I live in what should be a conservation area. We've chopped down much of the arboretum that was the back garden and we're getting the loft conversion done PDQ, before it happens anyway. In fact, once we've finished the work, we'll probably apply to the council. ;-)
Christian.
Perhaps your experience of ancient windows that hadn't been maintained in many decades has coloured your opinion. My parents installed new wooden sash windows in their house about 10 years ago. They are still entirely draughtproofed and look absolutely fantastic now. They haven't so much as touched up the paint yet. They came with a 100 year guarantee.
Christian.
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.
Christian.
That's what comes across.
Mary
This also seems to be the objective of her supporters as well!
Peter Crosland
That's basically it. There's an exception for fruit trees grown as such.
If your building is listed the listing applies to the building at the time of listing - so it would then be an offence to replace the PVC window with wood without first getting listed building consent*. There was a case some years back of a man in Bath (IIRC) who repainted his door in dark green having carefully researched what the colour would have been when the house was built. He was made to change it back.
In many cases you end up making the best of a bad job. If you had a cleared site and unlimited money would you put back what is there now? No, because needs have changed.
Our buildings are used for much of the week. But there are issues like off-street parking which we could have if the council would let us, but they won't. So the person who was running children's dance classes had to park illegally, unload all her equipment, then find somewhere to park, come back, run the class and then repeat the process. At the margin this hassle means you don't carry on - she didn't.
I was going to suggest that - it would be easier for her than the new ordinary door, would have retained the original door, and she could probably have got a grant to cover at least some of the cost. If she'd discussed it with the council before doing anything they might even have been able to arrange it for her.
I don't either, but where there is a conflict, as in this case, I think that the human being should take precedence over aesthetic issues.
I got the impression that the council was being bureaucratic and bloody minded.
Nobody had an issue with what she had done for several years.
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.
I don't agree. However, sooner or later one has to say that enough is enough to these petty minded jobsworths.
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.
Therefore, in my view, they acted wrongly regardless of what legislation about wooden doors says.
In that respect, if there is a way that ultimately those involved at what ever level, be it in government or the small minded individuals who initiated this inappropriate prosecution are put into their rightful place and hopefully fired, then I am all for it.
This is complete nonsense.
The people behind it, really do need to be taken down to a realistic level.
Indeed.
No, they considered that the person was using her disability as an excuse. There would have been several alternatives to fitting a uPVC door.
No.
Just because you are in a wheelchair doesn't mean you are an individual person. You may be kind and caring, a complete moron, very intelligent or pigheaded, just like anyone else.
She had options available to her. Options that would have been cheaper than an ugly uPVC door. She chose not to take them.
Christian.
An example:
I wouldn't mind one myself as I'm struggling from the car with a bag full of shopping and a baby.
Christian.
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.
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.
Everybody is an individual person.
Exactly; and that demonstrates that we are all different.
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.
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.
Don't let the council know. They'll be prosecuting you for having babies.
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.
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
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.