Written evidence submitted by The Georgian Group
Georgian Group submission to Culture Media and Sport Committee on Protecting Built Heritage, February 2025
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?
▪ What interventions are needed to prevent the managed decline of heritage assets on publicly-owned land?
Founded in 1937, The Georgian Group is a historic buildings charity which: campaigns for the preservation of buildings, gardens and designed landscapes of the period 1700 to 1840; and encourages public knowledge and appreciation of Georgian architecture and town planning.
Since 1971 it has also been a national amenity society, serving as a statutory consultee in the planning process in England and Wales (both secular and ecclesiastical) when consideration is being given to proposals to alter or demolish, in whole or in part, listed buildings of its date period. It provides pro-bono advice not only to local authorities and church bodies but also to owners and architects. Its annual Architectural Awards promote excellence in design, conservation and sustainability. It also disburses seed corn grants to conserve historic buildings and monuments. The Group organises lectures and other events aimed at improving public understanding of the built heritage and the social history of the long eighteenth century, and encourages primary research by means of its annual journal.
We assume that ‘heritage assets on publicly-owned land’ refers to heritage assets in the ownership of central or local government, and that the question acknowledges the risk that some such assets are not currently, and may not in future be, properly or adequately cared for, to the point where their significance and viability is threatened. There are likely multiple reasons for this, and identifying them can in turn point to possible interventions and solutions. The owner might not have a continuing use for the asset, is likely to have other pressing priorities to fund, might not understand or value the asset, might not understand how best to look after it and on what cycle, or have access to the right advice. In these circumstances an asset can quickly be seen as and become a liability.
Interventions might include: the adoption of a system of quinquennial survey, if not already in place, with a costed programme of essential capital works and ongoing cyclical maintenance; advice from a heritage body, whether local amenity or preservation society or a national one, which might help the owner better understand and value the asset, and give advice on possible future and/or adaptive reuse, sources of grants etc. Even though an owner might see a building as a ‘heritage liability’, there will always be others, likely on their doorstep, who will see it as an asset and who may be able to help in partnership. Heritage assets are often central to regeneration efforts and can play an important part in local identity, pride of place, and socio-economic wellbeing. Disposal to another owner - whether a specially created preservation trust, charity, business or individual - is of course another possible intervention. But public bodies (eg. the NHS and MOD) have a tendency to delay disposal and only pursue that route once a building is in a state of advanced decay.
The Georgian Group is a small charity with limited capacity but is always happy to advise on listed buildings of its period at a pre-application stage.
▪ What can the Government do to make it easier for communities or local businesses to take ownership of historic buildings?
a) Ensure that local communities and businesses have access to specialist advice on how to take on such ownership - from guidance on how to establish a charitable entity, such as a preservation trust or a social enterprise, to appointing consultants and making grant applications (eg. to Historic England, The Architectural Heritage Fund and the National Lottery Heritage Fund). Advice can be found from within the heritage sector, but local Business Support Centres could be provided with the materials to signpost potential owners to those that might help. Nationally, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform might work with Historic England to develop a model approach together with clear, helpful advice.
b) One of the great disincentives to taking on a historic building is that the cost of both approved changes and repairs attracts 20% VAT. In stark contrast, new buildings are zero rated. This encourages the demolition of old buildings in favour of the construction of new buildings, which often, and wastefully, have a much shorter ‘design life’. This punishing tax could be reduced for communities that took on the ownership and care of historic buildings
c) More support is needed for hard-pressed local authorities to ensure that in the case of Urgent Works notices and Compulsory Purchase all necessary legal processes are undertaken speedily and effectively In order to facilitate this, consideration could be given to allow Historic England grants to be used more flexibly, for example towards the cost of in-house legal services. In the Georgian Group’s experience, Local Planning Authorities often lack the capacity or appetite undertake enforcement
d) Consideration could also be given to extending local authority compulsory purchase powers to include exempt religious buildings in ecclesiastical use where there is clear evidence of neglect, such as long-term presence on a Buildings at Risk register. Exempt religious bodies do not necessarily have the structures in place or the necessary funding to ensure that urgent repairs are carried out and many historic places of worship are now in only intermittent use.
