On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:29:21 +0100, Paul Corfield
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.

Exactly, which is why unaccountable quangos stuffed with worthies should
not be in a position to implement and enforce what are entirely subjective
judgments.

That decision should ultimately be borne by those who end up paying for it.

- the listing of the Thames
Tunnel being a great example of how to multiply the cost of a project
several fold.

Never mind the opportunity cost of putting a transport artery out of action
for far longer than expected.

Bishopsgate goodsyard being another example of EH's unaccountable
interference.


greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.