http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=103199
Wouldn't be surprised if this is proven to be true.....
Wouldn't be surprised if this is proven to be true.....
- Thread starter Pford75
- Start date
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
Well, I'm just opening another tin of Beluga caviar here (horrid taste, but it does bring up a nice shine on my hand-stitched brogues), while lighting a Cuban cigar with a wad of fifties...
LadyArowana
Member
- Messages
- 3,687
Gareth Hughes said:
Really Gareth, I'm shocked. You should not be opening your own caviar or cleaning your own shoes, if you are playing the system properly there should be funding for a butler and housekeeper.
I realise that it's only a small minority of bad apples (as in any line of business), but what exacerbates the problem in this situation is that many conservation decisions are entirely subjective and at the whim of one person with little accountability.
We've all heard the conflicting stories where one CO will insist on an extension 'in keeping with the main building' and then another CO insists on a 'clear delineation between old and new'. I'm not commenting on which of these is right, or even suggesting that a 'one size fits all' approach is acheivable. My issue is that the decision itself is often (although not always) on the basis of "because I said so". Thus it becomes difficult to determine the corrupt from the saintly (I'm sure all our Norfolk CO's are saintly :wink: )
We've all heard the conflicting stories where one CO will insist on an extension 'in keeping with the main building' and then another CO insists on a 'clear delineation between old and new'. I'm not commenting on which of these is right, or even suggesting that a 'one size fits all' approach is acheivable. My issue is that the decision itself is often (although not always) on the basis of "because I said so". Thus it becomes difficult to determine the corrupt from the saintly (I'm sure all our Norfolk CO's are saintly :wink: )
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
I wonder why you have that feeling, Pford. Is it possible that, like many of us, you have a kind of inbuilt belief that any suspicion of corruption within local or national government is probably going to be proven correct?Pford75 said:
I'm not suggesting that this story is or is not true, but it does seem to be the case that most people, when faced with such suspicions, default to a policy of "no smoke without fire". And I reckon this cynicism is probably due, at least in part, to the expenses scandals of recent years.
LadyArowana
Member
- Messages
- 3,687
Penners said:
Money available, power to acquire it, perceived lack consequences, for some people that is enough motivation.
Penners - I think you are right that the expenses scandals play a big role in shaping our thinking on these things. I also believe that most of us can point to personal examples where those in the public sector seem to forget that we are their customers and their employers.
One personal example which annoyed me considerably at the time....I was working as a consultant for a Public Sector body and we identified the potential for saving £400k/annum by printing things in a slightly different way. No major change to working practice, no redundancies...just some go old fashioned economy in materials. The response? That in the context of the departmental budget, £400k/annum was a "rounding error" and not worth bothering about. This is £400k of our money!
One personal example which annoyed me considerably at the time....I was working as a consultant for a Public Sector body and we identified the potential for saving £400k/annum by printing things in a slightly different way. No major change to working practice, no redundancies...just some go old fashioned economy in materials. The response? That in the context of the departmental budget, £400k/annum was a "rounding error" and not worth bothering about. This is £400k of our money!
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Penners said:
. . . especially when the guilty parties only end up serving one quarter of their sentence: http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/expenses-fraud-ex-mp-morley-freed
I've also read that Morley is intending to sue News International for hacking his phone, no doubt spurred on by the thought of a 7-figure compensation payment following the recent payout in the Milly Dowler hacking affair.
So, a corrupt politician found guilty of stealing taxpayer's money becomes a news story worthy of attracting journalist to 'hack' his phone (which amounts to little more than merely listening to his answerphone messages because he didn't change the default security code), spends just four months in a low-security open prison and then pursues 'compensation' of £1m+ for some exaggerated sense of invasion of privacy. Not bad for a couple of years 'work'.
I'd be quite happy to let people listen to my answerphone messages for 1/10th of the 'going rate'.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
For goodness' sake, FF, don't sell yourself short! I'm sure the hot stuff on your answering machine will be worth considerably more than £100k.
Breathy female voice:-
"Hello, Mr Fisher. This is Gloria from your friendly local... er... leisure centre. I just wanted to let you know that we'll be happy to renew your membership of our special activities group, and that we have some very interesting new equipment for you to try out. The items have already proved exceptionally popular with our other discerning gentleman members."
Breathy female voice:-
"Hello, Mr Fisher. This is Gloria from your friendly local... er... leisure centre. I just wanted to let you know that we'll be happy to renew your membership of our special activities group, and that we have some very interesting new equipment for you to try out. The items have already proved exceptionally popular with our other discerning gentleman members."
JoceAndChris
Member
- Messages
- 6,606
- Location
- Lincolnshire
:lol: :lol:
It strikes me that there are two very different things going on in your line of argument here. One is that there is alleged corruption, which, if it proves to be true, none would condone.
