Memorandum submitted by Maintain Our Heritage
INTRODUCTION
Maintain Our Heritage (MoH) in an independent
body formed in 1999 to promote a new, long-term, sustainable strategy
for the care of historic buildings with pre-eminence given to
maintenance rather than sporadic major repair.
Maintenance is recognised philosophically as
the optimum strategy for the care of buildings, yet there has
only ever been a policy of passive endorsement of maintenance,
not the pro-active encouragement and support it needs.
MoH defines maintenance as any activity such
as cleaning, painting and minor repair carried out systematically
on a planned cycle and based on regular inspection. Maintenance
of historic buildings is most beneficial in conservation terms
when it is preventative, that is, intended to reduce or remove
the need for repairs.
MAINTAIN HOLDS
THAT REGULAR
MAINTENANCE:
(a) keeps up a building's appearance, extends
its life, and safeguards its investment value;
(b) reduces or eliminates the cost and disruption
to occupants that flow from failures and occasional large-scale
restoration;
(c) is sustainable, using fewer new materials
and involving less extraction, processing and transport, waste
and energy use, while reducing pressure for greenfield development;
(d) retains historic fabric because less material
is lost in regular, minimal and small-scale work than in disruptive
and extensive restoration; and
(e) provides a business activity that is steady
and counter-cyclical, bringing jobs.
ACTION
Maintain our Heritage originated, developed
and undertook a pilot maintenance inspection service in the Bath
Area in 2002-03, the first maintenance inspection service for
historic buildings in the UK.
The Pilot achieved its aim of demonstrating
that it is practically, technically and legally possible to establish
and operate such a service. A wide range of historic buildings
was inspected and owners were provided with illustrated reports
setting out maintenance action priorities. Some maintenance work
such as clearing gutters and first-aid repairs to flashings, was
done in the course of inspections.
No problems were encountered concerning insurance,
health & safety etc that invalidated the concept. The target
number of buildings, 72, was passed. Take up, however, was not
on a scale to make the service immediately attractive commercially.
MoH had anticipated at the outset that the service
was unlikely to be economically viable, especially in a limited
geographical area for a limited period. Customers in fact mostly
welcomed the service. The conversion rate from enquiries to inspections
was 59%. Typical comments after fulfilment were "excellent
service", "practical", "helpful" and
"re-assuring". Nevertheless, for a similar service to
cover its costs would require at least greater economies of scale
and more marketing.
Most importantly, it would require a climate
of official help and support and fiscal policies more favourable
to maintenance.
The experience of the Bath pilot scheme has
been invaluable in informing proposals for future maintenance
schemes.
RESEARCH
"Putting it Off" is a research project,
financed by the DTI, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery
Fund. It aimed to report on current practice, identify best practice
and proposed a way forward for maintenance. The research was divided
into six modules covering all aspects of maintenance, from best
practice through to education and training.
THE RESEARCH
PRODUCED THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
Government policy is at odds with conservation
principles
Current legislation and policies do not adequately
encourage maintenance—even in the historic building sector
where the philosophy of maintenance as the best means of conservation
is widely accepted.
For most listed buildings in the UK there is
no duty of care. Listing imposes on an owner a responsibility
to obtain listed building consent for works that would affect
the building's character but there is no obligation on the owner
to keep the building in repair.
Best practice elsewhere is not taken up in the
conservation sector
The conservation sector has not drawn upon the
examples of good maintenance practice adopted by some non-heritage
organisations, such as businesses, hospitals and housing associations.
Lack of support for owners
Owners are not encouraged or helped to maintain
historic buildings. VAT is imposed on maintenance and repair but
not on alterations and new build. The necessary information and
advice is not available from a single source.
Public benefits not evaluated
The long term value to the public of maintaining
historic buildings is never evaluated because, currently, it is
not quantifiable.
Convenience not conservation
Owners are not driven by conservation principles.
They maintain their buildings primarily to avoid the inconvenience
of disrepair which would adversely affect their use and enjoyment
of the properties.
