Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
are in no doubt that the decline in real terms in grant-in-aid
to English Heritage has led to justified fears that English Heritage
will in future be unable to carry out its functions to the standard
required. There is a real prospect that the condition of heritage
assets will worsen and that grassroots organisations and local
authorities will lose confidence in English Heritage's ability
to provide the support which they need - whether that be grant
funding or expert advice. It is also essential that the key role
provided by English Heritage expert advice and leverage funding
in delivering regeneration of historic city and townscapes and
World Heritage Sites, is understood and supported by the Department
of Communities and Local Government; and DCMS must ensure that
the role is communicated effectively. DCMS needs to take action
to ensure that English Heritage can fulfil its functions properly.
(Paragraph 33)
2. While we commend
the positive approach to the Peer Review adopted by English Heritage
- at least in public - we are not convinced that this is a good
time for further examination of English Heritage's internal structures
and method of operation. We strongly encourage the Peer Review
to bear in mind that a period of stability and confidence-building
is needed at English Heritage, both for its own good and to permit
sound medium-term planning with stakeholders. (Paragraph 36)
3. We endorse the
efforts of English Heritage to become more responsive to the wishes
of the public and those partners it needs to work with, and we
believe this approach will pay long-term dividends. However, refashioning
should not be at the expense of its functions as regulator and
source of advice: no other body has the expertise to provide such
a service. It is not clear how English Heritage's ethos of constructive
conservation will manifest itself, but it should not be allowed
to develop into a willingness to be accommodating to all. It should
not run away from taking principled and possibly exposed decisions
defending historic assets from inappropriate development. (Paragraph
37)
4. The omission of
a reference to the importance of the historic environment from
the Prime Minister's recent 'priorities letter' to DCMS is a surprising
and worrying omission, given the emphasis the Government places
on regeneration and the important role of the historic environment
in leading urban regeneration. We encourage DCMS to restate the
priority it attaches to the role of the historic environment,
and the Government should remedy this omission in its response
to this report. (Paragraph 41)
5. We believe that
a mechanism is needed to achieve more in representing heritage
across Government. Although there is merit in the concept of rural
proofing, we suspect that heritage proofing could too easily become
bureaucratic and develop into a tick-box, formulaic approach.
Inter-departmental understanding is what is needed and we recommend
that the heritage role envisaged for Green Ministers in A Force
for our Future in 2001 should be revived and enhanced. (Paragraph
45)
6. DCMS and DCLG should
take more account of these examples of best practice in refurbishment
which have already been demonstrated and which are more likely
to command the support of local communities. (Paragraph 49)
7. Although reuniting
historic environment policy with planning policy seems a logical
step, we are on balance more confident that heritage stands a
better chance, given proper ministerial interest and leadership,
of being given more prominence if it remains within DCMS. We recommend
no change to existing responsibilities for heritage matters within
Government but would like to see more effective action from DCMS
to promote the value-added aspects heritage can bring to planning
and developing cohesive communities. (Paragraph 50)
8. We welcome the
avowed commitment of the present Minister with responsibility
for heritage, but he will need to demonstrate his commitment through
action not just within his own Department but across Government.
(Paragraph 51)
9. DCMS's approach
to reform of the heritage protection system has been less than
energetic. The process of consultation on the reforms has been
commendably thorough, but the slow progress is placing stakeholders
in limbo and delaying decisions by local authorities on medium-term
allocation of resources. (Paragraph 55)
10. While we see no
harm in restating principles, the groundwork has already been
laid: the priority for the Heritage White Paper is to state exactly
what action the Government proposes to take and when, and how
it expects to resource its plans in the medium term. (Paragraph
56)
11. DCMS should strive
to put together an economic case to justify to the Treasury the
level of settlement which the historic environment deserves, and
we believe that there is no justification for allowing its share
to decrease. Again, we find this state of affairs a surprise given
the emphasis the Government, including the Treasury, places on
regeneration. Taken with the omission of the historic environment
from the Prime Minister's recent 'priorities letter', the falling
relative share of spending begs the question of how hard DCMS
champions heritage and the historic environment in joined-up working
across Government. (Paragraph 59)
12. We have received
evidence that public heritage investment has been successful in
levering in significant private and voluntary investment, and
DCMS should undertake research to enable this case to be put clearly
to the Treasury. The significance of heritage as a factor in tourism
growth must also be identified more effectively, particularly
in view of the opportunities provided by the London 2012 Olympics.
