Written evidence submitted by Dr Johnathan Djabarouti

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

This written evidence is submitted in an independent capacity by Dr Johnathan Djabarouti ARB IHBC FHEA FIPM, an Architect, Conservation and Heritage Professional, and Senior Lecturer in Architecture at the Manchester School of Architecture, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.

Dr Djabarouti’s published research explores how integrating intangible cultural heritage within built heritage practices can support and advance built heritage protection (guidance, methods and policy). His research has a specific focus on the interplay between intangible and tangible aspects of the historic environment. He is the author of Critical Built Heritage Practice and Conservation: Evolving Perspectives (Routledge 2024).

Alongside Dr Djabarouti’s academic role, he is seconded to Historic England through an AHRC Innovation Scholars Grant, working within the National Strategy Team in the Policy & Evidence department, to support the organisation on the theme of intangible heritage and its relationship to historic places and place-shaping.

For more information about the research on which this submission is based, please contact j.djabarouti@mmu.ac.uk.

 

INTRODUCTION

  1. I welcome the terms of reference for this inquiry and would like to draw the Committee’s attention to an important consideration – the communal and social value of built heritage – which the Chair has previously spoken about as Culture Minister and in their support for Gosport’s Heritage Action Zone.

 

  1. The UK’s recent ratification of the UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in March 2024 marks a significant moment for UK heritage policy, inclusive of built heritage. This national commitment signals a clear opportunity to integrate intangible cultural heritage (hereafter ICH) within built heritage practices, fostering a more holistic approach towards the notion of built heritage ‘protection’ that reflects the interplay between tangible and intangible heritage. This context underpins this submission and informs the recommendations presented here.

 

RESPONSES TO SELECTED QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1

What are the most significant challenges facing owners and operators of built heritage assets, and how are they affecting what those sites can offer?

  1. A key challenge is the complexity and undervaluation of communal and social value within heritage conservation. Whilst these elements are established as critical to a site’s ‘significance’, they remain poorly understood and lack adequate detailed guidance for practitioners and owners – especially with regards to how they influence and inform physical change to built heritage assets. My research highlights barriers such as role complexity, unclear understandings of heritage ‘domains’ and how they relate (i.e. tangible, intangible, natural), and difficulties in measuring non-physical qualities, which currently limit the integration of these values into practice (Djabarouti, 2021).

 

  1. To address this, Government should prioritise the development of accessible guidance, methodologies, and targeted resources that support built heritage owners, operators, as well as the built heritage professionals they engage, to better identify, measure, safeguard, and enhance the intangible (social and communal) qualities of their assets. Doing so would empower them to communicate the significance of their sites more effectively and foster stronger community connections to assets, thus resulting in more chance of adequate protection.

 

What can the Government do to make it easier for communities or local businesses to take ownership of historic buildings?

  1. The definition of ‘ownership’ within this context should be reconceptualised and broadened to encompass care, pride, and connection to built heritage assets and historic places, rather than focusing solely on legal possession.

 

  1. Government could support this by funding community-led initiatives and providing sector-specific guidance on innovative engagement models beyond traditional ownership structures. Community engagement initiatives that emphasise participatory practices can foster a sense of responsibility and shared stewardship for built heritage assets, which we already know can subsequently enhance overall life satisfaction and wellbeing (Djabarouti, 2024b:6; Historic England, 2024b).

 

  1. My research into built heritage conservation practices demonstrates how a ‘participatory evolution’ of built heritage practice – including early community involvement to capture the stories and memories that built heritage represents – also positively impacts professional conservation practice and protection outcomes by: 1) supporting a more holistic approach towards built heritage protection; 2) engaging local people more effectively within the context of managed change to their historic environment; and 3) integrating ‘local expertise’ and local sense of identity within protection proposals (Djabarouti, 2020, 2024c).

 

QUESTION 2

How effective are the current funding and finance models for built heritage?

  1. Current funding models disproportionately favour tangible heritage, with minimal resources allocated to ICH. For example, the National Lottery Heritage Fund’s former Strategic Funding Framework 2019-2024 notes how only 4% of its resources supports ICH (see National Lottery Heritage Fund, 2019). This underfunding undermines the essential role ICH plays in sustaining the meaning and social utility of built heritage, which contributes towards justifying its protection in the first place.

 

  1. This pattern is evident across broader infrastructure spending. As noted in a recent NPC report, as little as 2% of levelling-up funding has been allocated to social infrastructure, including cultural and heritage initiatives (Weakley, 2022). Such underinvestment limits the potential of ICH to drive societal benefits related to the historic environment, for which it is ideally suited.

 

What should long-term public funding for the sector look like?

  1. Long-term public funding should explicitly include provisions for the ICH that relates to and informs built heritage management (inclusive of its protection), ensuring equitable resource distribution. My research identifies the importance of advancing intangible heritage in built heritage conservation concepts and methods used by built heritage practitioners (Djabarouti, 2024a:192). To facilitate this, it is vital that national funding to protect our built heritage includes specific provisions for intangible heritage, including funding allocated to support and upskill the broader practitioner workforce (Djabarouti, 2024b).

 

QUESTION 3

What role does built heritage play in the regeneration of local areas and in contributing to economic growth and community identity?

