Memorandum submitted by Historic Royal
Palaces
Historic Royal Palaces is the independent charity
that looks after the Tower of London, Hampton Court Palace, the
Banqueting House, Kensington Palace and Kew Palace. We help everyone
explore the story of how monarchs and people have shaped society,
in some of the greatest palaces ever built.
The five palaces are owned by The Queen on behalf
of the nation, and managed by us for the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport, under a contract set up in 1998
We receive no funding from the government or
the Crown, so we depend entirely on the support of our visitors,
members, donors, volunteers and sponsors. We welcome nearly three
million visitors annually, giving them a great day out and helping
them to learn about the stories of the Palaces. We care for the
buildings and landscapes, provide education and outreach programmes,
stage great events and help others to put on their own events
in the Palaces. Some significant recent achievements have been:
— Creation of an important new public
space and facilities on Tower Hill, funded in partnership with
HLF, the late Sir Paul Getty and the Pool of London Partnership,
together with a new Education Centre.
— Restoration of the Long Water Avenue
at Hampton Court, originally created by Charles II—restored
with 544 mature lime trees, with the generous support of the Gosling
Foundation.
— Public access to HRH Princess Margaret's
former apartment at Kensington Palace for the first time.
— Kew Palace will be fully restored
and re-presented, and will open to the public again after 10 years'
closure in Spring 2006.
— At Hampton Court, we are constructing
the new Clore Learning Centre, with the support of the Clore Duffield
Foundation. This, the first new building at Hampton Court for
over a century will open in early 2007.
We welcome the Select Committee's Inquiry, which
demonstrates the priority the Committee gives to heritage and
are pleased to provide this written submission. In summary, we
wish to drawn the Committee's attention to the following key points:
— Demonstrable social, educational
and economic benefits spring from well-conserved and accessible
heritage. There has been great progress in the last 20 years.
— DCMS should give priority in its
future policy to raising the profile of heritage
— Whilst the Heritage Lottery Fund
has been the most important factor in the recent redevelopment
of the nation's heritage, the ongoing guardianship and conservation
work of heritage organisations is not generally fundable by them—DCMS
needs to recognise that there is a potentially serious decline
in the historic fabric in the absence of adequate funding.
— There is a tension between preserving
old buildings and building new—our recent experience is
that current policy is increasingly downplaying the value of the
historic environment in favour of new development.
1. What the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage
White Paper
We hope that the Heritage White Paper will recognise
the fundamental role heritage has in defining the idea of the
public realm. It should set out the legislation necessary to deliver
heritage protection reform. However, beyond that, we hope that
this will be an opportunity to review the benefits heritage brings
to society in the 21st century, to celebrate the achievements
of the many organisations across the country that have made enormous
progress during the last 25 years and to promote new ways of supporting
their work in the future. A priority for DCMS must include a commitment
to analyse, determine and seek a funding mix that will address
the long- term conservation of Britain's historic fabric. This
is not to minimise the focus on contemporary access, interpretation
and enjoyment of heritage—this is extremely important—but
it is recognition of the potentially serious decline in historic
fabric itself that is a stewardship obligation we hold for future
generations.
2. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English
Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage
interests inside and outside Government
Heritage has hitherto been less prominent in
DCMS' priorities than arts, museums or sport. This apparent lack
of attention is not consistent with the nation's interest in engaging
with the heritage through visiting, learning, watching, joining
or taking part in active conservation work.
DCMS should give priority in its future policy
to raising the profile of heritage. It should balance recognition
of the value of heritage in the economy, education, social cohesion
and national identity—instrumental values—with the
need to continue to invest in guardianship and conservation to
ensure that long term responsibilities are fulfilled and the legacy
is protected.
3. The balance between heritage and development
needs in planning policy
We recognise the tension between preserving
old and building new which frequently characterises planning applications
for new developments, especially in London. However, our recent
experience is that the balance has tended to fall against conservation
and that current policy is increasingly downplaying the value
of the historic environment in favour of new development. In a
crowded urban environment like the City of London, this has particular
impact on places like the Tower of London, a World Heritage Site,
where the setting of the Tower and views from inside and outside
are increasingly being compromised by new tall buildings in close
proximity to the site. Greater weight needs to be given to planning
policy that protects the fragile nature of the setting of historic
places.
A more persistent use of s106 could be applied
to benefit the historic environment. Environmental Assessments
should carry a public realm obligation.
4. Access to heritage and the position of
heritage as a cultural asset in the community
There is now much greater consensus about the
value of heritage as a cultural asset for communities. Demonstrable
social, educational and economic benefits spring from well-conserved
and accessible heritage. For instance, Historic Royal Palaces
together with the Royal Armouries devised a Local Schools week
offering targeted curriculum-related workshops three times a year
to children from some of the most deprived boroughs in London.
The outstanding success of this initiative resulted in around
15,000 young people visiting not only the Tower of London but
also many partnership attractions such as St Paul's Cathedral,
HMS Belfast etc and also local companies. Historic Royal Palaces
has a continuing programme of work with local community organisations.
