Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Historic Houses Association

OVERVIEW

  1.  The Historic Houses Association's (HHA) locus in this inquiry is that the 1,500 member houses, parks and gardens in membership contribute significantly to the cultural and economic life to the nation, as demonstrated in this submission below. Over 500 of these houses are open to the public, more than those in the stewardship of the National Trust, English Heritage and their equivalents throughout the UK, combined. In 2004 these houses welcomed almost 15 million visitors. If the 1999 calculation of the British Tourist Authority that 96% of tourism spend is outside the house entrance charge itself still holds true, then these houses are responsible for generating upwards of £1.6 billion into the local and national economy.

  2.  The inquiry is timely. In her essay, "Better places to live", published in 2005, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Tessa Jowell began with the words:

    "Britain's historic landscape, urban and rural is recognised by those who live here and those who visit as one of its greatest cultural assets. We should be proud of it, and we should cherish it, and it is the duty of Government, whether in London, Edinburgh or Cardiff to protect it and promote it for every one."

  3.  And yet the future of our heritage is under threat. There is an enormous backlog of repairs, within the sector of privately owned castles, houses and gardens, estimated in 2002 at £490 million (HHA figures based on its own survey work) and elsewhere in the heritage sector. At the same time the grant support available for restoration from English Heritage and its equivalents in Wales and Scotland is "flat-lined" (falling in terms of what it can buy) and the flexibility for estates to plan their expenditure in the One Estate Election, which was ended in 2001, has yet to be replaced. Add to that the demands that the Olympics will place on the use of total Lottery receipts, let alone the ever present pressure on Government finances, and the prospects for Britain's heritage managers look depressing.

  4.  Ironically, this coincides with wider and better understanding of the value of our heritage, as shown by the following findings:

    —  40% of employment in tourism depends on a high quality environment, including the historic environment; 60-70% in rural areas (National Trust 2001);

    —  96% of the public believe that heritage is important to teach us about our past and 76% agree that their lives are richer for having the opportunity to experience this country's heritage (2002 MORI Poll).

  5.  There is also the intrinsic value of our heritage—in the words of one HHA member: "our built heritage is beautiful, unique, fragile and very easily destroyed".

  6.  The inquiry coincides with an important conference in January 2006 on identifying this value, both the intrinsic value of heritage and the indirect but substantial benefits to the economy and society.

  7.  So this is a highly appropriate time to review whether current policies can support the conservation of our heritage for this and future generations and what changes may be needed to enable such conservation.

  8.  Our submission is founded on our members' practical experience. We believe that:

    —  the intrinsic value of heritage—this goes beyond its economic, educational and social benefits—should be recognised. Much is irreplaceable, lost for ever once it is gone. This heritage comprises not only buildings, but in the case of historic houses the landscapes that surround them and the works of art and the furnishings that they contain—the entity. Throughout this submission, where we refer to historic houses, we imply the inclusion of that critical entity;

    —  understanding of heritage supports our understanding of individual and common identity, our place in history and our vision for the future. It is a prerequisite for a healthy modern society;

    —  conserving buildings and landscapes from our past helps meet not just government objectives for culture and tourism, but also health, education, urban and rural regeneration and employment;

    —  public and charitable ownership of our heritage is important but the major part of our built and natural environment is still maintained by private owners. Should current owners, many of whom open their houses to the public, cease to be able to maintain this heritage, the risk is that properties and their contents, under different ownership, might well become less accessible to the public—that would be an own goal for public policy;

    —  the public policy framework should enable owners and heritage managers to make their valuable contribution. Policies for taxation, tourism, licensing, lottery funding, grant support, coastal management and EU policies, including succession law, are all relevant. In all this, it is important that heritage is adequately valued in the Treasury Green Book, which focuses on environmental value.

  9.  This HHA submission responds to the specific points set out in the inquiry, but in so doing seeks to make concrete proposals for action, to be taken by Government, its agencies, local authorities and the private owners of heritage properties. We propose that:

    (i)  the budget for English Heritage (EH) grant support should be increased in the 2007 Spending Review, to start to reverse years of real terms cuts, in time to improve the state of England's heritage before the expected tourist inflow in advance of the 2012 Olympics and 2012 Diamond Jubilee; this would bring long term economic benefits (Q1, 2, 5 and 6);

    (ii)  there should be a new limited fiscal relief for the maintenance of historic buildings, because the revenue for most houses is insufficient to fund maintenance and repairs, grant support from EH is now inadequate to fill anything more than a small part of this gap, and Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) support is not generally available for this purpose, in relation to the two-thirds of heritage property that is owned and managed in the private sector (Q1 and 5).