2. How effective are the current funding and finance models for built heritage?
a) The Architectural Heritage Fund (which helpfully makes loans as well as grants), Historic England, and the National Lottery Heritage Fund (which is now ensuring that a larger proportion of its grants than previously are being put into the repair of fabric), provide the cornerstone of heritage funding. Several Trusts and Foundations also support heritage. The sums available nationally are nonetheless insufficient, and long gone are the days when the owner of a listed building might expect to secure from the state a grant for basic roof repairs.
c) Accessing the specialist advice required in advance of submitting a grant application (in an increasingly competitive field) can be prohibitively expensive for small organisations and community groups. They are likely, for example to need the advice and services of architects, structural engineers and specialist conservators. The Georgian Group has direct experience of this in the administration of its annual FE Cleary grant scheme, here we find ourselves hand holding applicants. it is often applicants from more deprived communities that fail in their efforts to secure grants because of the costs of submitting a credibly application.
▪ What should long-term public funding for the sector look like?
a) Real-term decline in funding to Historic England in successive spending reviews has had a deleterious effect on the sector nationally, while reductions in funding at local planning authority level have seen capacity and expertise lost. Long term public funding should reverse both these trends.
b) The recent pattern of short term settlements to Historic England has similarly had a knock on effect for those organisations, such as the National Amenity Societies whom they grant aid. Planning on a one rather than three or more years basis makes for uncertainty and inefficiency.
3. What role does built heritage play in the regeneration of local areas and in contributing to economic growth and community identity?
A succession of studies over the last few decades have all demonstrated the social and economic value of the built heritage, not least as a catalyst for regeneration in town centres and high streets and in place making. The annual report on the Economic value of the heritage sector - Heritage Counts - commissioned by Historic England provides a useful state of the nation account.
The Georgian Group, the other National Amenity Societies and Historic England recognise the important part that built heritage plays in local identity and economic regeneration and gives constructive pro bono advice to local planning authorities to help ensure that timely, well-informed decisions are made in the planning system that encourage positive change.
▪ How can heritage buildings be supported to increase energy efficiency and contribute to the Government’s net zero targets?
Historic buildings can certainly be better insulated and adapted to support the Government’s net zero target. However, there are fundamental differences between historic buildings - which are permeable (with ‘breathable’ surfaces) - and many late 20th century and 21st century buildings - which are generally not permeable. This, and the fact that few buildings before the start of the 20th century are of cavity wall construction, is poorly understood both by the general public and the construction industry. Attempts to turn earlier buildings essentially into passive houses by the introduction of wall insulation can cause irreparable damage - eg. interstitial condensation leading to wet and dry rot. Given this and the small percentage of the UK’s building stock that is listed, it is sensible that there is an exemption for historic buildings, ie. the energy efficiency requirements of the Building Regulations do not apply to them.
Considerable improvements in performance can, however, be achieved by small scale incremental works such as: the introduction of loft insulation; the draught proofing of windows; the addition of secondary glazing and internal and external shutters; and the use of seasonal blinds (to reduce insolation in summer) and heavy curtains in winter. Some of these measures were used traditionally but have been forgotten. The principle of heating the person rather than the building has also been largely forgotten - it is only relatively recently that people have come to expect to be able to wear lightweight clothing indoors all year around.
The Georgian Group supports intelligently designed retrofitting, but if applied to all buildings in a universal way, irrespective of their age and form of construction, it can be damaging - blunt legislation and regulations potentially leading to unintended consequences.
4. What are the financial, regulatory and practical barriers to preserving built heritage?
▪ What policy changes are needed to make restoring historic buildings easier and less expensive?
The most effective single policy change that could be made would be the removal of VAT on repairs - see 1 b) above. Regular maintenance prevents gradual decay and the need for more expensive capital works that often entail replacement rather than repair. Little and often - the ‘stitch in time’ approach - favours the employment of small building firms and supports the local economy.
5. What policies would ensure the UK workforce has the right skills to maintain our heritage assets?
Skills taught at building colleges focus on new build construction techniques and materials rather than providing trainees with the necessary skill set and understanding to enable them to work on the repair and retrofitting of existing building stock. As a result there are too few people in the sector who have the right skills and training to care properly for and adapt historic buildings in a competent and cost-effective way. Policies need to be devised to reverse this situation.
The Georgian Group has encouraged a better understanding of the elements of building and craft skills through the publication of advisory leaflets, an exhibition and a Craft Award. It also brings together Conservation staff from local authorities and other organisations, and conservation architects and rewards outstanding work through its annual Architectural Awards.
Should the Select Committee be interested, we would be happy to supply further evidence and case studies.
February 2025