We look to DCMS to redress the balance in the case which it presents
to the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. (Paragraph 59)
13. We find the logic
underlying DCMS's explanation of why funding to English Heritage
has decreased in real terms in recent years unconvincing, and
it inevitably leads observers to conclude that its claim to attach
priority to heritage issues is cosmetic and not borne out by the
facts. (Paragraph 60)
14. We can see no
reason why funding for English Heritage should remain at a level
which is clearly insufficient, particularly if there are to be
significant costs in establishing the new heritage protection
regime. We recommend that there should be an above RPI annual
increase in Grant-in-Aid to English Heritage for the term of the
2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. English Heritage should not
be expected to fund its portion of the costs of setting up the
new heritage protection regime without such an increase. (Paragraph
61)
15. We believe that
dual sponsorship of English Heritage by DCMS and DCLG would introduce
confused lines of accountability that would outweigh any benefits.
We therefore reject the idea. (Paragraph 62)
16. We encourage DCMS
not to take a short-sighted approach to heritage funding and to
recognise the long-term benefits in terms of leverage, value added,
and an enhanced sense of place.
(Paragraph 64)
17. We encourage the
HLF to follow its instincts and design programmes which are flexible
enough to be accessible, sustainable and meet the needs of a wide
range of community and public interests. (Paragraph 66)
18. We wholeheartedly
support the Heritage Lottery Fund's stress on encouraging access
for all to heritage assets: we are confident that this policy
will have long-lasting benefits. (Paragraph 67)
19. We recognise the
distinct roles of English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund.
However the HLF should not be expected to fill the gap caused
by the decline in English Heritage's ability to continue grant
funding, as is evident from Table 3 in paragraph 32. Assistance
for private owners should remain a function of English Heritage
when a clear public benefit can be shown. (Paragraph 70)
20. We believe that
simplification of the application process for Heritage Lottery
Fund grants and a commitment of resources to facilitate applications
should be high priorities for the Fund. (Paragraph 72)
21. We are satisfied
that the HLF's current policy on public involvement in its strategy
and decision-making is healthy and does not threaten the professional
knowledge on which decisions must be based. We will watch with
interest the experiment by DCMS with public voting, although we
recognise that it should not be allowed to descend into a crude
beauty contest. DCMS should explore whether the public preference
should be treated as a presumption in favour of a project rather
than as a binding commitment. (Paragraph 75)
22. We are concerned
that latest assumptions of the number of applications which the
HLF will receive show a dramatic fall, from 6,385 in 2005-06 (estimated)
to only 2,400 in 2006-07 and 2007-08. (Paragraph 78)
23. We welcome the
largely positive view taken by the heritage sector of the impact
of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We agree that
there could be benefits for the sector and that these will be
maximised if it shows itself willing to make the effort to seek
out opportunities. DCMS should bear in mind that 2012 will be
a showcase for tourist attractions across the UK. Investment to
ensure that major sites are presented to best effect should begin
now, and the point should be driven home to other Departments
which play a role, such as the Department for Transport in relation
to Stonehenge, and to the regional development agencies. (Paragraph
80)
24. We are concerned
that the Secretary of State has already accepted that £410
million from non-Olympic Lottery games will be diverted to the
public funding package. This will increase the fears of the heritage
sector that an overspend on the Olympics will lead to a further
diversion of funds from good causes. The Government should give
an assurance that the £410 million limit will not be exceeded.