 

  1. An important but often under-communicated role of built heritage is how it anchors intangible qualities of heritage in distinct geographic places. It is the combination of tangible (physical) and intangible (non-physical) which facilitates the utilisation of built heritage as ‘cultural anchors’ that can foster pride of place, sense of identity, and community stewardship (Djabarouti, 2020). We know these communal and social aspects ultimately help create sustainable economic opportunities (see Historic England, 2021:3). Intangible practices such as local traditions, everyday rituals, storytelling, and craft skills, enhance the social and emotional connections people have with heritage sites, creating a unique multiplier effect on community wellbeing, perceptions of places, and economic activity (Historic England, 2020).

 

  1. The inquiry’s framing of this question omits an important aspect which is implied but not explicitly stated – that is the explicit role of ICH. Expanding the scope to include how place-based intangible heritage contributes to regeneration and community identity is essential for holistic heritage policy development. For example, as outlined in my research concerning the UK’s recent ratification of the UNESCO (2003) Convention, consideration of ICH within built heritage practices and processes can strengthen place-based cultural practices (Djabarouti, 2024b). Opportunities to draw upon the relationship between intangible and built heritage, which manifests in distinct geographic ‘places’, offers a timely pathway for the UK to set a new benchmark for socially conscious built heritage management and cultural policy in a Western European context (Djabarouti, 2024b).

 

QUESTION 4

What are the financial, regulatory and practical barriers to preserving built heritage?

 

  1. Practical barriers include the conceptual disconnect between tangible and intangible heritage, as well as the absence of the strategic integration of ICH within existing built heritage models and frameworks. Regulatory complexities further exacerbate these challenges, limiting opportunities for innovation (Djabarouti, 2021).

 

  1. Set within the context of the UK’s recent ratification of the UNESCO (2003) Convention, heritage policy reforms should clarify and reduce ambiguity over the relationship and interplay between ICH and built heritage, to leverage more successful and holistic protection models. In particular, my research outlines strategies to advance ICH in conservation concepts and methods, such as fostering participatory approaches and explicitly recognising and clarifying the interdependence of tangible and intangible elements (Djabarouti, 2024c, 2024b).

 

QUESTION 5

What policies would ensure the UK workforce has the right skills to maintain our heritage assets?

 

  1. There are several broader contextual issues that create barriers towards developing the heritage construction sector workforce (of which a majority are craftspeople). These include lack of government support, lack of training and educational routes, business rates, and public perception and representation of these heritage skills (see The Heritage Crafts Association, 2023). Compounding this is the disconnect between desk-based built heritage professionals and the ‘hands-on’ realities of heritage construction/craft work within the sector (see Djabarouti and O’Flaherty, 2020).

 

  1. Safeguarding the heritage construction sector workforce requires a dual focus on tangible and intangible heritage. There is an inherent and unavoidable relationship between built heritage (the historic buildings and materials being conserved/protected) and intangible heritage (the knowledge, skills, know-how, and techniques required for their conservation), which needs more direct and tailored support through policy reforms.

 

  1. Policies are required that support context-specific (site-based) training opportunities at historic sites that can safeguard and sustain heritage construction skills, whilst simultaneously contributing to the conservation of physical historic fabric. Exemplar projects such as Historic England’s Heritage Building Skills Programme demonstrate how embedding traditional skills training within live conservation projects preserves heritage construction skills, enhances social value, supports more targeted skills provision, and maintains cultural continuity (Historic England, 2024a).

SUMMARY

  1. The integration of ICH within considerations relating to built heritage protection is not only timely but essential for creating more inclusive, resilient, and culturally rich communities. I encourage the Committee to consider these insights and welcome the opportunity to provide further evidence, either in writing or orally.

 

  1. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. I look forward to seeing the Committee’s recommendations and am happy to assist in any way that supports the development of effective heritage policies.

 

Dr Johnathan Djabarouti, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

January 2025

 

 

REFERENCES

Djabarouti, J. (2020) ‘Stories of feelings and things: intangible heritage from within the built heritage paradigm in the UK.’ International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27(4) pp. 391–406.

Djabarouti, J. (2021) ‘Practice barriers towards intangible heritage within the UK built heritage sector.’ International Journal of Heritage Studies. Routledge, 27(11) pp. 1101–1116.

Djabarouti, J. (2024a) Critical built heritage practice and conservation - evolving perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

Djabarouti, J. (2024b) ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage and UK Built Heritage Practice: Opportunities and Future Directions.’ Historic Environment: Policy and Practice. Routledge.

Djabarouti, J. (2024c) ‘Walk slowly, listen carefully, tread softly: enhancing participation in architectural conservation practice.’ International Journal of Heritage Studies, 30(3) pp. 349–364.

Djabarouti, J. and O’Flaherty, C. (2020) ‘Architect and craftsperson: project perceptions, relationships and craft.’ Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 14(3) pp. 423–438.

Historic England (2020) Heritage and Society 2020. Swindon: Historic England.

Historic England (2021) Championing Heritage: Improving Lives - Historic England Future Strategy 2021. Swindon: Historic England.

Historic England (2024a) Heritage Building Skills Programme. [Online] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a665a2a54af24b3abcc3d4f20c7226ee.

Historic England (2024b) Heritage capital and wellbeing: examining the relationship between heritage density and life satisfaction. London: Department for Digital Culture Media & Sport.

National Lottery Heritage Fund (2019) The national lottery heritage fund strategic funding framework. National Lottery Heritage Fund.

The Heritage Crafts Association (2023) Heritage Crafts Strategic Plan 2023-26.

UNESCO (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage.

Weakley, K. (2022) ‘As little as 2% of levelling up funding has gone to social infrastructure, warns NPC.’ Civil Society.