C O N T E X T 9 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 33 for some projects, those involved in heritage project bidding and delivery know that many schemes rely on there being at least two heritage-specific funding streams. This is essential both for match funding purposes and to ensure variance in eligibility criteria. Interestingly, area grant schemes in Scotland and Wales have recently been revamped. Historic Scotland has introduced conservation area regeneration schemes, while Cadw funds townscheme partnerships. However, in Northern Ireland there are only HLF-funded townscape heritage initiatives, and no other area-based heritage schemes at present. This is compromising the potential for heritage-led regeneration and placing much heritage at risk. There is an obvious need for alternative area-based initiatives in Northern Ireland and a clear warning for English Heritage. If English Heritage chooses to withdraw from its planning and regeneration functions and focus on its own property interests, it will cease to be an effective force for the delivery of heritage enhancement and regeneration projects. It will bring to an end many of the very effective partnerships that have developed with English local authorities and risk souring relations with the local government sector.This will not only damage the heritage interests of most or all English regions, but will also lower the status of the heritage sector at local, regional and national levels and risk triggering a downward spiral of central government funding. This could even call into question the future survival of English Heritage itself, especially after the proposed introduction of regional resource pools. The heritage sector needs English Heritage to be a strong and credible leading body, giving priority to its planning and regeneration functions and highlighting the benefits such services provide in terms of the government’s public policy objectives. Some of the most compelling evidence that English Heritage and local government in partnership are delivering real and meaningful benefits comes from area grant schemes. This is not the time to withdraw from external partnerships and retreat into property management, playing into the hands of those who would like to stereotype the heritage sector. Dave Chetwyn is vice chair of the IHBC. economic regeneration, and transformation of underperforming areas. Investment in buildings at risk not only improves their fabric, it helps deliver jobs, affordable housing, and new community, leisure and cultural facilities. Historic areas better cater for mixed use and provide a variety in accommodation and rental levels that is essential to support local enterprise, new and small businesses, and to cater for innovation and creative industries. The impact of area grant schemes is disproportionate to their often modest funding due to the leverage of often substantial match funding and private sector investment. In value-for-money terms, they are one of the most effective allocations of heritage funding. To see such schemes as expendable would be a serious error of judgement. Many people feel that English Heritage is allowing its property management function to deflect the focus from its planning and regeneration functions (both of which are core functions from local government and community perspectives). Ironically, this is happening at a time when heritage is helping deliver dramatic transformations, especially in inner city and industrial areas, and delivering some of the most sustainable kinds of development. The increasingly proactive nature of the profession is indicated by the pronounced shift towards bidding and project management, especially in the local government sector. But this transformation has certainly not been appreciated by the DCMS. The secretary of state’s recent essay, Better Places to Live, makes no mention of planning, regeneration, economic development, sustainability, or the government’s own sustainable communities policy. Instead, the essay focuses on larger visitor sites like stately homes and castles. While such sites are clearly important, it is difficult to imagine anything less likely to attract increased resources for the heritage sector against the context of current government priorities. If English Heritage is to make the best case for increased resources, it must focus firmly on delivery. In practice, this means maintaining robust grant regimes and effective and rapid casework services to support planning and regeneration activities. One of the ways in which CABE has managed to attract greater priority and resources for design has been to highlight the social, economic and sustainable benefits it delivers. Area grant schemes make the most compelling and comparable case for the heritage sector. To substantially reduce or abolish such schemes would therefore be a serious retrograde step. Rather, English Heritage should be promoting them as a flagship scheme, demonstrating how it forms partnerships with local government to interact with and support local communities, helping a range of deprived areas and minority groups. It is especially worrying that area grant schemes are under threat at a time when Heritage Lottery Funding (HLF) is also being squeezed.The successful Olympic bid is likely to squeeze HLF resources further. While mainstream regeneration funding can be obtained Refurbishment of the Wedgwood Institute, listed Grade II*, will be a key project in the next phase in developing the Queen Street creative quarter.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=