  10.  We also propose that:

    (iii)  The Spending Review in 2007 (SR 07) should also support the DCMS's PSA target to increase public access to and understanding of our heritage with funding to enable EH to support ongoing learning and access projects, with additional sponsorship funding from the private sector if necessary (Q4). These initiatives are also needed to better involve local communities in the care of their local heritage (Q7);

    (iv)  the share of Lottery funds available to the HLF should be at least maintained, and DCMS should monitor closely the overall revenue from lottery games available to lottery funds, in case the new game to support the Olympics draws revenue from the existing games (Q1, 5 & 6);

    (v)  support is needed for the retention of conservation skills essential to the maintenance and restoration of heritage property, through sector skills councils and the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) of the EU Rural Development Regulation (Q1 and 7);

    (vi)  conservation of traditional farm and estate buildings should also receive a share of support under Axis II, "natural resources", of the ERDP (Q5);

    (vii)  the implementation of the Heritage Protection Review should be accompanied with resources to assure effective local delivery (Q1);

    (viii)  a clearer demarcation is needed of EH's roles, with separate ring fenced budgets for EH's guardianship and advisory roles (Q2);

    (ix)  a National Heritage Forum should be established in Government to focus discussion in and outside government and advice to Ministers (Q2);

    (x)  there should be an enhanced career structure for Conservation Officers in the public sector (mainly local authorities), involving sub-regional teams and mentoring from the better resourced bodies, including national park authorities to officers elsewhere (Q7);

    (xi)  planning policy should encourage development to embrace and support successful heritage conservation. Enabling development should, in principle, be facilitated (Q3);

    (xii)  charitable organisations, museums and galleries and the private sector should co-operate more closely, including at the regional and local level, to enable the best use of conservation skills and specialist knowledge and to better project the value and accessibility of the historic environment to the public (Q6).

Q.1.  What the DCMS should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White Paper

  11.  The White Paper should be founded on the principle that the maintenance and understanding of heritage is a prerequisite for a healthy and modern society and economy. The continued ownership and conservation of heritage in the private sector, in trust for the future, should be recognised as the most cost effective option for the delivering heritage benefits to the public as a whole. Heritage should be embraced as a means to fulfil a number of Government objectives, on health, education, urban and rural regeneration and employment as well as culture and tourism.

  12.  The specific priorities should be:

    A.  formulation and implementation of policies for the tax treatment of heritage assets, funding support, planning, tourism and regeneration that enable heritage owners and managers to maximise the benefits from these assets. These policies are covered in the response to Question 5 below;

    B.  policies to ensure that maintenance of heritage is accorded priority so as to complement the 2012 Olympics and the 2012 Diamond Jubilee, in order to maximise the benefits of potential tourism in the UK as a whole as well as in London. More generally, heritage is a key contributor to tourism revenue and should be recognised as such.

    The Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee in 2012 are an excellent opportunity to attract many more visitors to the UK, not just London, in the years leading up to and following 2012 as the profile of the UK and London is further raised. For these visits to be successful and to lead to a sustained upsurge in tourism post 2012 England's heritage must be seen to be in a good state of conservation and maintenance. Otherwise the showcase of these flagship events could be counterproductive. The need for decisions and action on Stonehenge provides a vivid example. Positive cooperation between VisitBritain, Visit Scotland and regional tourism authorities in the promotion of Britain will also be essential.

    C.  Support for skills, both via domestic policies, including sector skills councils and the EU Rural Development Regulation—also covered in Question 7 below.

    Long term conservation cannot happen unless the necessary skills are retained. The danger is that heritage skills will be given insufficient priority.

    D.  A programme of implementation of the Heritage Protection Review.

    This should include implementation of the recommendations from the June 2004 "The Way Forward" document, in particular on combining the designation lists, the introduction of statements of significance and of an appeals mechanism in relation to new designations. The biggest obstacle to success for the Review will be the lack of resources to train and employ Conservation Officers capable of working constructively with owners. Providing sufficient resources and enhancing the career structure of Conservation Officers is therefore a priority—this is covered in greater detail in response to Question 7 below.

