Talk:Listed building

message: What is the difference between the different grades of listed buildings?Theresa knott 12:22 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that it's not at all obvious what the difference is between the grades, OR which grade is the highest! Which is higher: "buidlings of exceptional interest" or "buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them"? (Do buildings of exceptional interest not warrant efforts to preserve them?) I'd argue that this information should be reworded to be completely unambiguous, and probably given in the introduction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the difference between the different grades 

message: Images of England have changed the way to link their site once. They may do it again. I have now created a template which makes it easy to link to entries at Images of England and provides a mesasue of future-proofing. See instructions at talk:Images of England. -- RHaworth 17:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IoE links 

message: What about mentioning the proposed Grade X listing. This is a category for particularly horrible buildings of no architectural or historical merit whatsoever. Grade X listing would hopefully speed up their demolishment and replacment. A number of speculative Grade X lists have been compiled. Probably not a good idea to include any list of buildings though as this would be a somewhat subjective decision. 141.5.194.4 09:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, this is not an official listing or any real proposal for one, nor is it particularly noteable Nil Einne 15:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grade X listing

message: As this question has been asked, in a way, and not answered, I'm going to ask anyway: What is the difference between a Grade II and Grade II* building?  I haven't read the whole thing yet because I'm at work and need to get back to it, but if this isn't answered in the article, I hope it will be answered here. SailorAlphaCentauri 20:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  I scanned the article further and found the answer I sought. SailorAlphaCentauri 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grade Definitions

message: My Great-Auntie lives in a Grade II listed building, well part of it, she owns it all, 10-14 Churchgate, Hallaton, Leicestershire. Would this be ok to start an article on, or will it be deleted as non-notable? Jimmmmmmmmm 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if you're serious but...I don't think Grade II listing = notability in itself (there are just so many Grade II buildings), but of course some Grade II buildings ARE notable. You might, though, decide that it's more appropriate to briefly cover this building and any others in the area in  Hallaton, if the article exists. Barnabypage 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding an article on a new building

message: Is the whole campus <EM>really</EM> Grade II listed per today's edit? Barnabypage 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Birmingham

message: I imagine that Wotton House is Grade I, but don't know, and don't know where to look. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: might be useful for this sort of question (might be worth an external link). --86.129.6.0 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where does one find an authoritative list??

message: Right now Architectural preservation is a redirect to this article. Needless to say, the UK is not the only place in the world where architectural preservation occurs, nor is all preservation even in the UK on listed buildings. There is a more general article begging to be written. - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the redirect to Architectural conservation, which isn't a perfect article but is more appropriate than this one. Barnabypage (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An odd redirect 

message: The following three paragraphs read like an advice column, in my opinion:
Listing a building imposes severe restrictions on what the owner might wish to change or modify in the structure or its fittings. Thus trying to refit windows by plastic double glazed units would be barred by most inspectors (who actually implement and check all proposed changes). Listing normally covers both the exterior and interior, so that major changes to a floor layout (for example) would need approval before any changes could be implemented.
The Listed Property Owners Club advise that ANY alterations to a listed building must first be discussed with your conservation officer, they are based at the local council and are responsible for the protection of listed buildings. Some work to a listed property should also be VAT zero rated, you should seek specialist advice about this as there are lots of "grey" areas.
Another important consideration for listed properties is insurance. Many listed buildings are under insured. If a listed building has a normal insurance policy it will usually only cover the cost of "normal" repairs. BUT if a listed building is damaged the conservation officer will usually insist that repairs are like for like. Many insurance companies do not take into consideration the additional costs for specialist workmanship and materials. If there is a shortfall in the amount covered it is then the owners responsibility to pay the difference.
Any comments before I remove them? Red van man (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and I'm not even convinced it needs paraphrasing - "A listed building may not be demolished, extended or altered without special permission" seems to express the point adequately. Barnabypage (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The first paragraph is fine, although the second really looks like it's been lifted directly from an advice website. The third should definitely not be removed though, as it is clearly an important aspect of the consequences of listing a building. I think you should paraphrase, rather than removing. Johnhousefriday (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wording is definitely a problem, but I agree that it's quite encyclopaedic to discuss the last paragraph as one of the consequences of listing.  Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a typical case where the editor is looking at the costs of ownership of a monument from a specific municipality or heritage list holder. Without specifying the particular country, and the list holder, then the above is not useful. For example, the repairs to a rijksmonument are subsidized by a government agency. I suggest that this article be pared down to a general explanation of the term "listed building" as a heritage site, with links to specific pages for each list holder with their agreements in their municipalities. I came to this article from List of listed buildings in Tibbermore and expected to find information that would be useful for owners and viewers of listed buildings in Tibbermore. Jane (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic content 

