doesn't want crappy wooden
windows that need painting and rot?
Do you want them to go back to using steam trains as well?

What's your taste got to do with him? Perhaps he doesn't want crappy
wooden windows that need painting and rot?

So don't buy a Victorian house, then. Simple job solved. Will everyone who
hates wooden windows please **** out of the conservation areas or just lump
it?

There really aren't that many conservation areas, you aren't forced to live
there. However, those that do live there reserve the right to tell your
stone cladding and uPVC to **** right off back to the chavvy council estates
where they belong.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
What's your taste got to do with him? Perhaps he doesn't want crappy
wooden windows that need painting and rot?

So don't buy a Victorian house, then. Simple job solved. Will everyone who
hates wooden windows please **** out of the conservation areas or just
lump it?

Why? They might like the rest of the place, or it might be will situated
for their needs but they don't want to be living in the past. Wooden
windows belong in the past.

There really aren't that many conservation areas, you aren't forced to
live there. However, those that do live there reserve the right to tell
your stone cladding and uPVC to **** right off back to the chavvy council
estates where they belong.

So they are filled with snobs? I wouldn't want to live amongst such snobs.
You might also find out that depite his lov for PVC windows he's richer than
you? Perhaps it's envy that drives people to behave like this. They see
someone who can afford to install modern windows when they can't so they
make something up.

Christian.

So don't buy a Victorian house, then. Simple job solved. Will everyone
who hates wooden windows please **** out of the conservation areas or
just lump it?

Why? They might like the rest of the place, or it might be will situated
for their needs but they don't want to be living in the past. Wooden
windows belong in the past.

Why? Because the majority of the residents say so. Society says you can't go
round murdering people. Society also says that in conservation areas, you
can't have uPVC windows. If you don't like society, live on a desert island.
The fact is that conservation areas are created because the residents of
these areas want their area to look good. They can help ensure this by
accepting planning restrictions in return for banning tasteless individuals
installing inappropriate improvements. Even better, it discourages them from
owning such fine properties to wreck in the first place.

So they are filled with snobs? I wouldn't want to live amongst such
snobs.

Excellent. Then I won't be afflicted by your appalling taste.

You might also find out that depite his lov for PVC windows he's richer
than you?

Almost certainly, I certainly wouldn't regard myself as rich. We're probably
the poorest people on the street.

Perhaps it's envy that drives people to behave like this.

"Envy" is always the last claim of people without taste or refinement. I DO
NOT envy wanky manky plastic windows. They are the spawn of satan in period
properties.

They see someone who can afford to install modern windows when they
can't so they make something up.

I've just installed a couple of sliding wooden sashes. They cost 3 times as
much as manky plastic windows. Unfortunately, a previous owner has fitted
manky plastic windows in our house. We are gradually going around fixing up
the remaining original windows and replacing the manky plastic as funds
allow.

Plastic windows are cheap **** and need just as much maintenance as wooden
ones. OK wooden ones need repainting every 7 years. Plastic ones need
wholesale replacement every 15, if you're lucky.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
So don't buy a Victorian house, then. Simple job solved. Will everyone
who hates wooden windows please **** out of the conservation areas or
just lump it?

Why? They might like the rest of the place, or it might be will situated
for their needs but they don't want to be living in the past. Wooden
windows belong in the past.

Why? Because the majority of the residents say so. Society says you can't
go round murdering people. Society also says that in conservation areas,
you can't have uPVC windows. If you don't like society, live on a desert
island. The fact is that conservation areas are created because the
residents of these areas want their area to look good. They can help
ensure this by accepting planning restrictions in return for banning
tasteless individuals installing inappropriate improvements. Even better,
it discourages them from owning such fine properties to wreck in the first
place.

There is a difference. Murdering someone is directly affecting them.
Choosing unslightly ( your view) windows is not. How far should you take
it? I happen to think that fiat motor-cars are very ugly. If I lived near
you should I be able to tell you not to buy one and place it on your
property? How about if I didn't like the look for your partner? Should
they be banned from the area to save my distress from looking at them.