Q.2  The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage, and other relevant organisations in representing heritage interests inside and outside Government

DCMS

  13.  The sector needs a strong Government champion to promote the enormous public value of our cultural heritage across Government and outside and support the growth of the sector. DCMS should be that champion and should put heritage at the heart of its cultural policy.

  14.  The historic environment must be seen as a positive force for change. Its central role in economic and social regeneration, liveability, local quality of life and community cohesion needs to be recognised and supported.

  15.  HHA supports Heritage Link's (representing 80 heritage groups from national organisations to small, specialised groups) call on government, through its "Statement of Concern", to:

    —  publish a policy statement putting heritage centre stage in the development of cultural policy in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport;

    —  introduce "heritage proofing" in policy development and decisions over land use planning, new development, regeneration, and transport infrastructure, and require the Ministers in each Department to report annually on progress.

  16.  DCMS has a small budget and profile and should present the heritage case within and outside Whitehall with vigour and understanding. The focus on sport and media within DCMS has diverted attention away from heritage. DCMS should raise the profile of heritage and its contribution to national life across Government. SR 07 will be a test of DCMS effectiveness. It will be necessary for DCMS to present a clear strategy for delivery, including support for strengthening the sector's capacity and building a strong heritage case in advance of decisions relating to the SR.

  17.  The HHA believes that there is a compelling case for a National Heritage Forum chaired the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the purpose of which would be to provide a focus for discussion and the provision of policy advice to Ministers on all aspects of the historic environment.

  18.  DCMS alone cannot be the sole mouthpiece for heritage in Government. ODPM and DEFRA—as well as the DTI, DfES, DWP, HMT and HMRC—all have a strong stake in heritage as indeed do the GoRs, RDAs and local authorities. The inclusion of heritage within the brief of Green Ministers is a positive step but needs to result in positive action. The historic environment should be recognised as an integral and essential component of sustainable development, weighed critically in planning for a sustainable future and used creatively as a social and economic driver. Robust cross-governmental support is needed for those responsible for the stewardship of the historic environment, through advice, targeted grant aid and fiscal incentives.

English Heritage

  19.  English Heritage has an essential role to play as independent statutory adviser, national heritage champion and funder. It needs to be properly resourced to do this.

  20.  English Heritage needs to be reinvigorated and reinforced and given a stable and guaranteed future, giving it a vital period of organisational stability.

  21.  However, there needs to be a much clearer demarcation of EH's guardianship and advisory roles with clear ring fenced budgets.

  22.  The separation of the Historic Properties function from the advisory/statutory roles within EH is welcome. Its joint role as guardian and sector champion has the capacity to create tensions at a time of tight budgets, and so it is critical that budgets for EH properties and wider grant support are separated, and transparently so.

Voluntary sector

  23.  Although the delivery of tourism is often fragmented and heritage supported in practice by thousands of individual owners and small organisations, such as preservation trusts, in recent years the heritage sector has come together to share skills and expertise, promote policy on core issues and make common cause to Government. The role of Heritage Link is extremely positive in promoting the central role of the voluntary sector in the stewardship of the historic environment.

Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)

  24.  The recognition by RDAs that the historic environment is a positive element in economic growth, but also needs to be conserved in order to survive to fulfil this role, is patchy. Understanding of the cultural contribution of heritage is also patchy. The role, effectiveness and influence of the Cultural Consortia and the Historic Environment Fora should be challenged and the experience and expertise of their members examined and enhanced.

Q.3.  Balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy

  25.  ODPM should aim, in consultation with DCMS, Defra and EH, to develop planning policy that encourages development to embrace successful heritage conservation. In practical terms, this will have to involve the following approaches:

  26.  Planning policy should encourage development to embrace and support successful heritage conservation. In brief:

    A.  There should be recognition in EH and Local Planning Authority (LPA) polices that non residential listed buildings need an underlying economic use to secure their future. Sympathetic conversion is a much better outcome than a descent into dereliction. The 2005 Heritage Counts report is to be commended for its recognition of this reality, in particular in relation to the conversion of farm buildings.

