Memorandum submitted by the City of Winchester
Trust
1. What the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage
White Paper
The Trust was founded in 1957 to preserve the
character of Winchester. It has never been our intention to oppose
change in Winchester but to ensure that change should be so managed
that we retain not only our many important buildings, but the
city's unique character amongst the few remaining historic towns
which relate directly to their surrounding countryside. We have
already sent you a copy of our proposal that such cities should
be recognised as needing special consideration (Heritage Town
Status), in somewhat the same manner as Conservation Areas.
Government devises policies to achieve various
nationally important objectives and of course we have no quarrel
with this, but in doing so it often fails to take into account
the effect upon such vulnerable entities as small historic towns.
The overall policy change introduced by PPG3, for example, is
commendable in general, but overlooks the effects on places like
Winchester. The otherwise excellent accompanying guidance (Better
Places to Live By Design) is written entirely for larger conurbations—no
examples are given which would be applicable to our needs, and
no expert advice appears to be available either. Seeking guidance
from the regional government office, a local planning officer
was told to use Poundbury as an example for increasing village
density!
It is probable that, if thought of at all, the
authors of both the policy and the guidance believed that the
local authorities would take care of the special needs of historic
towns. But this is not the case: inadequately resourced local
authorities are under such pressure to meet planning targets that
they can give no priority to the retention of character and, where
they even recognise the need to do so, they have no appropriate
skills in-house nor adequate finance to hire it. And, to be frank,
few local councillors even understand the issues.
It would therefore be advantageous to require
them to make more use of the voluntary expertise provided by amenity
societies. Hampshire County Council instituted some years ago
a system of trusts for the distribution of heritage funding, with
the result that the money went much further due to the input of
voluntary effort and expertise, often of the highest quality.
The Trust therefore asks that the Committee
gives priority to considering how local government can be obliged
and helped to fulfil its responsibilities for the priceless and
vulnerable examples of the nation's heritage, and to seek more
help from voluntary sources.
2. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English
Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage
interests inside and outside Government
The DCMS must of course enable English Heritage
and other organisations to carry out the functions for which they
were founded. Most endeavour to do their job effectively, but
tend to be inhibited by lack of funds. We understand that English
heritage has had no increase in funding for grant purposes since
1999. Grants are a particularly effective use of Government funding—local
authorities, institutions and private owners are thereby encouraged
to use their own funds in order to invest in the care of the nation's
heritage. A small private school will, for example, be urged by
its bursar to allocate money to the repair of a Roman wall in
its grounds if this attracts funds by means of grant aid. Without
the aid, the governors will naturally give preference to educational
purposes.
This Trust has been disappointed to see the
steady decline in the effectiveness of its parent organisation,
the Civic Trust, which without adequate funding has ceased to
campaign in the way it once did—in promoting the hugely
effective Conservation Area legislation, for example.
The Trust therefore asks that the Committee
give consideration to improvement in policy-related grant aid
in order to help heritage organisations to become more effective
in carrying out their functions and raising matching funding for
the purpose.
3. The balance between heritage and development
needs in planning policy
It should not, we feel, be a question of rivalry
between heritage and development needs. Development and heritage
can co-exist; even support each other if policy is intelligently
framed so that the needs of each are recognised by the other.
One important aspect is that heritage interests appear to many
to be restrictive upon development. This has come about because
of a misunderstanding of the meaning of "conservation"
when applied to buildings and their ambience. Except in relatively
rare and special cases, buildings must be profitably used—they
are living entities unlike, for example, manuscripts. Consequently
adaptation and change are desirable in the care of an historic
building where they would be anathema with an historic manuscript.
Conservation officers are vital for the care
of heritage, but the growing recognition of the importance of
our heritage in recent years has led to an emphasis on an archaeological
approach which is inappropriate for buildings in use. This has
introduced an imbalance between heritage and development which
is bringing conservation into disrepute.
The Trust therefore asks that the Committee
give consideration to legislation, or at least guidance which
will place responsibilities on those responsible for both development
and heritage to understand and accommodate each others' needs.
4. Access to heritage and the position of
heritage as a cultural asset in the community
We believe that local government needs better
guidance on how to improve access and to realise all the advantages
of the cultural assets of the built environment. Great and even
lesser buildings, museums and so forth are now generally managed
with expertise by those responsible, but such features as the
remnants of city walls, old road patterns and the like tend to
be valued only by cognoscenti.
The Trust therefore asks that the Committee
give consideration to how examples of the best in heritage management
may be more widely disseminated, and how local authorities might
be encouraged to make fuller use of their heritage.
5. 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
The Trust has already expressed views on the
inadequacy of funding for English Heritage under point 2., but
would like to stress again that to make no increase in funding
for EH for the past seven years is equivalent to a sizeable cut
in its budget which was already inadequate for it responsibilities.
If the primary body set up by the Government to care for the nation's
heritage is under-funded it is bound to have a depressing effect
both in practice and morale upon all those who work in heritage,
many with little or no remuneration. It is not only a question
of whether our leaders value the depleted but surviving heritage
as important—surely a fundamental aspect of the current
interest in "Britishness"—but as the as the primary
draw for tourists and the not inconsiderable income they bring
to this country.
Like many others, we fear that the funding drawn
off for the Olympics will never be replaced either as a one-off
deduction or as a proportion of as annual funds devoted to heritage.
Much damage is already being done by the improper use of Lottery
funding for matters which should be met from general taxation.
The Trust therefore asks the Committee to give
consideration to calculating the loss to the heritage caused by
Lottery funding of the Olympics, and to make provision for the
replacement of this loss by an increase in heritage funding over
a specific period of years. Further, we hope that the Committee
will address the question of whether it is right to continue using
Lottery funds for matters which should be met from Government
sources.
6. 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
Following recent rationalisation of their role,
we believe that there is little need for further change in the
primary responsibilities of English Heritage, and that it is of
the greatest importance that it remains the senior body responsible
for heritage matters. We would, however, wish to see English Heritage
given more responsibility for advising and monitoring the activities
of other bodies, particularly local authorities (with of course
the additional resources to do so effectively). This is because
of the lack of specialist knowledge and experience affordable
(even where the need is understood) by local authorities.
The Trust therefore asks that the Committee give
consideration to extending the role of English Heritage to assist
and monitor the heritage activities of local authorities.
7. 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
At present it is impossible for local authorities
to afford the level of expertise necessary to fulfil the obligations
which have been delegated to them by Government and by English
Heritage, especially where there are many historic buildings (and
conservation areas) in their area; they have no more funding for
the purpose than authorities with only a few such buildings. Conservation
officers seldom have the full training and experience required
and few have architectural training which is necessary to deal
with the design element of their job. Councillors and senior officers
are seldom able to understand the issues, and either rely too
heavily on inadequate junior specialist officers, or fail to employ
any at all.
Hampshire County Council (cooperating with EH)
once provided an accessible centre of expertise to assist local
authorities and other bodies, which was known as the "Historic
Buildings Bureau". The Bureau was disbanded some years ago
as the County's funds were progressively reduced. The loss of
this accumulated expertise, experience and influence has been
a tragedy because it has in no way been compensated for at district
level.
The Trust therefore asks the Committee to find
a means of funding the necessary level of expertise for authorities
in proportion to their responsibility for historic buildings and
conservation areas, and to investigate the possibility of re-introducing
expert bureaux at county level to assist district councils and
charitable organisations to make them more effective and avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort and expense.
18 January 2006
| 
