A
Anonymous
Guest
So. How could they be so polite. How did she get away with it ? How does one complain about CO's ?
Why no prosecution ?
Why no prosecution ?
A
Anonymous
Guest
CO's? Many of them have no bloody idea - nor indeed have many in EH. Thank God for tonight's prog in many ways - it highlighted so much.
Ho hum.
Ho hum.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Please note that the Law (in the form of the 1990 Act) is not prescriptive - it makes no presumption in favour of preserving what already exists, or maintaining the staus quo. And that PPG15 "Planning and the Historic Environment" is guidance, not law. Nothing that was done on tonight's show was criminal (though it was morally reprehensible)
The only CO who's been forced out of his job recently was Richard Ward of Babergh DC following a ludicrous campaign of vilification on the internet by the owner of Sproughton Mill in Suffolk, who objected because he'd been served an urgent works notice, failed to comply with it, then stirred up trouble on points of detail because the council did the work themselves (all temporary) and bankrupted the owner by recovering their costs (as is their right). It's worth noting that the owner had originally gone out of his way to try to get the mill pulled down.
As I've said elsewhere here this evening, I think the CO's justification was not unreasonable, though I regret a lot of what was done.
He isn't the villain of this piece, what you need to beware of is headstrong, wealthy women who are determined to get their own way with the planners(I exclude Evelyn from this, of course ;o)).
Still, at least the client ended up paying far more than she needed to. Pity it won't make much difference to her, or to the resale value.
The only CO who's been forced out of his job recently was Richard Ward of Babergh DC following a ludicrous campaign of vilification on the internet by the owner of Sproughton Mill in Suffolk, who objected because he'd been served an urgent works notice, failed to comply with it, then stirred up trouble on points of detail because the council did the work themselves (all temporary) and bankrupted the owner by recovering their costs (as is their right). It's worth noting that the owner had originally gone out of his way to try to get the mill pulled down.
As I've said elsewhere here this evening, I think the CO's justification was not unreasonable, though I regret a lot of what was done.
He isn't the villain of this piece, what you need to beware of is headstrong, wealthy women who are determined to get their own way with the planners(I exclude Evelyn from this, of course ;o)).
Still, at least the client ended up paying far more than she needed to. Pity it won't make much difference to her, or to the resale value.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Today's letters column of the Guardian has something in about the destruction of heritage. It's a long time after the original article to which it refers, it's rather abridged, but sometimes being a piece of grit pays off.
I'd stop being patronising Gareth - it's making you look a bit silly.
I'd stop being patronising Gareth - it's making you look a bit silly.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well, Evelyn. I thought (and hoped) after your earlier post this evening that we'd made up, although we'll never agree on everything (how dull would that be?). Pity you think me pointing out what the law actually says is "patronising". You may know the law backwards for all I know, but some people here don't.
As for "looking a bit silly", I find that offensive and a little hypocritical, after all, I'm not the one who, even allowing an average of one post - to this forum alone - every half hour (one has to have some time to think) has been posting here (to judge by your total) for nearly five months solid, with no time for anything else (and long before I started being the grit in your oyster).
I don't mind looking a bit silly on my profile here (hence the photo), perhaps you could add some detail to your profile so we actually know who you are, especially what your background / experience in conservation is, etc.? (I don't just mean writing letters to the press, valuable though that can be).
I'm sorry, Evelyn, but your anonymity (yes, I know you're the Mrs or Ms Cook who gave evidence over Paddington, but any member of the public with a lot, or a little, knowledge of conservation could have done that) is what irritates me most about the way you expect everyone else who posts here, especially if they have the temerity to disagree with you, to constantly bow to your (apparently) superior judgement, just by crushing them with the sheer number of your replies.
Other people let us have at least a bit of insight into their lives and experience which enable us to make some judgement about the validity of their opinions, you (to yoke two unsuitable words together) act as a conservation bulldozer, in the hope offlattening all before you.
I don't like the way "conservationist" has attacked you anonymously, but you must accept that yours isn't the only view here, and you must come up with cogent arguments, not weight of numbers.
As for "looking a bit silly", I find that offensive and a little hypocritical, after all, I'm not the one who, even allowing an average of one post - to this forum alone - every half hour (one has to have some time to think) has been posting here (to judge by your total) for nearly five months solid, with no time for anything else (and long before I started being the grit in your oyster).
I don't mind looking a bit silly on my profile here (hence the photo), perhaps you could add some detail to your profile so we actually know who you are, especially what your background / experience in conservation is, etc.? (I don't just mean writing letters to the press, valuable though that can be).
