On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

David Boothroyd wrote:

As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this
normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets
prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission.

And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The
application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the
tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and
later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired
public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision
appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to
do now?

I think the issue here is that the authorities or bodies with
responsibility for making these judgments don't give a damn what LU or
Metronet do provided they do as they are told. Cost is also not a
concern for those issuing their judgments - the listing of the Thames
Tunnel being a great example of how to multiply the cost of a project
several fold.

While I admire good architecture [1] and think that there is much on the
LU network that is worthy of retention and careful and appropriate
restoration I know from personal experience how unbelievable it can get
in dealing with local authorities and English Heritage.

While I don't know the facts in this case concerning removal of the
tiles I can clearly recall an old memo (in the years after the Kings
Cross fire when there was a lot of Fire Precautions work undertaken)
that made clear the consequences of working without proper consent on
listed buildings. This is the sort of thing that really should not
happen given LU's past experience in this area.

[1] an entirely subjective matter I accept.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!