    The review of the Class Consents Order for ancient monuments should also look to viable management of land around monuments, including with the support of Stewardship, as the best guarantor of the condition of the monuments.

    B.  LPAs should be guided to view heritage buildings and conservation areas as positive contributors, wherever possible, to economic regeneration and the quality of life within their areas. This does not mean a blanket ban on new development or modern buildings in town centres; rather a focus on conserving good design, whatever the vintage. Also, dogmatic adherence to protection in planning policies can lead to buildings deteriorating or falling down and LPAs should be guided that allowing an economic use for heritage buildings is often the best way to secure their future.

    C.  Where there are unavoidable conflicts between development and conservation imaginative solutions will be needed. A comprehensive resolution of the conservation and access problems for Stonehenge may look expensive now, but stands to produce a legacy that will bring benefit in the future.

    D.  World Heritage designations, when used as a positive brand and when backed with financial resources, can assist in the enhancement of heritage, the visitor experience and the local economy. The financial commitments entailed in interpretation, access management and maintenance must be met with funding to go with the designation. At the same time any new constraints imposed on owners must be in proportion to the distinctiveness of the site and be practical to follow.

    E.  Enabling development. LPAs should start with a presumption of looking favourably, within the existing terms of Local Development Framework planning policy, on applications for development that serve to financially support the conservation of heritage assets.

Q.4.  Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community

  27.  Managers and stewards of the historic environment need help and support to look after it for future generations in order to continue to help realise its potential and unlock the full promise of historic assets.

  28.  HHA seeks a redefinition and broadening of the public's understanding of heritage and its contribution to everyday life, the economy, quality of life and our happiness. There is a growing recognition of the untapped potential of the historic and natural environment as an economic, educational, community and social resource and the contribution is makes to identity. A high quality historic environment is vital in terms of its huge contribution to the economy and quality of life, creating jobs, stimulating urban and rural regeneration, supporting education and lifelong learning and helping rural businesses. Visiting, living, working and enjoying our most beautiful places enriches people's lives and provides spiritual replenishment. Our heritage may also underpin the sense of place and identity for those who live close to it—those who raised £1.5 million for the restoration of a church in a Northumberland village demonstrated this particular value of heritage, one which can now be enjoyed by the villagers' successors in future.

  29.  The National Trust's Valuing our Environment research (2001) demonstrated the economic importance of the natural and historic environment, showing that some 40% of employment in tourism depends directly on a high quality environment—including beautiful houses and their estates. This figure rises to between 60% and 70% in a rural context.

  30.  There is a burgeoning public interest in history and heritage—recent MORI polls have found that 96% think heritage is important to teach us about our past and 76% agree their lives are richer for having the opportunity to experience this country's heritage. In the last decade there has been a growing interest in local distinctiveness and local history in particular, and take up of the HLF/Countryside Agency Local Heritage Initiative and high viewing figures for TV history programmes suggest that this is both a local and a national phenomenon.

  31.  However, it is vital that heritage policy makers and practitioners take the long view and recognise the intrinsic importance of heritage—its existence value.

  32.  There is some recognition within Government of the inherent value of heritage and within her essay, "Better Places to Life: Government, Identity and the Value of the Historic and Built Environment 2005", Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell articulates the value of heritage in terms other than economic, education and social policy benefits.

  33.  There is a need for an access champion for the sector which is funded and supported to act across the sector.

  34.  The DCMS's current PSA target to reach out to new audiences for the historic environment is demanding and the sector cannot be achieved without support, including the provision of advice to heritage managers, education authorities and communities. At present, there is no ongoing support—everything is done on a project basis, which means initiatives can flare and die and opportunities are not maximised. The PSA target has come without any additional funding to achieve it; this is placing intolerable burdens on those charged to deliver it. The failure of Heritage Link's recent outreach bid to the Treasury's Invest to Save bid was highly revealing in that the project was not seen as "additional" and yet there is no other support available to deliver it. A service is needed which is similar to those which the MLA provides for museums, libraries and archives in developing capacity within the sector and promoting innovation and change.

