Regeneration

Regen 37

Written evidence submitted by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation

The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) is the professional body of the United Kingdom representing conservation specialists and historic environment practitioners in the public and private sectors. The Institute exists to establish the highest standards of conservation practice, to support the effective protection and enhancement of the historic environment, and to promote heritage-led regeneration and access to the historic environment for all.

The Historic Towns Forum’s (HTF) mission is to promote the prosperity and heritage of historic towns and cities. Its work is rooted in the recognised value of heritage assets to social, economic and environmental well-being. It is the only UK-based organisation which represents all professional disciplines and all sectors working in the historic built environment.

Thank you for inviting us to participate in this Inquiry. We welcome the Committee's interest in this important area of public policy and hope that it can make recommendations to the Government that reinforce the need for the proper strategies and resources needed to regenerate our flagging local economies.

We submit that regeneration that builds on the existing capacity of heritage assets and places is often the most sustainable, economic and reflective of the aspirations and interests of local communities.

To start with, therefore, we feel we can do no better than quote the Committee's own findings on the role of historic buildings in economic regeneration published after Inquiry in 20041 which we believe apply as much today as they did then. An extract from the Report is attached as Appendix 1.

We believe that the Committee's views expressed in 2004 continue to apply today. Indeed it is arguable that building upon existing economies, and sustainable communities that are often represented by heritage assets, locations and urban environments is the most sustainable and deliverable outcome in these days of reduced public and private sector resources. They also can be seen to fit well with the Government's Localism agenda as historic assets are almost always valued by the communities in which they are situated for a range of economic, social and cultural reasons.

In the circumstances of today we would add the following points:

• The loss of capital funds for regeneration schemes previously provided by RDAs is impacting badly on areas of market failure and high deprivation.

• This feature has been compounded by the loss of EP funding (since that body was subsumed into HCA, which has little focus on regeneration and is itself now contracting).

• The availability of capital resources is being further compounded by significant reductions in local authority resources and capacity.

• The Regional Growth Fund, while welcome, is too limited in scope and capacity to make up for these significant losses of resource.

• There is not enough emphasis on the part of many LEPs on heritage as a means to regeneration. The Institute believes that this flies in the face of all the evidence identified by the Committee in 2004 as set out in our Appendix 1 to this letter. We also attach (as Appendix 2) the Institute's document Valuing Historic Places which sets out the case for using historic places a building-block of sustainable development.

• There appears to be evidence that the uncertainties surrounding public sector commitment to heritage regeneration schemes may undermine the commitment of the Heritage Lottery Fund to the programme of Townscape Heritage Initiatives which has resulted in very significant regenerative improvements in some places – e.g. Stoke-on-Trent.

• The loss of funding to the voluntary/community sector from both local authorities and the various special interest non-governmental bodies is having a serious impact on many local organisations. This is limiting capacity for third sector led regeneration projects and seems to fly in the face of the Government's aspirations for The Big Society and locally determined policies and agendas. It seems to us that the harnessing of local initiative and enterprise through heritage retention is an obvious solution to the widely acknowledged problem of "clone towns".

• Reduced capacity in Local Planning Authorities is undermining planning and environmental protection as well as economic development. Many local authorities are losing specialist skills, such as design and heritage skills, necessary to deliver effective and sustainable regeneration. This increases the risk of poorly designed, unsustainable development and, potentially, repeating the mistakes of the past.

• 20% VAT on building refurbishments is a barrier to investment (especially in marginal areas) and sustainable development.

• The current lack of certainty in the building and development industry is harming business confidence.

• We regret the loss of CABE in the public spending review but welcome the survival of some of its functions (notably design review) as part of the Design Council. We look forward to working with the Design Council in improving design in the public realm.

• We continue to be concerned that the location of the heritage interest in the DCMS undermines the importance of built heritage when so many of the policy decisions that affect it are taken in DCLG. We would urge better integration of these portfolios.

March 2011