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.
Based on the quality of this idea, may I recommend that 25 Victoria Street, London, is abolished?
Posted by: TaxCutter | August 17, 2006 at 10:55 PM
'Ugly and dysfunctional' - it must be conference season again!
Posted by: David Banks | August 19, 2006 at 05:02 PM
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!
Posted by: Edward Keene | September 06, 2006 at 10:00 AM