Written evidence submitted by Dr Tom Welsh

Preserving Built Heritage

Part of what constrains preserving built heritage is the accuracy of its description and the consequent classifications.

In recent decades this has been decided by archaeologists and related architectural historians. There is very little opportunity for inputs from a wider sector, including historians, architects etc. The dating and description of a building is often conjectural, by eye, even if expert eye, sometime looking at the exterior without going inside or undertaking a thorough examination.

However, if others disagree with this description/classification, it is very difficult for their views to be heard. Historic England provides pro-forma for raising any objections, which can be time consuming, which can be rejected without giving any explanation. If Historic England is inaccurate in its description or classification there is little anyone can do about it once imposed.

The cost of preservation can be very high if the classification requires it. The current perspective seems to be that if Historic England decides on the requirements, it is down to the owners to put it right, and the assistance given is qualified and restricted.

This means that often the outlay on preservation set by Historic England is mandatory and non-negotiable even if the owner or guardian is unable to afford it. Consequently, buildings remain in a dilapidating state indefinitely until the owners accept the externally imposed requirements. This may be fine if the classification is justified and the imperative lies with doing the right thing for the heritage, but the current reality is that owners are often unable to act. Historic England and other agencies put all the blame on the owners and not themselves.

But if the classification is wrong, and can be shown to be wrong, then the requirements for preservation could be reviewed. At present Historic England and other such organisations are inflexible. But if these organisations are being pedantic and not sensible, then we will continue to have buildings needing repair and preservation that cannot be afforded and which continue to deteriorate.

We need a realistic way of defining preservation need. What we have currently is not fit for purpose.