  35.  Guaranteed funding is needed for skilled interlocutors, such as that provided by the Black Environment Network.

  36.  The development of new and creative connections between people and places, connections which can be grown and sustained, needs to undertaken carefully, thoughtfully and sensitively. If attempted hurriedly or carelessly with insufficient understanding, opportunities can be lost for ever and communitites turned away.

  37.  Essentially, the asset on which all of this is dependent must be protected, conserved and sustained.

  38.  Heritage mangers are struggling to achieve the objectives of providing access and a learning resource, as well as contributing to regeneration and economic growth, when set against the need for essential maintenance of the asset itself. At one major house in Lincolnshire, for example, the owners have spent £900,000 out of income generated by the estate, on maintenance and conservation of the house and its surroundings over 30 years. Without that work, a recent learning and access project, supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), would not have been possible. Current work to measure the public value generated by our heritage needs to be coupled with wider understanding of the need for effective stewardship, protection and the support to do this.

Q.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;

  39.  No assessment of the adequacy of funding from English Heritage or other sources is complete without an assessment of the capacity of private owners, who manage the majority of heritage assets, to fund conservation themselves. This inevitably brings in the issue of the taxation regime as it affects conservation of privately owned heritage. This submission makes recommendations on EH grant provision, on fiscal relief for maintenance of historic properties and comments on other taxation matters, including the Conditional Exemption arrangements (ie in relation to Inheritance Tax) and VAT.

  40.  If the Government is serious about heritage and its contribution to a modern, outward looking economy, then it should begin a programme of reversing the real terms decrease in EH grant support in the SR 07.  We also propose that the 2007 Budget should be used to introduce a limited fiscal relief for the maintenance of historic buildings, not only to enable owners to fund conservation work, but also to bring more of our heritage into public accessibility.

  41.  English Heritage's budget for all restoration work is broadly on the same level as that available to that of the MLA. However, a significant part of EH's budget is committed to a relatively small number of major, national projects, leaving individual regions small sums—some less than £1m—for all the grant funding in the region.

  42.  In recent years this EH budget has been declining in real terms, even though the costs of conservation, which include a relatively high labour and skills content, have been rising. According to EH figures, in real terms, its grant in aid over the five years has fallen by a total of almost £10 million. Over the three years 2005-06 to 2007-08 EH calculates that a further £14 million shortfall will have accumulated.

  43.  Alongside a reversal of this decrease in EH grant support, a limited Historic Property Maintenance Relief would enable owners to fund more conservation work themselves.

  44.  The relief would enable owners of historic properties to offset income against the costs of maintenance, with a ceiling on the amount of relief claimed and subject to the provision of agreed public access. Larger, more diversified houses, which were capable of securing treatment under Schedule D, Case 1, would not be eligible for this relief.

  45.  There are two main reasons why such a relief should be supported. The first is that public policy to conserve the built heritage would become more effective, because the cost-effectiveness of private ownership would be more directly enlisted than through complete reliance on a grants-based approach. Owners would be able to carry out conservation work on a timetable and scale that matched their circumstances. By undertaking work over a sustained period, the "stitch in time" approach, and by shopping around for skills at reasonable prices, owners can often carry out conservation work at a lower cost than if it were all to be publicly supported. The second reason is that at current or even improved levels of grant funding, the need for conservation will outstrip the capacity to fund it. If current owners cannot fund this work, then properties will decay and some at least will cease to find opening to the public worthwhile. This loss of access would directly undermine the basic objectives of Government policy to broaden access to our heritage. This specific proposal would not preclude consideration of proposals from other for relief in the case of gifts of art to the nation during the lifetime of the donor. It is also noted in passing that the Government has yet to respond to the Goodison Report of 2004 in relation to encouraging the donation of art.

  46.  There are several other broader reasons why support for the maintenance of historic houses and gardens is a sound investment.

  47.  These properties make a positive contribution to the economy that is disproportionate to the scale of their individual operations. In 1999 BTA estimated that 96% of heritage tourism expenditure was outside the house entrance gate. A similar pattern now would indicate a contribution by historic houses and gardens in the realm of £1.6 to £2 billion. Against that background it is not surprising that the Duchess of Northumberland, creator of the Alnwick Garden, which has received public financial support and which has helped to reinvigorate the Alnwick area, was recently invited to speak alongside the Prime Minister on the subject of North East Regeneration. Money spent on conserving this heritage is well spent. Without maintenance of the fabric of Alnwick Castle, the garden would lose its spectacular backdrop.

