putting it off how lack of maintenance fails our heritage · heritage and heritage lottery fund...

Maintainour Heritage

PUTTING IT OFFHOW LACK OFMAINTENANCEFAILS OURHERITAGE

A REPORT ON THE RESEARCHPROGRAMME ON THE MAINTENANCEOF HISTORIC BUILDINGS LED BYMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE

01

FOREWORD

This report is about the maintenance of historic buildings.

Maintenance is recognised philosophically as the optimumstrategy for the care of buildings. Yet there has only everbeen a policy of passive endorsement of maintenance, notthe pro-active encouragement and support it needs.

This report is the culmination of our wide-ranging researchprogramme entitled ‘Maintaining Value’ on maintenanceissues.We want this report to stimulate debate and re-thinking. We believe the time is ripe for a wholesale changein policy and practice – in Government, the constructionindustry, the professions, local authorities and owners – to promote the maintenance of historic buildings.

This report is not only for professionals and practitioners.Maintenance is about attitudes as well as expertise and it is a cultural, economic, environmental and social issue as wellas a technical one. The target audience is wide, covering allthose with an interest and responsibility for those issues.

Richard Pollard, Chairman, Maintain our Heritage

PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE

CONTENTSMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGEAND ITS PARTNERS

Foreword 01

01_Why ‘Maintaining Value’ was undertaken 02

02_Executive summary 042.1 Maintenance – what is it and why do it? 042.2 Features of current maintenance 052.3 Recommendations and policy options 05

03_The ‘Maintaining Value’ research programme 07

04_Maintenance: the optimum strategy 08

05_What’s happening now? 095.1 Maintenance policy 095.2 Maintenance management process

and procedures 115.3 No public support for owners following

designation 135.4 Cost savings of maintenance 145.5 What motivates owners to undertake

maintenance 165.6 The practicalities of maintenance management 165.7 Development or support of market solutions 17

06_Recommendations – what can be done? 206.1 Reconcile policy and legislation with

conservation principles 206.2 Maintenance management process

and procedures 226.3 Support for owners 226.4 Assessing costs and value of maintenance

over time 256.5 Motivating owners to undertake maintenance 266.6 Facilitating maintenance 266.7 Market solutions 296.8 Monitoring the implementation of the proposed

recommendations 30

AppendicesAppendix 1: Members of the Steering and Task Groups 31Appendix 2: What is maintenance? 32Appendix 3: Summary of tasks for each recommendation theme 34Appendix 4: Proposed sector discussions to disseminate and debate research findings 39

Abbreviations 41

References 42

Maintain our Heritage Directors and Advisory Panel 45

Maintain our Heritage (MoH) undertook aresearch programme entitled‘MaintainingValue’in partnership with a range of bodiesin the construction and heritage sectors.

The research was financed by theDepartment of Trade and Industry (DTI)(through Partners in Innovation), EnglishHeritage and Heritage Lottery Fund withcontributions also from CITB-ConstructionSkills and University of the West of England.

MoH wishes to thank the funding partnersand all those who helped the programmeand extends special thanks to the PilgrimTrust for its role in the foundation of theresearch programme.

This report is based on six research reportsundertaken for Maintain our Heritage byArup Research + Development, De MontfortExpertise Limited and the University of theWest of England. The reports are availablein full on the MoH web site:www.maintainourheritage.co.uk.

For a full list of organisations involved, seethe back cover.

Members of the Steering and Task Groupsthat were formed to guide and inform theresearch programme are listed in Appendix 1.

The views in this report are those ofMaintain our Heritage and not necessarilythose of the funders and partners in the

‘Maintaining Value’ research programme.

Maintain our HeritageWeymouth HouseBeechen Cliff RoadBath BA2 4QS

Tel: 01225 482228Fax: 01225 482074www.maintainourheritage.co.uktcantell@maintainourheritage.co.uk

Directors and Advisory Panel: see inside back coverMaintain our Heritage (MoH) was formed in 1999 topromote a new, long term, sustainable strategy for the care of historic buildings with pre-eminence given to maintenance rather than sporadic major repair.


01 03

Government, in its response The HistoricEnvironment: A Force for our Future, accepted theargument and the implication of poor maintenancepractice behind it, noting increased awareness of the case for shifting emphasis from cure toprevention:

‘The Government fully endorses the increasingimportance attached to the preventativemaintenance of historic fabric. In discussions withEnglish Heritage about future funding priorities, it will explore how a shift of emphasis towardspreventative maintenance might be reflected ingrant programmes.’ 3

It pointed out that it would:

‘set an example in the conservation of its ownextensive historic estate.’

and that:

‘English Heritage will issue advice to localauthorities on the care of historic buildings, ancientmonuments, historic gardens, parks and designedlandscapes in their ownership.’ 4

Also, local authorities were then being newlyrequired to complete Asset Management audits ofall their properties under Best Value to bring themup to and keep them in an acceptable condition.

Furthermore, the Heritage Lottery Fund waslooking to:

‘increase its efforts in supporting maintenanceregimes.’ 5

This policy shift has continued and there has beenincreasing emphasis on the importance ofmaintenance as a critical conservation activity.

In resolving to bid for research funding in 2001,MoH concluded that maintenance in practice waspatchy and chaotic. All too often it was responsivenot pro-active, sporadic not systematic, a low not a high priority – and in many cases did not happenat all. Maintenance was perceived as a low statusactivity, not as a professional discipline. Maintenancewas both a best-value principle and a latent marketopportunity that the UK was signally missing. Thispicture has not altered materially since 2001.

MoH proposed that research be undertaken toreport on current practice, to identify best practiceand propose a way forward for maintenance. Theprogramme of research was called ‘MaintainingValue’. The timing of the research was appropriateas MoH sensed that the time for a change inattitudes seemed to be right. The programme came at the dawning of a policy shift.

For example, the wide range of bodies contributingto the review of heritage policy Power of Place in2000 asserted that:

‘much of the need for capital expenditure on the historic environment is the result of poormaintenance.’

They recommended:

‘a shift from cure to prevention through… planned maintenance for owners.’

and called on owners to:

‘carry out routine maintenance and regular condition surveys.’ 2

PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE0102

WHY ‘MAINTAINING VALUE’WAS UNDERTAKEN

MoH conceived this research programme in 2001 because it was clear that, despite a generalacceptance of maintenance in conservationphilosophy and official Government advice,1

maintenance in the main was not being practisedand promoted by policy makers, the constructionindustry and owners.

MoH believed that recognition of the value ofmaintenance as the most sustainable managementregime would be achieved only through asubstantial shift in attitudes. This in turn wouldneed a convincing and research-based case to be built. No one seemed to be making that case.

In particular, MoH, in assessing the need for theresearch, was aware of:

■ a lack of leadership, incentives andencouragement;

■ a dearth of evidence about maintenance practice for historic buildings;

■ an emphasis on major repair rather thanpreventative maintenance in practice andespecially in the grant regimes for historicbuildings – the most neglected (ie leastmaintained) buildings got most grant aid from public sources;

■ a lack of published guidance for homeowners and small businesses on maintenance work or sources of information and services;

■ a shortfall in research on maintenance issues;

■ a failure to focus on individual homeowners, the vast majority of those caring for historicbuildings; and

■ a missed opportunity by the building professionsand trades to provide services that makesystematic maintenance convenient for buildingowners and managers.


2 English Heritage, 2000. Recommendation 6Prevention not cure: common sense makeseconomic sense suggests, for Government, theintroduction of a statutory duty of care supportedby fiscal incentives and grants, making publicbodies accountable for their performance inmaintaining their historic estate, and thepromotion of a shift from cure to prevention;and, for owners, carrying out routinemaintenance and regular condition surveys.

3 DCMS (with Department of Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions), 2001, p.36

4 Subsequently issued in English Heritage, 2003a

5 Heritage Lottery Fund, 2001

1 Department of the Environment/Department of National Heritage, 1994: Planning PolicyGuidance Note 15: Planning and the HistoricEnvironment, para. 7.1: ‘Regular maintenanceand repair are the key to the preservation ofhistoric buildings. Modest expenditure on repairskeeps a building weathertight, and routinemaintenance (especially roof repairs and theregular clearance of gutters and downpipes) canprevent much more expensive work becomingnecessary at a later date. It is a commonmisunderstanding that historic buildings have a fixed lifespan, and that gradual decay of theirfabric is inevitable. On the contrary, unless thereare intrinsic defects of design or materials, thelifespan of a historic building may be indefiniteprovided that timely maintenance, and occasionalmajor repairs such as the renewal of roofcoverings and other features, are regularlyundertaken. Major problems are very often theresult of neglect and, if tackled earlier, can beprevented or reduced in scale. Regular inspection is invaluable.’

02 05

Low priority of maintenanceBuilding owners tend not to prioritise maintenancebecause they:

■ do not have the skills required to undertake ormanage maintenance works; and

■ see maintenance as a low priority activity.

PracticalitiesOwners need help in making maintenance simplerto manage, particularly in respect of:

■ insurance;

■ health & safety;

■ access; and

■ sourcing suitably skilled builders.

Supply of maintenance services limited by apparent lack of demandSuppliers have not developed preventativemaintenance services for historic buildings largelydue to an apparent lack of demand, low revenueand the administratively intensive nature of regular maintenance.

2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS

This report has major policy implications. It discusses proposals that will lead to thedevelopment of an informed and targeted strategyfor maintenance. The main recommendations areas follows:

A UK strategy for maintenanceGovernment should promote a UK-wide debate on integrating maintenance into conservation policy and practice, leading to a UK strategy formaintenance.

Statutory duty of care balanced by financial,advisory and technical supportGovernment should legislate to introduce astatutory duty of care or to enable local authoritiesto introduce a minimum maintenance code torequire owners to maintain listed buildings. Tobalance this responsibility, owners should beentitled to financial incentives and advisory andtechnical support.

2.2 CURRENT MAINTENANCE POLICY ANDPRACTICE

The research produced the following findings:

Government policy is at odds with conservation principlesCurrent legislation and policies do not adequatelyencourage maintenance – even in the historicbuilding sector where the philosophy ofmaintenance as the best means of conservation is widely accepted.

For most listed buildings in the UK there is no duty of care. Listing imposes on an owner aresponsibility to obtain listed building consent forworks that would affect the building’s character but there is no obligation on the owner to keep thebuilding in repair.

Best practice elsewhere is not taken up in theconservation sectorThe conservation sector has not drawn upon theexamples of good maintenance practice adopted by some non-heritage organisations, such asbusinesses, hospitals and housing associations.

Lack of support for ownersOwners are not encouraged or helped to maintainhistoric buildings. VAT is imposed on maintenanceand repair but not on alterations and new build. Thenecessary information and advice is not availablefrom a single source.

Public benefits not evaluatedThe long term value to the public of maintaininghistoric buildings is never evaluated because,currently, it is not quantifiable.

Convenience not conservationOwners are not driven by conservation principles.They maintain their buildings primarily to avoid theinconvenience of disrepair which would adverselyaffect their use and enjoyment of the properties.

Reactive not systematicOwners tend to take a short term view and do notsee the benefit of maintenance that would preventmajor faults appearing later.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Maintenance is recognised as the best way to lookafter historic buildings. Yet in practice littlemaintenance is done. Many owners wait for thingsto go wrong before acting. The value of systematicand preventative maintenance is not widelyappreciated. This report calls for a change inapproach from passive endorsement to pro-activeencouragement of maintenance.