message: "It is proposed that the three Grades I, II* and II then apply to all Designated Buildings and Sites."  There seems to be a verb missing. Kdammers (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The verbs are quite clearly "propose" and "apply", the sentence makes perfect sense. 188.221.150.127 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentence

message: A listed building clearly means the building has been placed on a special list. What is the proper, full, title of this list? I assume it's not just referred to as "the list" in documentation, that could get rather confusing! 188.221.150.127 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually just referred to as "the statutory list". Barnabypage (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! It's "The Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest". Logical enough. 188.221.150.127 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper title of "the list"

message: Presumably the logic behind the curtilage rule is to extend protection to outbuildings etc. which are part of the historical evolution of the building even if they are not quite physically connected. So, at the risk of being extremely pedantic: what is the situation if the main listed structure was built after 1948, but there are buildings within the curtilage predating it? They are obviously not part of the main building's evolution as such, but on the other hand the main building was likely designed with them in mind. Does the main building's protection apply to them? Barnabypage (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question - indeed you have raised several good points whilst we have thrashed out this definition. I speak here from my own personal experience from "Re West Norwood Cemetery" and consequential disputes, where curtilage was deemed by Chancery Court to apply to this cemetery in its 40-acre entirety, because of the density of the listed monuments inside. This is an unusually large curtilage, but it means we frequently have to work accurately within its definition, and our experience may be illuminating. Importantly, the unlisted items inside the curtilage have not become, what I would call 'protected', per se. (In fact, I don't much like the use of the term 'protection' in this context, as its not the curtilage which is being protected. Nor does the protection granted to the listed building preclude alteration - it just makes you work harder on the design and approach.) However, going back to my situation, any proposal for a new headstone, or replacement, or other change to any other structure would need to be formally considered under conservation rules. The legal expectation is that a pre-48 structure would not be removed, unless very good reasons could be put forward.  Changes to any post-48 monument would also need to be considered; however there would be no grounds for objecting to the removal of a post-48 structure. In either case, any proposed alteration would need to be formally considered in the context of the setting of the listed monuments - including filling-in the void created if an item gets removed. (So in our instance there are problems if a modern black polished granite 'teddy bear' tombstone is proposed, in what is predominately a Victorian environment.) So to take your, perhaps extreme, example of a post-48 listed structure in a pre-48 setting, I would imagine that, speaking generally, any proposed changes to the pre-48 curtilage would have to be considered in the context of its effect on the setting of the listed structure - however, if it was deemed as lying within the curtilage then it is obviously working with the listed structure, and so any proposal would need to be at least as complementary.  Ephebi (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Curtilage (UK)

message: To avoid the lengthy see also section, I drafted the  navbox template, aiming to bring together scheduled monuments, listed buildings, monuments records, etc.  Comments suggestions and improvements would be welcome (on the template talk page) before I stick it in the article. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox 

message: Since the notes for this page say that it is out of date, I will have a go at updating this section with current data and some more detailed information. I would like to suggest adding some more sub-headings to help with structure and clarity - ie 'legistlation relevant to listing', 'criteria for listing', 'how to apply to get a building listed' and 'altering a listed building'. I'd like to put something in about heritage protection reform too, but I'm not sure if this is the right place for it.  FGLawson (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating the England and Wales section