  48.  Maintenance expenditure supports traditional skills, such as stonemasons, carpenters, joiners, thatchers, woodturners, gardeners and others. These skills are then available for smaller projects and maintaining publicly owned buildings.

  49.  An HHA survey in 2005 year revealed that for 70 important houses the backlog of urgent repairs was £20 million, compared to English Heritage restoration grant offers of £1.8 million, and a similar broader survey in 2002 indicated a backlog of all work across all privately owned historic houses close to £500 million.

  50.  The pressure on Government to ensure that the 2012 Olympics will be adequately funded increases the likelihood of further diversion of grant support funding from EH to sport based expenditure within the Government's priorities, even though the potential for heritage tourism BEFORE, during and AFTER the Olympics will only be fulfilled if England's heritage is in a well conserved state. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to showcase British heritage and to leave a real legacy of community pride with all the concomitant benefits, where the role of Government and its agencies can be one of "investors" rather than simply of funders.

  51.  Funding of heritage support is not only a matter for EH. The support necessary for retaining and improving conservation skills will need to come mainly through sector skills councils, and possibly through Axis III of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) of the EU Rural Development Regulation; support for conservation of traditional farm buildings should be accommodated in Axis II of the ERDP; an enhanced career structure for Conservation Officers in local authorities needs support from county councils and national park authorities as well as EH.

The impact of the 2012 Olympics on Lottery Funding for heritage projects

  52.  Confirmation is needed from DCMS that it will (a) monitor closely the effect of the creation of a new lottery game to raise money for the Olympics on the revenue available for the existing lottery funds and (b) that if such revenue declines as a result of the introduction of a new Olympic lottery game, Government will revise upwards the share of lottery funds being made available to the Heritage Lottery Fund.

  53.  There are already significant limitations on the use of Lottery funding for heritage projects. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has an established policy that support may not be given which contributes to "private gain", except where that is small and significantly outweighed by public benefit. In practice HLF interprets this policy to reject applications for support on privately owned property, except in limited circumstances: (a) where there is "non-beneficial use" of the heritage asset in question, such as follies or monuments; (b) for projects to increase learning and access opportunities, and here it is made clear that the funding (including matching funding) only covers the costs of the project, with no gain to the owner, and (c) some support for area based landscape and biodiversity projects that may happen to include some privately owned property.

  54.  Therefore, the HLF cannot be seen as in any way the "saviour" for restoration and maintenance of the two-thirds of the national heritage that is owned and managed in private hands. And, therefore, the commendable efforts of the HLF in general cannot be cited as consolation for the repeated cuts in the real terms budget of EH. The overall budget for support for restoration and maintenance still suffers, whatever may happen to the available funds for the HLF.

  55.  There is, nevertheless, an important role for the HLF to play, not only in relation to community led projects, but also in relation to the limited categories at (a) to (c) above.

  56.  In broader terms, funding distributed by the HLF has had a huge impact on the historic and natural environment and has brought great benefit to local economics and communities in places which are often lacking other support. As well as bringing direct benefits for the identified good causes, funding has helped to generate investment within places and presented opportunities for regeneration and community growth. In this respect the HHA supports the analogy of HLF as "investors" rather than "funders" and has observed that investment can have an effect hugely greater than the funds invested, particularly when it involves other funders.

  57.  The danger is that the need to create an attractive new lottery game to raise money for the Olympics will draw income away from the existing lottery games, and as a result the funds available to the HLF will further decline. The areas of support most likely to suffer as a result are exactly those regarded as marginal by the HLF, namely (a) to (c) above, the only sources of HLF support for heritage in private ownership and management.

The forthcoming decisions on the sharing of funds from Lottery sources between good causes.

  58.  HHA is urging DCMS to at least maintain the current share of lottery revenues going to the HLF, via the current DCMS and HLF consultations.

  59.  Recent decisions have already served to reduce the annual expenditure budget for grant support from about £330 million to about £200 million per year. Compared to the sums available to EH, this sounds a lot of money, but for the reasons given in paragraph 53 above it can be seen that HLF funding is limited in its reach as far as the privately owned and managed heritage sector is concerned, and HLF should not be seen as compensation for successive real terms cuts in EH support budgets

  60.  The economic, social, educational, community, regenerative etc impacts which heritage projects can deliver for people should be recognised.