2.1 MAINTENANCE – WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO IT?

Maintenance is defined here as any activity such as cleaning, painting and minor repair carried outsystematically, on a planned cycle and based onregular inspection. Maintenance of historicbuildings is most beneficial in conservation termswhen it is preventative, that is, intended to reduceor remove the need for repairs.

Maintenance:■ keeps up a building’s appearance, extends its life,

and safeguards its investment value;

■ reduces or eliminates the cost and disruption tooccupants that flow from failures and occasionallarge-scale restoration;

■ is sustainable, using fewer new materials andinvolving less extraction, processing andtransport, waste and energy use, while reducingpressure for greenfield development;

■ retains historic fabric because less material islost in regular, minimal and small-scale workthan in disruptive and extensive restoration; and

■ provides a business activity that is steady andcounter-cyclical, bringing jobs all year round inall parts of the country.


03 07

THE ‘MAINTAINING VALUE’RESEARCH PROGRAMME

This report is not intended to give a full summary ofthe earlier work; all six reports are available in full onthe MoH web site: www.maintainourheritage.co.uk

The purpose of this report is to use the results to develop an informed and targeted strategy formaintenance. This report presents findingsthematically rather than by module. It synthesisesthe preceding work and draws out the issues andpolicy implications for discussion and action.

This report is based on six research reportscommissioned for ‘Maintaining Value’, each givingfindings on particular aspects:


Motivating owners to undertake maintenanceDifferent incentives need to be devised to appeal to individuals and organisations to maintain theirproperties.

Facilitating maintenanceThe lead bodies need to publish guidance onprioritising maintenance and on the issues ofinsurance, health & safety and access to informowners about possible solutions. The Governmentneeds to support the appropriate skills, trainingand education bodies and professional and tradeorganisations to address the issues of skills needs.

New maintenance services and productsGovernment should help companies to set upgeneral maintenance services with expertise in themaintenance of historic buildings. There should bea certification scheme for builders undertakingmaintenance to show their competence and, wherenecessary, their awareness of conservation issuesand techniques.

The feasibility of new products needs to beassessed, such as maintenance monitoringproducts and insurance-linked maintenanceinspection contracts (along the lines of existingheating and plumbing schemes).

Review of current enforcement powersCurrent historic building enforcement powers andprocedures require urgent review to encouragelocal authorities to be more proactive in haltingdeterioration before buildings fall into disrepair.

Best practice: heritage organisations and local authorities to lead by exampleCadw, English Heritage, the Northern IrelandEnvironment & Heritage Service and HistoricScotland (‘the lead bodies’), in conjunction with the local authorities, need to develop best practice processes and procedures in conservationmaintenance management to pass on theexperience of good practice to owners. Heritageorganisations and local authorities should lead by example.

Maintenance-focused grants and fiscal incentivesMaintenance should be central to the policy makingof the relevant grant-giving bodies including thelocal authorities. They should consider a change of emphasis to encourage owners to maintainbuildings, not just restore poorly maintainedbuildings. VAT anomalies must be removed.

Develop Buildings at Risk register as information source and advisory toolThe lead bodies and local authorities shoulddevelop more fully the Buildings at Risk register as a management tool to provide interactiveinformation on listed building condition. Thisregister should cover all listed buildings and beused to monitor and encourage maintenance.

Maintenance guidance and information sourcesThe establishment of a UK maintenance advisoryunit to coordinate maintenance-related initiativesand to provide advice to owners is essential,covering issues such as management, insurance,access, procurement, suppliers, materials,maintenance products and health & safety. Inparticular the idea of a logbook for every listedbuilding should be pursued and linked to theproposed Home Information Packs. Localmaintenance co-operatives and access equipmentpools should be encouraged.

Assessing costs and value of maintenanceFurther work is required to demonstrate the costsand value of maintenance tasks.


‘MAINTAINING VALUE’ MODULES

Module title

Best Practice MaintenanceManagement for Listed Buildings

Individual Owners' Approachesto the Maintenance of their ListedBuildings

The Provision of CommercialMaintenance Services for ListedBuildings

Technology – A review of productsand services within the field ofpreventative inspection andmaintenance of buildings

Demand and Supply: Building the Business Case forPlanned Maintenance

Maintenance Education andTraining for Listed Buildings

Research undertaken by

University of the West ofEngland, Bristol ('UWE')

UWE

UWE

Arup Research + Development

Arup Research + Development

De Montfort Expertise Limited(for Arup Research +Development)

Published

September 2003

September 2003

September 2003

November 2003

November 2003

November 2003

05 09

WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW?


MAINTENANCE: THE OPTIMUM STRATEGY

Maintenance is defined here as any activity such as cleaning, painting and minor repair carried outsystematically, on a planned cycle and based onregular inspection. Maintenance of historicbuildings is most beneficial in conservation termswhen it is preventative, that is, intended to reduceor remove the need for repairs so preventing theloss of original fabric.6

For the owner, maintenance retains the building’sappearance and value and safeguards theinvestment made in it. Maintenance makes sense. It is worthwhile clearing gutters or fixing a slippedtile in order to avoid costly problems later.

In social terms, maintenance reduces the cost and disruption to occupants that flow from buildingfailures and from occasional large-scalerestoration. Maintenance makes it more likely thatdangers (eg loose coping stone, broken handrail)will be spotted before damage and injury result.

In environmental terms, maintenance means less material is used and consequently reducesextraction, processing, transport, waste7 andenergy use. It prolongs the use of the embodiedenergy in the built fabric. It contributes tosustainable development and urban and ruralregeneration, and reduces the pressure for newbuild on greenfield sites.

In cultural terms, maintenance safeguards historicfabric because less material is lost in regular,small-scale repair than in disruptive and extensiverestoration. Maintenance is central to protectingcultural significance or value8 because it is the leastdestructive of all the ‘interventions’ which inevitablyoccur in the process of conserving historicbuildings.

In economic terms, maintenance is a business thatis steady and counter-cyclical and that particularlyboosts small and medium-sized reputableenterprises.

Well-maintained historic buildings improve the quality of life for everyone, help to attractinvestment to the area, contribute to regenerationand provide a source of local pride and sense of place.


6 This is the definition adopted by MoH for thisreport. A brief discussion of What ismaintenance? is contained in Appendix 2.

7 English Heritage, 2003d. Demolition andconstruction account for 24% of established total annual waste in the UK.

8 ‘Cultural significance or value’ is defined asthose qualities embodied in a building that thecurrent generation cherishes and wishes to pass on to future generations. It mightencompass the following values: architectural;technological; educational; economic;resources; recreational; aesthetic; spiritual and emotional; and ‘genius loci’.

9 UWE, 2003a, pp.2-3, p.6

10 UWE, 2003a, p.3

11 UWE, 2003a, Appendix 1, p.141

This section outlines what the research found about current maintenance activity in the UK.

5.1 MAINTENANCE POLICY

5.1.1 Leadership and direction

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGCurrent legislation, government policies andprogrammes do little to support maintenance.

The research shows a gap. Conservation principlesare clear that maintenance is fundamental to goodconservation but this is not reflected in policy.9

There has been a lack of leadership and direction inthe promotion of maintenance. In particular, therehas been no coordinated leadership or policy tosupport, help and advise owners.

Existing conservation policy is largely reactive, notproactive; and piecemeal, not coordinated. It dealsto an extent with the consequences of a failure tomaintain a building but it does not focus on how tobring about appropriate maintenance. Also, policystresses the cultural value of heritage but does notwork with the grain of owners’ more basicconcerns.

The research identified national policies that aresupportive of maintenance as the pre-eminentsuccess factor of other European maintenanceinitiatives. In the Netherlands, for example, theState’s support and validation of the maintenanceinitiative sends a clear message to listed buildingowners about the importance of maintenance.10

5.1.2 No duty of care

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGThe research suggests that where there is a duty ofcare then owners will undertake maintenance.11

In the housing association sector, there is a duty of care on owners to ensure their buildings are well maintained and in a lettable condition for theirtenants. The duty is enforced by the monitoring ofhousing associations’ performance and by fundersrequiring evidence of effective management. Theduty is reinforced and supported by sectoralguidance and debate, encouraging a long term viewand clarity of purpose at housing association level.The sector as a whole, led and regulated by theHousing Corporation, has a strategic overview and clear aims.

05 11PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE0510

Housing associations have developed sophisticatedmaintenance management systems in response to their duty of care. The individual association thatwas studied has developed a long term assessmentof its repair needs and translated this into a realisticand manageable five-year programme. It also hasan effective response maintenance service dealingwith day-to-day needs.


12 UWE, 2003a, p.3

13 Section 215 of the Planning Act 1990

14 UWE, 2003a, p.4

15 UWE, 2003a, p.5

Individual House Code 0 1 2 3 4 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30RenewalsGutters/RW Pipes 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 0 0 0 0Windows 111 0 0 0 0 0 3000 0 0 0 0 0Entrance doors 113 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 0Soil vent pipes 117 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 300 0Fencing/gates 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 0 0 0 0Floor finish 202 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 400 0 400 0Kitchen units 206 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 0Bathroom fittings 208 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 0 0 0 0Plumbing/hot water 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0Heating 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,650 0 0 1700 0Wiring 212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0Extractor fans 215 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 300 0 300 0Total £0 £0 £1,500 £700 £0 £5,000 £3,685 £700 £1,500 £4,700 £0

ImprovementsLoft insulation 303 250Security 304 250HW/Smoke detectors 305 150Total £650Report total £18,435

Maintenance Profile of a Housing Association DwellingThis table from the case study of a large urbanhousing association shows the cost maintenanceprofile of an individual dwelling (a Victorianterraced property). The total cost over 30 years,including potential improvements, is £18,435 (atpresent value). It can be seen, for example, that thewindows are scheduled for renewal in year 5 butnot again within the period. The kitchen units arefor renewal in years 2 and 17 (their agreed life is 15 years). The maintenance profile identifies whatneeds doing, when it needs doing and how much it will cost (at present value).

Accuracy of predicted defects reduces over time,thus the profile focuses in detail on the first fiveyears (columns 0-5) with column 0 being catch-upmaintenance. The detailed focus in the first 5 yearsenables planned maintenance and medium termbudgets to be programmed. Best practice suggeststhat rather than a rolling pre-planned maintenanceprogramme, a ‘just in time’ approach should beadopted. Years 2-5 provide an indication of whichelements will require re-inspection to ensure theoptimum time for planned intervention. Subsequent5-year batches indicate the possible maintenance,repair and replacement required: the intention hereis to enable long term planning and strategicconsideration of the management implications ofowning the building.

The maintenance profile should be renewed at least every 5 years.

5.2 MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGSThere is no integrated best practice model for themaintenance management of listed buildings.

Heritage bodies are not leading by example: theyare failing to ensure that maintenance is integral to their conservation strategy for their own listedbuilding portfolios, where they have them.

5.2.1 Best practiceThe research sought to establish a model of bestpractice in maintenance management by a reviewof general and conservation maintenance literatureand undertaking case studies. The research foundthat:

‘best practice for the maintenance management oflisted buildings requires the development of a planfor maintenance which integrates this activity with a wider strategy for the management of the builtassets, and which recognises cultural significanceand its vulnerability.’ 14

Fundamental to a planned programme are regularinspections, with the frequency of inspections beingtailored to the significance and vulnerability of theelement or material.

