Print

Print
Listed Building Data
I can see a nice little 20 year plus project for someone, guaranteed to frustrate anyone involved with strategic planning and the historic environment.  Oh how I love debates about curtilage.  Almost as riveting as "how thick is that red line around the scheduled barrow at a scale of 1:10,000".  I am continually amazed at how primitive, compared with other archaeological data, is the record of our nationally important historic buildings, whether text or plan. I have been following the various contributions to this debate with great interest, particularly the variety of ways in which this data is being migrated into SMR's.  I am involved in three different ways of capturing LB information just to add to the entertainment They are:
1.Recent list review of Keynsham - after signing an agreement with HMSO I may receive the data on disk but am not sure in what format.  Polygons already captured as part of the Extensive Urban Survey for Keynsham.
2. List review of Bath digitisation of buildings onto our GIS with a grant from EH but no data to go with it.  No immediate solution.
3. Paying for someone to type out Rural list information into Access database - cost so far approximately £2,000.
 
All very frustrating and despite Duncan Brown's note of optimism, having this information available on a web site in 2002 is not helping anyone trying to develop a Historic Environment Record at the moment.  As someone has pointed out, there is clearly much duplication of effort and the cost to the public purse can only be guessed at.  Is there anyone out there with a set of clear strategic objectives on this matter?
 
Bob
 -----Original Message-----
From: Urban Design & Conservation Team [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 February 2001 16:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Listed Building Data- comment from Pete Boland

Of equal, if not more, concern is what site boundary for LB's is actually being digitised? The issue of what constitutes a curtilage for a listed building within which all elements including the site boundary itself would be statutorily protected is open to wide interpretation. This mightc urrently be a case by case debate since usually no "official" site boundary exists but if applicants can in future point to, say, three different "official" boundaries at national, county and district (where decisions are actually taken) level the potential for confusion and acrimonious debate seems obvious. Ok, so the boundaries are only "advisory" but try telling that to the man on the top of the Clapham Omnibus!
-----Original Message-----
From: Wardle, Chris (DSD) <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 05 February 2001 13:54
Subject: Listed Building Data

The recent discussion regarding listed building digitized data raises the question of data duplication:

We started to digitize the text held in the blue & greenbacks with the addition of more accurate NGRs a number of years ago. We now have this data more or less complete and also (like John Wood) have a GIS layer with the outlines of the listed structures. I been aware for some time that DCMS/EH were digitizing LB data, and they too were plotting them on GIS. Furthermore, some, if not all, of our distict councils are digitizing the LB text, plotting the listed buildings or doing both.

Leaving the issue of copyright on one side (as it could be a minefield!) it occurs to me that for many areas the same work (ie digitizing the LB text and plotting the buildings) is being done at least 3 times over. This really does not make too much sense. Stastistic are not my strong point, but it occurs to me that the likelihood of errors occuring on the databases or the GIS layers are at least 3 times graeater than they would be if one body/group of bodies was doing this work and supplying it to the other bodies. Surely, it is not beyond DCMS, EH and LAs to agree to which level this work should be carried out and have it distributed to all the other parties. 

Chris Wardle




This e-mail contains proprietary information some of which
or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the
intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected the e-mail, please notify the author by
replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient
you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely
on this e-mail.


**********************************************************************
The views and comments expressed in this email are confidential
to the recipients and should not be passed on to others without
permission. This email message does not necessarily express the
views of Bath & North East Somerset Council and should be
considered personal unless there is a specific statement to the
contrary.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

**********************************************************************