Anything to do with you, Gareth?

[Moo]

I've just discovered that Norwich City Council's website has an interesting section on its conservation policy.
Browsing through it in an idle moment just now I found that when I clicked on Period Property it took me straight to the PPUK home page.
Our conservation department has now gone up several notches in my estimation.

 

[Nemesis]

Gareth doesn't work for Norwich City Council.

 

[Moo]

No, I thought he didn't. It was more a suspicion that he'd dropped a hint or two in the right places.

On the other hand, it could be that the Norwich lot are more clued up than I thought they were.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

No, I thought he didn't. It was more a suspicion that he'd dropped a hint or two in the right places.

On the other hand, it could be that the Norwich lot are more clued up than I thought they were.

Well, I do keep recommending PP to my fellow COs as it's a lot livelier here than on the IHBC's discussion forum (which is where they usually hang out)

 

[Penners]

Gareth doesn't work for Norwich City Council.

But surely his wisdom is sought far beyond the confines of his own manor. :?

 

[Nemesis]

Wisdom?

Don't give him ideas above his station.

 

[Moo]

One interesting thing in the document is its reference to "Negative features".
One of them is the multi-storey car-park that was built on the site of the Opera House, another is the Job Centre, and a third is Vantage House (an office building). The first two were built by the city council (or some other government body), and the other one must have had the blessing of the council when it was originally built (in the 60s?) and then re-clad a couple of years ago.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

One interesting thing in the document is its reference to "Negative features".
One of them is the multi-storey car-park that was built on the site of the Opera House, another is the Job Centre, and a third is Vantage House (an office building). The first two were built by the city council (or some other government body), and the other one must have had the blessing of the council when it was originally built (in the 60s?) and then re-clad a couple of years ago.

I have a strong disagreement with the city about some of those "negative" features which seem to be disguised development opportunities, rather than objective assessments of architectural worth, if you take the view that the character of a conservation area is about the place as it is, rather than some fairytale mediaeval Disneyland you might want to believe it could be.

But I've gone one and on about the Glass Tower here before and realise Pevsner and I are in a minority.