These best practice processes and proceduresrequire an accurate information managementsystem that is used as a continuous monitoring andstrategic tool, not just as a record. This level ofinformation will improve the financial planning andbudgeting processes which are essential forcoherent and comprehensive maintenancemanagement.15

The research found evidence from Denmark thatenshrining a duty of care in statute (plus theprovision of financial support for maintenance) is a key factor in the success of the initiative there to provide maintenance services to owners.12

In contrast, for most listed buildings in the UK there is no duty of care. There are statutory powersto deal with historic buildings in poor condition (see box) but, by definition, they apply only when the building is not in a good state of repair and isdeteriorating. The present legislative frameworkdoes not promote or encourage maintenance orearly repair, leaving local authorities to step in only after serious deterioration has occurred.

Current enforcement powersCurrently, if an owner does not keep their listedbuilding in a good state of repair, the local authorityhas several powers to take action. If the buildinghas deteriorated, there are powers to take urgentbut temporary action but only on vacant orunoccupied parts. Many of the elements of the useof such powers are hampered by inadequate legaldefinitions of what constitutes ‘urgent’, ‘temporary’or ‘partially occupied’. These terms have not beendefined clearly by case law and consequently thelegal uncertainty and the difficulty of recovering thecosts of the works lead to infrequent use.

The local authority can use ‘untidy site notices’ as it has been determined that these can apply tobuildings and they are useful under somecircumstances if imaginatively interpreted.13 TheOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister considers these powers are not being used frequentlyenough: good practice guidance to encouragegreater use on both buildings and sites is due to be published in November 2004.

In more serious cases the authority can serve a fullrepairs notice as a preliminary step to compulsorypurchase but this route is used as a last resort.


The following departures from best practice arenoted by the research:20

■ Policies are not linked to aims: the focus ofmaintenance activity is on retaining thefunctionality and appearance of the buildingrather than its cultural value. Even for heritageorganisations:

‘protecting cultural significance does not appear to be a driver for maintenance strategy.’21

Strategies for maintenance are ‘activity plans’rather than long term plans for integratingmaintenance with other goals. The lack of clearmaintenance strategies is exacerbated byregionalism in national organisations:

‘What we don’t have is a structured system across the board.’ 22

■ Organisations have not developed specificprocedures to implement conservation policies(such as cost-benefit analyses, risk assessments,programme reviews). Although the majority oforganisations surveyed operated a plannedmaintenance programme, this approach was notalways designed to meet conservation objectives.For example, regular cleaning of facades canwork against the principle of minimumintervention.23

■ Tools have not been developed to facilitateconservation through maintenance.

Less than half of the heritage organisationssurveyed have an integrated database formanaging maintenance information.24 Heritageorganisations are not recording contemporarydecisions with the same due process as theyadopt for investigating historic works. Recordingsystems have a dual purpose for historicbuildings – as a general record of maintenanceworks which can be analysed for maintenanceprogramming purposes; and as an historic recordof works undertaken to preserve the historicfabric which can record and interpret the historyof the building for later generations.25

5.2.2 Gap between best practice and current practice in organisationsBest practice in maintenance management assuggested by the research is not mirrored bycurrent practice.

‘Half of the heritage organisations16 and nearly all of the non-heritage organisations17…do notexplicitly incorporate conservation principles…in formal maintenance management guidance.’ 18

Only half of the non-heritage organisationssurveyed have undertaken an assessment of thecultural value or ‘significance’ of their listedbuildings.19

Heritage organisations, as would be expected, were generally better informed about whatconstitutes good conservation and there is evidenceof increasing awareness about the relationshipbetween maintenance and retaining culturalsignificance. However, this does not seem to bebeing translated into effective action.


16 ‘Heritage organisations’ are defined for thepurposes of this report as: those organisationsthat include the care of listed buildings as one of their primary purposes.

17 ‘Non-heritage organisations’ are defined for thepurposes of this report as: those organisationswhose primary purpose does not specificallyinclude the care of listed buildings, but who haveresponsibility for the care of listed buildingswithin their property portfolio.

18 UWE, 2003a, p.76

19 UWE, 2003a, p.86

20 UWE, 2003a, p.6-7

21 UWE, 2003a, p.82

22 UWE, 2003a, p.83

23 UWE, 2003a, p.88

24 UWE, 2003a, p.97

25 UWE, 2003a, pp.98-99

26 UWE, 2003a, p.99

27 UWE, 2003a, p.78

28 For example, Historic Scotland’s director ofTechnical Conservation, Research and Education(who has a large role in promoting maintenancematters) is on the Historic Scotland ManagementBoard.

29 UWE, 2003a, p.2 and p.16

30 Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies, 1999

31 UWE, 2003a, p.18; IHBC, 2003

Only one third of heritage organisations and one half of non-heritage organisations surveyeduse performance indicators for maintenancemanagement. Such indicators are primarilyassociated with financial and budgetaryinformation and do not usually distinguishbetween the listed and unlisted stock.26

■ The maintenance or property managementdepartments of the organisations studied did nothave an appropriate status or priority, reflectingagain the failure to integrate maintenanceobjectives as essential elements of strategicthinking. In the four national heritageorganisations, there is either no directrepresentation of the maintenance function atboard level or maintenance is a small part of amanager’s wider portfolio of responsibilities.27

However, the role is gradually becoming morehighly regarded as the issue gains prominence.28

■ Budgetary processes sometimes conflict withminimal intervention principles, when themotivation to spend budget allocation results inunnecessary works being undertaken. The annualbudgetary bidding process in most organisationsmakes planned maintenance difficult.

5.3 NO PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR OWNERSFOLLOWING DESIGNATION

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGThere is an anomaly at the heart of heritage policy:listing proclaims the public’s interest in a building’sconservation – but there is no support (practical orfinancial) for the owner to serve the public interest by maintaining the building.

The literature review undertaken as part of theresearch programme found that there has been noUK leadership or discussion concerning practicalways of supporting listed building owners.

5.3.1 Lack of maintenance grants and fiscal incentives

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGThe focus of grants and public awareness continuesto be on repairs (or restoration) of listed buildingsrather than on their maintenance.

Although it is recognised that there will always be some need for repairs grants (for unexpecteddamage to buildings), the current focus on repairscontradicts the philosophy of the need for themaintenance of the historic fabric.

The higher VAT rate that is imposed on maintenanceand repairs (compared to alterations and new-build) is also inconsistent with conservationprinciples.29 Levelling the VAT regime between new build and repairs and maintenance would have a neutral fiscal impact on the Treasury.30

Despite a DCMS recommendation, the Treasury has not yet accepted the proposal for fiscal reliefagainst income tax for the maintenance of historicbuildings that are open to the public (as exists inevery other European country).

5.3.2 Inconsistent monitoring of condition usingBuildings at Risk tool

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGA Buildings at Risk list is kept by the Scottish CivicTrust for Historic Scotland for all buildings ofoutstanding architectural or historic interest(including some unlisted properties). Environmentand Heritage Service (Northern Ireland) also have anonline database of listed and other historic buildingsat risk. English Heritage keep Buildings at Risk listsup to date for Grade I and II* buildings; and somelocal Conservation Officers in England prepare listsfor Grade II buildings. The coverage and accuracy ofthe lists therefore are patchy.

23% of local authorities do not have a Buildings at Risk register. Only one third of those localauthorities who do have a register regularly update it.31

05 15

A new quoin (the outer corner of a wall) inserted atTilty Church, Essex. The use of new stone, costly andalso involving loss of historic fabric, was necessaryafter the gutter, hopperhead and rainwater pipe hadbecome blocked and remained so for several yearsencouraging plant growth and decay in the wall.

Source: David Lodge, (then) Chair, Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, speaking on Church Maintenance: acontractor’s view of 30 years work in East Anglia at the EnglishHeritage Conference Maintenance Matters on 22 November 2002

Similarly, regular inspections of elements near theend of their lives will be cost effective: for exampleif the predicted life of a lead sheet covering to thecheek of a dormer window is, say, 80 years, thendetailed inspection to see if its life can be extendedis probably not cost effective until towards the endof this predicted life. Regular inspections will alsominimise risk. The risk might be of water ingress or might be of a loose parapet stone falling onpedestrians below.

Although it is widely assumed that systematicmaintenance will prevent large repairs in the futureand therefore save the owner money in the longterm,39 this assumption was not categoricallyproven. The research showed that maintenanceleads to savings when the wider benefits to theowner are weighed, such as risk minimisation and avoidance of disruption.

The research did not track costs over time but used a predictive financial model instead. There is very little reliable data on proven life cycles oftraditional materials and, in practice, many factorsmay affect the life of components.40 Even whenassumptions are made about the timing of failure,the difficulty of costing the consequences isapparent and can make meaningful predictions ofcost savings hazardous. Such uncertainty detersowners from seeing the benefit of systematicmaintenance tasks and budgeting.

The wider benefits that make maintenanceassuredly cost-effective, such as avoiding thedisruption to use and associated costs that canresult when building elements fail, have persuadedorganisations such as housing associations toundertake preventative maintenance programmes.41

The most significant wider benefit that isfundamental in this context is retaining the culturalvalue of listed buildings. Maintenance savesbuildings: it prolongs the life of building componentsand minimises the loss of historic fabric. Yet culturalvalue tends not to be considered in the financial casefor maintenance because it is difficult to measure.

PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE0514 PUTTING IT OFF

MAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE

39 IHBC, 2002

40 UWE, 2003a, p.9

41 UWE, 2003a, p.57 and pp.140-144

32 UWE, 2003a, p3

33 UWE, 2003b, p.11

34 UWE, 2003b, p.10

35 UWE, 2003b, p.11

36 UWE, 2003a, pp.58-62

37 In Scotland, over the last 15 years, suchinformation has been supplied through theHistoric Scotland Conservation Bureau. Thisfacility could provide a model for a UK-wideone-stop source.

38 UWE, 2003a, p.57 and pp.140-144

In Italy and in the Netherlands conditioninformation has been a key factor in providingevidence to support the case for maintenance.There is enormous potential, the researchconcludes, for a national database to play a key rolein a nationally coordinated maintenance strategy,both in terms of identifying frequencies forinspections and other forms of maintenance, and in monitoring the effectiveness of such strategiesand adapting them accordingly.32

5.3.3 Information and advice on maintenance for owners

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGThere is no single source of information onmaintenance for owners who wish to maintain their buildings.

The research describes a gaping hole ininformation provision and support for listedbuilding owners:

’During the interviews virtually everyone (withoutprompting) said that they felt that advice to owners in terms of both clarity about legal obligations andhow and where to seek advice on maintenance and repair was very poor… One respondent (anarchitect) commented that “most people wouldn’tknow where to start”.’ 33

42% of individual owners surveyed suggested thatthey use magazines as a source of guidance, whileonly 34% of owners seek advice from national andlocal conservation bodies. However, 56% of ownerssurveyed seek advice from their local authority andthis finding indicates a way forward for informationprovision (see section 6.3.4). 34

During the research, interviewees indicated that information is particularly hard to find in the following respects:

■ At the point of purchase, information on theresponsibilities of a listed building owner and the implications of those responsibilities isinconsistent at best and non-existent at worst.35

Although new owners may find out through theestate agent or the conveyancing process thattheir building is listed, there is no automaticmechanism to ensure owners are briefed onlisted building responsibilities;

■ Concerning maintenance management processes and procedures, including how to keepan historical record of works, solutions found inother sectors36 are not widely discussed ordisseminated in the conservation sector; and

■ Advice about suppliers, materials and techniquesof maintenance can be sourced from heritagewebsites, statutory bodies, local authorities andothers, but there is no co-ordinated, one-stopsource of information.37 There is inadequateinformation about maintenance techniques thatmight be inappropriate for historic buildings,such as inserting damp proof courses and usingmodern paint or plaster finishes. Currently, thereis no means of owners providing maintenanceadvice to others by sharing experience onmaintenance issues.