So they are filled with snobs? I wouldn't want to live amongst such
snobs.

Excellent. Then I won't be afflicted by your appalling taste.

Either you are a troll or one of the biggest snobs I have ever encountered.

You might also find out that depite his lov for PVC windows he's richer
than you?

Almost certainly, I certainly wouldn't regard myself as rich. We're
probably the poorest people on the street.

Perhaps it's envy that drives people to behave like this.

"Envy" is always the last claim of people without taste or refinement. I
DO NOT envy wanky manky plastic windows. They are the spawn of satan in
period properties.

They might evey his being able to afford them - not saying it applies to
you, but it often does to these petty people (not you). It's similar to
people saying I wouldn't want a big house/ Rolls Royce when they can't
afford one but want to pull another (wo)man's achievements down.

They see someone who can afford to install modern windows when they
can't so they make something up.

I've just installed a couple of sliding wooden sashes. They cost 3 times
as much as manky plastic windows. Unfortunately, a previous owner has
fitted manky plastic windows in our house. We are gradually going around
fixing up the remaining original windows and replacing the manky plastic
as funds allow.

Fair enough. If you don't like the things you shouldn't have to have them.
But how would you like it if your neighbours told you to install nasty
plastic ones against your will.

Plastic windows are cheap **** and need just as much maintenance as wooden
ones. OK wooden ones need repainting every 7 years. Plastic ones need
wholesale replacement every 15, if you're lucky.

Not what I've found. When we had wooden frames thy need painting every few
years and even then rot was a problem. They've also got the possibiltiy of
warping or sah cords breaking. Furthermore, someone who has weak arms may
not be able to easily open sash windows - I've seen many that I've
struggeled to open, and I'm not particularly weak.
You should be looking at 25+yrs from modern, good-quality windows.

Christian.

"Terry W." wrote in message
.. .

Because no one likes people who unnecessarily interfere in other
people's lives?



OK. Next time I see someone vandalising your car, or a paedophile
chatting to your kids, I'll try and remember not to interfere in your
life. Right ?

I was thinking along those lines ...

Mary

Terry W.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:35:48 GMT Terry W. wrote :
Because no one likes people who unnecessarily interfere in other
people's lives?



OK. Next time I see someone vandalising your car, or a paedophile
chatting to your kids, I'll try and remember not to interfere in your
life. Right ?

You missed the word 'unnecessarily'. If you intervene when someone's
car is being vandalised you are assisting them. If your intervention is
about forcing someone to have windows in their house not of their
choosing then it's hard to see what favour you have done them.

If the house is in a conservation area it's the business of everyone who
lives there.

Mary

There is a difference. Murdering someone is directly affecting them.
Choosing unslightly ( your view) windows is not.

It does directly affect you, but nowhere near as much.

How far should you take it? I happen to think that fiat motor-cars are
very ugly. If I lived near you should I be able to tell you not to buy
one and place it on your property? How about if I didn't like the
look for your partner? Should they be banned from the area to save my
distress from looking at them.

It goes as far as society deems to be acceptable. There are no hard lines
drawn here. Society has decreed that it goes far enough for some
particularly good looking period areas to be designated conservation areas
and be protected. However, society has clearly decided not to ban the use of
Fiats. And if you'd met my partner, you'll realise that she wouldn't be
banned from anywhere for bad looks!

Excellent. Then I won't be afflicted by your appalling taste.

Either you are a troll or one of the biggest snobs I have ever
encountered.

No, I just don't like uPVC windows on period properties for which they are
inappropriate.

They might evey his being able to afford them - not saying it applies to
you, but it often does to these petty people (not you). It's similar to
people saying I wouldn't want a big house/ Rolls Royce when they can't
afford one but want to pull another (wo)man's achievements down.

Hardly. Decent sliding wooden sashes are more expensive than plastic
windows. I am more likely to be in a position of having plastic windows and
not being able to afford the wooden ones. In fact, that is exactly my
position.

