C O N T E X T 1 0 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 9 43 Notes from the chair Reform: why we need a plan B The review of heritage protection has been under way for the best part of a decade, from the impenetrable Review of Policies Relating to the Historic Environment (2000) to the HeritageWhite Paper and draft bill. Few of us could have predicted that decisions by western banks to develop sub-prime lending markets would ultimately have such a fundamental impact on the process of reforming heritage protection. The primary reason given for the bill being placed on hold was to clear parliamentary time for legislation aimed at dealing with the credit crunch. Dealing with the current credit crisis is of course the priority. The severity and nature of the recession has shocked many commentators. The impact on the development sector has been extraordinarily rapid and savage. Housing developers in particular have been hit hard, with many shedding large parts of their workforce. The contraction of the development sector also means that many regeneration and enhancement projects involving heritage assets may not happen, at least in the foreseeable future. It increases the level of risk for many historic buildings and areas, especially in under-performing areas. Notwithstanding this, the dropping of the bill is entirely regrettable. English Heritage’s inexplicable response to the news was to publish a leaflet claiming that 90 per cent of reform could be achieved without the need for primary legislation. This is inaccurate and appears to undermine its own previous position, which was that the bill was necessary. The IHBC’s position remains that it wants the bill to be reintroduced at the earliest opportunity. However, we understand that it has been shelved in an incomplete form. And there will be a general election later this year or next year. An incoming administration would be unlikely to prioritise a lengthy heritage bill. The future of the bill must be in serious doubt. This means in practice that we need a plan B. My view remains that the most important part of the bill was the reform of conservation area provisions. It is crucial that the impacts of the Shimizu and South Lakeland cases be addressed, and that wider reform creates a more consistent and robust form of protection in conservation areas. It is also important not to lose sight of other priorities, some of which have a far greater impact on heritage. There remains a pressing need to develop evidence on the social and economic benefits that historic buildings and areas deliver, in addition to their contribution to making sustainable places.Without such evidence, it is difficult to counter the deregulatory arguments being promoted by some developers and government departments. Most importantly, robust evidence would allow the case for additional resources to be made more effectively, at both national and local government levels. This has to remain our highest priority. The national heritage agencies need to interact far more meaningfully with national and regional regeneration bodies, ensuring that they adopt a strong place-making ethos and that the importance of good urban design and creative use of heritage resources are fully appreciated in their strategies and funding criteria. Fiscal reform remains a priority, especially around the issue of VAT on refurbishment and maintenance works. This has been a long-running campaign, but it remains important. In addition, greater priority should be given to area grant schemes. Such schemes, administered by national heritage agencies and the Heritage Lottery Fund, have come under pressure.Yet they are one of the real success stories of the past decade. They have a crucial role if heritage in more economically marginal areas is to remain viable. All of these priorities are about resources. Legislative change is desirable and we remain hopeful that this will occur. But the highest priorities have to be those that ensure that the historic environment sector receives the resources it needs to allow our heritage to survive and to continue to deliver substantial public benefits. Dave Chetwyn, chair@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=