Memorandum submitted by the Society for
the Protection of Ancient Buildings
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Society for the Protection of Ancient
Buildings, started by William Morris in 1877, is the founding
father of the building conservation movement in the United Kingdom.
Its early Committees contained a number of eminent Members of
Parliament and the Society played an important role in developing
historic building legislation. Perhaps more significantly its
"philosophy" of repair has helped fundamentally shape
the UK approach as practised by local authorities, English Heritage,
bodies like the National Trust, and building professionals.
2. Today the Society is an educational,
advisory and campaigning voluntary organisation. The largest of
the national amenity societies it is notified of listed building
applications for demolition in England and Wales. From its outset
it has had an interest in training, and since 1930 has run a unique
Scholarship programme which has been the principal method of training
architects in building conservation. Since 1987 it has run a parallel
scheme for training craftsmen, the William Morris Craft Fellowship,
under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Cormack MP. The Society
also runs a wide variety of other training courses, provides a
free technical advice line, and issues advisory publications.
3. The Society has just under 9,000 members
including those who belong to the separate Mills Section. They
comprise leading historic building professionals, homeowners,
and those who support the cause.
B. SPAB AND UMBRELLA
BODIES
1. The Society belongs to two umbrella bodies,
the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies and Heritage
Link, both of which will be making submissions. Rather than repeat
the points raised in those submissions, which we fully support,
we will concentrate on areas of special interest to the SPAB or
where we feel issues need emphasising. In view of the wide ranging
nature of the Committee's inquiry the fact that the Society is
not offering comments on a particular issue should not be taken
to mean we have no opinion on it.
C. SPAB SUBMISSION
1. Priorities for the forthcoming White Paper
(a) The weakness of controls in Conservation
Areas, and the relentless erosion of their character in many parts
of the country by the onslaught of unsightly and uncontrollable
alterations, remains a Cinderella subject ever since the Shimizu
judgment by the House of Lords. New thinking, and the legislation
to make it effective, is long overdue.
(b) The Society recognises the importance
of vibrant local government. Because most heritage controls are
exercised locally each local authority should be required to employ
at least one qualified conservation officer. Their absence in
many areas is a major weakness in the way we look after historic
buildings in the UK.
(c) The SPAB has generally supported the
ecclesiastical exemption from listed building control as less
bad than the alternative of full secular control. Though we have
been reassured that this special privilege will be reviewed regularly
we are concerned that a full review as envisaged by the Newman
Report is overdue. The recent partial consideration of the issue
in the light of the Heritage Protection Review is inadequate,
at a time when the long term future of historic places of worship
is perhaps the biggest problem currently facing the heritage sector.
2. Effectiveness of DCMS etc in representing
heritage interests
(a) The Society has been a leading campaigner
on behalf of the unprecedented number of listed buildings threatened
with outright demolition or abandonment by the Government's unsustainable
policy on airport expansion. In addition to proposed extra runways
at Stansted which will result in large scale demolition, the Government
is under enormous pressure from the industry to agree a third
runway at Heathrow, with disastrous consequences for historic
buildings. The fact that DCMS seems to have had absolutely no
effect in influencing the Department for Transport, and English
Heritage has not been as vigorous as it might have been in denouncing
the largest single proposal for demolishing legally protected
buildings in good order and against the wishes of their owners,
demonstrates only too clearly the disdain with which they are
held elsewhere in Government. Attempts to move some of the endangered
buildings will not "save" them.
(b) The regular maintenance of buildings
of every type and date saves costly future repairs and is fully
in line with Government policies on energy saving, sustainability
etc. The importance of maintenance was publicly acknowledged by
the Minister, David Lammy, when he spoke at the annual meeting
of Heritage Link in December 2005. The Society for the Protection
of Ancient Buildings has held National Maintenance Week at its
own expense since 2002, the aim of which is to persuade owners
of buildings old and new, private and public, to carry out simple
tasks such as clearing gutters and downpipes, that will prevent
serious long term problems. This is an area where an initiative
by the DCMS, drawing in other Government departments such as ODPM,
could have benefits well beyond the narrow confines of heritage
and save millions of pounds annually in preventable repairs.