Fair enough. If you don't like the things you shouldn't have to have
them. But how would you like it if your neighbours told you to install
nasty plastic ones against your will.

If I lived on an estate where my non-plastic windows were incongruous, I
would think that they had a point. I think that my previous house (1986)
would have looked ridiculous with sliding wooden sashes, just like a
Victorian terrace looks ridiculous with plastic, or an Art Deco mansion flat
looks ridiculous in anything other than Crittalls (which are now available
in modern double glazed replacement form).

Not what I've found. When we had wooden frames thy need painting every
few years and even then rot was a problem.

This does vary according to the quality of wood, paint and preparation. The
remaining windows in my house are just coming up for their 100th birthday.
They are a good two decades overdue for a painting (which I hope to do next
year), but still totally sound in themselves. They do need re-cording and
replacement fittings, though. An ancient brass fitch plate entirely snapped
in two this week, so I've been nosing around www.mighton.co.uk.

Christian.

Highly unlikely. In fact if you can provide proof that there is a
good to prune or fell the tree then it will be allowed. What will
not be allowed is for you to do it on a whim. Strange that isn't it?

Very. I can plant a tree but I can't cut it down. If I was rich
enough to get one of these mature trees craned it, I could put it in
today, decide tomorrow I don't like and a council officer could
insist that it stays.

I have made my response to the CA restrictions quite clear. There is
now just one tree in my garden. I will plant no more - I cannot take
the risk of being stuck with them if I change my mind in the future.

That is your choice. If you don't like the rules then move elsewhere.

Is the idea that what I plant in my garden should be my business and
no one else's (short of tree roots damaging someone else's building)
so way out?

See above.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Highly unlikely. In fact if you can provide proof that there is a
good to prune or fell the tree then it will be allowed. What will
not be allowed is for you to do it on a whim. Strange that isn't it?

Very. I can plant a tree but I can't cut it down. If I was rich
enough to get one of these mature trees craned it, I could put it in
today, decide tomorrow I don't like and a council officer could
insist that it stays.

I have made my response to the CA restrictions quite clear. There is
now just one tree in my garden. I will plant no more - I cannot take
the risk of being stuck with them if I change my mind in the future.

That is your choice. If you don't like the rules then move elsewhere.

Did you ever work for British Rail?

"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message
ups.com...
One of the houses on my street of victorian terraces has just been
"refurbished" which has included the replacement of wooden sash windows
with nasty plastic casement ones.

I think I'll contact the relevant department at the local council
tomorrow. Somehow I suspect they won't do very much. Even if they do
take an interest it would be very easy for the developer to say that
the windows have been in there for a while (the street was only
designated as a conservation area about five years ago). Anyone have
any experience of this type of thing?


I have to say I agree with other posters in that if this is the most
important thing you have to worry about, perhaps you should just crack open
a bottle of something cold and bubbly and celebrate the fact that you
clearly have a far less stressful life than 99.99% of the population, rather
than spend any time and effort on this.

Anyway, if, after pondering that for a while, you still think it's worth
getting involved, and if the council don't seem to be making much progress,
here's what you should do.

Write a letter to the owner of the nasty plastic windows on your council's
headed notepaper. Should be dead easy to forge if you have a letter from
them and a scanner. In the letter, explain that the nasty plastic windows
break the rules for the conservation area, and that the letter is
accompanying the initial enforcement procedure. If the windows are not
replaced with proper ones within 30 days, further enforcement procedures
will follow.

Then wrap the letter round a brick and throw it through the offending
windows.

Not only will this teach the owner of the windows a lesson, but I expect
he'll give someone at the council a pretty hard time as well. Maybe he'll
annoy the council so much that they will enforce the rules rigorously just
to spite him.

Just make sure no-one catches you!

Adam

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
There is a difference. Murdering someone is directly affecting them.
Choosing unslightly ( your view) windows is not.

It does directly affect you, but nowhere near as much.

Agreed.

How far should you take it? I happen to think that fiat motor-cars are
very ugly. If I lived near you should I be able to tell you not to buy
one and place it on your property? How about if I didn't like the
look for your partner? Should they be banned from the area to save my
distress from looking at them.

