Written evidence submitted by Tanya Szendeffy
Terms of reference Protecting built heritage:
Thank you very much for setting this up. I am the senior conservation and design officer for Lewes and Eastbourne, a trustee of the Historic Towns and Villages forum, and on the SE Board of the IHBC, amongst other positions.
I am submitting this evidence as I think about these issues a lot and feel I have a lot of answers to the questions asked and as such in the two hours I have to send this before the deadline I will say what I hope will be helpful.
I feel all conservation officers an IHBC members should have been advised of this. consultation The benefit of asking conservation officers is that they have no personal interest in the outcome.
We are losing old buildings that with a bit of heating, pointing, reversible retrofitting and love, will last for centuries. The buildings that are replacing these building built in sustainable materials are more often than not, not nearly as attractive to put it mildly, and as they are not built in solid composition but with layers of synthetic materials, will not stand the test of time physically or aesthetically.
Owners need to be taught to have a general idea of the problems themselves and engage the correct specialists.. Eg damp. So many people throw money at damp only to see it worsen. Identify the cause and then the correct solution.
We desperately need education. We are not educating people in the art of building maintenance as there is no money in it. This should be taught at colleges etc. I have written to my MPs of different political persuasions asking that they do this. I have been in touch with my local college suggesting I write a course outline with them (gratis) but the huge machinery of anything is so slow. If this can be taught in colleges, it will quickly become widespread. Courses should be provided by local authorities to home owners on how to manage their buildings. These do not need to cost a lot. A 10 point plan of what to look out for and what to do. This is not just about quick fixes. This is about opening windows, managing heating etc. People will learn to live with their buildings.
What interventions are needed to prevent the managed decline of heritage assets on publicly-owned land?
There is so much money spent on the wrong things. Councils need to be given grants to do up pre c 1930s buildings and potentially rent out on a sliding scale. We are in a housing crisis as we all know and using these buildings is a win win to house people and to save the buildings. Councils could become a little more business minded and borrow money at very low interest rates over a long period with specific milestones and a costed business plan. Jess Steele has managed to do just that with love for people and buildings, business acumen and an ability to project manage. See Back from the Brink: The Observer Building, its rise, fall & rescue – Hastings Commons . I do not know Jess in a personal capacity so this is not a personal recommendation but I have seen how she has saved several buildings.
There are many community groups that have good ideas but sadly we all only have so much time and energy so we cannot rely on community groups. Community groups however could be incentivised in any which way to get projects up and running.
What can the Government do to make it easier for communities or local businesses to take ownership of historic buildings?
In Italy people are given houses is villages for 1 EURO and then given a time frame in which to retore historic buildings. Italy’s 1 euro houses: How you can buy one | The Independent We should do the same to fit local needs. If given to a private individual/company a company could be formed between local government and the developer which would ideally be the local community who can then rent etc to whomever they wish. Again this happens in Italy in the Centri Sociali. Groups take over abandoned buildings and make them viable. These ‘initiatives’ have saved many a dilapidated building and created places for people to go. These centres run courses in anything and everything. Self-managed social centres in Italy - Wikipedia the legalities are explained in the article but the principle is make use of abandoned buildings. I am not promoting illegal activities, only showing how these have been saved elsewhere.
What should long-term public funding for the sector look like?
Please consider Hastings Pier as the example fo these comments: When funding is given, a robust business model must be submitted for 1-2 years into the future. Grants should not just be capital funds but running costs until organisations are independent. Details can be thrashed out but that is the principle. Some monies can be repaid etc. A very considerable amount of public money was spent on the Pier which is now in private ownership. Again the ins and outs are not the issue but the point of providing funds for the initial stages of running a grant funded venture.