The other is along the lines of power-hungry individuals making decisons, alone, based on not much, and that this is somehow corrupt. I'm not sure I really go along with you here. Firstly, where there's contention it becomes a very involved and lengthy process with a lot of input from the owners, the CO, the CO's managers, colleagues, and others. I'm not sure that the final outcome is arrived at by the CO who originally said "you can't do such and such".
Secondly, you would hope that COs are mainly like Gareth and Gervase who contribute here - individuals with highly specialised training and experience who are likely to know a great deal more about what's best for the property, and the area, than the owner. That, combined with being articulate, personable, and persuasive, would generally mean that the owner would happily go away thinking "oh, yes, that's a better idea" rather than "I hate the random c*ap being imposed on me by someone who is nothing to do with my home". I know it goes wrong and I'm dreading that if my house is listed the CO might not have a keen architectural eye for detail, and might say, regarding my property, that the extension should be a clear delineation from the older part of the house, whereas I'd hope to be allowed to reproduce the South extension to reinstate the symmetry that I believe is the character and charm of this building. But, if that's the case, we either arrive at a compromise or give up the plan. I still feel that in all it's better to have somebody making a firm conservation-based decision, even if you find it arbitrary and disagree.
And this will be an unpopular line of argument I'm sure but 200 years ago mainly good building decisions were made by people with education, taste and money. Now they are typically made with just money. We need educated people to control and prevent ignorant eyesores and chavvy abominations.
Pford75 said:
It strikes me that there are two very different things going on in your line of argument here. One is that there is alleged corruption, which, if it proves to be true, none would condone.
The other is along the lines of power-hungry individuals making decisons, alone, based on not much, and that this is somehow corrupt. I'm not sure I really go along with you here. Firstly, where there's contention it becomes a very involved and lengthy process with a lot of input from the owners, the CO, the CO's managers, colleagues, and others. I'm not sure that the final outcome is arrived at by the CO who originally said "you can't do such and such".
Secondly, you would hope that COs are mainly like Gareth and Gervase who contribute here - individuals with highly specialised training and experience who are likely to know a great deal more about what's best for the property, and the area, than the owner. That, combined with being articulate, personable, and persuasive, would generally mean that the owner would happily go away thinking "oh, yes, that's a better idea" rather than "I hate the random c*ap being imposed on me by someone who is nothing to do with my home". I know it goes wrong and I'm dreading that if my house is listed the CO might not have a keen architectural eye for detail, and might say, regarding my property, that the extension should be a clear delineation from the older part of the house, whereas I'd hope to be allowed to reproduce the South extension to reinstate the symmetry that I believe is the character and charm of this building. But, if that's the case, we either arrive at a compromise or give up the plan. I still feel that in all it's better to have somebody making a firm conservation-based decision, even if you find it arbitrary and disagree.
And this will be an unpopular line of argument I'm sure but 200 years ago mainly good building decisions were made by people with education, taste and money. Now they are typically made with just money. We need educated people to control and prevent ignorant eyesores and chavvy abominations.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Oh dear... this is straying into tricky territory!JoceAndChris said:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who is to decide which people are sufficiently educated to exercise these controls? Who is decide what is a chavvy abomination and what is not?
Perhaps the best idea is to leave it all to me.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
or have a kit kat before deciding
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Before... or perhaps instead of? :wink:
No, you misinterpreted me. My point was that without clear, written guidelines it becomes difficult to discern between corruption and good intent.
Not strictly true. If a CO decides that it is a case of 'No consent required', then there will be no debate. The householder will proceed with work entirely on the opinion of one person. I can also say from personal (albeit positive in my case) experience, that the weight of the CO's point of view is considerable. If they decide to support/oppose something (particularly the smaller changes in far flung authorities) it is at least unusual for the planning committee to decide to go against their view. In some local authorities, the 'Conservation Office' comprises 1 slightly frazzled CO and noone else....so there isn't much in the form of oversight. I don't criticise CO's for this...it is not of their doing - I would have thought that some CO's would welcome the support of clear guidelines to support their views.
They aren't
I have experienced 4 different CO's with very different approaches and skills. Not all are as passionate about the buildings as our residents.
Can't agree. Many of the lovely period buildings we have today were basic workers cottages, functional buildings and not at all built by people with education and money. I don't know what 'taste' is...so I can't really comment. Taste seems to be used as an alternative for 'liking what I like' for many people. One might argue that flush hardwood doors and the paisley patterned wallpaper of the 70's is tasteless, but it is undoubtedly part of the historic fabric. As Penners says, who is a suitable arbiter for such judgements? Without a degree of experimentation, where is the innovation?
As for the role of education - I have seen some wonderful buildings all around the world. Many of them constructed by people who are 'uneducated' by our standards...but this doesn't prevent them from creating marvellous structures, homes and architecture.
