Memorandum submitted by The Architectural
Heritage Fund
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Architectural Heritage Fund (AHF)
is a major funder of projects undertaken by charities to restore
and give a viable new life to historic buildings throughout the
UK. Formed in 1976, the AHF is itself an independent charity and
company limited by guarantee, governed by a Council of Management
with 12 Trustees and run by a small administration based in central
London, although its staff travel extensively to visit potential
and current projects. The AHF is also involved in many major sector-wide
initiatives, and the Chief Executive represents the organisation
on bodies such as Heritage Link; the Welsh Historic Environment
Group; the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Work Group on
Community Assets Ownership; the working party on heritage agency
reform in Northern Ireland and so on.
1.2 The AHF is unusual amongst funders in
offering support to community groups contemplating projects at
the earliest possible stage, in the form of advice and model documents
on the formation of a suitable charity (usually a Buildings Preservation
Trust [BPT]) and a grant towards the costs of an options appraisal
for a building. AHF support continues throughout the life of the
project, with small grants (up to £25,000) towards employing
a professional project organiser and for administration costs,
and large short-term low-interest loans (up to £750,000)
for acquiring a building and/or for capital funding cashflow during
the restoration phases of a project. To qualify, a building must
be listed/scheduled or (exceptionally) in a conservation area,
and the project must involve a change of use and/or a change of
ownership for the building.
1.3 The AHF has an endowment fund used for
its loans activities of £12 million, and aims always to have
offered around 120% of the fund at any one time (being able to
do so in the knowledge that some offers are not taken up and that
there is regular repayment of outstanding loans). The organisation
has so far offered over £85 million in loans and over £4
million in grants to projects. The AHF's running costs are funded
in part by the interest on loans and on balances awaiting distribution
from the endowment fund. The organisation also receives support
towards these costs and towards its grant-giving from the four
national heritage bodies: English Heritage, Historic Scotland,
Cadw and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland,
with all of which the AHF has a close working relationship.
2. What the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage
White Paper
2.1 The Heritage White Paper needs to address
both the confusing legislative framework for the protection of
assets, and recognise the ability of heritage to deliver widespread
benefits for society as a whole. In particular, the following
key points should be emphasised:
— That there is a sufficiently robust
infrastructure in place for the statutory bodies (English Heritage
and the local authorities) to carry out the reforms identified
in the Heritage Protection Review. The Government has been very
slow to introduce the necessary legislation, which is now urgently
needed.
— That local authorities need considerable
additional support. Working at the "sharp end" of heritage-led
regeneration, the AHF is very aware that the vast majority of
work on managing and improving our built heritage is carried out
at a local level, but local authorities do not have the resources
to deal with this.
— That heritage is a major driver of
regeneration and of social stability, not just a part of tourism/culture,
and as such needs to be addressed across government departments
rather than only being the concern of the DCMS. There is continuing
disappointment within the heritage sector that the DCMS does not
appear to understand the contribution of heritage to regeneration
and to quality of life.
3. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English
Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage
interests inside and outside Government
3.1 There has long been a debate as to the
right department to be responsible for the historic environment.
There are some advantages, as at present in the DCMS, in bringing
it together with other "cultural interests" such as
the arts and museums and galleries, but the corollary of this
is that heritage is seen purely as a "soft" asset (ie
one reliant on visitors and as part of discretionary spending),
rather than a driver of regeneration.
3.2 The impact of heritage, and in particular
the historic built environment, on society is much wider than
that implied by the remit of the DCMS. It is therefore essential
that issues such as the positive role of the historic built environment
in regeneration, its contribution to quality of life and to a
sense of place, are recognised by the DCMS in its dealings with
other departments, and in particular the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister, DEFRA, the Home Office and the Treasury.
3.3 As an outside body working across the
four home countries, and with a very wide range of stakeholders
from national and local government, the private and voluntary
sectors, we are frequently aware of the weaknesses in the current
system. The division between the DCMS and ODPM is particularly
unhelpful when decisions regarding planning and planning policy
are being considered. If heritage remains with the DCMS then further
consideration needs to be given to addressing this issue, and
to ensuring that the role of heritage in regeneration is fully
understood across Government.
3.4 There is an inherent contradiction in
the function of English Heritage as, on the one hand, an instrument
of government policy with government funding and, on the other,
as the "champion" of the heritage lobby. It is, nonetheless,
important to have a quasi-independent body which can perform these
roles, but its ability to do so has been affected by the net reduction
in its funding. This has impacted negatively both on English Heritage's
funding of other organisations and projects, and also the ability
of its staff, under considerable pressure, to give advice and
support to the rest of the heritage sector.
