Talk:Listed building

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Historic sites High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the difference between the different grades of listed buildings?Theresa knott 12:22 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it's not at all obvious what the difference is between the grades, OR which grade is the highest! Which is higher: "buidlings of exceptional interest" or "buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them"? (Do buildings of exceptional interest not warrant efforts to preserve them?) I'd argue that this information should be reworded to be completely unambiguous, and probably given in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Listed Building

I've added The Isokon, the [Royal Festival Hall]] and Keeling House. I don't want to begin a situation where everyone sticks their favourite listed building on here, but these are particularly important examples of modern listed building: The Isokon was the first listed Modern Movement building, the RFH the first Grade I-listed post-war building and Keeling the first listed example of modern council housing.

FrFintonStack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.199.36 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 21 March 2006

Images of England have changed the way to link their site once. They may do it again. I have now created a template which makes it easy to link to entries at Images of England and provides a mesasue of future-proofing. See instructions at talk:Images of England. -- RHaworth 17:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about mentioning the proposed Grade X listing. This is a category for particularly horrible buildings of no architectural or historical merit whatsoever. Grade X listing would hopefully speed up their demolishment and replacment. A number of speculative Grade X lists have been compiled. Probably not a good idea to include any list of buildings though as this would be a somewhat subjective decision. 141.5.194.4 09:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is not an official listing or any real proposal for one, nor is it particularly noteable Nil Einne 15:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that many of the updates to this article are just additions to the Famous listed buildings section. Whilst you might readily argue that all listed buildings are notable since they are declared by experts to be notable for preservation, I doubt whether all the buildings being added are famous. There are already lists of listed buildings chained from this article. Could a little restraint be exercised before someone prunes the whole lot out? :) Oosoom ^Talk to me 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this trend too! I have just added a link at the top of the English/Welsh examples to point at GI, II, & II* categories. This should act as a place for people who want to put in "me too" entries - the lists in this article should be winnowed down to provide a representative handful of examples for each Grade from across the country and across the ages, e.g. a public building, a public space, a structure, a commercial building, a station, a private dwelling, a church, and a monument or curiousity. Someone needs to be bold on this, though should candidates be discussed here first? Ephebi 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely excessive in quantity. I was going to simply add a comment here complaining about it, but your 'be bold' suggestion is a good one, so I've instead gone ahead and done some extensive trimming, based on no particular criteria (so feel free to tweak my selection). Guinness (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we put a limit of 5 examples, per type on this page and simply revert additions, to prevent it from growing again. This is what I'm going to do, from time to time, unless the consensus says otherwise. Guinness (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the optimum solution lies between five-per-grade and a free-for-all. I suggest that we should be trying to do here is give the reader a feel for the broad range of listed structures at each level, without making them wade through a category listing which may, because of particular interests of editors who have contributed to categorising, be dominated by some building types or regions and ignore others.

To this end I propose that at each of the three grades we should allow not more than one example of each of the following types:

1. Government building (e.g. ministry, town hall)

2. Other public-sector building (e.g. hospital, library)

3. "Grand" residential building (e.g. country pile, palace)

4. "Ordinary" residential building (e.g. cottage, terrace, bungalow, flats)

5. Agricultural building (e.g. barn, stable)

6. Commercial building (e.g. bank, shop, office block)

7. Industrial building (e.g. factory, warehouse)

8. Transportation building (e.g. railway station, airport)

9. Garden or park building (e.g. folly, bandstand)

10. Educational building (e.g. school, university)

11. Leisure/cultural building (e.g. cinema, swimming pool)

12. Military building (e.g. fort, barracks)

13. Anglican religious building (e.g. cathedral, church)

14. Non-Anglican religious building

15. Non-building structure (e.g. postbox, bridge)

Additionally, we should try hard - without being dogmatic about it - to ensure regional variety within both grades and building types: for example, not all our Anglican religious buildings should come from Norfolk, or all our Grade II* buildings from the northwest.

