Supplementary written evidence from Edward
Harley, President, Historic Houses Association (Arts 234)
Further to my appearance before the committee
last Tuesday and in response in particular to questions from Tom
Watson MP, I enclose some further information on (a) the HHA's
concerns on the implementation of regulation to heritage tourism
businesses, and (b) the type of projects that we believe might
be deemed eligible in future for consideration for HLF funding.
I would be grateful if this information could
be made available to all Members of the committee.
I also enclose copies of a short HHA document,
"Inspirational Places—the Value of Britain's Historic
Houses",[70]
which puts flesh on some points I made about the cultural, economic,
educational and social contribution of privately owned heritage,
the challenges that this sector faces and the policy solutions
that we have proposed to government.
We would, of course, be pleased to respond to
any further requests for information that the committee may have.
(a) Reducing over-regulation of heritage
tourism businesses: Note based on a joint representation to government
by the National Trust and Historic Houses Association dated July
2010
Licensing
Both our organisations support the conclusions
of the Elton Review of 2006, which have yet to be fully implemented.
The review called for changes to the fees structure to ensure
that for larger events the fee reflects only the reasonable costs
of local authorities in providing licences. This is particularly
important for historic rural venues that may host only one or
two major events annually, but have to compete with urban venues
holding events throughout the year; both venues are charged the
same fee. Elton also proposed a de minimis approach where the
licensable activity was small in relation to the overall activity
taking place. A good example is a small beer tent in a large event,
such as a horse trial or country fair.
Tourism Signage
We see both an acute problem and, as serious,
an underlying absence of a national policy to use brown tourism
signs actively to promote tourism, in England especially.
The acute issue is that the Highways Agency
and local authorities interpret the management of brown tourism
signs inconsistently and opaquely. As a result, we know of instances
of historic houses not being allowed tourism signs or even losing
their signs (even when they have paid for them themselves), whilst
we see a growing number of brown signs for fast food outlets and
garden centres.
In one vivid example, an HHA historic house
in Yorkshire was complimented by a Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
representative inspecting the presentation to the public of works
of art which were conditionally exempt from Inheritance Tax. The
only criticism made was the house was hard to find. This house
has been campaigning for, and has been repeatedly refused, a brown
tourism sign!
Being denied a sign can seriously affect the
ability of owners and managers to build up their tourism businesses.
There is no appeal and signs may be removed without consultation,
even though the attractions themselves bear the cost of signage.
Local authorities' resistance, in some cases, to temporary events
signage has been perverse and damaging.
Such problems will recur until there is a coherent
policy towards the use of brown signs for active promotion of
tourism, as happens much more widely in some other countries.
The HHA and NT would readily support DCMS Ministers in discussions
with the Secretary of State for Transport, the Highways Agency
and local authorities to bring about such a policy. Tourism is
a huge economic and regenerative driver for a region's economy
and positive signage is an important way of developing the tourism
market.
Planning Issues
The new Planning Policy Statement, PPS 5, is
intended to bring the historic environment into the mainstream
planning system. We welcome it and the aspiration to reduce complexity
and delay. We also welcome the recent review of non-planning consents
submitted by Adrian Penfold, and its call for the unification
of the various heritage consent regimes.
However, we still see unnecessary regulatory
control, in particular in the way that planning applications for
temporary structures, such as marquees, are handled. These structures
house special events which can enrich the experience of visitors
to historic places, without compromising the historic value of
the site. They are temporary and reversible. However, some local
authorities treat them as if they were permanent developments
and do not appreciate their importance in heritage tourism. We
would hope very much that the DCMS would be prepared to act as
a champion for a more positive and flexible approach in its discussions
at Ministerial level with CLG.
Application of Fire Safety rules to listed bed and
breakfast accommodation
Fire safety is, of course, paramount. However,
we see examples of application of fire safety regulations to listed
buildings which owe less to a concern for safety concerns than
to uniformity, which is often inconsistent with the particularities
of historic buildings.
Requirements for small operations in listed
buildings should not necessarily be the same as for large-scale
new buildings. Of particular concern is the inconsistent application
of regulations from one fire authority to another, which can disproportionately
affect viability in certain areas.