3.5 Wider representation of "heritage
interests" comes from a variety of organisations, many, such
as ourselves, not being part of Government. This diversity needs
to be acknowledged as a strength of the heritage sector rather
than, as is sometimes the case, being seen as a potential weakness.
(See also 6 below). The well-being of the built heritage depends
to a large extent on community support and locally-based organisations
which have this at their heart, such as local building preservation
trust and civic societies. These organisations are largely volunteer-led
and show the very wide grassroots support for the historic environment
and its positive impact on society at large.
4. The balance between heritage and development
needs in planning policy
4.1 Heritage should be regarded as a positive
driver of development, rather than, as is too often the case,
seen purely as a brake on progress. Several of the largest property
developers, such as the Berkeley Group, Crest Nicholson, Slough
Estates and others now recognise that working with the historic
built environment enhances and adds financial value to their developments.
4.2 Sustainable development policies should
also recognise that it is almost always preferable in environmental
terms to retain and reuse a building than to demolish it. This
needs in particular to be acknowledged in policies regarding the
Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder areas, although it is clear
that other issues come into play in those areas. However, a number
of excellent exemplar schemes have been undertaken by building
preservation trusts in renewal areas which show how the existing
housing stock can be adapted and modernised so that it is suitable
for 21st century uses.
5. Access to heritage and the position of
heritage as a cultural asset in the community
5.1 Heritage in all its aspects is at the
heart of what makes a community distinctive. Work by organisations
such as Common Ground has shown how much people value their local
heritage, and that this is true across all social classes, ages
and ethnic groups. An understanding of our shared heritage brings
the diverse communities of the UK together and everyone should
have full access to their heritage.
5.2 The historic built environment is unique
amongst heritage assets in being accessible to all parts of society
through its impact on the streetscapes of our towns and cities.
The vast majority of historic buildings are valuable mainly for
their external rather than internal features, and therefore their
character can be enjoyed simply by walking down the street. This
is genuine accessibility, but will only continue if these buildings
survive. The best way to ensure their survival is to find them
a new use (if the original use is no longer suitable) and for
that use to be economically viable.
5.3 The major heritage promoting organisations,
including English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the
National Trust, have done much good work in broadening access
to heritage through funding schemes, outreach and education programmes
and marketing initiatives. However, from my twenty years experience
in the performing arts prior to coming to the AHF in 2003, I would
say that heritage generally is still behind the performing arts
and the museums and galleries sector in the development of its
outreach and education programmes.
5.4 Whilst this is partly owing to a lack
of funding for such work, there has not been such a concerted
approach to this engagement with a wider public as there has been
in the other cultural areas referred to above. Britain's orchestral
education programmes, for example, lead the world in their creative
and imaginative engagement with the widest possible groups; I
do not feel that as yet this could be said to be the case with
heritage education. Education in the built environment should
be about providing people with a better understanding of the importance
of their own surroundings, both historic and new-build, and giving
people a sense of belonging as well as knowledge.
5.5 The DCMS is taking a helpful lead in
promoting engagement and diversity with all its client groups,
and the Heritage Lottery Fund continues to encourage education
and outreach programmes through its funding. These need to be
built on and developed further, and all organisations working
within heritage need to have a full understanding of the importance
of this engagement as a core activity, not as a discretionary
"add-on".
6. 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
6.1 English Heritage has had very disappointing
settlements over the last five years compared to other areas funded
by DCMS, in particular sports and museums/galleries. This has
led to a reduction in English Heritage's ability to fund buildings
at risk apart from the very few represented by Grade 1 and Grade
II* listings.
6.2 This has consequently increased pressure
on building preservation trusts and other charities seeking support
to restore buildings, and has made it more difficult to assemble
viable funding packages for projects involving Grade II buildings
(the vast majority).
6.3 If at all possible funding should be
increased to English Heritage to enable it to support a wider
range of activities, including the beneficial reuse of more historic
buildings.
6.4 Britain's heritage played an important
part in the successful bid for the 2012 Olympics. Discussions
are currently taking place with the DCMS and other partners (including
The Architectural Heritage Fund) to make the most of the opportunities
presented by the Olympics and the Olympic Cultural Festival. Investment
will be needed to ensure that these opportunities, and the place
of the historic environment in the regeneration of East London
through the Olympics, are exploited fully.
6.5 The Heritage Lottery Fund has been a
highly successful funder since the inauguration of the lottery,
and has been able to support projects whose scope was, and is,
well beyond the resources of other funders, in particular English
Heritage. As well as the iconic and large scale projects, the
HLF, through schemes such as the Townscape Heritage Initiatives,
has made a considerable difference to the lives of millions of
ordinary people throughout the UK, improving the economic and
social well-being of communities and meeting many key Government
objectives. There is still, however, much work to be done and
the need now is as great as it was 10 years' ago, for example
with schemes for the regeneration of ex-industrial buildings and
the very large number of redundant civic buildings now becoming
available for development.
