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?

I think so. There are many 60s monstrosities that are probably worth saving.
However, I can only speak for myself, really. When I suggest what "society
has decreed", I mean via the processes of legislation, local government and
(formal and informal) enforcement, which, although imperfect, do somewhat
represent society.

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.

I believe that you should have the power of choice as to whether or not it
is up to the owner, so that we can both live in a manner that accords with
our beliefs in this regard. I would suggest that we set aside a few small
areas where the owner's choice is limited for people like me who appreciate
this. I think a good name for such areas would be "conservation areas". I
think it would be best to involve some local democracy, so that people
living in an area can democratically choose whether their area is so
designated. I think the local council would be an ideal vehicle for
achieving this. Whoops. That's exactly the current situation.

Christian.

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


And small feet?

Hi Adam,

Adam wrote:

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.

I like the cut of your jib!

Adam wrote:

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.

I did notice that those accusing me of having too much time on their
hands seemed to be rather prolific usenet posters! Of course, I didn't
want to say anything ...

Cheers,

Martin

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.

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



This whole thread is quite an interesting insight into 21st century
society. On the one hand this, on the other hand that. And so we muddle
along

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:19:08 -0000 Christian McArdle wrote :
. I would suggest that we set aside a few small areas
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That would be a great improvement over the 72 we have in this
Borough alone and more in line with the original intention

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

"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message
ps.com...


I did notice that those accusing me of having too much time on their
hands seemed to be rather prolific usenet posters! Of course, I didn't
want to say anything ...

Cheers,

Martin

Are you still here?

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."

rather than this other thing called anarchy:
"a state of disorder due to lack of government or control."

Which one do we live in now? Because it sure as hell isn't the former.

--
wigwambam

. I would suggest that we set aside a few small areas
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That would be a great improvement over the 72 we have in this
Borough alone and more in line with the original intention

I don't know about your borough. In ours, there aren't nearly enough.
Strangely enough, my particular house isn't actually in a conservation area,
although it probably should be, given its current barely spoilt nature.

Christian.

Christian McArdle ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

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.

And which leads to far more resources being used in
manufacture/distribution/waste...?

It's this thing called society:
"a particular community of people living in a country or region, and
having shared customs, laws, and organizations."

rather than this other thing called anarchy:
"a state of disorder due to lack of government or control."

Which one do we live in now? Because it sure as hell isn't the former.

It is if you understand English comprehension.

Christian.

Aaron Borbora ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Wooden windows belong in the past.

Clue: Wooden windows do not necessarily mean leaky/creaky/windy/single
glazed.

It's perfectly possible to get draught and watertight hardwood sash windows
with sealed unit glazing... and which will last a hundred times longer,
whilst looking infinitely better, than tupperware.

Personally, I'd love to find some decent double-glazed replacements for our
Crittal steel windows with real leaded lights. But until then, I'll quite
happily live with these. This house would look *awful* with tupperware. Far
worse even than the naff secondary double glazing that's in place on some
windows at the mo.

"." wrote in message
...
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.

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?

yeah, mind your own business you annoying, interfering petty little
busybody.

It is his business, as it affects the environment he lives in and quite
probably the value of his property. Also, as your opinion was not relevant
to the question asked, does that mean you are an annoying, interfering petty
little busybody?

Hello Macaroni

Marconi wrote:
Are you still here?

I'm teetering on the edge of my computer seat awaiting the arrival of
new posts. Any thread I've started in the past has died out after three
replies.

Being the neighbourhood busybody took me one three minute phone call
this morning (followed by about half an hour of gloating, but I could
multi-task during that bit). Developing a sudden usenet habit has
proved to be a much bigger time waster. Have you people got nothing
better to do? Guess your wives have dumped you and the kids hate you
etc ;-)

Cheers!

Martin Pentreath

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

Developing a sudden usenet habit has
proved to be a much bigger time waster.

Ah, well, that's because you're using Google Groups...

"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello Macaroni

Marconi wrote:
Are you still here?

I'm teetering on the edge of my computer seat awaiting the arrival of
new posts. Any thread I've started in the past has died out after three
replies.

