English Heritage New Model - TrustNews Jun 14
The government has been consulting widely about its proposal that EH should be split into two bodies: a new and independent charity which, like the National Trust, will be responsible for all the properties currently owned and cared for by EH, and a residual organisation to be renamed ‘Historic England’ that will continue with all the statutory functions such as heritage designation, significant listed building applications, research, publication and expert advice. It is not necessarily certain that this will happen, but highly likely, not least because EH itself favours the change.
All major heritage organisations have responded to the consultation questionnaire and the Trust has responded via Civic Voice. Our response can be seen on the Trust's website, the Civic Voice response is summarised by them as follows (with additional clarification in italics):
- The case for splitting the two functions has not been made sufficiently clearly.
- We are worried about the demonstrably disproportionate amount of thought that has gone into planning for the charity rather than the statutory side.
- The proposals for EH as custodians of the National Heritage Collection (buildings in care) appear to have the support of the present EH, based on the view that a new charitable status will open up greater opportunities for income generation. This may well be the case, but it is difficult to see how sufficient growth in income will be generated to off-set the reduction in government funding (the charity will start with an £85M fund, but much of this will be needed for the backlog of repairs due to decades of cuts in annual funding).
- The proposed formation of a new English Heritage should only be allowed to proceed after the preparation and publication of a well-founded business plan that sets out how long term sustainable viability is to be achieved.
The Trust's response shares these concerns in one form or another and it is gratifying to note that Civic Voice used our wording almost verbatim in one section, omitting only the words in italics:
“We are very concerned indeed that the secondary legislation related to the role of the new Historic England passes on important responsibilities in connection
with Listed Buildings to the Local Planning Authorities without ensuring that they are able to fulfil these responsibilities. Continuing research by EH and the IHBC
shows a progressive deterioration in the resources of Local Authorities to meet even their present obligations. Between 2006 and 2012, the numbers of conservation
staff fell by 25% overall and 31% of those qualified to give building conservation advice. Development Control and Strategic Planning staff are not qualified or in any way equipped to handle the complex issues of conservation that require not only training but experience to provide the necessary expertise.
There is a tendency for central government to hand down obligations to local government without the necessary funding and guidance, or measures to monitor the results of its delegation. We therefore urge in the strongest possible terms that government investigates this problem before implementing the legislation, and takes steps to ensure that one way or another Local Authorities are able to fulfil their historic buildings responsibilities and do so effectively. We are fortunate in Winchester district that the Council now maintains a good conservation team, but there are Councils locally that have no full time conservation officers, and many in the country that have no conservation staff at all. If at this time it is not possible to ensure that there is sufficient qualified in-house staff, Local Authorities should be obliged to consult conservation accredited independent experts."
This is one of many examples that illustrate the advantage to the Trust of being a member of Civic Voice, which, representing numerous civic societies, carries much more weight than we can on our own.