Peter Franklin: "Blacklist ugly and dysfunctional buildings"

Peter Franklin is a Conservative policy advisor, speechwriter and contributor to The Guardian's Comment Is Free.

> Policy summary

A national blacklist of ugly and dysfunctional buildings that should be demolished and replaced.

> Policy explanation

The current listing system for buildings allows planning authorities to identify and protect the most precious features of our architectural heritage. The system also helps direct the flow of public and private conservation funds to where they’re most needed.

However, in order to give due recognition to the carbuncles as well as the gems, the listing system needs to be supplemented by a blacklisting system for the worst buildings in our villages, towns and cities.

Bad architecture is much more that just an eyesore. Various studies have shown, as commonsense would lead one to expect, that ugly buildings have a negative impacts on local economies, community cohesion, neighbourhood security and even mental health.

Under the new arrangements, local people would have the right to petition their councillors to have their least favourite buildings blacklisted. Given enough signatures, the council would be obliged to vote on each petition. As with the existing system there would a grading system, with grade 2, grade 2* and grade 1 blacklisted buildings.

Government planning guidance would be amended with provisions requiring planning authorities to take blacklisting into account when considering planning applications and development plans.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is a possibility that a blacklisting system would allow a bunch of Prince Charles types to launch a national witch-hunt against modernist architecture. Well, that’s the opportunity; the risk is that it might not turn out that way! Still, it’s worth a try.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What should the hurdle be in terms of signatures required to get a building blacklisted?
• What sort of features deserve grade 2* status as opposed to the normal grade 2 blacklisting?
• How should the most spectacular horrors, deserving of grade 1 status be identified?
• What practical consequences should blacklisting have?

> Costs

The blacklisting system shouldn’t have any extra costs. Local campaigners would be responsible for the expense of organising a petition. Planning departments would be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date register of blacklisted buildings which would be published on the council website.

The system could even raise money by surcharging the owners of blacklisted buildings, the money raised going into a conservation fund for ‘whitelisted’ buildings or as grants for the demolition of blacklisted buildings.

 

Comments

[TaxCutter]

Based on the quality of this idea, may I recommend that 25 Victoria Street, London, is abolished?

[David Banks]

'Ugly and dysfunctional' - it must be conference season again!

[Edward Keene]

I can't understand why this has not made the final list - it seems a great way for local people to improve their own built environment by grassroots action. How else are we going to improve city centres which disconnected modernist architects currently have fee reign over. Just think - if this policy were implemented, we could get rid of the Tate Modern! Hurrah!