Whether such a list would be better arranged by grade and then building type, or vice-versa, I'm not sure. Barnabypage (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does show a very broad coverage and identifies the wide scope of listing. But it means potentially 45 items if we let it repeat over each grade... and render the article into just a list once more, which I can't support as that is precisely what we have been trying to avoid. But I'd support your proposal if we can spread those 15 categories over all 3 grades, with 5 per grade. Ephebi (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective - my main concern with that would be that unless the examples were carefully chosen they might create false implications about listing criteria ("churches are often grade I, but business-related buildings can't be higher than II"). I wonder if there might be any way to present 45 in a tabular form that wouldn't look too list-like? Or if we could sensibly reduce the 15 categories to, say, ten without sacrificing anything major? Barnabypage (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Category:Grade I listed buildings etc... provides plenty of examples and is referenced at the top of each section. Another way that :WP does this sort of thing is to build up a specific list page... see List_of_mausolea as an example (though I only wish that it kept folks from adding listcruft to the parent article.) Alternatively, we could just mash all three categories together into one, with a 15 item list organised per your example above, with a single example beside it. Ephebi (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding a photo of a tomb chest in a churchyard. It's not eye-catching or well-known, but provides a visual example of the (90% is it?) items that are Grade II listed. Chrisemms (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are considering categories and criteria, there is a selection of pdfs from English Heritage on the types of 'heritage assets' here:- http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/criteria-for-protection/IHAs/. And also a series of 'selection guides' describing the sorts of approaches that are used in the decision to list something, which can be found here:- http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/criteria-for-protection/selection-guidelines/. They may be helpful to you - or merely emphasise the range of things can be designated! FGLawson (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut back the list again today, since there were upwards of 15 Grade I buildings in there. I've added (another) comment to the lists requesting editors discuss here before adding to the lists. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this question has been asked, in a way, and not answered, I'm going to ask anyway: What is the difference between a Grade II and Grade II* building? I haven't read the whole thing yet because I'm at work and need to get back to it, but if this isn't answered in the article, I hope it will be answered here. SailorAlphaCentauri 20:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I scanned the article further and found the answer I sought. SailorAlphaCentauri 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Great-Auntie lives in a Grade II listed building, well part of it, she owns it all, 10-14 Churchgate, Hallaton, Leicestershire. Would this be ok to start an article on, or will it be deleted as non-notable? Jimmmmmmmmm 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're serious but...I don't think Grade II listing = notability in itself (there are just so many Grade II buildings), but of course some Grade II buildings ARE notable. You might, though, decide that it's more appropriate to briefly cover this building and any others in the area in Hallaton, if the article exists. Barnabypage 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the whole campus really Grade II listed per today's edit? Barnabypage 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that Wotton House is Grade I, but don't know, and don't know where to look. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] might be useful for this sort of question (might be worth an external link). --86.129.6.0 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now Architectural preservation is a redirect to this article. Needless to say, the UK is not the only place in the world where architectural preservation occurs, nor is all preservation even in the UK on listed buildings. There is a more general article begging to be written. - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the redirect to Architectural conservation, which isn't a perfect article but is more appropriate than this one. Barnabypage (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following three paragraphs read like an advice column, in my opinion: Listing a building imposes severe restrictions on what the owner might wish to change or modify in the structure or its fittings. Thus trying to refit windows by plastic double glazed units would be barred by most inspectors (who actually implement and check all proposed changes). Listing normally covers both the exterior and interior, so that major changes to a floor layout (for example) would need approval before any changes could be implemented.

The Listed Property Owners Club advise that ANY alterations to a listed building must first be discussed with your conservation officer, they are based at the local council and are responsible for the protection of listed buildings. Some work to a listed property should also be VAT zero rated, you should seek specialist advice about this as there are lots of "grey" areas.

Another important consideration for listed properties is insurance. Many listed buildings are under insured. If a listed building has a normal insurance policy it will usually only cover the cost of "normal" repairs. BUT if a listed building is damaged the conservation officer will usually insist that repairs are like for like. Many insurance companies do not take into consideration the additional costs for specialist workmanship and materials. If there is a shortfall in the amount covered it is then the owners responsibility to pay the difference.