5.4 COST SAVINGS OF MAINTENANCE

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGSystematic maintenance is cost effective when takinginto account conservation of historic materials,avoidance of disruption and the minimisation of riskand uncertainty.

The research showed that regular (and possiblytargeted) inspections and preventative maintenancewill probably be cost effective for elements ofcultural value or elements whose premature failuremight affect other building components or otheritems of cultural value. It makes financial sense, for example, to clear a gutter or fix a slipped slatewhere otherwise water might get in and cause rot in roof timbers or damage to ceilings andinternal walls.38

A blocked hopperhead and rainwater pipe causedwater to run down the wall of the tower at GreatClacton Church, Essex. After a number of years thiswater led to the collapse of areas of the face (ofSeptaria stone). Rebuilding involved scaffolding thewhole of the south face of the tower at a cost of manythousands of pounds.

05 17PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE0516 PUTTING IT OFF


42 UWE, 2003b, p.7

43 UWE, 2003a, p.80

44 UWE, 2003a, pp.78-79, 95-96; UWE, 2003b,pp.14-16

45 UWE, 2003a, p.87

46 UWE, 2003b, p14

5.5 WHAT MOTIVATES OWNERS TO UNDERTAKEMAINTENANCE

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGSThe first priority of most owners is to protect thefunction and appearance of their building rather than to conserve the historic fabric.

Owners tend to take a short term approach tomaintenance and do not see the benefit of smallmaintenance tasks that would prevent bigger faults happening later. This short term approachencourages reactive rather than preventativemaintenance.

82% of individual owners surveyed said that the fact that the building was their home was a veryimportant factor in the standards of maintenancethat they decided to adopt. Only 45% said thebuilding’s historic nature was a very importantfactor in this respect whilst only 35% said that thelisted status was a very important factor.42

Meanwhile, 80% of the non-heritage organisationssurveyed do not have separate policies andprocedures for their listed and non-listed stock.43

Both private owners and heritage organisationsmaintain their buildings primarily to avoid theinconvenience of faults occurring that wouldadversely affect their use and enjoyment of thebuilding, rather than to fulfil conservation objectives.

The research reveals a lack of engagementbetween owners and key conservation principles as they relate to maintenance. The majority ofowners see ‘repairs’ and ‘maintenance’ asinterchangeable concepts. They equate culturalvalue with aesthetics. They believe that charactercan be maintained by repair and replacementrather than retaining fabric for as long as possible.There is a gap between what the philosophy isadvocating and what owners are doing.

5.6 THE PRACTICALITIES OF MAINTENANCEMANAGEMENT

5.6.1 Arranging and managing maintenance

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGSThe practical issues of arranging and managingmaintenance could delay an owner’s decision toundertake maintenance.44

There is no clear steer from the conservation sector for owners on how to deal with the practicalissues of insurance, health & safety and access.

Having taken the decision to undertakemaintenance, the practicalities of arranging andmanaging maintenance work cause further delay.For example, two thirds of the heritageorganisations surveyed suggested that the cost of a multitude of small jobs is a significant or verysignificant constraint on the implementation of a minimal intervention maintenance policy.45

The research found that workplace and homeinsurance products have not been designed toaccount for maintenance tasks. Although mostinsurance products have clauses requiring theinsured to ensure that their property is wellmaintained, there are no bonuses for goodmaintenance practice or penalties for poorlymaintained properties.

Maintenance to the external envelope of a building involves tasks such as gutter clearing,painting, and minor repairs to external joinery androof coverings. To undertake these tasks, ownershave to consider health & safety issues and how togain access to high levels – whether they undertakethe maintenance themselves or employ a builder.27% of individual owners said that access problemssignificantly constrained their ability to undertakemaintenance tasks themselves.46

5.6.2 Maintenance skills

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGThere is a shortage of properly trained and qualifiedbuilders able to undertake maintenance on historicproperties.

The research points to three issues to be addressedrelating to skills:

■ the need to encourage and support the demandfrom both non-historic and historic buildingowners for maintenance work;

■ the need to promote basic maintenance skills for owners and builders, including safe accesstechniques; and

■ the need to nurture in general builders anunderstanding of, and ability to deal with, historic fabric so that they are sympathetic to its conservation when undertaking maintenancetasks.47

The issue of skills shortages for highly skilledcrafts, such as stonemasonry, has received moreattention and publicity than the wider issue of theshortage of general builders who are competent toundertake maintenance on historic properties. Theissues of craft skills shortages, accreditation andmaintenance conditions attached to repair grants(available only for Grade I and II* properties inEngland) are important; but widening the approachto cover the supply of general maintenance skillsfor all historic properties would have a greaterimpact on the conservation of the built heritage.

5.6.3 Maintenance materials

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGThere is a shortage of information about the types and sources of suitable materials for themaintenance of historic buildings. In some cases,appropriate traditional materials are not available.

36% of the individual owners surveyed indicatedthat requirements for specialist materials were a constraint on their carrying out maintenance bythemselves.48

5.7 DEVELOPMENT OR SUPPORT OF MARKET SOLUTIONS

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGSSystematic maintenance services have not beendeveloped specifically for historic buildings due to:■ an apparent lack of demand for maintenance

services; and■ the low income, administratively intensive nature

of systematic maintenance work.

The research gives evidence that maintenanceservices will not succeed without significantsupport at government level. In the Netherlands,the Monumentenwacht maintenance initiativeflourishes in the context of an integrated approach.The State’s involvement in financing conservation,such as by fiscal incentives, means the State has a long term interest in encouraging maintenance in order to reduce the amount of subsidy provided.49

In Denmark, a private organisation has, with Stateencouragement, developed a successfulmaintenance service as a complement to a range of existing services.

5.7.1 Nature and extent of commercialmaintenance servicesThere are nearly 450,000 listed buildings and 10.6 million pre-1944 buildings in the UK.50 Thepotential market for maintenance to historicbuildings and buildings of traditional constructionis therefore substantial.

Output for the repair, maintenance andimprovement sector in 2002 in the UK was £30bn.There are over 40,000 firms in the UK that have an interest in, or ability to offer, maintenanceschemes. For heritage buildings, there are over1400 specialist conservation firms (about three per cent of the maintenance sector).51

The research examined the nature and extent ofcommercial maintenance services.52 Maintenancework is a very small proportion of the overallworkload of both contractors and consultants(surveyors, architects, etc); and organisations,rather than private individuals, comprised theirmain clientele in both cases.

A third of the contractors who were interviewedprovide some kind of maintenance service, forexample, checking roofs and gutters, and carryingout minor repairs following inspections and

47 De Montfort Expertise Ltd, 2003

48 UWE, 2003b, p.14

49 UWE, 2003a, pp.25-26, p.31

50 Arup Research + Development, 2003b, p.2

51 Arup Research + Development, 2003b, p.22

52 UWE, 2003c, p.7


Although lack of demand is seen as the mainconstraint on the supply of maintenance services,there are some supply issues that detercontractors’ interest in this field, including:

■ the costly tender process for large maintenance jobs;

■ the time wasted quoting for smaller jobs that do not materialise;

■ legal liabilities linked to specific maintenancetasks;

■ the cost of specialist equipment and access;■ the cost of administrating a flexible and fast-

response maintenance team; ■ the attitude of some architects and surveyors who

believe that maintenance is not their remit; and■ the apparent reluctance of skilled craftsmen to

undertake maintenance work. These issues are not specific to historic buildingmaintenance: they would apply equally to non-historic buildings.56

5.7.3 Demand for an inspection serviceResearch into organisations’ attitudes tomaintenance suggests that there may be asignificant latent demand for commercialmaintenance services: nearly half of the clientorganisations expressed either medium or high interest in an inspection service similar to Monumentenwacht.57

One third of individual listed building ownerrespondents expressed a high level of interest in an independent inspection service. A further 41%expressed a medium level of interest.58 So, themarket for inspections and maintenance couldperhaps be cultivated. The findings about owners’attitudes to maintenance coincide with those fromsuppliers. There is a suggestion that a virtuouscircle of supply creating demand and demandcreating more supply could develop if one side of the equation was to be stimulated.59

However, a majority of those respondents whoexpressed an interest:

‘were either not prepared to pay anything or wouldonly be willing to pay unrealistically low amounts.’ 60

These findings suggest that an inspection servicemight have to be linked with other works, such ashealth and safety inspections for commercial


53 Arup Research + Development, 2003b, pp.7-8

54 UWE, 2003c, p.13

55 UWE, 2003c, p.8

56 UWE, 2003c, pp.14-15

57 See box opposite

58 UWE, 2003b, p.16

59 UWE, 2003c, p.18

60 UWE, 2003b, p.4

61 UWE, 2003b, p.9

62 UWE, 2003b, p.17

63 Arup Research + Development, 2003b, pp.6-7

64 UWE, 2003a, p.23 ; Arup Research +Development, 2003 b, p.7

painting. Half of these contractors have ongoingcontracts while the others undertake maintenancework in response to customer requests.

Only one of the 23 contractors who wereinterviewed provides a preventative maintenanceinspection service for historic buildings: they feltthat they had ‘captured a niche in the maintenancemarket’.

Less than half of the 34 consultancy companiesinterviewed provide a maintenance programmingadvice service. Two of these companies gavestrategic and preventative maintenance advicerather than simple condition and maintenanceschedules. One company had devised a remotemonitoring system to allow the remote, continuous monitoring of damp levels by the client in vulnerable areas.

These findings are mirrored by those of theresearch into the demand and supply ofcommercial maintenance services undertaken for the business case for maintenance module.53

5.7.2 Issues of supply and demandThe lack of supply of maintenance services andmaintenance inspection services, for both listedbuildings and non-listed buildings, is explained bythe suppliers’ perspective that there is insufficientdemand. They said:

‘People say that it [maintenance] is a good ideawhen it is offered to them, but they never take it up. The only time we get a call is when there is a problem.’ 54

The consultants interviewed also cited a lack ofdemand for maintenance advice:

‘We could offer that kind of service if clients wantedit, but very few of them request it.’ 55

premises, or gutter clearing and external paintingtasks for all types of buildings (see discussion insection 6.7.2).

Some success has been achieved by locally runmaintenance services for which costs can be keptdown by bulk ordering and sharing costs betweenneighbouring owners, such as the scheme run byEdinburgh City Council (see box).

Edinburgh City Council Stair Partnership Scheme

Edinburgh City Council has set up a scheme wherebytenants sharing a common staircase in tenementblocks can group together to obtain and managemaintenance services, thereby sharing the costs andbenefiting from the co-ordinated maintenance of thewhole block. More information is available atwww.edinburgh.gov.uk/CEC/Housing/ESP/ index.html

5.7.4 Demand for rapid response serviceThe research suggests that individual owners’apparent awareness of maintenance – 91% ofowners say they try to anticipate the maintenanceneeds of their building61 – applies mainly toanticipating repairs rather than maintenance. Thisawareness suggests owners might be open to arapid response, just-in-time maintenance service.