I'm sorry, Evelyn, but your anonymity (yes, I know you're the Mrs or Ms Cook who gave evidence over Paddington, but any member of the public with a lot, or a little, knowledge of conservation could have done that) is what irritates me most about the way you expect everyone else who posts here, especially if they have the temerity to disagree with you, to constantly bow to your (apparently) superior judgement, just by crushing them with the sheer number of your replies.
Other people let us have at least a bit of insight into their lives and experience which enable us to make some judgement about the validity of their opinions, you (to yoke two unsuitable words together) act as a conservation bulldozer, in the hope offlattening all before you.
I don't like the way "conservationist" has attacked you anonymously, but you must accept that yours isn't the only view here, and you must come up with cogent arguments, not weight of numbers.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yup - rattled the bars of your cage haven't I? What larks.
I point out the attack wasn't so very anonymous, despite what the person concerned may think!
And Gareth - you don't have to read anything I post you know! And the fact I spend a considerable amount of my day writing (very little of it on PPUK) and using a computer is sod all to do with you, really.
Still - today is the day I've looked forward to for a long time. Yesterday saw the finalising of something I've been very involved with over a number of years which has seen the preservation of something due to be bulldozed by a local authority. It now can't be.
I'm today writing my formal complaint to the Chief Executive of the local authority concerned, regarding the conduct of a fairly senior officer of that authority. I'm also complaining to the Ombudsman, and the Public Auditor. The latter I'm complaining about the shocking waste of public money involved with what this authority has done. That included the cost of a barrister who was supposed to be the 'expert' in his field. Pity he seemed not to be very up on the latest case law.
I do have a few skills in a number of directions, Gareth. And possibly a greater sense of irony than you do.
I point out the attack wasn't so very anonymous, despite what the person concerned may think!
And Gareth - you don't have to read anything I post you know! And the fact I spend a considerable amount of my day writing (very little of it on PPUK) and using a computer is sod all to do with you, really.
Still - today is the day I've looked forward to for a long time. Yesterday saw the finalising of something I've been very involved with over a number of years which has seen the preservation of something due to be bulldozed by a local authority. It now can't be.
I'm today writing my formal complaint to the Chief Executive of the local authority concerned, regarding the conduct of a fairly senior officer of that authority. I'm also complaining to the Ombudsman, and the Public Auditor. The latter I'm complaining about the shocking waste of public money involved with what this authority has done. That included the cost of a barrister who was supposed to be the 'expert' in his field. Pity he seemed not to be very up on the latest case law.
I do have a few skills in a number of directions, Gareth. And possibly a greater sense of irony than you do.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Of course it was Surrey CC which voted to allow the demolition of the Grade II Listed Greenside, and failed to take action against the owner when he jumped the gun rather in bulldozing it.
More details on the 20th c Soc site - press releases and casework links I think.
http://www.c20society.org.uk
More details on the 20th c Soc site - press releases and casework links I think.
http://www.c20society.org.uk
A
Anonymous
Guest
I don't know enough about Surrey County Council's conservation record to be able to leap to their defence, but:
1. The local authority for last night's disaster is Waverley District Council
2. The local authority which voted to demolish Greenside is Runnymede District Council
Most COUNTY councils have little or no input into the development control / LBC process and I think you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
1. The local authority for last night's disaster is Waverley District Council
2. The local authority which voted to demolish Greenside is Runnymede District Council
Most COUNTY councils have little or no input into the development control / LBC process and I think you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Fine - obviously two local authorities in Surrey not too good on conservation then.
Still, few are really in my experience. Conservation is usually at the bottom of the planning pile, and too many have no CO, or CO's who are very junior and whose input is too often disregarded.
Still, few are really in my experience. Conservation is usually at the bottom of the planning pile, and too many have no CO, or CO's who are very junior and whose input is too often disregarded.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I have a richly developed sense of irony Evelyn.
Thank you anyway for your charming and gracious replies. I'm glad to know that you were halfway through a bottle of wine by the middle of last night's show, and must assume you carried on at the same rate for the rest of the evening as there's precious little other explanation for the tone of almost every single one of your posts "responding" to mine.
Although on the matter of technical queries, most of us here are singing from the same sheet and have a certain amount of evidence and experience to back up the arguments that plastic and cement aren't usually a good idea, when it comes to the philosophical arguments about general approaches to conservation you're going to have to accept that the subject is one for disagreement and a bit of rough-and-tumble. It has been ever since the Duchess of Marlborough ignored John Vanbrugh's elequent pleas and pulled down Woodstock manor because it spoiled the view from Blenheim Palace.
