Comments on: How To Demolish A Listed Building

By: Gillian Price

Gillian Price — Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:58:46 +0000

How very sad. I am a descendant of William Farmer who built these houses and of Huguenot silkweavers that lived in Spitalfields. I am proud of the fact that the houses that William built have survived for 300 years. Such a pity that the owner could not keep them in a good state of repair and Tower Hamlets so called Conservation Officers let the owners get away with not looking after this listed building. Obviously Tower Hamlets are not interested in conserving the history of the silkweavers of Spitalfields which helped build the prosperity of this once great City of London.

By: Tony Valsamidis

Tony Valsamidis — Tue, 10 May 2022 14:10:24 +0000

It is interesting that in last week’s local elections, the councillors who approved the Truman car park development were voted out.

By: Pinkpanther

Pinkpanther — Mon, 09 May 2022 14:06:50 +0000

Unfortunately, due to the way the 1990 Act governing listed buildings is worded, local councils have powers, but building owners do not have any responsiblity or duty to protect a listed building. It’s criminal for them to damage it, but neglect is not. So, it relies on councils to undertake enforcement. Listed Building Enforcement is problematic because councils cannot place costs incurred by doing the works in default if the owners don’t comply with a notice, as a charge on the land – they have to pursue payment through the courts and get a judgement first. This make budgetholders nervous to authorise serving notices. This is also a defect of the 1990 Act, unlike, for example, the Building Acts which do allow costs for works in default to be added as a land charge. Until we get new primary legislation for Listed Buildings, I can see very little changing. Planning is not supposed to reward neglect, so the costs of putting it right should be excluded from any development appraisals (either the owners have let it decay on their watch, or new owners should have taken the decay into account in the price paid) – but this is almost never the case. The system is very broken, I’m afraid.

By: Phil Cunningham

Phil Cunningham — Mon, 09 May 2022 13:46:54 +0000

Wonton destruction!
I pray this may be undone now that Big has gone.

By: Steve Hargreaves-Woodruff

Steve Hargreaves-Woodruff — Mon, 09 May 2022 11:56:33 +0000

How come just 2 councillors allowed such destruction to go ahead?

Please, will someone pull their fingers out of their ears(!-or other orifice(s) and STOP and BAN all the wilful demolition in the east end of so many important buildings.

And save our heritage!

Come on Mr Gove, show us you care…
Steve HW

By: Sue

Sue — Sun, 08 May 2022 10:49:56 +0000

This is very depressing. I stupidly thought giving a building listed protection would save the building from developers. Thanks to the Gentle Author I know this not true. What is the point if a listed building can be left to decay so the developers/owners get their way.

All the buildings in London will soon look the same (awful) and history will be lost forever.

By: Charles Page

Charles Page — Sat, 07 May 2022 17:34:45 +0000

This is so typical of councils and developers. They will do anything when it comes to money destroying our history and past culture. I sincerely hope that this disgrace can be stopped.

By: Keith

Keith — Sat, 07 May 2022 17:09:01 +0000

OMG! Yet another East End listed building of great age getting demolished. Shame on the Tower Hamlets Conservation Department allowing this historic property to fall to pieces in the first place.
Soon they’ll be nothing left to protect in and around this area. East London is fast becoming a place for the wealthy elite who buy up old and ancient properties, let them rot and decay, then pull them down and then, in its place something will be put up in a kind of modern characterless style that no one will care about when it too will become derelict and falls to bits.

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 07 May 2022 17:03:19 +0000

Just pledged.
“Dismantled and reinstated”? That’s absurd, or as other comments call it: criminal. Threatens to repeat the disaster of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, in which the Council and the developers and Jenrick completely overrode enormous public support for the Foundry. That criminal act must not happen again.

By: Jennifer Newbold

Jennifer Newbold — Sat, 07 May 2022 15:31:48 +0000

The same thing happens here in the US. A property owner of an historic property wants to tear it down; it is protected, so the owner lets it decay until it is deemed unsafe. There doesn’t seem to be any kind of law or statute that requires then to maintain the property in a reasonable condition. It’s criminal… except that technically, it isn’t.