Funding should be ring fenced in other areas for REPAIRS. Much money especially levelling up money/enterprise zone money is spent on events and not capital funding for building restoration or design codes for the reinstatement of better designed buildings where failing 20C buildings blight historic centres. Funding should be provided to REPAIR buildings to their original conditions and to a good design code. Something along the lines for example of Historic England’s Partnership Schemes in Conservation Areas. Partnership Schemes in Conservation Areas | Historic England To make all these things happen local authorities would need a lot more funding with project officer positions. Local authorities are overstretched so proactive work is a luxury most/many cannot permit. The financial plight of local authorities other than the most wealthy cannot be overstated. Here more funding I believe would save vast amounts of money down the line. I feel we have been having the same conversations for years and then each successive government changes the rules of the game. Councils cannot keep up.
Over the last few years Hastings and St Leonards on Sea to given an example I know, have changed in a way that could not have been foreseen even a few years ago. Many new people are coming to the area and spending money on buildings and setting up restaurants, art galleries, social centres etc etc. I doubt this would have happened in a less beautiful place. People are drawn to the Victorian buildings (and the house prices off course). I suppose you can call it gentrification. Whether this is good or bad is not the question here, but it has bought money and choice to the area. The food is healthier, the coffee better quality than only a few years ago.
I think design codes to restore historic centres should be written up and grants given to shops and buildings in areas that could if given some love and money turn into Hastings/St Leonards. Again these would be grants that would benefit private individuals but there is no other way to improve the quality of eg town centres and to increase footfall and wealth. Here it has happened organically. That is not to say that places like these do not need assistance. They do very much so but the people who are moving in with the people who are here who care are galvanising their energies to look after our buildings.
If you look at property values, most if not all that hold their value are built in brick , stone, timber etc, are Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian, with aesthetically interesting ground floors, windows and facades – the are visually far more interesting with decorative elements. What we build is generally glass fronts and square cut and paste buildings with maybe a few setbacks at the top. Nobody has ever written a poem about the beauty of the NatWest tower but they have written about bombs on Slough. Conservation officers work hard to stop other places turning into Slough but we need help. We need to teach people how to repair/reinstate these decorative elements. They are are nearly ALWAYS overlooked and yet they are often what changes a drab building into a beautiful (sic) building. Grants so often overlook the exact things they could/should be reinstating.
There are lovely shops being turned into homes. We can discuss the merit or not of this piece of legislation – the permitted development, but it is a shame as centres are dying and once a house it’s difficult to turn back into a shop. Business rates could be set and managed by local authorities. Ways can be found to encourage landlords to rent out properties and take a share on profits or something along those lines.
How can heritage buildings be supported to increase energy efficiency and contribute to the Government’s net zero targets?
The number one answer is to teach people how their buildings work. Before retrofit. Before solar panels. Before GSHPs. People need to know about the interplay of ventilation, damp and heat. So many buildings with uPVC windows in traditionally constructed buildings that are never opened falling to pieces damp mouldy horrible. All the many many terraces written off and demolishes because people do not know how to look after them. We need to talk about repairing historic windows and not replacing them for example. Grants should be given to repair historic windows and to install secondary glazing. uPVC the go to solution for most home owners when faced with a leaky window is often the death knell for an historic buildings as they do not allow ventilation in or out, quite apart form the visual anathema that has devasted nearly all the terraces in our country. Aesthetically this is the number one priority in my book. Keep vertically and horizontally subdivided sashes and casements. Do not let people put top hung and bottom hung uPVC windows in. They destroy buildings in seconds. It takes no time to take a window out and put a new one in and it happens all the time, everywhere and there is nobody to defend the original timber sash/casement other than people like myself who have made this one of their life missions!!!
I was part of a series of talks on windows which promoted repair and secondary glazing over replacement and slim double glazing or uPVC. The Master of Oriel College Oxford got up at the end of the conference and announced to the conference that after listening to tall the talks he was going to propose retrofit over slim double glazed unit. We are promoting the wrong solutions to our problems and with it destroying our heritage. It is a very serious matter and this government has the power to reverse this. The talks if you are interested can be found here: . Windows and History: Why historic windows matter - Dr Adam Menuge, University of Cambridge The event was organised by Marianne Suhr Marianne Suhr - Wikipedia and other experts who, like me, are profoundly depressed by the loss of our historic windows.