Being an arsehole always attracts a crowd here. Google for Turtill.

Being the neighbourhood busybody took me one three minute phone call
this morning (followed by about half an hour of gloating, but I could
multi-task during that bit). Developing a sudden usenet habit has
proved to be a much bigger time waster.

I know. You'd be much more productive looking for the dust falling off your
neighbours windows, and reporting them for littering.

Have you people got nothing
better to do? Guess your wives have dumped you and the kids hate you
etc ;-)

Not quite. I'm looking for a neighbour to grass up for some silly violation
of a local bye-law. That should get here going.
How long did it take for your wife to leave?

On 2006-11-09 12:31:01 +0000, Adrian said:

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?

I would rather have a set of rules (and this is important) agreed by a
majority of residents in the proposed area and consistently operated
using a supplement to the council tax paid for by people in those
areas. If it has value, then people should be willing to pay for that
value.

This is not what happens. The reality is that the whole thing is at
the behest of petty bureaucrats.
That's wrong.

On 2006-11-09 12:33:50 +0000, "Christian McArdle"
said:

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.

Fair enough, but it wasn't my issue.

Really there should be agreement by polling the residents in a CA or
proposed CA that that is what they want. Then they should pay for the
cost to enforce it.

On 2006-11-09 17:21:26 +0000, Stuart Noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


And small feet?

Usually goes with the syndrome. None affect me personally.....

Christian McArdle 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."

rather than this other thing called anarchy:
"a state of disorder due to lack of government or control."

Which one do we live in now? Because it sure as hell isn't the
former.

It is if you understand English comprehension.

It isn't, and I do.

We do not share customs, we allow more into the country, and allow the
segragation. We do not share laws, we change them to suit other
cultures. We do not share organisations, as most, do not allow "anyone"
into them, or exclude them by title.
--
wigwambam

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-09 17:21:26 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


And small feet?

Usually goes with the syndrome. None affect me personally.....



I remember about your feet but hadn't realised your other dimensions
were equally impressive.

chippy wrote:
Christian McArdle 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."

rather than this other thing called anarchy:
"a state of disorder due to lack of government or control."
Which one do we live in now? Because it sure as hell isn't the
former.
It is if you understand English comprehension.

It isn't, and I do.

But do you comprehend comprehension?


We do not share customs, we allow more into the country, and allow the
segragation. We do not share laws, we change them to suit other
cultures. We do not share organisations, as most, do not allow "anyone"
into them, or exclude them by title.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 11:00:07 -0800 Martin Pentreath wrote :
Why do I have a feeling that I've unleashed something worse than combi
wars?

More than one of us I suspect would cite Voltai "I do not like
plastic windows, but I will defend to the death your right to have them
on your house if you so choose".

In a conservation area?

Ian

Aaron Borbora wrote:

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.

Do you think that Merton College, Oxford (to choose an example at
random) should be able to do anything it likes to its buildings?

Ian

"Ian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Aaron Borbora wrote:

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.

Do you think that Merton College, Oxford (to choose an example at
random) should be able to do anything it likes to its buildings?

Ah!
I was thinking about this as I wrote. I don't think they should (but wish
they would paint my bathroom).
The windows in my room are very pretty but have been fitted with secondary
glazing for practical reasons. If they wanted to intall PVC I'd imagine
that most people would be outraged and never leave them alone about it.
In the past they could do what they liked and were even proposing in the
19th C to knock down Mob quad. It's interesting to see what they have
kncoked down before planning came about. It could be argued that the
College is as nice as it is today only beacuse they were free to do what
they liked. If they were constrained by Oxford City Council would the
College look so good? Could they have put up Grove buildings as it meant
cutting down a load of trees? Progress can be both good and bad, I suppose.

Ian

"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?


Yes - the Royal Cowes Yachting Club on the IoW had to take their PVC out a
few years back and put wooden ones back in.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
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.

You can get some perfectly acceptable (visually) PVC sash windows these
days.

"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.

Point of order Mr Chairman! More usually....
The fact is that conservation areas are created because residents of
nearby areas want the area to look good.