There is currently no rapid response serviceavailable for external maintenance tasks.

5.7.5 Interest in UK maintenance bodyOwners expressed an interest in a UK maintenancebody that could undertake independent inspectionswithout the connotations of the policing role of thethree governmental lead bodies (Cadw,Environment & Heritage Service [Northern Ireland]and Historic Scotland) and the non-governmentallead body, English Heritage (‘the lead bodies’hereafter), or the local authorities.62 However, take-up of pilot services has not been high (even whensubsidised).63 These findings are mirrored by theexperience of the Bath pilot inspection service runby Maintain our Heritage (see box).

A pilot maintenance inspection service in BathIn parallel with Maintaining Value, MoH mounted asmall-scale pilot maintenance inspection service.MoH drew on the experience of Monumentenwacht(above) which has operated a maintenance inspectionservice in Holland since 1973.64

The Bath Area Pilot (below) involved the inspection of73 buildings in 2002/03. Owners were given a report on prioritised maintenance action points.

The need to obtain Professional Indemnity Insuranceto cover the advice given by maintenance inspectorswas raised. The pilot found that the requirement, as well as adding to direct costs in the form of theinsurance premium, increased the time taken toproduce the reports to clients and hence the overallcost of the service.

MoH produced a report: Historic BuildingMaintenance: a report on the Bath Area Pilot mountedby Maintain our Heritage, November 2003. It isavailable on www.maintainourheritage.co.uk

06 21

buildings in these authorities’ ownership. Theproposed heritage champions to be appointed byeach local authority could take on the role ofpromoting such strategies.

6.1.2 Statutory duty of care or minimummaintenance codeThere should be a statutory duty of care on owners to maintain listed buildings or provision for localalternatives such as US-style minimum maintenancecodes. Government and the lead bodies should debate legislative changes in response to the HeritageProtection Review. Such changes could only beintroduced if accompanied by measures to helpowners meet their new responsibilities.

A statutory duty of care was recently advocated bythe heritage sector.74

Subject to suitable amendments to the presentlisted building enforcement powers, a statutoryduty of care would give the local authority powers to require maintenance works to be undertaken.This would enable them to intervene at a muchearlier point in the process of decay than is the case with existing Repairs and Urgent Worksnotices, before extensive damage is done andirreplaceable historic fabric is lost. If a localauthority was able to require earlier and less costly works to be undertaken under a minimummaintenance code or by enforcing a statutory dutyof care to maintain a listed building, it might have more success in enforcing such a demandthan a Repairs or Urgent Works notice.

A duty of care or minimum maintenance codewould need to be suitably publicised to makeowners aware of it. This could be used to foster a greater understanding of the need formaintenance and could encourage owners toconsider the conservation of the historic fabric asone of their motivations to maintain the building to balance other objectives such as meetingfunctional needs (see section 6.5).

The Heritage Protection Review75 is a timely window of opportunity because of the link betweendesignation and a duty of care. A consultationprocess with owners and local authorities shouldfeed into the White Paper due to appear in 2005.

Ireland) has produced advice on suitable sources for owners and has an online Buildings at Risk database;68 Cadw plans to producemaintenance guidance for homeowners and offersfunding to encourage local authorities to undertakebuildings at risk surveys and to prepare registers of at risk buildings for their areas (over half ofWelsh authorities have registers in preparation or in place); and Historic Scotland already hasproduced guidance for owners (see box in section6.3.4.1) and has an online Buildings at Riskdatabase.69 Nevertheless, the leadership of the lead bodies both in the policy debate and in practiceand also in the wider UK context has so far beenminimal and reactive.

Meanwhile, there are signs that maintenance is rising on the agenda of the heritage sector. TheHeritage Forum has agreed five priorities for action by the heritage sector, of which one is:

‘Supporting maintenance and repair Identifying the scale of the maintenance and repairchallenge and the most effective mechanisms to address this, including effective action withGovernment.’70

A few local authorities (such as Newcastle CityCouncil,71 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk BoroughCouncil72 and Vale Royal Borough Council73) haveproduced maintenance guidance for listed buildingowners on maintenance issues in the context oftheir statutory conservation responsibilities. Theseguidelines are a welcome step in the right directionbut they need to be produced within the frameworkof a comprehensive maintenance strategy for thelisted buildings in a local area (developed with localowner co-operatives [see section 6.6.2]) and for the


RECOMMENDATIONS – WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Section 5 identified a series of factors which haveinhibited maintenance. This section outlines somepossible solutions.

6.1 RECONCILING POLICY AND LEGISLATION WITH CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES

The research findings demonstrate that publicpolicy and conservation practice need to catch upwith the recognised philosophy that maintenance is in the interests of the conservation of historicbuildings and materials.

6.1.1 Leadership and directionGovernment should lead the debate about how tointegrate maintenance into conservation policy andpractice. Policy initiatives should be timed to tie inwith other proposals to maximise the effectiveness of their implementation.

A UK-wide debate is required to initiate thedevelopment of a strategy for maintenance. Such a strategy is the foundation upon which all efforts topromote maintenance must be built. The commitmentto a UK maintenance strategy must be initiated by a joint statement from the relevant bodies. Heritageorganisations, heritage amenity groups and localauthorities need to co-ordinate the UK maintenanceeffort for listed buildings and provide clear policy and practice proposals to government. The strategymust include an implementation plan and proposehow the implementation will be monitored.

Leadership from Government is essential. Forexample, the DCMS in England should follow up itsendorsement of maintenance in ‘A Force for ourFuture’.65 Government 66 sets the agenda and tonefor legislative and policy changes, but guidance onthe direction of legislative and policy changesneeds to come from organisations that areexperienced in the issues of maintenance andconservation.

The lead bodies have begun the process ofpromoting maintenance and discussingmaintenance practice. English Heritage, forexample, requires maintenance plans before repairgrants will be awarded to places of worship (andincludes guidance on such plans in the grantpacks), has supported advice to owners,67 producesan annual register of grade I and II* buildings atrisk (all grades in London) and backs this research;Environment and Heritage Service (Northern


65 DCMS, 2001, p.36

66 By ‘Government’, we mean HMG for England and the devolved administrations in NorthernIreland, Scotland and Wales.

67 IHBC, 2002

68 www.ehsni.gov.uk/built/mbr/barni_database/barni.asp

69 www.buildingsatrisk.org.uk

70 Prioritising Heritage – working better together, Heritage Forum, April 2004. Progress will be reportedto the Historic Environment Review ExecutiveCommittee (HEREC), which meets quarterly, andreviewed by the next annual Heritage Forum in 2005.

71 Newcastle City Council, 2003

72 Arup Research + Development, 2003a, p20 &.A23

73 www.valeroyal.gov.uk

74 English Heritage, 2000

75 DCMS, 2003 and DCMS, 2004

An extract from Guidance for Historic and Listed Building Owners,produced by Vale Royal Borough Council, Cheshire. The booklet has been sent to the owners of every listed building in the Borough.

06 23

A zero VAT rate on maintenance works and repairsto listed buildings would remove the inconsistencyin the current system whereby owners are beingrewarded for demolishing or making alterations totheir listed building (currently zero rated) ratherthan seeking to maintain or repair it (currentlycharged at the full rate of 17.5% and irretrievablefor non-VAT-registered occupiers). The zero rate ofVAT that applies to new-build residential buildingsalso encourages new-build applications rather than proposals to maintain, repair and re-use listeddomestic buildings. This policy flies in the face ofsustainable housing provision. English Heritage has called for the introduction of a flat rate of VAT to be charged on all construction work to removethese anomalies.82

6.3.3 Consistent monitoring of condition using Buildings at Risk toolThe existing Buildings at Risk scheme should be developed into an active listed building informationtool to monitor and encourage owners’ maintenanceof listed buildings. It should be an interactive, web-based database of listed buildings, updatable byowners as and when they undertake maintenancework and linking in with the concept of owners’logbooks and Home Information Packs and a widerproperty recording system.

Local authority Buildings at Risk work is oftencomplex and time-consuming and is frequently alow priority.83 To develop the tool into a morecomprehensive, practical, updatable and analysablesystem will require greater resourcing by localauthorities, better training and continued supportfor Buildings at Risk Officer posts within localauthorities. The register of Buildings at Risk can bekept updated by local authority officers undertakingrapid visual inspection surveys of listed propertiesand requesting feedback from the owners. ValeRoyal Borough Council has undertaken a trial ofthis exercise and has had positive feedback,particularly in terms of the level of communicationthat has resulted between the owners and Council.

Such a system should be designed so that in thelong term it could be merged with listed buildingdescriptions to form a co-ordinated, UK-wide,record of buildings and works to them. TheBuildings at Risk tool could be used pro-actively togenerate ideas and action for redundant buildingsfrom private individuals and companies.

there will always be the need for repair support insome cases. Nevertheless, if there is a genuineshift towards encouraging and supporting plannedmaintenance (which encompasses foreseeablemaintenance and cyclical repair programmes), thenthe demand on the repair grant budgets could bedramatically reduced.

The public also needs to be reassured that BestValue is being obtained from grant funding and that such funding is sustainable. The AuditCommission could address this issue by assessingthe relative long term value of repair- andmaintenance-focused grants given by public grant-giving bodies. If public money is to be re-directedtowards maintenance, the Treasury and grant-giving bodies will have to debate how to resolve the issue of funding revenue as opposed to capitalactivities.

Britain is the only European country not to allowtaxation relief for maintaining heritage property –not even for those properties that are open to thepublic.80 In Holland, for example, there is a systemof subsidy, low interest loans and tax breaks. Homeowners may deduct maintenance costs from theproperty tax they pay. The claim on major repairstax breaks is reducing as investment inmaintenance increases.81

In sum, a more balanced system of controls andassistance is needed to reflect the public benefit of building conservation. Further work on theseparation and quantification of the private andpublic benefits of conservation would help toquantify appropriate levels of public financialsupport (see section 6.4).

6.3.2 Removal of VAT anomaliesHeritage bodies and owners should continue to press the Treasury and the EU to remove VATanomalies, either by adjustments to VAT rates onmaintenance, repairs and alterations, or by grant aid for maintenance works to listed buildingsequivalent to at least part of the VAT burden (asapplies currently to listed places of worship), at least initially in areas of social deprivation.


6.3 SUPPORT FOR OWNERS

Government and the lead bodies should mount a public campaign recognising the role of listedbuilding owners in caring for the UK’s historicenvironment and expressing public support forowners with practical advice and appropriateincentives.

Whether or not a statutory duty of care isintroduced, more financial and practical support for maintenance should be made available by public agencies to owners of listed buildings inrecognition of their vital role in conserving ourhistoric environment for the public good.

6.3.1 Maintenance grants and fiscal incentivesThe grant-giving bodies need to enter into a publicdebate about the need to change the emphasis oflisted building grants criteria to reward owners bygiving money for maintenance and not only for repairand conservation. The lead bodies need to report onprogress in meeting the shift in emphasis proposed in ‘A Force for our Future’.77

The heritage sector has earlier pointed out that:

‘Repair grants may seem to reward neglect,penalizing prudent owners who have maintainedtheir property in good condition at their ownexpense.’ 78

English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund havemade a step in the right direction by beginning toattach maintenance conditions to repair grants79

but a more radical approach is now required tointegrate the commitment to maintenance andplanned repairs into grant-making policy.