6.6 The HLF's share of the lottery proceeds
should at the very least be maintained when the new allocations
are decided.
6.7 Pressure on the funding of projects
to restore historic buildings would be eased if the rate of VAT
for restoration projects and "new-build" was equalised.
A flat rate of 5% would encourage more owners to carry out maintenance
and repair, rather than neglecting buildings in the hope of being
able to demolish them.
7. 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
7.1 Whilst there has been some confusion
over the respective roles of English Heritage and the Heritage
Lottery Fund, they have different responsibilities and remits.
English Heritage performs statutory and related functions and
provides a lead for the rest of the sector, whilst the Heritage
Lottery Fund funds projects beyond the powers and resources of
EH and other bodies, and is, of course, a UK-wide organisation.
7.2 Local authorities have a number of key
roles: to protect the built heritage through the planning system;
to bring together partnerships of the public, voluntary and private
sectors in order to ensure the best development frameworks for
historic areas in their control; to support private and charitable
owners in dealing with listed buildings; and to make the best
use of the civic buildings in their care, even when the original
use may no longer be applicable. In this latter regard, more local
authorities should be encouraged to take advantage of the ODPM
General Consent on the disposal of civic assets, and I have been
representing the heritage sector on the ODPM Work Group on Community
Ownership of Assets, which is looking at this policy among others.
(See 8 below for more on local authority officers).
7.3 Voluntary and community sector organisations
are vital contributors to the restoration and management of the
UK's heritage assets. As an example, The Architectural Heritage
Fund supports over 100 projects each year, offering funding in
excess of £10 million per annum in loans and grants, with
all the projects being undertaken by registered charities. All
are to rescue and give a new life to buildings at risk, for which
the private and public sectors have failed to find a solution.
Much of The Architectural Heritage Fund's support goes to charitable
building preservation trusts, which have been rescuing buildings
at risk since the 1920s. The AHF also works with other types of
charity, including development trusts, community groups, arts
groups and housing charities. In some cases these charities have
taken on buildings which have been abandoned by the local authority
or by Government agencies such as the Ministry of Defence or National
Health Service.
7.4 There is a huge level of public engagement
with heritage through voluntary and community sector organisations.
Very few building preservation trusts, for example, have paid
staff, relying instead on volunteers to carry out the key management
tasks, and only buying-in expertise when needed for projects.
The level of volunteering within heritage is as high as that
in other parts of the voluntary sector such as social care, but
does not, as yet, receive the same level of recognition and appreciation.
7.5 There are also many significant non-Governmental
funding bodies, many of which are themselves registered charities.
As well as the AHF, these include large trusts and foundations
and smaller specialist funders. These organisations are able to
operate without the administrative burden of a Government department,
and can therefore respond very quickly in cases of urgency. The
AHF is able to turn round a request for emergency funding (when,
for example, a building at risk may be in danger of collapse or
sale to an inappropriate owner) in under two weeks, sometimes
even more quickly.
7.6 The voluntary sector also contains the
expert amenity societies, whose specialisms are essential in protecting
those parts of our built heritage and in supporting private owners
of such properties.
7.7 This diversity of organisations is a
real strength of Britain's heritage and should be celebrated as
such.
8. 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
8.1 There is definitely a shortage of skilled
professionals within local authorities. Funding pressures have
meant that conservation officer posts have been cut, which is
possible because it is not a statutory requirement that a local
planning authority engages one or more conservation officers.
It is clear from our position looking at buildings at risk that
the authorities with the best track record in recording, managing
and dealing with their buildings at risk are those with skilled
conservation officers, and where there is adequate funding not
just for those posts but for activities connected with them.
8.2 This inconsistency amongst authorities
is matched at member level. Good work has been done by English
Heritage, by ourselves (through our 2004 campaign "A Future
from the Past") and by others in offering support and advice
to members and officers in local authorities, but again it tends
to be the already skilled and enlightened authorities which will
benefit the most from this support.
8.3 As stated above, local authorities also
need to understand their responsibilities with regard to their
own property portfolios, and recognise that they are able to dispose
of these for less than their full value to charities where such
a charity can find a new and viable use for the building.
8.4 Consideration should be given to funding
every local planning authority to engage a conservation officer,
and to making such posts a statutory requirement.
8.5 The recent survey of crafts skills has
shown serious gaps in provision both geographically and in specific
skills. Action is being undertaken to address this, but at Government
level more could be done to encourage school leavers to consider
apprenticeships as a practical and viable alternative to higher
education. Too much emphasis has been put on school leavers attending
University almost at any costs, when in many cases training in
a practical trade would be of far more value than undertaking
some three-year degree courses.
16 January 2006
| 
