Written evidence submitted by the Institute
of Historic Building Conservation and Historic Towns Forum
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
2004 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—eg 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
| 
