I always thought CADW did better than EH...

[Gareth Hughes]

...but this news, coming just after they've "finished" the listing resurvey of Wales, looks a bit more like the stories we know and love from England:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5399670.stm

 

[Nemesis]

EH is Sh*te.

I say so. The refusal to list Cyclone, received this afternoon, is appalling.



http://www.coasterforce.com/home/p2_articleid/277

 

[Gervase]

There are individuals in CADW whom I respect hugely and admire for their work, but as an organisation it's as bad as EH (and worse in some respect - there's no equivalent of the excellent 'images of England' project, for example).

 

[Nemesis]

Images of England though isn't complete. 'Listed Buildings Online' should be more so, but is not available to the general public.

our system of protection of historic buildings is frankly a farce.

 

[stevew]

Images of England though isn't complete.

True, but us volunteers are working hard to make sure that it is.

 

[Nemesis]

And there you have it - why should you have to do it as a volunteer?

Cos heritage is starved of funding, that's why.

Why isn't there a full Buildings at Risk Register funded nationally either?

Cos it's not sport or the Olympics.

But don't start me...

 

[Penners]

'Listed Buildings Online' .... is not available to the general public.

Why is that, Nemesis? I don't know anything about that website, but the title sounds interesting. How does it differ from IoE?

 

[Nemesis]

It's not available to the general public!

It's basically EH's listed buildings database, only available to conservation organisations.

 

[stevew]

I was also intrigued by the listed buildings online.

If it's EH's listed buildings database then shouldn't it only contain the same information that is available to us muggles on the IOE site?

One of the spin offs of the IOE projects is that any major deviations from existing listing descriptions that are observed by the volunteers are reported back and the listings amended. Obviously this can only be fundamental differences i.e., Butcher's shop is now a private house etc, as we are not trained surveyors - or whatever it is that you have to be to update listing descriptions. Presumably if enough evidence of deviations is collected EH will have the basis upon which to gain funding for a proper updating of all the listing descriptions - or am I being hopelessly optimistic?

 

[Penners]

It's not available to the general public!

It's basically EH's listed buildings database, only available to conservation organisations.

Yes, I noted that. I just wondered why. And how it differs from IoE.

 

[Nemesis]

It's basic. Ages since I used it! Not got all the frills and pics etc.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It's not available to the general public!

It's basically EH's listed buildings database, only available to conservation organisations.

Yes, I noted that. I just wondered why. And how it differs from IoE.

It differs from IoE in that it includes all England's listed buildings and is regularly revised - IoE's cut-off date is 2000, in addition to which some people objected to pictures of their houses being on a website so EH had to allow omissions from IoE to keep them happy (they should post the addresses somewhere so we can all go and stand staring at them from across the road instead, see if Mr and Mrs Privacy prefer that?)

 

[Nemesis]

It also has a password I can never remember...