The lead bodies in fact have been empowered togrant aid maintenance for over 50 years under theHistoric Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 S3A (1) which vested in the predecessors tothe lead bodies the power to:

‘make grants for defraying all or part of anyexpenditure on the repair or maintenance of anybuilding... which appears... to be of outstandingarchitectural or historic interest’.

Such a provision carries an implied duty on thoseempowered to consider using the powers available.

Disrepair can result from unforeseen events oreventually from the expiry of materials, even whenregular maintenance has been undertaken, and so

6.2 MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES

The lead bodies and local authorities need to develop best practice processes and procedures in conservation maintenance management to pass on the experience of good practice to owners.

The research recommends that regional andnational organisations need to ensure proper co-ordination of their maintenance philosophy,policies, programmes and practice for individualbuildings, estates and regions. This co-ordinationneeds to occur within the context of eachorganisation’s overall objectives and strategy.

A Best Value Key Performance Indicator for theHistoric Environment requiring local authorityheritage assets to be properly managed is beingpiloted in October-November 2004 with a view to its introduction for 2005-6.76 Key PerformanceIndicators (KPIs) relating to the property portfoliosof local authorities might encourage bettermanagement of the maintenance of their portfolios.The Audit Commission could play a role here, usingKPIs and the concept of Best Value to encourageand monitor the maintenance of local authoritybuildings and evaluate public grant-giving (seesection 6.3.1).

There has been much progress in the concept andimplementation of conservation and managementplans for listed buildings. The advice for thepreparation of these plans needs to be amended to integrate fully the concept of maintenance.


76 The KPI is expected to be: (a) number of local authorityowned historic assets in the local authority area; (b) %which have a management plan in place. The purposeof this indicator is to ensure that local authorityowned historic assets are managed in a way thatengenders local pride and promotes cultural andeconomic benefit to their communities. These assetsare often what give a locality character and should bethe showcase for Local Authority stewardship. Toensure effective stewardship local authorities need acomprehensive list of the historic assets for whichthey are responsible. The expectation is that eachhistoric asset has a management plan in place, whichreflects the findings of regular, ideally quinquennial,condition surveys. See also English Heritage, 2003a.

77 DCMS, 2001

78 Consultation papers issued by English Heritage inJune 2000 as part of the Review of Policies Relatingto the Historic Environment.

79 English Heritage, 2003b

80 Evidence from the Historic Houses Association to theHistoric Environment Review 2000.

81 UWE, 2003a, p.26; and Historic Houses Association, 2003

82 English Heritage, 2003c

83 Oxford Brookes University for IHBC/English Heritage, 2003

06 25

6.4 ASSESSING THE COSTS AND VALUE OFMAINTENANCE OVER TIME

The grant-giving bodies need to fund research into evidence for cost savings from maintenance.Further research is required on life costinginformation for historic buildings (using the physicalevidence of their performance in use) to expandUWE’s predictive financial model. Further research is required on the comparative costs of planned andreactive maintenance programmes.

If owners are to be encouraged to undertake moremaintenance, further work is needed to demonstratethe costs and value of maintenance tasks.

Owners need to be able to evaluate the comparativecosts and benefits of preventative and reactivemaintenance programmes. Part of this exercise will involve the estimation of life-cycles of buildingelements and the valuation of cultural valuesattached to a property. If records are kept, thesecalculations can be reviewed periodically to monitorthe accuracy of previous estimates and works.

The financial model proposed by the UWE researchhas to be developed to include the financial costs of different approaches. For example, the cost oflarge repairs in the future might require expensivefunding arrangements that would tie up the owner’s resources in a different way than fundingmore regular maintenance tasks.

The research found that preventative maintenanceis cost-effective if focused on key elements such asroofs and rainwater goods or elements which wouldaffect significant areas if they failed. Remotemonitoring of vital building elements or likely failpoints should be investigated as a means of regularinspection, especially of less accessible areas ofhistoric buildings and without incurring large accesscosts. Remote monitoring could also provideinformation that could be used in assessing life-cycle costs.

6.3.4.2 Home Information Packs and LogbooksThe proposed Home Information Packs should cover maintenance undertaken as well as a snapshot condition report. Consideration should be given to upgrading the packs into logbooks. The role of local authorities in managing thisinformation should be examined.

Listed building information should also form part of, or be linked to, the forthcoming HomeInformation Packs to be provided by sellers ofhouses (whether listed or not). These packs willbring together, at the start of the home buying and selling process, important information such as a home condition report.89 Owners could beencouraged to build up a maintenance history of their property analogous to the service history of cars.

Some local authorities currently include a simplebut clear explanation of the implications of historicbuilding ownership with a Local Land ChargesSearch. Buyers then have an indication of theirfuture responsibilities and cannot claim ignoranceof the status of their building at a later date. Thisbest practice should be more widespread.90

The idea of a maintenance logbook should bepursued, by designing an appropriate package andforming links with information that will be providedin Home Information Packs. Path-finding work hasbeen done, for example in Bedford Park in westLondon.91


6.3.4 Providing information and advice

6.3.4.1 Maintenance information and adviceThe lead bodies should use the Heritage ProtectionReview to define what useful and practical informationshould be provided at the point of listing and attachedto the listing information, so that whenever the buildingis sold, information is passed on to the next owner.

The relevant heritage bodies need to work together toset up a one-stop information shop providing practicalinformation for the owners of listed buildings. Regionalsub-sections would respond to local differences inmaterials and sources. In the first instance the one-stop shop would collate existing information sources,advisory information and contacts from organisationsalready providing such information.

A major opportunity is about to arise in England for better information and advice for owners. Thisfollows the Government’s decision under theReview of Heritage Protection that English Heritagewill produce an information pack:

‘The Government believes that owners and tenantsare more likely to take pride in conserving theirproperty if they are better informed both aboutwhat makes it important and also how best to keepit in good condition… This [information pack]would… be presented positively to encourageowners to be proud of the asset they own and towant to look after it.’ 84

Similar information packs should be supplied to the owners of all existing listed buildings, not justnewly-designated ones.

Existing means of providing advice, such as thevarious accreditation schemes and the SPABTechnical Helpline, should continue and beenhanced, and linked into the new system ofmaintenance guidance. SPAB, in conjunction withthe IHBC85, and Historic Scotland (see box) havepublished booklets promoting good maintenancepractice for listed building owners: suchpublications need to be developed and madeavailable to every listed building owner.


89 The Housing Bill (which completed its House ofCommons stages on 12 January 2004 and had itssecond reading in the House of Lords on 7 June2004) introduces a new legal duty on peoplemarketing residential properties in England andWales. The seller or, more usually, their estateagent must have a home information pack ofstandard documents available for prospectivebuyers.

90 Ipswich Borough Council has operated thisarrangement since 1999.

91 Arup Research + Development, 2003a. p20 & A21-2

84 DCMS, 2004

85 IHBC, 2002

86 Historic Scotland, 2003b

87 Historic Scotland, 2003a

88 SPAB, 2003

The heritage sector does not need to wait forlegislation or financial support for maintenance tomake a vital step towards better maintenancepractice: improving the provision of information andadvice about maintenance would show leadership,bring together all the relevant bodies and get themessage over to owners directly and quickly.

Historic Scotland has recently issued maintenanceadvice to homeowners in a short guide.86

The guide is written in lay language and seeks toexplain why maintenance is important in terms of the building’s use as a ‘home’. It is purposely aimed at homeowners generally rather than just listedbuilding owners.

The guide explains the benefits of maintenance; thedifferences between traditional and modern buildingconstruction; areas of a house that often needmaintenance; advice on how often and how to inspecta house, including safety considerations; elements inthe curtilage of the house that might need attention;when repairs might be needed and how to findsuitable tradespeople; the implications of listing andthe possibility of repair grants; and offers usefuladdresses, further reading and a glossary of terms.The guide includes a checklist to help the owner runthrough and record the likely elements ofmaintenance; and gives advice on possible defects,likely causes and suggested repairs.

Specific advice for looking after sash and casewindows has been published in a similar but separateguide that also explains the historical interest anddevelopment of windows.87

The London Borough of Southwark is promoting the maintenance of privately-owned housing.It sees preventative maintenance as a key element of its sustainable housing strategy. It has produced a Home Maintenance Checklist and videos (withcomedian Stephen Frost). It is considering amaintenance service for homeowners and is offeringsurveys on a trial basis to gauge demand.88

06 27

6.6.3.1 Skills needs and certification schemesThe lead bodies and professional and industry bodiesneed to develop an integrated approach wherebyconsultants’ and contractors’ qualifications andexperience on maintenance and conservation projectsare certified by extending existing professional bodyaccreditation schemes, supported by structured CPDschemes and other certification schemes.

As well as recording and monitoring suppliers’ skills,Government needs to support appropriate training andeducation bodies to develop and promote maintenanceskills for non-historic and historic properties includingdiagnostic skills, maintenance needs and planningadvice, access techniques, basic maintenance andspecialist conservation maintenance skills.

The concept of accreditation has been gaining inacceptance and importance in the conservationsector in recent years. Historic Scotland and EnglishHeritage will require applicants for grants receivedand accepted after 1 April 2004 to have an accreditedprofessional as the designated lead adviser. The UK-wide Edinburgh Group also created a Working Group(the ‘York Group’) that is currently working towardsdeveloping a common accreditation assessmentstructure for professionals in the UK on grant aidedconservation projects.

A conservation skills certification needs to sitalongside the accreditation schemes run byprofessional bodies. It should be open to otherprofessionals such as planners and facilitiesmanagers working in conservation, as well as thewider group of non-professionals includingbuilders and developers.

In scope it should embrace not only the skilledconservation work required on grant-aided repairprojects, but also general repair and maintenancework, safe access techniques and an awareness ofconservation issues. Ingval Maxwell of HistoricScotland suggests that the development of astructured suite of CPD support units (that shouldsit in tandem with the accreditation initiatives)could be adapted to cover this wider scope.96

Good work has begun to promote the uptake of on-site maintenance and conservation training that can count towards the achievement of NVQqualifications (that can then ensure eligibility forthe CSCS [Construction Skills Certificate Scheme]card).97 CSCS cards (administered by CITB-

connected to difficult access and working withhistoric materials.

Access can be a deterrent to owners undertakingmaintenance either because they are unaware ofaccess solutions, they think it will be too costly orthey fear it will generate too much disruption.

Further research is required to analyse how manybuildings suffer from awkward access and tosuggest targeted solutions eg to certain buildingtypes such as churches. The lead bodies and localauthorities need to provide information on sourcesof access equipment and on how to set up means ofsharing access equipment between like buildingsor buildings in the same locality.

Remote monitoring devices could be used to avoid the cost and disruption of regular access to awkward elements of a building for inspectionpurposes. Also preventative devices could be usedto avoid the need for access to difficult areas forregular maintenance tasks.95

Owners, local heritage bodies and local authoritiesneed to form local maintenance co-operatives forowners with similar buildings to benefit from teamaction, hiring discounts, shared experience andshared training.

6.6.3 Finding skilled suppliers to undertakeinspections and maintenanceOwners need to be able to source consultants andcontractors for maintenance advice and works whoare reputable and experienced in conservationmatters.