3. Funding of English Heritage, Heritage Lottery
Fund, local authorities etc
(a) At a time when opinion polls show overwhelming
public support for the built environment, the Government continues
to regard it as low priority for funding. Compared with the rises
in public spending on the DCMS's other areas of responsibility
since 1997, including museums and galleries, the budget for English
Heritage and the built environment has remained at our near the
bottom of the pile. The only good news has been the Treasury's
grant scheme for listed places of worship, aimed at offsetting
the impact of VAT. However the tax on repairs to secular listed
buildings continues to claw back large sums for the Government
at the expense of the heritage.
(b) The Heritage Lottery Fund has transformed
the physical and natural heritage and also the nation's appreciation
and understanding of it. However there are still numerous historic
buildings at risk, shortages of skilled professionals (HLF is
only just beginning to support training, and in an unnecessarily
modest way), and a vast backlog of work resulting from years of
neglect. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the need has
largely been met. It has not. Continued funding of the HLF at
its present levels is essential. We are most concerned at the
prospect that possibly significant sums will be siphoned off from
HLF to pay for the Olympics.
(c) The voluntary sector continues to play
an important role in most aspects of the heritage sector, and
is much admired and envied abroad for its successes. However almost
all bodies are severely constrained by the great difficulty of
securing the core funding that would enable them to make greater
use of volunteer help. We are grateful to English Heritage, Cadw,
and Historic Scotland for the grants we get from them, but with
better and more secure funding we could do so much more.
4. Adequate supply of professionals with conservation
skills
(a) As mentioned above the Society has a
unique record in training in building conservation. Many of the
most important historic buildings in the country are cared for
by architects trained on the SPAB Scholarship (which has no equivalent),
and an increasing number of William Morris Craft Fellows can be
found undertaking highly skilled repairs and conservation throughout
the UK. The fact that a small private charity, dependent on hard
earned charitable funds, is still one of the principal organisers
of training for conservation professionals in the UK remains a
source of complete bafflement abroad.
(b) The relatively small proportion of professionals—architects,
surveyors, and engineers - accredited in conservation under the
schemes related to each profession confirms what we know: that
far too few professionals working on historic buildings have had
any specialist conservation training. Much of the Society's casework
is prompted by the actions of professionals with little or no
grasp of conservation ideas or practice. Building conservation
at even the most elementary level forms no part of undergraduate
courses in architecture, surveying etc. The large debts facing
newly graduated architects means that few can afford further specialist
training. Many do not believe they need it. The requirements of
grant aiding bodies such as English Heritage and the Heritage
Lottery Fund for the employment of accredited professionals may
slowly improve the supply but substantial obstacles remain. However
the vast majority of historic building repair projects do not
qualify for grant aid so it is still perfectly possible for someone
with absolutely no knowledge of old buildings to work on a Grade
I building, for example.
(c) The recent reports by the National Heritage
Training Group entitled Traditional Building Craft Skills and
of the Countryside Agency entitled Crafts in the English Countryside.
Towards a Future confirm a large and growing shortfall in craftsmen
trained in traditional skills. This is apart from those who have
had any training in conservation which may require additional
knowledge.
(d) The formation of the NHTG is a welcome
step forward but it is doomed to have very limited success while
funds are in such short supply; while colleges are reluctant to
release their own staff to undergo training; while employers continue
to undervalue training; and while the Department for Education's
priorities are the 16-19 age group (many of those who wish to
train as craftsmen are older).
(e) Since 1951 the Society has run a six
day course on the repair of historic buildings. English Heritage,
National Trust, HLF, DEFRA, and other agencies regularly send
their staff on it. In recent years we have seen a marked decline
in the number of conservation officers on the course, which for
many was again the main method of training other than pursuing
a part time postgraduate university course.
(f) Among the SPAB's most popular courses
are the weekend courses aimed at owners of old buildings, held
around the country. These help owners make informed decisions
and steer them away from well-intentioned but damaging proposals.
They are one of the most direct ways the Society can protect the
heritage, and relieve local authority staff of the burden of unsuitable
listed building applications and unauthorised works.
(g) With better funding the Society could
do much more to extend its tried and tested training courses,
including offering newly designed ones aimed at conservation officers,
local councillors and others. The Society also produces technical
publications, including a new DVD on Damp, and a unique free advisory
Helpline, all of which would benefit from sounder funding, reliant
as they are on charity fundraising.
16 January 2005
| 