And the people making the decisions about imposing CA status are not
necessarily the people who are going to have to pick up the (increased)
tabs.

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.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:46:30 GMT, "ian henden"
wrote:


You can get some perfectly acceptable (visually) PVC sash windows these
days.


Nah. Not when you see it in context, installed in the house.

I came across a super 5 bedroom Victorian mill owner's house for sale
that had the date of erection carved, enclosed within scrolls, in
stone over the centre of the frontage, plus it had been completely
refurbished, new kitchen and bathrooms + ensuites, had a swimming pool
and games room in the cellar, and I could afford it.

It was in very good condition, except every window was replaced by
dark brown PVC printed with a "Wood Grain" photograph finish. It just
yelled at you "Tarted up on the cheap to sell".

DG

ian henden ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

You can get some perfectly acceptable (visually) PVC sash windows
these days.

And you can easily get far better hardwood sash windows.

On 2006-11-09 18:59:17 +0000, Stuart Noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:

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.


And small feet?

Usually goes with the syndrome. None affect me personally.....



I remember about your feet

Yes, 47 or 48.

but hadn't realised your other dimensions were equally impressive.

All of the desirable ones and unfortunately some of the less desirable
ones as well.

On 2006-11-09 17:19:00 +0000, Stuart Noble said:

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....

Not in my back yard.

On 09 Nov 2006 22:34:26 GMT, Adrian wrote:

ian henden ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

You can get some perfectly acceptable (visually) PVC sash windows
these days.

And you can easily get far better hardwood sash windows.

Indeed. Surely part of the "conservation" aspect is the actual
material, as much as the casual appearance.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

In message .com, Ian
writes

Tony Bryer wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 11:00:07 -0800 Martin Pentreath wrote :
Why do I have a feeling that I've unleashed something worse than combi
wars?

More than one of us I suspect would cite Voltai "I do not like
plastic windows, but I will defend to the death your right to have them
on your house if you so choose".

In a conservation area?

It's where they keep curtain twitchers

--
geoff

ian henden wrote in message
...


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.

You can get some perfectly acceptable (visually) PVC sash windows these
days.



You could be suffering from Retinitis pigmentosa or Glaucoma, free eye tests
are available to check for this.




-

You can get some perfectly acceptable (visually) PVC sash windows these
days.

I considered them for my project. I decided that they were OK externally
visually, particularly for the application in hand (2 floors above the
ground). However, the interior appearance was unacceptable for a master
bedroom. I would also hesitate to use them on the ground floor. Finally,
although cheaper than wood, they weren't much so. About halfway between the
price of a plastic casement and a wooden sash.

Christian.

I would rather have a set of rules (and this is important) agreed by a
majority of residents in the proposed area and consistently operated using
a supplement to the council tax paid for by people in those areas.

There is no need for council tax supplement. Enforcement could be funded
from fines from transgressors and planning application fees. With this
method, both people from outside the area and those not planning changes do
not pay additional costs.

Christian.

Or are you just picking and choosing which bits of the period the house
was built in you'd like to preserve and which bits you'd like to forget?

Yes, picking and choosing seems like a good idea in this case.

Christian.

We do not share customs, we allow more into the country, and allow the
segragation. We do not share laws, we change them to suit other
cultures. We do not share organisations, as most, do not allow "anyone"
into them, or exclude them by title.

Do I detect a closet racist here?

Christian.

Christian McArdle ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

We do not share customs, we allow more into the country, and allow the
segragation. We do not share laws, we change them to suit other
cultures. We do not share organisations, as most, do not allow "anyone"
into them, or exclude them by title.

Do I detect a closet racist here?

If so, then I think the closet door is wide open, with a big neon sign
pointing the contents out.

On 2006-11-10 10:07:22 +0000, "Christian McArdle"
said:

I would rather have a set of rules (and this is important) agreed by a
majority of residents in the proposed area and consistently operated
using a supplement to the council tax paid for by people in those areas.

There is no need for council tax supplement. Enforcement could be
funded from fines from transgressors and planning application fees.
With this method, both people from outside the area and those not
planning changes do not pay additional costs.

Christian.

That would be another way.