Any comments before I remove them? Red van man (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed but would make more sense if abbreviated & re-worded under a subheading such as "Consequences of listing" Ephebi (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and I'm not even convinced it needs paraphrasing - "A listed building may not be demolished, extended or altered without special permission" seems to express the point adequately. Barnabypage (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is fine, although the second really looks like it's been lifted directly from an advice website. The third should definitely not be removed though, as it is clearly an important aspect of the consequences of listing a building. I think you should paraphrase, rather than removing. Johnhousefriday (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording is definitely a problem, but I agree that it's quite encyclopaedic to discuss the last paragraph as one of the consequences of listing. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for the constructive comments - I've expanded paragraph 2 of the article to include some of this material. Red van man (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical case where the editor is looking at the costs of ownership of a monument from a specific municipality or heritage list holder. Without specifying the particular country, and the list holder, then the above is not useful. For example, the repairs to a rijksmonument are subsidized by a government agency. I suggest that this article be pared down to a general explanation of the term "listed building" as a heritage site, with links to specific pages for each list holder with their agreements in their municipalities. I came to this article from List of listed buildings in Tibbermore and expected to find information that would be useful for owners and viewers of listed buildings in Tibbermore. Jane (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is proposed that the three Grades I, II* and II then apply to all Designated Buildings and Sites." There seems to be a verb missing. Kdammers (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The verbs are quite clearly "propose" and "apply", the sentence makes perfect sense. 188.221.150.127 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A listed building clearly means the building has been placed on a special list. What is the proper, full, title of this list? I assume it's not just referred to as "the list" in documentation, that could get rather confusing! 188.221.150.127 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually just referred to as "the statutory list". Barnabypage (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! It's "The Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest". Logical enough. 188.221.150.127 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"around half a million buildings" fit under this category! Wow that's a lot! Obviously you don't need to list the million buildings (do try if you dare lol) but other then the extremely significant political and historical buildings what composes about 99% of that list? I don't think any brit in there right mind would every argue to destroy Buckingham Palace or The Palace of Westminster but again what about the other 99% of the buildings. I read this whole article and I still cant get the feal of this section for most of the buildings. maybe im just to dumb to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding something here - the idea of listing a building is to state its significance. Thus a listed building or structure is never "non-significant" (I presume you meant to say "insignificant" here?) ! There may be a lot of listed structures in England (though 1/2M seems a bit too many ...) Also, and controversially, listing does not fossilise the building; though it means that any changes have to consider the quality and context, and go through extra planning assessments. But if it helps answer your later question, this is what English Heritage says in its guidance when deciding to list Victorian-era structures and memorials in churchyards, cemeteries or other public spaces: "Tombs of high architectural or sculptural quality will be listable... Historic interest of the individual commemorated will often be attached to tombs of famous people... more unusual materials such as slate, metals, rare imported stones etc. will warrant attention... So too will bronze statuary, which could be of very high quality. Location can be a key factor too... Mausoleums ... will be assessed on architectural grounds, and if they possess elaborate interiors, then the case for designation will be all the stronger. Far fewer headstones of the period possess special interest, but those exceptions with high quality decoration, imagery and epitaphs will warrant careful consideration. As ever, inclusion in a registered landscape will add weight to any case."

Ephebi (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP editor makes an interesting point - to any reader it's going to be pretty obvious why, say, the Tower of London or Hampton Court Palace are listed. It will be less obvious why my house is and my neighbour's isn't. So it might well be worth expanding a little on the Grade II section to explain that it doesn't only apply to public/commercial buildings or to big buildings, as our examples might imply - Grade II listing very frequently covers buildings that may not look particularly special or even be particularly well-known locally, if there is a reason they are significant. I don't have time right now but I think somewhere I have some English Heritage stats on listing by building type, which I could look out if nobody else has the info. Barnabypage (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the logic behind the curtilage rule is to extend protection to outbuildings etc. which are part of the historical evolution of the building even if they are not quite physically connected. So, at the risk of being extremely pedantic: what is the situation if the main listed structure was built after 1948, but there are buildings within the curtilage predating it? They are obviously not part of the main building's evolution as such, but on the other hand the main building was likely designed with them in mind. Does the main building's protection apply to them? Barnabypage (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - indeed you have raised several good points whilst we have thrashed out this definition. I speak here from my own personal experience from "Re West Norwood Cemetery" and consequential disputes, where curtilage was deemed by Chancery Court to apply to this cemetery in its 40-acre entirety, because of the density of the listed monuments inside. This is an unusually large curtilage, but it means we frequently have to work accurately within its definition, and our experience may be illuminating. Importantly, the unlisted items inside the curtilage have not become, what I would call 'protected', per se. (In fact, I don't much like the use of the term 'protection' in this context, as its not the curtilage which is being protected. Nor does the protection granted to the listed building preclude alteration - it just makes you work harder on the design and approach.) However, going back to my situation, any proposal for a new headstone, or replacement, or other change to any other structure would need to be formally considered under conservation rules. The legal expectation is that a pre-48 structure would not be removed, unless very good reasons could be put forward. Changes to any post-48 monument would also need to be considered; however there would be no grounds for objecting to the removal of a post-48 structure. In either case, any proposed alteration would need to be formally considered in the context of the setting of the listed monuments - including filling-in the void created if an item gets removed. (So in our instance there are problems if a modern black polished granite 'teddy bear' tombstone is proposed, in what is predominately a Victorian environment.) So to take your, perhaps extreme, example of a post-48 listed structure in a pre-48 setting, I would imagine that, speaking generally, any proposed changes to the pre-48 curtilage would have to be considered in the context of its effect on the setting of the listed structure - however, if it was deemed as lying within the curtilage then it is obviously working with the listed structure, and so any proposal would need to be at least as complementary. Ephebi (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the lengthy see also section, I drafted the {{Heritage protection in the United Kingdom}} navbox template, aiming to bring together scheduled monuments, listed buildings, monuments records, etc. Comments suggestions and improvements would be welcome (on the template talk page) before I stick it in the article. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the notes for this page say that it is out of date, I will have a go at updating this section with current data and some more detailed information. I would like to suggest adding some more sub-headings to help with structure and clarity - ie 'legistlation relevant to listing', 'criteria for listing', 'how to apply to get a building listed' and 'altering a listed building'. I'd like to put something in about heritage protection reform too, but I'm not sure if this is the right place for it. FGLawson (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there agreement that it is appropriate to remove the 'outdated' message block on this article now?FGLawson (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, in speach how does one say grade II* listed is it simply grade two star listed I don't know, and I think it should be mentioned in the article. If it is already there I couldn't find it Carlwev (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "grade two star", though I have occasionally heard "grade two starred". But does it really need to be in the article? I'm not sure there are any other plausible ways to say it. Barnabypage (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think you just say it like that, or in any other way that works, and that it does not need addressing in the article. With the greatest of respect, I feel that this would be overkill. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare this article to Beschermd erfgoed, which is linked in the lead of this list: List of protected heritage sites in Villers-la-Ville. The first article explains who the "listed building" listers are in Belgium, and then has a series of links to all of the various Belgium regions with their list holders. The list of listed buildings in Villers-la-Ville can thus bring the user eventually to information about the protection of monuments in the country of Belgium. I miss such a hierarchy of explanation here. For example, in the "List of listed buildings in Tibbermore" (see link above), I miss the explanation of why the number is an "HBnum". What does the HB stand for? Jane (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also realizing now, on rereading the article, that there are multiple other issues as well. For example, I would expect a discussion or link to "listed buildings" in other english-speaking parts of the world, such as Ireland, Canada, and Australia. The article Cork County Hall links here, which is in the Republic of Ireland and comes through via protected building redirect. I would suggest splitting articles off all the other redirects, such as Ancient historic monument, B category listed, Category-A listed, Grade 1 listed building, Grade 2 listed building, Grade 2*, Grade A listed building, Grade I listed building, Grade II listed building. The redirects Designated structure, Historic monument, Listed Building, Listed memorial, Listed structure, Protected building, and Protected monument should probably all redirect to Cultural heritage management. Jane (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template anything similar to that at Commons, {{COMMONS:Template:Listed building England}}

