The Financing of Preservation - Trust Annual Report 1970
The County of Hampshire has 7,277 listed buildings of which there are 458 in Winchester. In the financial year 1968/69 the County Council contributed £21,332 in grants to support buildings of architectural and historical importance. The remaining Local Authorities contributed £6,386 between them making a grand total of £27,718. Winchester Corporation made a contribution of £125 or 5/5d per listed house. The County as a whole contributed 76/2d per listed house. This does not seem much but is in fact, the highest for the whole country which is good for Hampshire. The lowest contribution was Northumberland, who managed to produce 3d per listed house while four counties produced nothing at all.
However we should not make the mistake of imagining that the interest of the Winchester Corporation is indicated by the size of their contribution. They have indeed given a great deal of support to Preservation in other ways. Outstanding has been their interest free loan to the Preservation Trust for the restoration of St. Peter Chesil Church. They also have other important preservation work to their credit, such as the restoration of Hyde Abbey Gate, the Bargees Cottages and the City Library. The County Council, too, has secured the future of St. Thomas' Church.
The figures above, however, do indicate a great deal more could be done for the private owner of listed buildings. Grants and Loans can be made available under the 1962 and 1969 Acts and it is necessary that both Local Authorities and owners of listed properties should make the legislation a reality and combine to preserve our National Heritage.
In the last six years ended March 31st last the total contribution by the City was £1,865 enabling a total of £7,463 to be put out (25% from the City, 25% from the County Council and 50% from the Ministry).
The ten year capital programme now provides for £2,000 to be available in future years, but whether this money is ever put out depends of course on the number and worthiness of applications.
Local Authorities should be prepared to exact the penalties of this recent legislation and also give grant and loan support to private property owners. The majority of these owners have in general no more in the way of financial resources than any other average citizen, yet the law can exact heavy penalties if their houses and businesses are allowed to deteriorate. A listed house may require a new roof and windows after a hundred years or more and the cost of restoring these in the spirit of the period will be much greater than replacing them with stock items from a builder's yard. It is this difference which should be eligible for grant. If this is not done, the houses will deteriorate beyond repair or be permanently disfigured. Substantial loans must also be available. Think, too of the plight of the small business in listed premises.
Thousands of these give character to every historic city worth a visit. On the one hand they have to face cut throat competition from the often hideous chain stores and on the other are punished by high rates because of the importance of their sites in a busy shopping area. It is not necessary for owners of private residences to open their doors to the public. It is enough that their houses should continue to exist. The exteriors give unique character to localities and can be enjoyed by all.
When the whole future of Local Government is undecided, one of the biggest factors in justifying the continued existence of a small Authority like Winchester is undoubtedly going to be its record with regard to the way it looks after its own buildings and architectural heritage. If the people elected locally don't do it why should we expect to get better understanding from a distant Authority without the same feeling for the locality?