Replacement windows in breach of conservation area rules

[Adrian]

Aaron Borbora ( [e-mail]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

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

[Grunff]

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'.

[Adrian]

Grunff ( [e-mail]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

No argument. People are more than welcome to live in Kettering if they wish, more fool them.

But what YOU fail to see is that other people REALLY don't want to live in them, or surrounded by them, and the only way to stop everywhere becoming identikit ticky-tacky is to enforce planning and conservation area regulations...?

If you'd rather have council planning enforcement officers roaming every street at regular intervals, paid for out of council tax, of course, then the only other alternative is for residents to provide some of the information.

[Grunff]

There is no way we will ever agree on a single point, so I'm stepping out of this one.

[Adrian]

Grunff ( [e-mail]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Odd, that, since you've snipped my agreement with your point that some people do want to live in new-build houses.

[Aaron Borbora]

This is a pointless argument. We'll never agree and it would be better to agree to disagree :-)

[Grunff]

Look, just to make it clear, I personally dislike newbuilds, and I also dislike most towns. I live in an old house in the countryside. But if people want to live in newbuilds, and put in uPVC, and whatever else, I believe it should be their right to do so.

Creating more and more CAs is silly, and takes away from all of our freedoms. It creates a nasty, anal, restrictive, museum-like environment.

[Chris Hill]

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.

[Peter Crosland]

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.

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.

Peter Crosland

[DB.]

Not necessarily so. As the earlier poster said "Councils can and do take what view they want of issues, and they can also choose those which they address and those which they let pass". Incorrect fenestration to one house in a terrace might well be regarded as being much more noticeable (and offensive) than the absence of a chimney. As for a fibreglass replica - Ugh!

[Andy Hall]

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.

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

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?

[Andy Hall]

Good for them.

[Grunff]

Well, yes, Peter does believe this, because it keeps him in employment.

[Christian McArdle]

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.

Christian.

[Christian McArdle]

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.

[Adrian]

Andy Hall ( [e-mail]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

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!

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?

[Christian McArdle]

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.

[Andy Hall]

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.

[Martin Pentreath]

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

[Adrian]

Andy Hall ( [e-mail]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

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?