The inquiry
1. In February 2000 the Government asked English
Heritage to co-ordinate a wide-ranging review of all policies
relating to the historic environment. On delivering the report
to the Secretaries of State who had commissioned it - those for
Culture, Media and Sport and for the Environment, Transport and
the Regions - the Chairman of English Heritage spoke of the review
as a "once in a generation opportunity". That report
was Power of Place, published in December 2000;
the report made 18 headline recommendations, some for central
Government and others for local government, heritage organisations,
owners and developers. In his covering letter, the Chairman of
English Heritage went on to say that "there is no need for
immediate legislation but there is a strong need for immediate
action" and that many of the recommendations could be acted
upon straight away.
2. Just over five years on from that report, anxiety
pervades the sector. Apprehension about the future capacity of
English Heritage, a lack of confidence in the standing of heritage
within Government priorities and in the commitment of DCMS, the
impact of the successful London bid to host the 2012 Olympics
and uncertainty over the amount which will be available from the
Lottery for heritage have combined to generate widespread alarm
throughout the heritage sector.
3. The Committee therefore concluded that the time
was ripe for an inquiry to raise the profile of heritage and its
wider value, hear the arguments from a sector which claimed to
have been neglected, and identify ways of changing policy in such
a way as to meet priorities of both Government and those actively
involved in protecting and preserving heritage. In doing so, we
note that this is the first inquiry by a Parliamentary select
committee to take a broad-based look at the nation's built heritage
since 1994.[1]
4. Our inquiry has been given added impetus by the
imminent publication of a long-trailed Heritage White Paper, flowing
from a review of the heritage protection regime.
Course of the inquiry
5. The inquiry was announced on 15 November 2005.
The terms of reference were:
— What
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should identify as
priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White Paper;
— The remit and effectiveness of DCMS,
English Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing
heritage interests inside and outside Government;
— The balance between heritage and development
needs in planning policy;
— Access to heritage and the position of
heritage as a cultural asset in the community;
— Funding, with particular reference to
the adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and for museums
and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery
funding for heritage projects, and forthcoming decisions on the
sharing of funds from Lottery sources between good causes;
— What the roles and responsibilities should
be for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities,
museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental organisations
in maintaining the nation's heritage; and
— Whether there is an adequate supply of
professionals with conservation skills; the priority placed by
planning authorities on conservation; and means of making conservation
expertise more accessible to planning officers, councillors and
the general public.
6. The call for evidence elicited a tremendous response,
so much so that the Committee decided that it would be unrealistic
to address in a single report issues relating to built heritage,
museums and galleries, cultural property and archives. In this
report we concentrate upon the historic environment, namely built
heritage and archaeology. The evidence which we received on heritage
objects (including works of art), the museums sector, archives
and cultural heritage, although not central to this report, has
nonetheless been published and we intend to draw upon it for a
follow-up inquiry.[2] We
are as always grateful to those who made submissions.
7. For oral evidence we heard from amenity societies,
the National Trust (as the largest charitable owner of heritage
assets), the Historic Houses Association and the Country Land
and Business Association, the Heritage Lottery Fund, Heritage
Link (an umbrella body for the sector), English Heritage, and
the two Government departments most closely involved in built
heritage - the Department for Culture Media and Sport and the
then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now the Department for
Communities and Local Government). We also devoted part-sessions
to the church estate (including redundant churches), archaeological
heritage, urban regeneration using heritage assets, and the view
from professional organisations representing local authority practitioners.
8. We undertook two visits in connection with the
inquiry. The first, to Lincoln, illustrated the problems faced
by a regional city acknowledging the need to do more to protect
its historic assets, which include an iconic building - Lincoln
Cathedral - where maintenance is a particular challenge. In the
course of the day we also travelled to Doddington Hall, just outside
the city, to gain an impression of the position for private owners
of substantial houses of architectural merit. A second visit,
to Liverpool, demonstrated the potential of urban heritage buildings
to reinvigorate localities in danger of decline. We gained a great
deal from both visits and wish to record our thanks to our hosts.
9. We also had the assistance of two Specialist Advisers:
Mr Bob Kindred, currently Borough Conservation Officer at Ipswich
Borough Council and a founding Director of the Institute of Historic
Buildings Conservation; and Mr David Sekers, a trustee of Heritage
Link with experience of heritage and museum management. We are
most grateful to them both for their contributions.
What constitutes the historic environment?
10. The historic environment covers a huge range:
- Buildings, ensembles and sites
of international significance, some of which are recognised as
World Heritage Sites;
- Set piece country houses and estates, built as
displays of wealth, impressive in scale and splendour and now
in many cases major tourist attractions;
- Ecclesiastical buildings, from cathedrals through
urban Victorian churches to rural parish churches or chapels,
both in active use and redundant. Some are extravagant in concept,
some very humble;
- Townscapes, composed often of buildings which
are familiar to people and have played a direct part in their
lives (such as schools, civic buildings and pubs). Very often
such buildings will be the focus of conservation areas;
- Surface, maritime and below ground archaeology;
- Commercial and industrial buildings, many of
which date from the Industrial Revolution;
- Civic buildings constructed to house public services;
- Historic parks and gardens, cemeteries, battlefields,
monuments; and
- The repertoire of individual domestic and vernacular
buildings of all ages which populate the country.