Incentives should be devised to appeal to the typicalprofile of the listed building owner surveyed in theresearch – mainly over the age of 34, employed orretired, on a good income and from the professionaland managerial occupations.93 For example,evidence could be sought to demonstrate that goodmaintenance practices could improve the assetvalue of their property. Alternatively, owners couldbe offered reduced interest rates on mortgages orreduced insurance premiums if they signed up to a maintenance service.

More than 40% of the owners surveyed expect to be in their home for 10 years or more. Just over aquarter of the owners expect to be in their home forless than 10 years. (The remainder of respondentsdid not know).94

These findings suggest that almost half of ownersexpect to be in their homes long enough to bemotivated to undertake longer term, plannedmaintenance to the property. Expectations of ashorter stay might encourage a shorter term, morereactive maintenance approach. Incentives shouldbe devised to appeal to the owner’s desire toimprove their home and to improve their home’sappearance.

There are cashflow advantages to maintenance,compared to sporadic repairs, in terms of spreadingthe cost of works over time. These need to be speltout both to homeowners and budget holders incommercial organisations.

6.6 FACILITATING MAINTENANCE

The lead bodies need to publish guidance oninsurance, health & safety and access issues todiscuss issues relevant to maintenance managementand suggest solutions.

6.6.1 InsuranceThe lead bodies need to discuss with the insuranceindustry possible solutions to the various issuesraised by the research; for example, the question of insuring non-professional suppliers to provideinspection services.

6.6.2 Health & safety and access issuesEnglish Heritage is producing guidelines on health & safety issues connected to maintenanceand other works on listed buildings. The guidanceneeds to address issues of health & safety


92 English Heritage, 2002

93 UWE, 2003b, pp.35-39

94 UWE, 2003b, p.36

95 Arup Research + Development, 2003a. pp.9-12

96 Maxwell, 2003

97 For example, CITB-ConstructionSkills’programme of On-site Assessment and Training(OSAT). See examples of The Teach Project atWaxham Barn, Norfolk (R.G. Carter Group andNorfolk County Council); and at Faenol Estate,Wales (Linford-Bridgman Ltd).

6.5 MOTIVATING OWNERS TO UNDERTAKEMAINTENANCE

It is necessary to apply the research findings on the motivations of owners to undertake maintenance,to design effective ways of communicating theimportance and value of maintenance to differenttypes of owner and to target the means ofincentivising them.

Domestic buildings represent over a third (38%) of listed building entries.92 Given that domesticbuildings represent such a large proportion of thehistoric environment, it is vital that the needs andconcerns of individual owners are addressed.

Possible dangers can also motivate owners.Metre-long pieces of stone fell onto the pavement in Darlington Street, Bath, when a length of parapetcollapsed in a row of Georgian town houses. Theincident happened fortunately at 11pm and no onewas hurt but some alarm was caused among propertyowners across the city. Bath & North East SomersetCouncil officers said owners of Georgian housesshould have them regularly checked: ‘Routinemaintenance is vital, but it isn’t always easy on thesebuildings… But buildings are just like cars, you needto keep looking under the bonnet so you notice ifanything is not in its proper order… Buildingmaintenance prevents danger.’

06 29

6.7 MARKET SOLUTIONS

The repair and maintenance sector accounts for46% of construction output value (during the period1990-2000).99 The question is what proportion ofthose contractors undertaking repair work could be persuaded to focus on maintenance services and on historic buildings.

The supply might not present insuperable problems,given some re-training on conservation issues.Nevertheless, industry and training bodies need to debate these re-training issues in the context of other construction labour supply requirementsthat might divert potential suppliers away fromconservation (eg over 83,000 new recruits neededbetween 2003 and 2007).100

The research suggests that market solutions are notgoing to materialise unless the policy environmentimproves to encourage owners to undertakemaintenance. The following sub-sections discussalternative market initiatives that might emerge inresponse to demand and how they could be sustained.

6.7.1 New maintenance products and servicesStudies need to be undertaken to assess the feasibility of new products such as maintenancemonitoring technologies and insurance-linkedmaintenance inspection contracts along the lines of heating and plumbing schemes.

If current attitudes prevail against the supply ofmaintenance services in the conventional sense,then new innovative products will have to bedeveloped to appeal to the various motivations of owners to maintain their properties.


6.6.3.2 Apprenticeship schemes The lead bodies and professional bodies need todevelop apprenticeship schemes whereby apprenticeconsultants’ and contractors’ experience onconservation projects is developed, monitored and evaluated.

Following the example of the Heritage Lottery Fund,other grant-giving bodies must make training plansa condition of grants to encourage more on-siteschemes. There is certainly no shortage of demandfor apprenticeship placements: a recent scheme in Scotland received over three applicants for each placement. CITB-ConstructionSkills providesgrants to construction companies to developtraining plans.

6.6.3.3 Sourcing advice on suppliersThe conservation sector needs to debate how to feedadvice and information about local suppliers providingconservation services into the proposed one-stopinformation shop.

There is an opportunity to link certificationschemes with the proposed one-stop shop ofinformation and a database of references. Although one organisation (such as the RICS, CITB-Construction Skills or Property Services NTO)could administer such a record, it should have a co-ordinated public image to benefit conservationrather than any one particular professional body or discipline.

6.6.4 Sourcing materialsAs well as sourcing suitably competent suppliers to undertake inspections and maintenance work,owners need advice on where to find suitablematerials. In some cases, where appropriatetraditional materials are not available, advice onmodern alternatives is required. The proposed one-stop shop should be the corner stone forproviding this advice.

Construction Skills) allow operatives with NVQ Level 3 qualifications or apprenticeship training toobtain recognised certification of their experience.With additional conservation units, they canprogress to a CSCS card with conservationendorsement.98 There could be endorsements for inspections, basic maintenance and morespecialist conservation skills.

The National Heritage Training Group (NHTG) isalso examining existing Master Crafts qualificationswith the aim of developing a single qualification that satisfies the needs of industry and providesconsistent standards for clients. Owners need to be made aware of this scheme, once it is finalised,so they can check the qualifications of operativesthey employ.

The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is setting up a£4million ‘Training Bursary Scheme’ for heritageskills. In its announcement, HLF said:

‘Traditional heritage skills are at risk of dying out inthe UK. Today, there are less than 40,000 craftsmenwith the necessary specialist skills to maintain ourhistoric environment… (the Scheme is) to keep aliveessential heritage skills such as harling, pargeting,flint knapping, heather thatching, dry stone walling,stone masonry, frieze restoration, gold leafing andhedgelaying… A wide range of organisations, including local authorities, development agencies,professional and education bodies and community and voluntary organisations, will be able to apply for bursaries to train employees. Training will beundertaken in the work place by master craftsmen or experts in relevant fields.’


98 The first CSCS cards with conservationendorsement were achieved in November 2002.

99 CITB, 2002

100 CITB, 2003

101 RCI, 2003. p.5

As owners see maintenance monitoring as astraight forward task, products to help themundertake monitoring themselves could bedeveloped and promoted. Examples include CCTVobservations of hard-to-reach parts of the building,damp-activated alarms and so on.

There is the potential for some innovative, nicheinsurance companies to develop products that existfor heating and plumbing systems, like the BritishGas HomeCare service, and to apply them to theexternal envelope of a building. This scheme hasrecently been extended to include internalplumbing systems as well as the heating system, so it is not inconceivable that further options mightbe added. The importance of ‘home’ tohomeowners (as demonstrated by the research)must support the case for this type of product.Clearly premiums would have to account for thetype, structure and materials of a building. It may be possible to link insurance guarantees toaccredited or certified supplier schemes.

Maintenance contracts could also be offered as part of build packages to uphold guarantees on previousworks: an annual inspection of the roof of Ivybridgetennis centre by the maintenance division of roofingand cladding specialist Progressive Systems unveiledno less than 361 tennis balls blocking the gutters.101

‘The gutters were overflowing,’ said ProgressiveSystems Director, Paul Wood. 'Staff at the centrethought there was a problem with the workmanship of the building…I think they were quite embarrassed!’.

A1 31

APPENDIX 1MEMBERS OF THE STEERING AND TASK GROUPS

THE STEERING GROUP

Chair: Fred Taggart, Regeneration through HeritageVice-Chair: Bob Kindred, Institute of Historic Building ConservationMaintain our Heritage:Dr Tanya Spilsbury, Timothy CantellBuild Assured: Philip HorsnallDTI: Malcolm Potter (Davis Langdon Consultancy)English Heritage: Joy RussellHeritage Building Contractors Group: Ian ConstantinidesHeritage Lottery Fund: Kate ClarkUniversity of the West of England: Derek Worthing

THE TASK GROUP

Chair: Bob Kindred, Institute of Historic BuildingConservation (also representing Local GovernmentAssociation Heritage Advisors)Maintain our Heritage:Dr Tanya Spilsbury, Timothy CantellAssociation of British Insurers:Dr Sebastian CatovskyBritish Institute of Facilities Management:Richard Davies (also representing CharteredInstitute of Building Services Engineers)Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments: Alan RichardsChartered Institute of Building: Chris WilliamsConstruction Industry Research and InformationAssociation: Arna Peric-MatthewsCITB-ConstructionSkills: Lee BryerEnvironment & Heritage Service: Brian McKerveyHeritage Information: Dorian CroneHistoric Scotland: Ingval Maxwell, Eddie TaitInstitute of Historic Building Conservation:David LovieInstitute of Maintenance and BuildingManagement: David AllenNational Trust: Rory CullenSociety for the Protection of Ancient Buildings:David Lodge

Memberships as at April 2004


6.8 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS

Maintain our Heritage proposes sector discussions to disseminate the research findings and to initiatedebate about the issues raised by the research. Theproposed sector discussions are detailed in Appendix4. These discussions could then be aired and debatedmore widely at a Maintenance conference run by theconservation sector. If there was agreement, theformal process of drawing up the conservationstrategy could begin.

The proposed one-stop shop (section 6.3.4) or aseparate Maintenance Strategy Monitoring Unitcould undertake the role of co-ordinating thecontributions of relevant bodies.

The process of implementing the proposals willinvolve:

■ Agreeing who will co-ordinate the formulation of the strategy and monitor its implementation;

■ Agreeing the main strategic issues throughsectoral debates;

■ Identifying the organisations responsible forimplementation of specific tasks and how tomeasure the achievement of the tasks;

■ Monitoring the achievement of each proposal over the short, medium and long terms; and

■ Reviewing overall progress and agreeing nextsteps at regular intervals.


6.7.2 Niche marketsThe concentration of owners on specific annualtasks suggests a niche maintenance market forthese items.

92% of listed building owners surveyed undertakepainting, minor joinery or minor roof coveringsevery year. The average period between exteriorpaintings is 4 years. 87% of owners surveyedundertake gutter clearing each year.102

These figures suggest that listed building ownersare more likely to undertake maintenance thanproperty owners in general – suggesting that thelisted building market could be another nichemarket for maintenance contractors.

Some success has been had by contractors offering maintenance works as the principal taskand a maintenance survey as a bonus.103 If theinspections could be done for like buildings, orregionally, this approach would help to minimiseaccess and travel costs. Maintain our Heritage isinvestigating the opportunity of developing apublicly supported maintenance service in definedareas and for similar building types.

It is possible that a hybrid approach might work to combine aspects of owners’ requirements for a rapid response service, annual maintenancetasks and the reassurance of annual inspections.