This is a photo of listed building number

Do we need one? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest BritishListedBuildings is added to the external references, I use this frequently and find it superior to the English Heritage Website. In addition to the grades detailed in the article there is another Grade, DL, in the register. This is for De-Listed and refers to buildings that were formally listed but whose listing been withdrawn. These are retained in the register. AnnaComnemna (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be explained. It is astonishing to new readers when the pattern of naming has no asterisk, and when a symbol is used, it should have meaning. Doing a ctrl+f found nothing for me, so a reasonable passerby would have even greater difficulty discerning the significance of "*".96.52.0.249 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This means grade 2 star wich is in between grade 2 and grade 1. Hopefully that is your question answered?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A statement currently reads "Most buildings built between 1700 and 1840 are listed." I do not think this is correct - where is the evidence? I found some evidence that say 2m properties were built pre 1850 (based on council tax band data which suggests 3.7m dwellings in England pre 1900) but that only 500,000 buildings are listed in total - which contradicts the above and would suggest closer to 25% are listed!! Might be more accurate to say "Most buildings built between 1700 and 1840 WOULD BE ACCEPTED FOR listing, if a submission were made.". Having tried, it seems quite difficult to get hold of accurate figures for the number of buildings (listed or otherwise) between 1700 and 1840 anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.74.39 (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Flaxmill Shrewsbury as it was the first building in the world to have a iron structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.158.8 (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wokingham's grade 2 listed footbridge made of old bullhead rails be put in the examples of grade 2 listed building/bridges?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Like The british Rail Class 483 - Hi, there’s no particular reason why it should, or indeed shouldn’t. The issue is that there are over 340,000 Grade II listed buildings, so we obviously can’t list them all. The idea here is to have a small sample of Grade IIs. I’m not sure why the Wokingham Footbridge should be among them, particularly as it doesn’t have a standalone article? KJP1 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 The footbridge is believe to be the only one of in type left in the UK and that it is only a public railway. The reason why did it dose not have it own article is because it is sandwich between Wokingham railway station and the level crossing just to the south. The footbridge is just over the ends of the platforms at Wokingham railway station.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this section is trying to say. Aside from the fact it's uncited, it appears to suggest there is a specific category of Mixed designations. There isn't such a category, and there are literally hundreds of sites that contain structures with differing designations. Stowe House and Stowe Gardens are obvious examples, but it's probably true of almost any country house estate. I'm not sure it warrants a separate section and am proposing to merge it into Categories of listed building section, unless there are any concerns. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed but retained. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also not sure about this. Why are some countries specifically mentioned, with colourful little flags, while most are not? Proposing to merge this into the See also section, under List of heritage registers unless there are any concerns. KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]