Let me ask you that again

London's Southbank Centre has been refused Heritage Listing - for the third time in two decades.

Hurrah, I say - if listed, it would greatly diminish the chances of tearing down this Brutalist beast, crown jewel in the horrors of the Sixties, and starting again with something that doesn't look like the back of a Slovak swimming pool squatting eyesoreishly on prize territory by the Thames.

But regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the decision, why on earth is it being made, for the third time? And note that of course, when it suits, this is a one way process, and when it doesn't, it isn't: if the concrete bunkers had been listed, the re-evaluation to, er, "delist" the Centre wouldn't be opened for discussion until the answer changed, would it?

This is a discussion of wider public importance. It's akin to the Irish being asked to vote again on Lisbon. Why are some decisions judged by a (self-appointed) "elite" to be wrong, and required to be taken again?

I'm sure we'll see the Southbank Centre up for a fourth time 'ere long...