  61.  There will be a growing need for help for landscape and biodiversity support from the lottery if the existing means of support—principally the Rural Development Regulation of the EU's CAP—becomes constrained as a result of the EU Budget settlement for 2007-13.  It is not yet clear whether even existing levels of Stewardship can be maintained within this Budget, let alone increases or sufficient support in upland areas, support for the conservation of traditional farm buildings or for the retention of heritage conservation skills

  62.  Smaller organisations find it difficult to access funds for learning and access projects under the HLF. The case for enabling some of the costs of putting together small projects to be included in the lottery grant should be revisited. For this to be possible, and for the reasons above, the current HLF share of lottery funds must at least be maintained.

The current arrangements for Conditional Exemption from Inheritance Tax

  63.  In the 1998 Budget the Government announced its intention to review the terms of existing agreements between the Inland Revenue and individual owners of works of art, under which such property was conditionally exempt from Inheritance Tax in return for a certain level of access being granted to the public, normally by appointment. The quality standards required for such chattels to qualify for exemption in their own right and the access requirements for future cases were redrawn.

  64.  The new arrangements were not welcomed, partly because of their retrospective nature and partly because of the fear that they would not be practical. The aims of conservation in the house where works of art have their historical context and open access can be very difficult to reconcile. In addition demand for open access may be small in comparison to the costs of providing it. Following these changes there was a sharp decline in the number of new applications. For some owners the new requirements on public access are not practically possible, eg for security reasons, creating a real or potential liability for Inheritance Tax. The alternative of payment of the tax reduces the resources available for maintenance.

  65.  HHA has encouraged individual members to explore with the Capital Taxes Office (CTO) the possibility of using Heritage Open Days as the means to provide open access, but the CTO is still in the process of reviewing existing arrangements. It is too early to see whether this will work and in the meantime the number of new applications has slowed to a trickle. As time goes by fewer works of art will be available for public inspection than in the past and because of the need to meet IHT liabilities there are is likely to be greater sales of works of art and the end of the association between particular works and particular houses.

VAT on the maintenance and repair of listed buildings

  66.  HHA supports a proposal put by the UK EU Presidency in December, but yet to be discussed by Finance Ministers, for an optional reduction by member states in the rate of VAT applied in respect of the labour input to the maintenance and repair of buildings more than five years old. This proposal would ameliorate the current anomaly under which new build and alterations are VAT free but repairs are taxed at 17.5%. HHA hopes that the Austrian Presidency will either bring the proposal to the EU Finance Ministers Council on 24 January or to a subsequent Council soon. Clearly, HHA would wish the UK Government to implement the optional reduction in this country. Such a reduction would also encourage the revival and greater availability of key conservation skills.

Q.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

The Independent Sector

  67.  Private owners, who own and manage two thirds of the nation's built heritage, should be publicly recognised as the most economical and efficient stewards. And this recognition should be put into practical terms in the heritage policies of central government, English Heritage, regional government bodies and agencies and grant givers, so private owners can effectively fulfil their stewardship role.

  68.  The HHA has a particular role, as the representative interest of privately owned houses in the UK. Government and HHA should work together to explore fair and imaginative solutions to the resource crisis.

English Heritage

  69.  English Heritage needs to be effectively funded to fulfil its role as champion of heritage, sector leader, policy and research developer, advocate, Government monitor and trainer and adviser for the local authorities and the wider sector—see Questions 2,4 and 5 for details. In essence:

    —  EH's role as lead body for the historic environment sector at national, regional and local levels is strongly supported. EH are regarded as an essential partner by the HHA at all levels and one of the few agencies able to fund the repair and maintenance of privately-owned historic buildings and landscapes;

    —  There should be a programme of reversing the real terms decrease in EH grant support in the SR 07;

    —  There needs to be a much clearer demarcation of EH's guardianship and advisory roles with clear ring fenced budgets;

    —  EH should be resourced to fulfil its role of access and learning champion for the sector.