It goes as far as society deems to be acceptable. There are no hard lines
drawn here. Society has decreed that it goes far enough for some
particularly good looking period areas to be designated conservation areas
and be protected. However, society has clearly decided not to ban the use
of Fiats. And if you'd met my partner, you'll realise that she wouldn't be
banned from anywhere for bad looks!

:-)
But is it really society, or a small but vocal section of it? I'm asking
the question and don't pretend to know the answer.
Tastes vary as well. If a group of me and my insane mates decided that some
60s monstrosities were worth saving and kicked up a fuss, would that be
deemed as a demand by society?

Excellent. Then I won't be afflicted by your appalling taste.

Either you are a troll or one of the biggest snobs I have ever
encountered.

No, I just don't like uPVC windows on period properties for which they are
inappropriate.

Fair enough. However, there are many things that I considder inappropriate:
fat girls with bare midriffs for one, but there's nothing I can (or should
be able) to do about it.

They might evey his being able to afford them - not saying it applies to
you, but it often does to these petty people (not you). It's similar to
people saying I wouldn't want a big house/ Rolls Royce when they can't
afford one but want to pull another (wo)man's achievements down.

Hardly. Decent sliding wooden sashes are more expensive than plastic
windows. I am more likely to be in a position of having plastic windows
and not being able to afford the wooden ones. In fact, that is exactly my
position.

Ok. I though it was the other way round, but accpet I was wrong.

Fair enough. If you don't like the things you shouldn't have to have
them. But how would you like it if your neighbours told you to install
nasty plastic ones against your will.

If I lived on an estate where my non-plastic windows were incongruous, I
would think that they had a point. I think that my previous house (1986)
would have looked ridiculous with sliding wooden sashes, just like a
Victorian terrace looks ridiculous with plastic, or an Art Deco mansion
flat looks ridiculous in anything other than Crittalls (which are now
available in modern double glazed replacement form).

But the owner may not think it is as ridiculous as you. For the record, I
agree with you that in many cases plastic does look awful, but appriciate
that (a) it should be up to the owner and (b) each material has its pros and
cons.

"Derek ^" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:01:36 -0000, "Aaron Borbora"
wrote:

One of the professors here is disabled. She installed PVC doors so that
she
could easily get in and out of her house.

IME experience PVC doors and architraves are far worse than
traditional wood for access. The greater thickness of the sections
makes for deep thresholds to be got-over, thick ugly architraves
equates to small doors, and correspondingly restricted space in the
doorway.

What is she a professor of ??

http://www.pharm.ox.ac.uk/academics/Brading

Adam

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Aaron Borbora"
saying something like:

There is a difference. Murdering someone is directly affecting them.
Choosing unslightly ( your view) windows is not. How far should you take
it? I happen to think that fiat motor-cars are very ugly. If I lived near
you should I be able to tell you not to buy one and place it on your
property? How about if I didn't like the look for your partner? Should
they be banned from the area to save my distress from looking at them.

Too right. Ugly cars abound these days and should be subject to strict
controls. Same goes for ugly women - but theres never been any shortage
of them, so we've learned to live with them - just like PVC windows.
--

Dave

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-09 10:26:19 +0000, Chris Hill said:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:14:08 +0000, Derek ^
wrote:

On 8 Nov 2006 10:21:36 -0800, "Martin Pentreath"
wrote:

One of the houses on my street of victorian terraces has just been
"refurbished" which has included the replacement of wooden sash windows
with nasty plastic casement ones.


However Councils can and do take what view they want of issues, and
the can also choose those which they address, and those which they let
pass.


Don't hold your breath though. My parents live in a conservation area
in London. Our neighbour removed a chimney stack when they modified
their house just after moving in. They were told by the local
conservation area "police" to put the chimney stack back (or a
fibreglass replica). They did nothing.

30 years later they still haven't complied.

I take it that the local borough council don't really care too much
about this conservation area.

Chris.

Good for them.



Okay to put up a few windmills then....