(Paragraph 81)
25. We welcome the
Secretary of State's confirmation that heritage will continue
to be one of the good causes to benefit from Lottery proceeds
and that the 16.66% share will remain until 2019. (Paragraph 83)
26. The argument on
additionality is unlikely to be resolved. We warn that any further
decline in the capacity of English Heritage to give grants for
repair or capacity development will inevitably lead to more pressure
on the Heritage Lottery Fund and that substitution will appear
to be the outcome. This reinforces our argument for better funding
for English Heritage. (Paragraph 91)
27. A detailed picture
of the level of provision of conservation advice in local authorities
both now and in the mid-term is fundamental to any decisions on
resources for implementation of the Heritage Protection Reform
programme. DCMS should undertake such research now. (Paragraph
104)
28. We agree that
encouragement should be given to local authorities to treat the
historic environment as a higher priority. We recommend that a
set of statutory services and standards should be developed, possibly
along the lines suggested by the Institute of Historic Building
Conservation, with discretion left to local authorities on how
they should be met, according to the extent and range of heritage
assets to be managed. Alongside research into the availability
of conservation skills within local authorities, DCMS should,
with DCLG, also examine how bodies such as the CABE-sponsored
Architecture and Built Environment Centres might be augmented
in terms of skills and funding to be a pooled source of conservation
as well as urban design expertise for local authorities. (Paragraph
110)
29. DCMS and DCLG
should make renewed efforts to encourage public bodies to exercise
dispensations to dispose of assets for less than best consideration
when those assets have heritage value and it is satisfied that
the buyer has a viable plan for maintenance. (Paragraph 114)
30. We recommend that
DCMS ministers improve dialogue with Heritage Link as the collective
voice of the voluntary heritage sector. (Paragraph 118)
31. We recommend that
DCMS and English Heritage should undertake research into the problems
faced by private owners of small-scale built heritage assets.
(Paragraph 119)
32. We recommend that
RDA Boards should have at least one member able to serve as a
persuasive advocate on behalf of heritage. More effort should
be made by RDAs to identify the benefits of heritage-led regeneration
and share good practice. (Paragraph 125)
33. We recommend strongly
that the merger and replacement of existing Planning Policy Guidance
concerning the historic environment and archaeology should be
undertaken without delay after publication of the Heritage White
Paper. It should not be delayed until implementation of the proposed
new heritage protection regime in 2010: some of the advice is
very outdated and needs revision, but the principles are largely
sound and significant benefits could be gained from comparatively
little effort. (Paragraph 134)
34. The proposed combined
Register is sound in principle, but the supposed benefits cannot
be realised unless resources are made available for a substantial
one-off task in updating existing records. (Paragraph 138)
35. We agree with
witnesses that a statutory requirement on local authorities to
maintain or have access to Historic Environment Records is an
important step in disseminating information and increasing public
engagement. DCMS should confirm that it intends to bring the proposal
forward. (Paragraph 140)
36. DCMS should make
it clear what priority local authorities should give to the digitisation
of paper-based records to form Historic Environment Records; and
it must recognise the scale of the task. (Paragraph 141)
37. The Government
should consider carefully whether target times for processing
applications for listed building consent should be revised to
reflect the extra task of rewriting the relevant list description.
(Paragraph 144)
38. A measure which
permits the blanket authorisation of damage to archaeological
sites of national importance cannot be allowed to continue in
its present form, but we believe that the provision of financial
incentives to encourage good environmental stewardship may be
a more promising approach than straightforward repeal of the Class
Consents Order. (Paragraph 152)
39. We accept that
there is a clear rationale for reforming the present system of
designation protection: it is indeed disjointed, complex and confusing.
We also welcome the Government's assurance that the reforms would
not entail any dilution of the current levels of statutory protection.
(Paragraph 154)
40. We are not certain
however that DCMS has grasped fully the implications for local
authority staff, some of whom are already struggling to find space
for conservation work in a timetable driven increasingly by the
demands of giving advice on development applications. (Paragraph
155)
41. If the Government
wants the heritage protection reforms to succeed, it must ensure
that local authorities invest in historic environment services
and that they are funded to do so. We note the Minister's assurance
that resources would be provided to local authorities to meet
the costs of any further burdens: we expect to see this commitment
delivered by DCLG. (Paragraph 155)
42. The Government's
approach in addressing the Shimizu decision has been dilatory
and unacceptable. Nothing is to be gained from further delay,
and steps to place the previous understanding on a secure legal
footing should be given a high priority. (Paragraph 157)
43. DCLG should aim
to complete its consultation on the General Permitted Development
Order and bring forward a statement of intent by the end of 2006.
