Written evidence submitted by Richard
Griffith (arts 229)
FUNDING OF THE ARTS AND HERITAGE: LISTED
BUILDING ADMINISTRATION
I wonder whether the following point might be
useful context for the CMS Committee's inquiry into the Funding
of Arts and Heritage.
Last Thursday Francis Maude called his plans
for the reform of public bodies "an example of the government's
commitment to radically increase the transparency and accountability
of all public services". This prompts me to send the attached
paper which was published in the September edition of the journal
Cultural Trends, [Griffith, Richard(2010) "Listed
building control? A critique of historic building administration",
Cultural Trends, 19: 3, 181-208].
The paper describes how there is little or no
information about the main parameters of listed building control:
(i) the number of listed buildings is unknown;
(ii) their taxonomy is unresearched; and
(iii) the performance of the control is unmonitored.
Overviews of the scope and effect of the control
across the country have never been surveyed—not even to
discover whether it is operating at all.
The absence of basic evidence raises a question
of governance: is it proper or equitable to operate a statutory
control that is neither transparent nor accountable? The paper
contrasts the lack of relevant and reliable information about
listed building control with the levels of evidence that are expected
in other areas of public administration. The paper also demonstrates
how straightforward it would be to produce appropriate evidence,
giving several simple and economical examples. It even includes
the raw data from an independent nationwide survey of the control's
actual performance for 2007-08.
Given the lack of evidence about the scope and
effect of listed building control, I wonder whether the Select
Committee might consider recommending to the Secretary of State
that, in order to start making the control transparent and accountable,
a systematic monitor of the control's performance should be introduced?
Whether the existing regulatory functions stay with English Heritage,
go to DCMS or end up elsewhere, they are overdue for reform.
October 2010
| 