Heritage Lottery Fund

  70.  The HLF's share of Lottery funds should be preserved at its current percentage at the very least.

  71.  HLF should have a responsibility, consistent with the underlying objectives for all Lottery funds, to support a balanced portfolio of heritage projects throughout the country. Whilst this means it cannot support private benefit, it should look favourably on projects in the independent sector that advance its underlying objectives—see Question 5 above.

Charitable Organisations

  72.  Charitable organisations, such as the National Trust, have a key role to channel the public's support into practical conservation, with access, in a way that works alongside the work of private owners. This relationship is generally a very positive one but more co-operation, co-ordination and partnership is to be encouraged particularly where specific skills and roles could benefit the wider sector.

Museums and galleries

  73.  Museums and galleries also have a role to work with private owners of heritage collections, works of art or historic items wherever possible and we can report positive and helpful co-operation in the HHA's regions. The help provided by county archives such as in Hampshire is but one example. There are opportunities to share experiences and resources, particular through the regional hubs which embrace concepts of developing skills and a knowledge base together with mentoring and support networks at often isolated sites.

Q.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

  Support is needed for the retention of conservation skills essential to the maintenance and restoration of heritage property, through sector skills councils and the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) of the EU Rural Development Regulation.

  74.  The shortage of craft skills is most marked in rural areas and this was one of the key findings of Heritage Counts 2005.  According to the Campaign to Protect Rural England and National Farmers' Union, more than two-thirds of farmers said that there were no skilled builders or thatchers within ten miles' distance of their farms (and this in itself is a persuasive argument for lower rate VAT on labour-intensive services). The HHA's experiences indicate shortages of expert skills, in particular conservation architects. However, it should also be noted that owners and managers of heritage properties are taking an active role in assisting the retention of skills and expertise through their conservation work. If more work could be funded through the measures recommended elsewhere in this submission the benefits in terms of support for skills would also be increased.

  Ensuring the new system of heritage protection can be implemented successfully requires a considerable increase in capacity building and education in local authorities. There needs to be a conservation service which is properly resourced and structured.

  75.  Charitable organisations, museums and galleries and the private sector should co-operate more closely, including at the regional and local level, to enable the best use of conservation skills and specialist knowledge and to better project the value and accessibility of the historic environment to the public. This is the point in our submission to note that HHA set up a charity itself in the mid 1980s, the Heritage Conservation Trust, to support the restoration of notable works of art in historic houses. The Trust is currently engaged in a three year programme to help restore works in 12 houses.

  76.  Local authorities play a fundamental role in caring for and managing change in England's historic environment, yet local policy and service delivery varies widely in range and quality. The resultant lack of consistency both within LAs and across the country leads to users of the service feeling frustrated and let down.

  77.  The Review of Heritage Protection highlighted corresponding concerns within local authorities, principally lack of staff, expertise, experience and resources. The front line role of Conservation Officers is hampered by low pay, lack of career structure, and low status. Ideally a career structure which would allow movement within the local authority into other disciplines would have positive benefits. This is a problem that also afflicts the provision of curators in locally authority run galleries in the provinces

  78.  At present, only about 70% of planning authorities have a designated Conservation Officer. Even where they are appointed, individuals may not have specialist qualifications or their knowledge may be limited to one specific period. This means that assessment and decision are made on local experience only, which, while important, can be without reference to the national context.

  79.  The HHA welcomes the current research project examining different approaches to delivering historic environment services in planning for a successful transfer to the new system by 2010.

  80.  There needs to be an enhanced career structure for Conservation Officers in the public sector (mainly local authorities), involving sub-regional teams and mentoring from the better resourced bodies, including national park authorities to officers elsewhere.

  81.  Because of the paucity of expertise within certain local authorities, sharing of resources could reap positive rewards. A regional or sub-regional team, as suggested in the Designations Review, could be better equipped to assist their respective authorities in developing policy and advice, providing guidance on best practice, giving specialist advice and providing a more consistent service.

  82.  To facilitate these improvements teams might be best administered by county council or equivalent agencies such as National Parks.

  Support for learning and access projects of the type described in response to Question 4 above could be used to increase understanding of the potential of heritage to create a sense of identity and pride for a community

  83.  Communities need skills to participate in and engage with understanding and caring for their local historic environment. Statements of Significance, the development of which are widely supported, are notoriously hard to write and to involve communitites in a meaningful way.

19 January 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 19 April 2006