message: Just wondering, in speach how does one say grade II* listed is it simply grade two star listed I don't know, and I think it should be mentioned in the article. If it is already there I couldn't find it Carlwev (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "grade two star", though I have occasionally heard "grade two starred". But does it really need to be in the article? I'm not sure there are any other plausible ways to say it. Barnabypage (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Agree. I think you just say it like that, or in any other way that works, and that it does not need addressing in the article. With the greatest of respect, I feel that this would be overkill. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grade II* proununciation

message: Please compare this article to Beschermd erfgoed, which is linked in the lead of this list: List of protected heritage sites in Villers-la-Ville. The first article explains who the "listed building" listers are in Belgium, and then has a series of links to all of the various Belgium regions with their list holders. The list of listed buildings in Villers-la-Ville can thus bring the user eventually to information about the protection of monuments in the country of Belgium. I miss such a hierarchy of explanation here. For example, in the "List of listed buildings in Tibbermore" (see link above), I miss the explanation of why the number is an "HBnum".  What does the HB stand for? Jane (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also realizing now, on rereading the article, that there are multiple other issues as well. For example, I would expect a discussion or link to "listed buildings" in other english-speaking parts of the world, such as Ireland, Canada, and Australia. The article Cork County Hall links here, which is in the Republic of Ireland and comes through via  protected building redirect. I would suggest splitting articles off all the other redirects, such as Ancient historic monument, B category listed, Category-A listed, Grade 1 listed building, Grade 2 listed building, Grade 2*, Grade A listed building, Grade I listed building, Grade II listed building. The redirects Designated structure, Historic monument, Listed Building, Listed memorial, Listed structure, Protected building, and Protected monument should probably all redirect to Cultural heritage management. Jane (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting this article per list holder

message: Is there a template anything similar to that at Commons, 
This is a photo of listed building number  
Do we need one?  Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template? 

message: This needs to be explained.  It is astonishing to new readers when the pattern of naming has no asterisk, and when a symbol is used, it should have meaning.  Doing a ctrl+f found nothing for me, so a reasonable passerby would have even greater difficulty discerning the significance of "*".96.52.0.249 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "*" of grade 2 

message: A statement currently reads "Most buildings built between 1700 and 1840 are listed." I do not think this is correct - where is the evidence? I found some evidence that say 2m properties were built pre 1850 (based on council tax band data which suggests 3.7m dwellings in England pre 1900) but that only 500,000 buildings are listed in total - which contradicts the above and would suggest closer to 25% are listed!! Might be more accurate to say "Most buildings built between 1700 and 1840 WOULD BE ACCEPTED FOR listing, if a submission were made.". Having tried, it seems quite difficult to get hold of accurate figures for the number of buildings (listed or otherwise) between 1700 and 1840 anywhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.74.39 (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proportion of listed buildings.

message: Should Wokingham's grade 2 listed footbridge made of old bullhead rails be put in the examples of grade 2 listed building/bridges?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - Hi, there’s no particular reason why it should, or indeed shouldn’t. The issue is that there are over 340,000 Grade II listed buildings, so we obviously can’t list them all. The idea here is to have a small sample of Grade IIs. I’m not sure why the Wokingham Footbridge should be among them, particularly as it doesn’t have a standalone article? KJP1 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The footbridge is believe to be the only one of in type left in the UK and that it is only a public railway. The reason why did it dose not have it own article is because it is sandwich between Wokingham railway station and the level crossing just to the south. The footbridge is just over the ends of the platforms at Wokingham railway station.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wokingham's grade 2 listed footbridge made of old bullhead rails 

message: I'm not sure what this section is trying to say. Aside from the fact it's uncited, it appears to suggest there is a specific category of Mixed designations. There isn't such a category, and there are literally hundreds of sites that contain structures with differing designations. Stowe House and Stowe Gardens are obvious examples, but it's probably true of almost any country house estate. I'm not sure it warrants a separate section and am proposing to merge it into Categories of listed building section, unless there are any concerns. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Trimmed but retained. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed designations section 

message: Also not sure about this. Why are some countries specifically mentioned, with colourful little flags, while most are not? Proposing to merge this into the See also section, under List of heritage registers unless there are any concerns. KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalent statuses outside the United Kingdom section