Health and Safety
The application of Section 3 of the Health and
Safety at Work Act in circumstances involving natural hazards
needs urgent re-consideration. It is at odds with the relaxation
of occupier's liabilities on land in other legislation, and undermines
our role in opening up the countryside for public access. We also
believe that a more flexible definition is needed for the term
"so far as is reasonably practicable", as deployed in
Health and Safety legislation. The existing definition relies
heavily on case law, and its strict application in situations
around public safety in the natural or historic environment is
constraining.
Another burden is the considerable effort that
has to be invested in ensuring that records are kept after an
incident in order to provide our insurers with the basis for a
defendable position. Indeed, we find that some unjustified claims
proceed and are successful because it is simply uneconomic for
insurers to defend some low value claims.
(b) Heritage Lottery Fund: funding
projects in the privately owned heritage sector: types of project
that might be considered as eligible for funding in future
1. The Historic Houses Association (HHA) enjoys
a very positive and constructive relationship with the Heritage
Lottery Fund (HLF) and values the funding that has been made available,
over the course of the HLF's life, to projects in privately owned
historic houses that have provided enhanced educational experiences
and improved outreach to new audiences.
2. It should be noted that these projects are
very few in number and the necessary procedures for application
can be relatively expensive and demanding for a smaller historic
house. The number of projects at individual historic houses has
been extremely small and partnership projects, although still
very limited, have been more successful although these can be
challenging to set up. Projects have focused on learning, participation
and outreach, thereby deepening and widening access to and enjoyment
of heritage.
3. Policy Directions given to the HLF by the
Secretary of State require funding to be limited to: "projects
which promote public value and which are not intended primarily
for private gain".
4. Recently, the HHA and HLF have begun to discuss
whether and to what extent these Policy Directions allow for a
wider interpretation than has previously been the case. The two
organisations are conducting these discussions against the background
of:
— the HLF's preparation of a new Strategy
for its operations, to come into effect formally from 2013;
— increasing pressures on maintenance of
historic houses and gardens, open to the public, in the private
sector;
— the scale of the public benefits that
these places provide;
— the effective disappearance of grant
support for such buildings from English Heritage, its equivalents
in the other countries of the UK and local authorities; and
— the prospect of a significant increase
in HLF funding from 2012.
5. In entering these discussions both organisations
have the clear aim to focus on potential projects that would deliver
significant public benefit. Both recognise that any private gain
resulting from HLF funding should be incidental and minimal, or
even non-existent.
6. The HHA is drawing up a list of the types
of projects that it believes might be considered eligible in future.
These include:
— Restoration of historic buildings in
the private sector which form part of a larger conservation project
in partnership with local organisations in a similar way to the
way in which the HLF's Townscape Heritage Initiative and Landscape
Partnerships work.
— Restoration of historic buildings or
objects within historic buildings that form a part of a project
aimed primarily at increasing participation of new audiences in
heritage and/or learning through experience of heritage. Possible
examples: conversion of a building into a Visitor Centre, with
learning facilities, at a historic house; restoration of a building
housing a gallery or other room reserved solely or predominantly
for public use (day visiting and/or events); or a room designated
for school visits.
— Physical improvements to historic buildings
to enhance the visitor experience and help maximise the tourism
potential of historic sites, eg facilities for visitors with disabilities,
material improvements; and interpretation, in a similar way to
which the NWDA's innovative Heritage Tourism Improvement Scheme
has operated.
— Another possible area for consideration
is that of an HLF contribution to enable an acceptance in lieu
of Inheritance Tax of a historic object, associated with a historic
house, open to the public, to be kept in the house in its traditional
location, on the public route (Acceptance in Lieu in situ). The
contribution would be ring-fenced for use only on the maintenance
of the object in question.
7. In addition, in the case of projects solely
for education or outreach purposes, which are now already eligible,
the HHA and HLF are discussing ways in which applications for
funding, including development of potential projects, could be
made more practicable. For example, where a project relies on
a number of historic houses and/or gardens collaborating, which
has proved expensive and difficult for individual houses in the
past, the possibility of the HHA itself being able to make the
application is being considered.
8. It should be stressed that the discussions
are at an early stage and the examples above do not definitively
point to the final outcome of the discussions.
9. It would be very helpful if the committee
felt able to support wider interpretation by the HLF of its policy
directions so as to enable the types of projects illustrated in
paragraph 6 above to be eligible for grant.
November 2010
70 http://www.hha.org.uk/DB/policy-news/inspirational-places-the-value-of-britains-histori.html Back
| 