If windows are secondary glazed the whole life cycle energy consumption is a fraction of replacement. I have written a lot on this in simple English for the lay person which explains the principles in simple English and demystifies the whole argument.
There are many simple ways to retrofit cheaply and reversibly without damaging your building – cork insulation boards for walls etc. Easy to understand information should be made available. Much information out there I find is also expensive to implement and will harm the buildings whilst being implemented.
Good helpful advice should be given to people by local authorities at events that are free. A few fliers ,and we could save our historic buildings. Not quite, but really this is not far off. Howe to fit secondary glazing for example. Easy to do: Magnetic-strip secondary glazing Jill from Lewes was very much ahead of the curve. (I do not know Jill who is featured in the video), Managing buildings is what we need to teach people. Yes solar panels, ground source heat pumps etc absolutely, but there are many many things owners can do cheaply that as I have said will hugely improve their homes.
What policy changes are needed to make restoring historic buildings easier and less expensive? Three things:
Most importantly – get people to write lists of locally listed buildings which automatically have immunity from demolition via an Article 4 direction. It has taken only a few years to lose nearly all the large historic houses in this are. If not in a conservation area they have no protection unless listed. There are a HUGE number of buildings that have NO protection at all. This desperately need to change. Now. If possible. Those of us in the industry have said this till we are blue in the face and nobody has done anything. Be the government that does!!
Reinstate zero-rating VAT on approved listed building alterations asap. If new builds are zero it really is unbelievable that the heritage of this country no longer does. (Prior to 2012 it was zero). Repairing historic buildings is not cheap and especially listed buildings that by law have to be repaired in a certain way really should to be zero rated. This is one of the reasons some people avoid buying listed buildings .
Excellent set of questions. There HAVE to be courses in
Pointing – nearly always in cement and our bricks, stones and flint are destroyed – one thing everyone should know but extraordinary most builders don’t and most local authorities don’t either. I look around and cry. Well intended people spending fortunes to destroy walls/buildings etc
Teach sash window repair. All these stunning old frames that are almost impossible to destroy as built in slow grown timber that we can no longer get going strong after 100/200/300 years being thrown into skips as nobody has any idea a. how to repair them or b. how to stop them from allowing wind in when there is a gale. Solution? Teach repair everywhere. Teach people about timber and how to build new ones in timber. Teach the country how bad for the environment uPVC is. It is the environment what a processed square of cheese is to a person’s health.
Rendering. Small fortunes are spent on rerendering in cement when lime or a softer mix is needed, signalling the death knell for the houses of well meaning people.
Teach carving, teach woodwork, teach REPAIRS. There are so many people out there who can do things that don’t teach. Set up apprenticeships etc etc.
I look around where I live. There are many people who would benefit from courses being taught. New companies would be created, people’s homes repaired. It would be a win win win win. All colleges should have course in historic building repair and reversible retrofit. It should all be reversible and it can be. Many people who know how to resolve these problems spend hours on Facebook forums discussing these issues. If this information were made public it would transform our historic environments. The problem is getting the knowledge out there.
I have an MSc in Sustainable Heritage. The most important thing is to know your materials and how they work. As an example, (still windows based!!!) Most people and I can say that with confidence to save heating in the colder months, don’t open their windows. All people need to do is open their windows even when cold and raining as cold wet rain holds less moisture then warm hot air and get rid of the internal moisture. This one piece of knowledge alone may have saved thousands of terraces. It’s not damp that kills buildings. It is people who kill buildings as they create damp which they do not know how to get rid of.
I hope this is helpful and that this government can and will make some of the changes mentioned above. I am sure you will have received many similar suggestions from people like me who care passionately about our historic environment.
Best regards,
Tanya Szendeffy