Please, let's not have this degenerate into another argument. It's already 7 pages of debate, it doesn't need to be elongated further by pointless repetition of arguments, ESPECIALLY NOT IN CAPITALS. With all due respect to disabled athletes trying to make the best of their lot, as I once heard 'arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win you still look silly'. Further, it does not really help that much to elongate it with "me too" postings. "me too" postings could have been converted into a petition to do something a long time ago, when it would have made a difference, but that never seemed to happen (at least not that I heard about), and the time for it has now passed. (Apropos, http://www.petitiononline.com/) "thebeard" clearly has his opinion. I disagree, and clearly many others do too. Personally I am in broad agreement with "Huguenot", but clearly we do not need to antagonise "thebeard" any more than he has already wound himself up about this. I think the gist of the argument for demolishing the illegally constructed neighbour to the concrete house hinges on either: - that is was constructed without regard for the law. - that its construction so close to the original coincided with large parts of the original 'accidentally falling off', which is rather suspicious. - that building it seriously harmed the aesthetic standing of the original and it's 'house on the hill' look which chimes with the look of the similar house from the Psycho movies. I think we can all agree on the first point, even if we can't agree on the latter two. K.