The 400,000th building is listed...

[Nearly Sane]

And I think we list too many as a sop to not really knowing what we are doing with them. I live in an area surrounded by the things and in many cases the restrictions are such that they rot away and become unviable, and then end up being unsafe or perhaps going on fire 'accidentally'


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-45258581

[Rhiannon]

I know of two rows of derelict listed cottages that somehow burned down after permission to demolish was declined, which was very convenient for the national supermarket chain and the office developer respectively.

I've owned two listed properties. So long as you know what you are doing it's fine, and in terms of the thatched cottage that I had they can be very economical to heat.

[Roses]

I would never buy a listed building as it restricts what you can do with them. A church at which my daughter was a vicar was listed and they weren't permitted to put in running water or toilet facilities, which was awkward for the congregation to say the least. The gravestones got well watered!

[Nearly Sane]

My issue tends to be with larger buildings. Actual dwelling places are within limits easier to manage but one of the many listed buildings around me is covered in the thread below.



http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13977.msg675822#msg675822

(note I noticed my typo in building so have corrected for the posts on the thread)

[Rhiannon]

I would never buy a listed building as it restricts what you can do with them. A church at which my daughter was a vicar was listed and they weren't permitted to put in running water or toilet facilities, which was awkward for the congregation to say the least. The gravestones got well watered!

They can put in a compost loo in the grounds. A historic church near me has one of these.

[Rhiannon]

My issue tends to be with larger buildings. Actual dwelling places are within limits easier to manage but one of the many listed buildings around me is covered in the thread below.



http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13977.msg675822#msg675822

(note I noticed my typo in building so have corrected for the posts on the thread)

There probably is a middle ground here, whether through some kind of restructuring - thinking off the top of my head, using glass or something (which would need a lot of imagination on the part of the heritage people), or taking it down but preserving what they can for use in another building, or in an outdoor space.

[Roses]

They can put in a compost loo in the grounds. A historic church near me has one of these.

They couldn't put one in the church itself, and weren't permitted to put one in the grounds as it would be seen from the road!

[Rhiannon]

They couldn't put one in the church itself, and weren't permitted to put one in the grounds as it would be seen from the road!

That's a shame. Still, you can put toilets in historic houses so it shouldn't put you off buying one.

[Nearly Sane]

There probably is a middle ground here, whether through some kind of restructuring - thinking off the top of my head, using glass or something (which would need a lot of imagination on the part of the heritage people), or taking it down but preserving what they can for use in another building, or in an outdoor space.

The problem is listing doesn't really allow for a lot of middle ground, especially in terms of being A listed. It's ok for buildings that are then thought of as being so important that their upkeep will be covered but there are simply too many for this to happen for from the public purse. The whole system seems to fall down (pun intended) in what it is trying to achieve.

[Roses]

That's a shame. Still, you can put toilets in historic houses so it shouldn't put you off buying one.

The church committee fought long and hard to get permission but didn't get it, of course I don't know all the detail as it isn't my business. Our daughter has another parish now where the church has all mod cons