Memorandum by The Royal Town Planning
Institute (RTPI) (HIS 51)
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is
pleased to provide evidence for the ODPM Select Committee's inquiry
into the Role of Historic Buildings in Urban Regeneration. The
RTPI is active in promoting good practice in both these fields.
For example, in 2000 it published Conservation of the Historic
Environment: A Good Practice Guide for Planners[46]it
has a Regeneration Network and it organises the annual National
Regeneration Convention. The RTPI is particularly keen to aid
the processes through which both these interrelated areas of planning
are more mutually supportive, integrated and co-ordinated. This
evidence will concentrate on this aspect of the subject of the
Committee's Inquiry.
THE CASE
FOR A
MORE INTEGRATED
APPROACH
The case for a more integrated approach appears
undeniable. First there is the economic case. The link with tourism
as a contributor to local economies is a very clear example. There
is, however, a wider economic case to be recognized. As the Architectural
Heritage Fund point out, "when individual buildings are
restored or saved, not only one building or group of buildings
is regenerated; there is a ripple effect which leads others to
restore their buildings too, and which helps to increase property
values so that what the voluntary sector has begun becomes viable
for private and commercial owners to continue."
Secondly there is the retention and the creation
of an identifiable "Sense of place" that arises from
a positive and sensitive approach to incorporating an enhancement
of the heritage of an area into area regeneration schemes. Areas
and estates have often rightly been described as soulless. The
retention and enhancement of historic places into schemes will
help to provide links with the area as residents know it and to
give it a unique character. Such projects can also provide an
identifiable focus for community involvement in thinking about,
and proposals for, the future of an area.
However, even now, some Government advice can
be read as supporting a view that the existence of historic buildings
in areas of change can be seen to be a problem rather than an
asset and opportunity. For example, the recent DCMS consultation
document, Protecting Our Historic Environment: Making the System
Work Better (2003) contains a section on regeneration (paras
69 on) which appears to focus on the need to assess early whether
historic buildings will affect regeneration schemes and which
contains advice about seeking certificates of immunity from listing.
This approach does not encourage the private sector to value historic
buildings and incorporate them into new developments.
Third, there is the growing recognition of the
value of our historic environment in making explicit the diverse
cultural heritage of an area and of using this to involve different
communities in neighbourhood renewal and to demonstrate that they
have a real stake in an area. The recent publication by English
Heritage, England's heritage—your heritage is very
valuable in pointing this out and in giving examples of approaches
to this work. Planning Aid for London, which is part funded by
the RTPI, is currently undertaken an English Heritage funded project
working with communities on the City fringe area of London.
Fourthly, there is the relationship between
the historic environment and opportunities for recreation and
learning. In this context, it would be valuable if the conclusions
and recommendations of the Select Committee included the relevance
of, for example, historic parks in addition to its current emphasis
on historic buildings.
These points are exemplified by a range of existing
projects where investment in the historic environment is clearly
related to—and benefits—the regeneration of areas.
This is demonstrated by the fact that the last two winners of
the Silver Jubilee cup in the RTPI's annual planning awards have
been schemes which demonstrated this link. The winner of the 2001
award was a community based project by Leicestershire County Council
called "Transforming the Ashby Woulds", which included
the restoration of the 19th century Moira Furnace and Lime Kilns.
Last year's winner was British Waterways, Scotland's
Millennium Link Project: Forth and Clyde which included the
creation of the Falkirk Wheel as well as the restoration of the
historic canal. The awards judges commented that "whilst
the boat lift, the Falkirk Wheel, represents the most innovative
part of the whole project and will undoubtedly draw significant
numbers of visitors to that element alone, it is the overall effect
in promoting regeneration that is particularly important. New
development opportunities are being realised in Edinburgh, Falkirk,
Kirkintilloch, Glasgow Clydebank and Clydeside where the canal
now forms an integral part of a renewal strategy."
It is worth noting, finally, that the RTPI in
putting forward the clear arguments for closer linkages between
historic buildings and regeneration and does recognise that there
will often be hard decisions to be made as to whether local economic
and social interests are best served by a heritage based approach
or by a new scheme which sets new standards in design and public
accessibility and benefit. It is regrettable, however, that this
debate should become polarised with bodies such as English Heritage
being seen by some as the opposers of progress and with advocates
of landmark schemes, such as the GLA and CABE being seen as the
despoilers of heritage. The best schemes derive from creative
solutions in which neither economic regeneration nor conservation
and heritage are compromised.
THE NEED
FOR GREATER
CO -ORDINATION
The context for much greater co-ordination between
historic buildings and regeneration—both in policy and in
implementation terms—is provided at the national level.
It is worth noting that the English Heritage Quinquennial Review
Stage One Report (May 2002) stated that EH's statutory purposes
and its functions contribute to and have impact upon government
objectives beyond those of DCMS alone. However these relationships
are not well developed either at the level of policy formulation
or objective setting. The publication of A Force for our Future
is a welcome step in creating greater clarity about government
policy for the historic environment, but there remains the need
for greater engagement between EH and non-sponsor departments
such as DEFRA, DTLR, and DfES. DCMS will have a leadership role
in effecting these developments. Until these matters are resolved
and EH's cross-departmental relationships are strengthened we
do not think that co-sponsorship should be considered.