To write off these people as incapable of good building decisions is conceited to say the least.
JoceAndChris
Member
- Messages
- 6,606
- Location
- Lincolnshire
A fair enough point about other countries' buildings, but I'm trying to confine my commentary to this country and this system of Planning and Conservation (which I think works pretty well on the whole, except I'd like it to be stricter).
There are many examples of 18th and 19th C pattern books by clever architects for workers' cottages. These were copied all over by builders (like mine) and given interesting quirks and individual detail that give us the richly varied period properties we all love so much. Then there are the buildings that were never designed to be the way they look today, because they amalgamate different periods, some are pretty, some are odd, all are interesting.
Where I think COs and Planning need to come down hard is in the destruction of interesting and irreplaceable old fabric, the knocking down altogether of old buildings, the smashing out of old interiors and unique features. On that I think pretty much most of us would agree.
There are many examples of 18th and 19th C pattern books by clever architects for workers' cottages. These were copied all over by builders (like mine) and given interesting quirks and individual detail that give us the richly varied period properties we all love so much. Then there are the buildings that were never designed to be the way they look today, because they amalgamate different periods, some are pretty, some are odd, all are interesting.
Where I think COs and Planning need to come down hard is in the destruction of interesting and irreplaceable old fabric, the knocking down altogether of old buildings, the smashing out of old interiors and unique features. On that I think pretty much most of us would agree.
JoceAndChris
Member
- Messages
- 6,606
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Pford75 said:
I don't much like experimentation, but if people must experiment with building styles, please don't do it on period properties.
MatthewC
Member
- Messages
- 1,733
- Location
- Central/South England
I've been resisting the temptation of adding my tuppence-worth but can no longer contain myself. The CO that I have the misfortune to know is well qualified and very experienced. That does not stop the CO's decisions being arbitrary, irrational and at times illogical, often based on a poor reading of the application.
We had our first application for an extension refused on the grounds that the proposal would "significantly affect the symmetry of the pair of listed buildings" (this is the penalty of being semi-detached). OK, so we thought again and then had a meeting with the CO who gave some advice on the sort of things we could do, like retain the existing extension and add an obviously different conservatory (glass and 6" oak). So we applied for precisely that and it was refused again, going back to the earlier arguments about symmetry. This isn't corruption, it is just plain arbitrary "dart board" decision making.
I have bent over backwards to use the right materials in sympathy with the age of the building etc, and all I have had in return is hassle. When we were applying for LBC for the new kitchen double sash window (which replaced a 50's galvanised door and two windows), the CO (as well as not allowing them to be double glazed) even phoned the manufacturer to argue about the width of the architrave in the centre!
See my blog (http://houseintheenchantedforest.blogspot.com/) for more details :evil: :evil: :evil:
We had our first application for an extension refused on the grounds that the proposal would "significantly affect the symmetry of the pair of listed buildings" (this is the penalty of being semi-detached). OK, so we thought again and then had a meeting with the CO who gave some advice on the sort of things we could do, like retain the existing extension and add an obviously different conservatory (glass and 6" oak). So we applied for precisely that and it was refused again, going back to the earlier arguments about symmetry. This isn't corruption, it is just plain arbitrary "dart board" decision making.
I have bent over backwards to use the right materials in sympathy with the age of the building etc, and all I have had in return is hassle. When we were applying for LBC for the new kitchen double sash window (which replaced a 50's galvanised door and two windows), the CO (as well as not allowing them to be double glazed) even phoned the manufacturer to argue about the width of the architrave in the centre!
See my blog (http://houseintheenchantedforest.blogspot.com/) for more details :evil: :evil: :evil:
LadyArowana
Member
- Messages
- 3,687
MatthewC said:
Maybe he was waiting for you to turn up at the meeting with a paper bag full of used notes?
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
JoceAndChris
Member
- Messages
- 6,606
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Never nice to see someone disappointed and furious as Matthew is, but, looking at the pics, reading the blog, I think the CO sounds like she's making a good decision regarding that extension. It may be that she said yes to the conservatory and got shouted down by everyone else in her department, we just don't know. In any case I think a modern conservatory on a Georgian building is odd, and a modern conservatory stuck on a little extension even odder. I don't like buildings that sprawl out into the back garden, and I'm sure the neighbours would be less than delighted too.
As for being fussy about width of architrave: excellent. It's nice to hear of a CO paying such attention to detail and Matthew's house, that is having such care and attention lavished on it after a long spell of neglect, will look all the better for it.
I hope in time you feel better about this whole painful episode Matthew.
As for being fussy about width of architrave: excellent. It's nice to hear of a CO paying such attention to detail and Matthew's house, that is having such care and attention lavished on it after a long spell of neglect, will look all the better for it.
I hope in time you feel better about this whole painful episode Matthew.