I don't, however, see why, at the first sign of someone dissenting from your personal worldview, you resort to abuse rather than logical argument. Simply telling someone with considerable experience of the subject (albeit not identical your experience) to shut up, because they don't agree with you, is not an acceptable way of presenting a case in rational debate, and accusing them of being patronising and silly does not help portray your argument in the best light.
Thank you anyway for your charming and gracious replies. I'm glad to know that you were halfway through a bottle of wine by the middle of last night's show, and must assume you carried on at the same rate for the rest of the evening as there's precious little other explanation for the tone of almost every single one of your posts "responding" to mine.
Although on the matter of technical queries, most of us here are singing from the same sheet and have a certain amount of evidence and experience to back up the arguments that plastic and cement aren't usually a good idea, when it comes to the philosophical arguments about general approaches to conservation you're going to have to accept that the subject is one for disagreement and a bit of rough-and-tumble. It has been ever since the Duchess of Marlborough ignored John Vanbrugh's elequent pleas and pulled down Woodstock manor because it spoiled the view from Blenheim Palace.
I don't, however, see why, at the first sign of someone dissenting from your personal worldview, you resort to abuse rather than logical argument. Simply telling someone with considerable experience of the subject (albeit not identical your experience) to shut up, because they don't agree with you, is not an acceptable way of presenting a case in rational debate, and accusing them of being patronising and silly does not help portray your argument in the best light.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Gareth
I'd like to contact you off-forum. How do I get your email address?
I'd like to contact you off-forum. How do I get your email address?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I have a richly developed sense of irony Evelyn.
Thank you anyway for your charming and gracious replies. I'm glad to know that you were halfway through a bottle of wine by the middle of last night's show, and must assume you carried on at the same rate for the rest of the evening as there's precious little other explanation for the tone of almost every single one of your posts "responding" to mine.
Although on the matter of technical queries, most of us here are singing from the same sheet and have a certain amount of evidence and experience to back up the arguments that plastic and cement aren't usually a good idea, when it comes to the philosophical arguments about general approaches to conservation you're going to have to accept that the subject is one for disagreement and a bit of rough-and-tumble. It has been ever since the Duchess of Marlborough ignored John Vanbrugh's elequent pleas and pulled down Woodstock manor because it spoiled the view from Blenheim Palace.
I don't, however, see why, at the first sign of someone dissenting from your personal worldview, you resort to abuse rather than logical argument. Simply telling someone with considerable experience of the subject (albeit not identical your experience) to shut up, because they don't agree with you, is not an acceptable way of presenting a case in rational debate, and accusing them of being patronising and silly does not help portray your argument in the best light.
Thank you anyway for your charming and gracious replies. I'm glad to know that you were halfway through a bottle of wine by the middle of last night's show, and must assume you carried on at the same rate for the rest of the evening as there's precious little other explanation for the tone of almost every single one of your posts "responding" to mine.
Although on the matter of technical queries, most of us here are singing from the same sheet and have a certain amount of evidence and experience to back up the arguments that plastic and cement aren't usually a good idea, when it comes to the philosophical arguments about general approaches to conservation you're going to have to accept that the subject is one for disagreement and a bit of rough-and-tumble. It has been ever since the Duchess of Marlborough ignored John Vanbrugh's elequent pleas and pulled down Woodstock manor because it spoiled the view from Blenheim Palace.
I don't, however, see why, at the first sign of someone dissenting from your personal worldview, you resort to abuse rather than logical argument. Simply telling someone with considerable experience of the subject (albeit not identical your experience) to shut up, because they don't agree with you, is not an acceptable way of presenting a case in rational debate, and accusing them of being patronising and silly does not help portray your argument in the best light.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh dear Gareth - get a grip! Haven't you any work to do? Calm down, get a sense of perspective for heaven's sake!
I do have some work to do - apart from my complaints re one local authority and the behaviour of its officers - I've got a long overdue report/objection to start regarding a demolition. It's one which will take a considerable amount of time and skill and indeed knowledge - of history, of architecture, conservation and law to write. So sorry if I really can't always spend time arguing basics of conservation -just haven't the time, or indeed always the inclination.
I'm also overdue a visit to take pics and do some sussing out a building in advance of a Public Inquiry. It's an important test case in some ways, and I need to ensure that the part I play is adequately done.
Now you'll tell me I'm being arrogant but it's simply the truth. I can spend time arguing the toss with you or I can do some real 'historic buildings MASH unit' stuff.