This disjunction of Departmental responsibility
for clearly complementary areas of activity has the potential
for, at best, a failure to recognises opportunities for mutually
re-inforcing working when they arise and, at worst, a waste of
resources as, for example, grant aid is spent on a heritage programme
which could, with some more thought have been used to achieve
wider social goals. At the policy level, the failure to join up
these strands is apparent from the current ODPM planning advice
on Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15). This
contains the welcome advice that Plans should also include
a strategy for the economic regeneration of rundown areas, and
in particular seek to identify the opportunities which the historic
fabric of an area can offer as a focus for regeneration.
However, apart from one other isolated example,
this is the only mention of this linkage in the whole Planning
Policy Guidance Note. There is no advice on complementary grant
regimes or joint approaches to enhancement and renewal. The ODPM's
commitment to review all its planning policy advice within three
years provides the opportunity to rectify this lack of clear and
positive guidance.
At a more local level, the picture of joint
initiatives and co-operative working is, it appears, better than
the national picture would imply. In 2001 The Historic Environment:
A Force for Our Future produced jointly by the DCMS and the
then DTLR stated that: Substantial progress has also been made
in recognising and harnessing the contribution that historic buildings
can make to economic and community regeneration. English Heritage's
Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme and the Heritage Lottery
Fund's Townscape Heritage Initiative have both acted as important
catalysts for community-led renewal and as a spur to wider investment,
both public and private.
However, this key document did state that the
Government will initiate a review of the case for integrating
the present array of heritage controls into a single regime
(paragraph 4.7). This is much needed (and, it is assumed, the
DCMS consultation in June 2003 on Protecting Our Historic Environment:
Making the System Work Better fulfils this obligation). However,
such a review needs to be extended to cover not only the range
of heritage controls but the range of different grant-making regimes
and the integration of differing area plans and enhancement schemes.
The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future did partially
recognise this with the recommendation that the Government
encourage Local Authorities and Local Strategic Partnerships,
in preparing their community strategies, to consider the role
of the historic environment in promoting economic, employment
and educational opportunities within the locality (paragraph
5.13).
There remains, however, a long way to go. Whilst,
for example, Heritage Economic Regeneration Schemes (HERS) provide
an explicit programme through which heritage protection and enhancement
is linked directly with regeneration objectives, there is scope
to bring this approach more clearly to other programmes. In the
field of housing, for example, some local authorities do link
their empty property strategies with historic building grant regimes
but this practice needs to be made far more widespread. On a more
general level, an initial appraisal of key neighbourhood Renewal
Unit documents, including the National Strategy for Neighbourhood
Renewal, does not indicate any strong recognition of the role
of heritage in renewal—indeed, it is hard to find any recognition
at all.
The need for greater co-ordination does not
simply arise from the need for mutually supporting projects and
funding—as important as these are. It also stems from the
need to make the best use of the resources that are available
and to draw in other funds and expertise. Funding from the national
heritage bodies is of fundamental importance it is also necessary
for other agencies—especially RDA's—to recognise that
importance too. The DCMS consultation in June 2003 on Protecting
Our Historic Environment: Making the System Work Better identified
this as a problem. "Over the last five years important
responsibilities for regeneration, planning, transport and the
environment have migrated to regional institutions but there has
been little overt recognition of the importance of the historic
environment in new development and regeneration. The Government
is keen to develop the role of the Regional Historic Environment
Forums and to grow, within regional planning bodies and Regional
Development Agencies, the expertise and capacity to participate
in the management of the historic environment which is so often
a key element in regeneration."
As true as this is, it needs to be recognised,
however, that the Regional Development Agencies are seen by a
number of different sectors as the bodies to take on additional
responsibilities. The recommendations in the rural delivery review
by Lord Haskins[47]show
this clearly. There is a danger that RDAs will not deliver all
these responsibilities.
The wider question of the availability of skills
and resources remains. There will never be sufficient funding
to achieve all the objectives that heritage enhancement and regeneration
require but, as this evidence has sought to highlight, a much
closer link between these two aspects of policy will provide the
potential for maximising the use of existing funding to address
twin objectives. Similarly, skills are in short supply with, for
example, local authority expertise on historic buildings severely
stretched and non-existent in some areas. The RTPI recognises
its own responsibilities in this respect and will be considering
this as part of its programme of reform of the training of planners
initiated by the 2003 report of its education commission. Part
of the solution must lie in the greater dissemination of the effective
practice that already exists and the Planning Advisory Group proposed
by the ODPM should play a role in this.
This evidence has not covered the minutiae of
heritage and regeneration grant regimes. However, the RTPI makes
it clear that it fully supports all those who are calling for
a rationalization of the VAT system so that the illogical and
harmful position whereby restoration is subject to VAT and new-build
is not, is rectified.
The RTPI would be pleased to elucidate and discuss
any of the points made in this evidence before the Select Committee.
46 Based on work commissioned from Conservation Architecture
and Planning, the authors of which were Jack Warshaw, Stephen
Levrant and Philip Grover. Back
47
DEFRA et al. A Report on the Delivery of Government
Policies in Rural England (October 2003). Back
| 
