20 CONTEXT 188 : JUNE 2026 Keeping up with change: there is no mention of the dramatic intervention by John McAslan (2012) in the list entry for the Grade I listed King’s Cross Station. Shouldn’t there be? oversight if ‘special interest’ is to be applied fairly. This leads straight to appeals against listing: in Scotland these are heard by the Planning Inspectorate, which gives a measure of separation. The DCMS runs the reviews but has no technical expertise of its own; it calls on Historic England for its input, which runs the risk of marking its own homework (Historic England’s designation review committee, set up in English Heritage times to introduce a measure of independent oversight, seems to have bitten the dust). Is this fair? As Matthew Saunders writes on page 15, we need to get real about Historic England’s capacity. How do you keep the National Heritage List for England up to date? I fear listing is inadequately resourced as it currently stands, yet it is one of the core activities Historic England delivers for its sponsor body, where the DCMS and Historic England work most closely. Revising the lists: honesty is needed. Now that consultation is a stage in the process (and I can’t see that genie being put back in the bottle), it is unfeasible to review an entire list wholesale. I completed the last list ever issued in paper form: that for Bath, in 2011. Spot listings, thematic listings, commissioned listings: these will keep the National Heritage List for England actively curated, to some extent at least. Delisting: so will removing the undeserving entries on the list. They are relatively few, compared with the vast majority of justifiable designations: but they do clearly exist (and we all have our own examples). Loss is loss, and change can be severe. Just as we add to the list, so we should curate it and comb through for duds. Listing and research: hopefully the new post of listing and architectural research director can ensure that Historic England’s strategic research and publication initiatives align, and feed jointly in to listing outcomes. Research initiatives and publications need to contribute to an updated designation base. Publish the research topics clearly, identify areas needing to be prioritised, set realistic goals, and ensure that new NHLE entries are an outcome. Research can come from outside as well: recent work on gas industry sites is a good case of timely study and clear protection outcomes, funded by the industry. Tactical deployment: where is change happening? Where is development pressure most intense? Where is loss occurring most? Listing is still dominated by responses to spot-listing requests, the majority of which do not lead to a listing. Rigorous sifting should reduce the number of such cases, with candidates being steered towards local lists instead. Obsolescent office buildings are an obvious category (especially in major cities). Partnering with public bodies like the Prison Service can help deliver timely reviews and help with disposals (blanket listing is off-putting for managers and purchasers alike), as demonstrated by the success of our work with the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Curating knowledge: ‘Enriching the List’ (now renamed ‘Missing Pieces’, curiously) opened up the NHLE for public participation. It was a really important new step, bringing the listing into the digital realm, offering a way of sign-posting the way towards new insights and helping to illustrate the entries. That much is positive. But the contributions do not connect meaningfully with the huge amount of research
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=