11. It is important to remember that, in heritage
terms, we are dealing not just with individual buildings but with
ensembles and indeed settings such as gardens and parklands. A
Georgian town house is likely to be worthy of preservation in
its own right; but a street of such houses acquires a wholeness
which is easily lost. Likewise, a more workaday urban neighbourhood
may derive its character from the haphazardness of its assembly;
yet it is the overall character which may be valued as much as
the ingredients. The same can apply to large sites dating from
the 20th century such as university campuses: we were
told that landscaping and buildings were often integrated in such
a way that "if you destroy one you destroy the quality of
the other".[3]
The value of heritage
12. At a fundamental level, heritage buildings and
monuments have an intrinsic value, expressing our culture and
creative skills. They are distinct to the nation and reflect our
identity. Once destroyed, heritage assets (particularly archaeological
sites such as round barrows or hill forts) cannot be recreated.[4]
13. The benefits of the historic environment are
wide and extend beyond the core DCMS remit. Contributors to the
inquiry frequently pointed to the improved quality of life and
the "sense of place" which the historic environment
provides.[5] At a time
when the Government is attaching high priority to the regeneration
of urban settings and the wellbeing of communities, the role that
heritage buildings can play as a source of local pride and in
providing a focus for redevelopment should not be underestimated.
In Lincoln, for example, much of the historic core lies adjacent
to deprived wards; the City Council told us that investment in
the historic environment had provided employment opportunities
and better access to services and facilities, and that it had
contributed to regeneration and social inclusion.[6]
Others made similar points and suggested that the link between
heritage and regeneration led to economic prosperity, something
which was increasingly being recognised.[7]
14. The former ODPM Select Committee undertook a
thorough investigation in 2004 into the role of historic buildings
in urban regeneration,[8]
and its conclusions are often cited by the sector. We saw evidence
of the impact of heritage-led regeneration in Liverpool, particularly
in the Rope Walks area, where grant incentives from the City Council
had acted as a catalyst, attracting innovative developers to take
on the adaptation and re-use of decaying commercial structures.
Early investment in public realm - in particular new squares -
enhanced the sense of neighbourhood and inspired confidence among
the public and stakeholders in the area's viability. A similar
approach, using high quality public realm as a catalyst, was used
in Grainger Town in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.[9]
Lincoln City Council also stressed the benefits of public realm
in creating a high quality setting for the historic fabric and
a gateway to the historic area. The necessary funding for enhancement
of public realm was however difficult to secure in Lincoln outside
designated regeneration areas; the Council noted that the majority
of funding streams were output-focused and that it was "difficult
to make a case that public realm improvements … contributed
direct economic or employment benefits".[10]
15. Many witnesses emphasised that the success of
heritage-led regeneration depended on good communication of the
value of heritage at an early stage so that potential conflicts
could be resolved with better understanding of the positions on
both sides.[11] We heard
that developers were increasingly recognising that heritage and
development were not inevitably in conflict.[12]
16. Another strength of conservation-led regeneration
is its environmental sustainability; the Campaign to Protect Rural
England stated that refurbishment often used less energy and fewer
resources in the long run, and others put forward the same argument.[13]
Adaptive re-use (where practicable) was seen as the ideal, although
it was generally acknowledged that some building types and structures
would not be suitable for a new use without a level of alteration
that would devalue their intrinsic merit and that finding sympathetic
new uses for some redundant historic buildings could be so challenging
that few, if any, workable proposals were brought forward.[14]
17. Major heritage sites attract significant levels
of tourism. VisitBritain told us that culture and heritage "remains
the main appeal of any consumer interest in Britain - both internationally
and domestically".[15]
The benefits attributable directly to heritage (and the local
income which would not have been generated had the heritage asset
not existed) are difficult to calculate. The Cathedrals Fabric
Commission placed a possible figure of £91 million on the
direct economic impact per annum of visitors to cathedrals: it
suggested that this figure would rise to £150 million if
indirect impacts were to be included.[16]
Structure of the report
18. Even having selected the historic environment
as a focus for this report, the scale of the subject was still
so large that we could have held an inquiry into any one of a
number of strands, such as the listing process, ecclesiastical
buildings, the state of archaeological practice, or class consents.
Some of these have recently been examined thoroughly by DCMS (or
are due for review in the near future). Our inquiry is not therefore
an attempt to resolve all the issues raised in evidence: it is
a bird's eye view report, looking at the overall approach by Government
and others to historic environment policy. We hope to achieve
some political impetus for wider recognition in Government and
among the public of the value of built heritage to people's lives.
19. Our starting point is to look at the main players,
their roles and their success in performing in those roles. We
then look at the structures and policies which have grown up to
recognise and protect the built environment. These two sections
form the bulk of the report. We then examine two thematic issues:
places of worship and engagement by the public.
1 