I know which I think is the most important.
Go save a building or two. It's quite rewarding you know!
And what is the Mills Section doing about the mill at Warwick Bridge by the way? Jumping up and down and demanding action from the local authority I hope - it's getting worse.
I do have some work to do - apart from my complaints re one local authority and the behaviour of its officers - I've got a long overdue report/objection to start regarding a demolition. It's one which will take a considerable amount of time and skill and indeed knowledge - of history, of architecture, conservation and law to write. So sorry if I really can't always spend time arguing basics of conservation -just haven't the time, or indeed always the inclination.
I'm also overdue a visit to take pics and do some sussing out a building in advance of a Public Inquiry. It's an important test case in some ways, and I need to ensure that the part I play is adequately done.
Now you'll tell me I'm being arrogant but it's simply the truth. I can spend time arguing the toss with you or I can do some real 'historic buildings MASH unit' stuff.
I know which I think is the most important.
Go save a building or two. It's quite rewarding you know!
And what is the Mills Section doing about the mill at Warwick Bridge by the way? Jumping up and down and demanding action from the local authority I hope - it's getting worse.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh it's 'conservationist' again - not so very incognito!
A
Anonymous
Guest
I do feel you should be aware of the fact that a post by you was once removed from this site NOT because of anything I did but because of a complaint by a member of the public.
The owner of the site will verify that for you I think.
Gareth - up to you, but I'd steer clear. That's a very friendly word of advice.
The owner of the site will verify that for you I think.
Gareth - up to you, but I'd steer clear. That's a very friendly word of advice.
A
Anonymous
Guest
"So sorry if I really can't always spend time arguing basics of conservation -just haven't the time, or indeed always the inclination. ...Now you'll tell me I'm being arrogant but it's simply the truth. I can spend time arguing the toss with you"
Missing the point again, Evelyn. If you can't spare the time to argue the toss, fine, don't. Funny how you do seem to have the time to post abusive comments about people who disagree with you though.
debate conservation principles or read your petty rants? I know which I'd rather do.
Missing the point again, Evelyn. If you can't spare the time to argue the toss, fine, don't. Funny how you do seem to have the time to post abusive comments about people who disagree with you though.
debate conservation principles or read your petty rants? I know which I'd rather do.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Don't know how you got your figures for the five months posting by Evelyn, she has been a valued and regular contributor for as far back as I can find.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh and conservationist and Gareth, there are many fools littered along the wayside who have tried to get one over her. Evelyn is still posting, they have vanished.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Evelyn
SPAB first involved more than forty years ago. We've got reports in the files more or less every couple of years and it's been a real concern for the last 15 (since it finally fell out of use). Proposals (and owners) have been coming and going rapidly and, as you say, that hasn't helped the state of the building.
Over the last two or three years, we've supported Carlisle City Council's stance (itself prompted by us) that, being II* and mechanically complete, it's too important to be lost to house conversion. (English Heritage, on the other hand, seem to be gung-ho for wrecking it to make a bijou residence).
A recent revised application for "roof repairs" was a cunning attempt to make the building more suited to domestic use, is (quite rightly) being refused by the Council, and the refusal notice is to be accompanied by a repairs notice, which is felt likely to force a sale. Future still uncertain but we're doing what we can.
So, that's what we've been doing about Warwick Bridge. Happy now?
SPAB first involved more than forty years ago. We've got reports in the files more or less every couple of years and it's been a real concern for the last 15 (since it finally fell out of use). Proposals (and owners) have been coming and going rapidly and, as you say, that hasn't helped the state of the building.
Over the last two or three years, we've supported Carlisle City Council's stance (itself prompted by us) that, being II* and mechanically complete, it's too important to be lost to house conversion. (English Heritage, on the other hand, seem to be gung-ho for wrecking it to make a bijou residence).
A recent revised application for "roof repairs" was a cunning attempt to make the building more suited to domestic use, is (quite rightly) being refused by the Council, and the refusal notice is to be accompanied by a repairs notice, which is felt likely to force a sale. Future still uncertain but we're doing what we can.
So, that's what we've been doing about Warwick Bridge. Happy now?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh, Gareth isn't a fool - far from it - just at times misguided! <IMG SRC="http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/discussing/smileys/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="
">
But we can kiss and make up as we're on the same side really. And that's not the side of nasty developers.
We both love mills too - that makes anyone a good guy in my book!
">But we can kiss and make up as we're on the same side really. And that's not the side of nasty developers.
We both love mills too - that makes anyone a good guy in my book!