Replacement windows in breach of conservation area rules

[Adrian]

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

Good luck.

[Ian]

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

Ian

[Christian McArdle]

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 bastards. 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.

[Martin Pentreath]

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!

[Adrian]

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

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

[Martin Pentreath]

LOL!

[Tony Bryer]

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

[Tony Bryer]

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]

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.

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.

[manatbandq]

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

[manatbandq]

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

MBQ

[Peter Crosland]

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.

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?

Because that is what the law says.

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

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

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:

Got its own newspaper too.

[Tony Bryer]

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:

"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]

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?

[Christian McArdle]

to enforce their convenants. If you don't like it, buy elsewhere. Don't muck it up for people who want it.

Christian.

[John Anderton]

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

[Aaron Borbora]

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.

[Tony Bryer]

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.

[Aaron Borbora]

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?