Volunteering has been described as the lifeblood
of the sector. Volunteering provides great opportunities for people
to contribute to and engage with their heritage. Government policy
should continue to seek new ways to promote volunteering further.
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 Heritage Lottery Fund has arguably been
the single most important factor in the development of the nation's
heritage during the last decade. Many extraordinary projects have
happened which would otherwise have been quite impossible. The
HLF has generally shown imagination and vision in developing and
applying its funding policies. Issues remain, however:
(a) The ongoing guardianship and conservation
work of heritage organisations is not generally fundable by HLF,
nor does it seem to be regarded as important by politicians or
policy makers. The more recent refocus of HLF priorities away
from protection and repair of fabric has not been positive. The
balance of funding for the "extraordinary projects""
has been coming from the charitable sector and private individuals
(and the public in many cases). Many of these categories are deeply
committed to the conservation and stewardship of the fabric, but
it could be argued that the abrogation of public responsibility
for the fabric challenges their continued support. For example,
Historic Royal Palaces is responsible for many iconic buildings
including one of England's earliest and finest—the White
Tower at the Tower of London. Urgent conservation and cleaning
of this structure—a national cultural asset—is a priority
and of a scale too great for our self-generated income. Historic
Royal Palaces is unable to secure HLF or indeed any government
funding for this work.
(b) All the indications are that HLF is likely
to have its share of funds reduced in forthcoming changes to the
overall Lottery arrangements and as the Olympics becomes a national
priority project. This will affect adversely the nation's ability
to sustain the same level of improvement to the care of access
to its heritage over the next decade.
(c) Among possible fiscal measures, specific
benefit could be achieved across the country by reducing the VAT
level on conservation and repair work to that of new building
work. At the same time, the Treasury should recognise the adverse
impact of recent changes to Gift Aid and work with heritage organisations
to discover new ways to support their work through this kind of
measure. Any further tax incentives to encourage lifetime giving
would be welcome
(d) At a single organisational level, we
wish to draw the Committee's attention to the funding arrangements
for Historic Royal Palaces. Since 1998, when we became a charity,
our conservation and education work in and for five of the greatest
palaces ever built, has been entirely self-funded. Compared with
the substantial annual public funding provided to English Heritage,
The Royal Parks and all the national museums and galleries, this
now seems to be anomalous and makes us unique in a national and
European context. In 1998, with visitors to HRP palaces approaching
3.4 million per annum, this was an appropriate solution in which
Historic Royal Palaces retained surplus income from admissions
to carry out developments and build reserves. However, even at
that time, it was recognised that significant events impacting
on the level of income generated could make this mode of operation
unsustainable. As it has transpired, the many events since 2001
affecting London's tourism economy—from 9/11 through free
entry to national museums to 7/7—have put severe pressure
on visitors, our main income stream. The need for a commercial
charging and income generation regime has sharpened us organisationally
and has enabled the nation to get the best possible value from
our organisation. At the same time, our conservation programmes
are not driven by the buildings' needs or the nation's responsibilities
but the (non-)availability of surplus funds and access for all
to these national sites can be deterred by commercial pricing
levels. We have raised this specific issue with the DCMS and need
to find a solution to protect and provide wide access to these
assets for the future, which at the same time preserves Historic
Royal Palaces' independent charitable status.
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
There is real value in the current range and
diversity of organisations at national, regional and local level,
especially if there is an overall policy framework which includes
appropriate levels of government funding and support to achieve
its aims. We value working together with associated organisations
more closely but can see no benefit in considering organisational
amalgamation.
Historic Royal Palaces' specific function—helping
everyone explore the story of how monarchs and people have shaped
society, in five of the greatest palaces ever built -has potential
to be extended to other sites whose stories fit with this overall
ambition.
There is one key difference between the heritage
and museums/galleries sectors which should be borne in mind. Museums
and galleries have an umbrella body in the Museums, Libraries
and Archives Council (MLA) to speak on their behalf. In having
such a body, they have also been successful in securing grant-giving
programmes with charitable foundations which are solely for that
sector. The Heritage sector does not benefit from the same level
of independent advocacy. The functions of English Heritage include
speaking for the sector and some responsibility for grant giving.
At the same time, however, EH also has its own demanding operational
and statutory planning control responsibilities.
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
There is indeed a need to sustain a stream of
suitably trained and qualified people with both professional expertise
(curating, conservation, architecture, surveying etc) and also
conservation craft skills. Historic Royal Palaces is able to obtain
the skills it needs because of the size of our programme, its
high profile and the use of framework agreements make it attractive
to professionals and craftsmen alike. Not everyone shares this
advantage and there is a need for a sustained initiative to bring
more people with the right skills into the sector.
The question implies, however, that the primary
skills in demand are solely conservation ones. There is a further
range of professional skills in the specific areas of education,
interpretation and story-telling as they relate to heritage sites,
which are often overlooked. It is not always easy to find people
with creative abilities in these fields. Thirdly, in the area
of professional development, the current concerns about leadership
and management in the cultural sector apply equally to the heritage
part of this sector. High quality leadership will be critical
in the next generation if we are to sustain the progress of the
last 20 years.
19 January 2006
|