Reactive not systematic
Owners tend to take a short term view and do
not see the benefit of maintenance that would prevent major faults
appearing later.
Low priority of maintenance
Building owners tend not to prioritise maintenance
because they do not have the skills required to undertake or manage
maintenance works; and see maintenance as a low priority activity.
Practicalities
Owners need help in making maintenance simpler
to manage, particularly in respect of insurance; health &
safety; access; and sourcing suitably skilled builders.
Supply of maintenance services limited by apparent
lack of demand
Suppliers have not developed preventative maintenance
services for historic buildings largely due to an apparent lack
of demand, low revenue and the administratively intensive nature
of regular maintenance.
Recommendations and Policy Options
This report has major policy implications. It
discusses proposals that will lead to the development of an informed
and targeted strategy for maintenance.
THE MAIN
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE RESEARCH:
A UK strategy for maintenance
Government should promote a UK-wide debate on
integrating maintenance into conservation policy and practice,
leading to a UK strategy for maintenance.
Statutory duty of care balanced by financial,
advisory and technical support
Government should legislate to introduce a statutory
duty of care or to enable local authorities to introduce a minimum
maintenance code to require owners to maintain listed buildings.
To balance this responsibility, owners should be entitled to financial
incentives and advisory and technical support.
Review of current enforcement powers
Current historic building enforcement powers
and procedures require urgent review to encourage local authorities
to be more proactive in halting deterioration before buildings
fall into disrepair.
Best practice: heritage organisations and local
authorities to lead by example
Cadw, English Heritage, the Northern Ireland
Environment & Heritage Service and Historic Scotland ("the
lead bodies"), in conjunction with the local authorities,
need to develop best practice processes and procedures in conservation
maintenance management to pass on the experience of good practice
to owners. Heritage organisations and local authorities should
lead by example.
Maintenance-focused grants and fiscal incentives
Maintenance should be central to the policy
making of the relevant grant-giving bodies including the local
authorities. They should consider a change of emphasis to encourage
owners to maintain buildings, not just restore poorly maintained
buildings. VAT anomalies must be removed.
Develop Buildings at Risk register as information
source and advisory tool
The lead bodies and local authorities should
develop more fully the Buildings at Risk register as a management
tool to provide interactive information on listed building condition.
This register should cover all listed buildings and be used to
monitor and encourage maintenance.
Maintenance guidance and information sources
The establishment of a UK maintenance advisory
unit to co-ordinate maintenance-related initiatives and to provide
advice to owners is essential, covering issues such as management,
insurance, access, procurement, suppliers, materials, maintenance
products and health & safety. In particular the idea of a
logbook for every listed building should be pursued and linked
to the proposed Home Information Packs. Local maintenance co-operatives
and access equipment pools should be encouraged.
Assessing costs and value of maintenance
Further work is required to demonstrate the
costs and value of maintenance tasks.
Motivating owners to undertake maintenance
Different incentives need to be devised to appeal
to individuals and organisations to maintain their properties.
Facilitating maintenance
The lead bodies need to publish guidance on
prioritising maintenance and on the issues of insurance, health
& safety and access to inform owners about possible solutions.
The Government needs to support the appropriate skills, training
and education bodies and professional and trade organisations
to address the issues of skills needs.
New maintenance services and products
Government should help companies to set up general
maintenance services with expertise in the maintenance of historic
buildings. There should be a certification scheme for builders
undertaking maintenance to show their competence and, where necessary,
their awareness of conservation issues and techniques. The feasibility
of new products needs to be assessed, such as maintenance monitoring
products and insurance-linked maintenance inspection contracts
(along the lines of existing heating and plumbing schemes).
In summary, it is MoH's firm view that there
is a need for a fundamental shift in attitude within and without
the sector from reactive repair to proactive maintenance. In spite
of the Minister's recent positive words on maintenance, Government
policy remains at odds with both best practice and common sense.
In effect, owners are rewarded through the current grant scheme
for allowing their buildings to fall in to disrepair, whereas
responsible owners who keep their buildings in good condition
are penalised through the punitive VAT regime.
January 2006
| 