(Paragraph 158)
44. We believe that
a statutory duty of care could be a significant disincentive to
private owners to take on properties where unique features and
required conservation standards make maintenance particularly
expensive or problematical, and we reject the idea. (Paragraph
159)
45. All interested
parties should recognise that it is in the interests of the general
public that the current opportunity to reach a solution at Stonehenge
should not be lost. (Paragraph 163)
46. It is a judgment
for each local authority as to whether the benefits of employing
such staff outweigh the costs, and we do not believe that there
should be a mandatory requirement for local authorities to do
so. We recognise that World Heritage Site status can place extra
cost
processes on local authorities and we believe that regional development
agencies should do more to recognise the strategic importance
of World Heritage Sites to local communities and to help local
authorities with these costs to maximise the benefits of World
Heritage Site status.
(Paragraph 167)
47. The present VAT
regime for repairs distorts priorities, rewards neglect and works
against conscientious maintenance of historic assets. The result
can be either a slide towards demolition or a call on public funds
for grant aid. We find it extraordinary that the Government did
not take up the opportunity afforded by the EU earlier in the
year to seek a carefully targeted relief when urged to do so by
Heritage Link, on behalf of the sector. Opting in would have cost
the Government nothing. The chance to secure such a relief has
passed for now, but the Government should instead take a policy
decision to return as grants some or all of the VAT paid on repair
work to listed buildings. At the very least, building preservation
trusts and other charitable institutions should be beneficiaries
of such a scheme. In addition, proper consideration should be
given to including heritage properties in private ownership where
a clear public benefit can be demonstrated. The Treasury should
recognise that the majority of potential private owner beneficiaries
would not be high income earners; and many of the buildings at
risk that would stand to benefit are not residential properties.
(Paragraph 177)
48. We recommend that
DCMS should encourage the Treasury to assess the cost of a limited
relief set against income for private owners, subject to the same
type of requirements as those placed on owners under the Conditional
Exemption scheme. (Paragraph 180)
49. DCMS has in the
past shown welcome signs of recognising the case for grant funding
to encourage preventative maintenance work on buildings. It should
now report on progress made in developing policy on such grant
funding. (Paragraph 182)
50. We believe that
state support for all places of worship through general taxation
would not be readily understood by the public and would at present
be inappropriate. (Paragraph 198)
51. Faith groups have
responsibilities: they should be approaching parish councils for
support and showing imagination in how buildings could be used.
We recommend that each denomination should fund small local teams
to visit each place of worship perhaps once a year in order to
carry out basic survey and maintenance services; individual dioceses
might fund such teams for Church of England buildings. There will
always, however, be a need for major repairs. Existing funding
through English Heritage is quite inadequate, and the phasing
of repairs which results is driving up their cost significantly.
If dioceses are prepared to commit to providing basic maintenance
services, then we recommend that in return English Heritage should
be resourced to provide a level of grant funding for major repairs
to both cathedrals and other places of worship equivalent in real
terms to that provided until only five or ten years ago. If repair
projects can be completed more quickly, more efficient use will
be made of public funds. (Paragraph 199)
52. We commend the
Historic Chapels Trust for its vigour in raising funds and its
success in sustaining itself. (Paragraph 206)
53. The Churches Conservation
Trust is being asked to achieve too much with limited funds. Its
grant should be increased substantially, although we see benefit
in any increase being linked to proven community gain or generation
of match funding. (Paragraph 206)
54. We believe that
successor guidance to PPG 16 should be enhanced to reflect the
importance of public access to information from archaeological
excavations, and proper storage of items unearthed. Records of
excavations should be publicly deposited, with appropriate linkage
to Historic Environment Records. (Paragraph 210)
55. Both central and
local government have a role in ensuring that grassroots initiatives
enabling direct access at no cost to the local historic environment
can prosper. Local authorities should be prepared to assist in
publicity and administrative support for such events if required.
(Paragraph 212)
56. We are confident
that DCMS does recognise the presence of heritage beyond iconic
sites, although it has yet to convince many in the sector. We
recommend that DCMS should acknowledge clearly in policy documents
that using targets which measure visits to designated sites does
not reflect the full extent of engagement with the historic environment.
We believe that the Department's commitment to heritage would
be reinforced if a specific PSA target were to be developed reflecting
progress in protecting and preserving the historic environment,
perhaps including a target for a reduction in the number of buildings
classified as being at risk. (Paragraph 216)
57. We commend DCMS
and DfES for their efforts to raise the profile of the historic
environment in curricular education. We see this as a valuable
long-term investment in participation in heritage. (Paragraph
220)
| 