102 UWE, 2003b, pp.13-14

103 As David Lodge did with 90 churches in EastAnglia: in this scheme, the costs of theinspections were just covered, and profitabilitywas achieved on the works by tackling all thechurches in a given period, thereby reducingcosts by saving on the hire of access equipmentand reducing travel time to the jobs.

A2 33

Historic buildings and wider applicationThe research took listed buildings as a manageablespecimen group. These historic buildings are anideal group for learning lessons applicable elsewherein the built environment. They are the most preciousand challenging part of the built environment andprevious developments have had wider applicationeg the pioneering reuse of historic buildings overthe last 30 years has demonstrated the benefits ofregenerative action. This is the sector that ought tobe the most assiduously maintained but it suffersfrom the same prevailing attitude as other sectorswith policy and practice directed at occasional andcostly repair. But the benefits of maintenance arenot confined to the heritage sector.

MoH and its partners emphasise that the principlesof preventative maintenance discussed and advocatedin this report apply to the overwhelming majority ofbuildings. Possible exceptions are buildings recentlycompleted; buildings designed for a short life; andbuildings designed, unusually and not alwayssuccessfully, for little or no maintenance.

Maintenance is defined in BS 7913 as:

‘Routine work necessary to keep the fabric of a building… in good order’.

It is hard to see a consensus on exactly wheremaintenance ceases and repair starts. BS 7913defines repair, as distinct from maintenance, as:

‘Work beyond the scope of regular maintenance to remedy defects, significant decay or damagecaused deliberately or by accident, neglect, normalweathering or wear and tear, the object of which is to return the building or artefact to good order,without alteration or restoration.’107

For the purposes of the research, UWE definedmaintenance to include a modest degree of repair,

‘Day-to-day activities such as cleaning, painting and minor repair relating to elements of a building.Maintenance seeks to extend the life of such elements and hence of the entire building.’ 108

and this interpretation is the basis for the definitionused in this report.

Maintenance attracts a number of prefacingadjectives such as systematic, preventative,planned, regular, pro-active, reactive, correctiveand others. This report is not the place to definethem all. The essence of maintenance in thedefinition adopted for this report, however, implies action that is:

Systematic – ‘day-to-day’ or month-to-month oryear-to-year on a planned cycle based on regularinspection; and

Preventative – ‘seeks to extend the life’, that is,action that will reduce or obviate the need forrepairs and will prevent the loss of original fabric.

A difficulty for historic buildings is that preventativemaintenance can result in the removal of historicfabric. For the purposes of this report, we confinethe definition of preventative maintenance to actionwhich aims to minimise the loss of original fabric.

The term ‘repair’ is used in the report to meanmajor repairs that involve the loss of original fabricand its replacement with new materials.

PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGEA232

APPENDIX 2WHAT IS MAINTENANCE?

Maintenance is defined here as activity such ascleaning, painting and minor repair carried outsystematically, that is on a planned cycle, often year-to-year, and based on regular inspection.Maintenance of historic buildings is most beneficial in conservation terms when it is preventative, that is intended to reduce or obviate the need for repairsso preventing the loss of original fabric.

‘Regular maintenance of an historic building… shouldalways be the first priority’ says English Heritage104

and the British Standard105 states:

‘Systematic care based on good maintenance and housekeeping is both cost effective andfundamental to good conservation.’

If maintenance is such a ‘high priority’ and so‘fundamental’ then it ought to have a clear andaccepted definition. But it does not.

The Burra Charter has set the standard forconservation of a building. It states thatconservation:

‘requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.’

and adds:

‘maintenance means the continuous and protectivecare of the fabric and setting of a place, and is to bedistinguished from repair. Repair involvesrestoration or reconstruction.’ 106


104 English Heritage 2001

105 BS 7913, 1998

106 The Burra Charter 1999, Article 1.5

107 BS 7913, 1998

108 UWE, September 2003 a, p.12. This modulereport contains a section on the Definition and Principles of Maintenance in conservationliterature and general maintenance literature(pp 33-35).

A3 35PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGEA334

APPENDIX 3SUMMARY OF TASKS FOR EACHRECOMMENDATION THEME

The short term is defined as being within the nextyear; the medium term is defined as being within thenext two to three years; and the long term is definedas being any longer period.

1 RECONCILING POLICY AND LEGISLATION WITHMAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY

Table 1.1: Summary of tasks for leadership and direction


Short term

Progress UK debate onmaintenance to producemaintenance strategy andimplementation plan. Bringmaintenance debate intodiscussions following HeritageProtection Review and into HomeInformation Packs proposals.

Develop strategy for the leadbodies’ own properties.

Continue to support awareness-raising initiatives such as MoH;annual events such as SPABNational Maintenance Week,National Gutters Day and thenational maintenanceconference; and maintenanceresearch projects.

Medium term

Pursue industry partnerships to foster maintenance focus.Monitor implementation ofmaintenance strategy.

Pursue public campaign torecognise role of owners andexpress support with advice and incentives.

Long term

Progress primary legislation to integrate philosophy intostatutory provisions.

Issue regular publications tosupport maintenance.

2 MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES

Table 2: Summary of tasks for promotion of best practice maintenance management processes and procedures

Short term

Research and develop bestpractice processes andprocedures. Lead bodies todevelop strategy, policies,processes and procedures andtools to implement maintenancemanagement for own properties.

Medium term

Publish guidance on bestpractice. Lead bodies to applystrategy, policies, processes andprocedures and tools.

Long term

Review and amend as necessary.Lead bodies to review strategy,policies, processes andprocedures and tools.

3 SUPPORT FOR OWNERS

Table 3.1:Summary of tasks for grant support and fiscal incentives

Short term

Research and debate the legaland financial impacts ofconcentrating on maintenancegrants rather than repair grants.

Medium term

Monitor implementation ofmaintenance conditions attachedto repair grants. Review fiscalincentives for maintenance.

Long term

Re-focus the grants system to concentrate on maintenance,not repairs.

Table 3.2:Summary of tasks for removal of VAT inconsistencies

Short term

Continue to press the case forVAT changes or financialincentives to compensate VATinconsistencies, at least in areasof social deprivation.

Medium term

Consider application of VATchanges to all listed buildings.

Long term

Table 3.3:Summary of tasks for monitoring of condition

Short term

Examine building informationneeds and how they can be keptup to date.

Medium term

Develop and expand BARs tool tocreate information database ofall listed buildings.

Long term

Keep listed building informationsystem live and accessible.

Table 1.2:Summary of tasks for statutory duty of care

Short term

Propose legislative changesunder Heritage Protection reviewto apply a new statutory duty ofcare on listed building owners.

Medium term

Incorporate new statutory duty ofcare into new designationlegislation.

Long term

Monitor impacts of statutory duty of care.

A3 37PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGEA336 PUTTING IT OFF


Table 3.4:Summary of tasks for provision of information

Short term

Co-ordinate proposals for newone-stop shop.

Examine information needs andhow they can be distributed andkept up to date.

Use Heritage Protection Review’sInformation for Ownerscommittee to define informationthat is required in HomeInformation Packs. Discuss withsolicitors and estate agents andlocal owners the best way todistribute information to newowners.

Develop logbooks as tool forrecording works by adaptingwork done at Bedford ParkConservation Area. Link in withHome Information Packs.

Define and collate informationon local sources, techniques andprocesses and hold library at LAoffices.

Medium term

Support set up of new one-stopshop.

Link listed building records withguidance and information aboutprocesses, sources andsuppliers.

Design Listed Building sectionpro forma to incorporate inHome Information Packs.

Publish guidance and pro formaon logbooks. Arrange localgroups to publicise logbooks anddistribute to all owners.

Support local provision ofinformation by providing requirednational information. Fundresearch into local informationand suppliers. Feed informationinto one-stop shop.

Long term

Review success of one-stopshop.

Keep information system liveand accessible.

Review pro forma regularly tocheck relevance of informationrequirements.

Review use of logbooks andamend process if necessary.

Review information provision andpropose amendments wherenecessary.

4 ASSESSING COST SAVINGS OF MAINTENANCE OVER TIME

Table 4:Summary of tasks for developing evidence of cost savings

Short term

Fund research into cost savingsfrom maintenance. Expand UWEresearch; undertake more lifecycle costing relevant to historicbuildings.

Medium term

Compare costs of differentprogrammes for conservation,including costs of differentfunding implications. Suggestprioritisation approaches.Publish findings.

Long term

Fund regular reviews ofevidence. Absorb evidenceregularly and respond.

5 MOTIVATING OWNERS

Table 5:Summary of tasks for developing responses to different owner motivations to do maintenance

Short term

Absorb findings aboutmotivations of different ownersand propose incentives to suit.

Medium term

Propose incentives and lobbyrelevant governmentdepartments and private bodiesto implement.

Long term

Review motivations of differentowners regularly and amendincentives to suit.

6 FACILITATING MAINTENANCE

Table 6.1:Summary of tasks for allaying concerns on insurance, health & safety and access issues

Short term

Publish guidance on insurance,health & safety and accessissues.

Publish guidance on local issueseg specific H&S issues for localtypes of building or materials.

Medium term

Fund set up of access equipmentpools and local maintenance co-operatives. Proposemaintenance weeks to be sharedbetween owners of like buildingsor in similar area.

Give local co-operativesguidance on maintenanceprocess.

Long term

Regularly review and amendwhere necessary.

Review performance ofmaintenance cooperatives.

A4 39

APPENDIX 4SECTOR DISCUSSIONS TO DISSEMINATEAND DEBATE RESEARCH FINDINGS TO BE HELD IN EARLY 2005

PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGEA338 PUTTING IT OFF


Table 6.2:Summary of tasks for skills and materials issues

Short term

Define skills and training neededfor inspections and maintenancetasks. Using existing groups, egNHTG, review supply of skills andtraining. Propose solutions toskills gaps.

Review any overlap betweenmaintenance skills andprofessional accreditationschemes.

Source suppliers and materialsadvice and information.

Medium term

Monitor implementation ofproposed solutions. Developapprenticeship schemes formaintenance work.

Develop proposals forcertification scheme for buildersundertaking maintenanceinspections and tasks.

Review maintenance grants andpossibility of conditions foraccredited builders.

Feed into one-stop shop.

Long term

Continuously review and react to skills issues.

Set up certification scheme forbuilders.

Update information in one-stopshop.

Target participants

Heritage owner bodies

Owners

Construction & insurance industries

Government departments & agencies, localgovernment

For further information:[email protected]: 01225 482228

Recommendations to discuss

Maintenance management process & procedures,best practice, cost savings

Incentives, duty of care, motivations, information & encouragement for owners,mechanisms to reach owners

Maintenance services, health & safety, training,accreditation, information & encouragement forowners

Leadership, debate, strategy, duty of care,incentives, VAT, BAR, information &encouragement for owners, grants, advisory unit

7 MARKET SOLUTIONS

Table 7:Summary of tasks to develop new products and services

Short term

Fund set up of new maintenancesupply services. Fund feasibilitystudies into new products, suchas maintenance-monitoringtechnologies and insurance-linked services.

Medium term

Set up new services andproducts in niche markets.

Long term

Review new services andproducts.

8 IMPLEMENTATION

Table 8:Summary of tasks to implement maintenance strategy

Short term

Hold sector discussions todisseminate research findings.Hold conference to debateproposals. Draw up formalstrategy and agree who willmonitor its implementation.

Medium term

Each identified body toimplement allocated tasks.Monitor progress ofimplementation.

Long term

Review overall progress andassess next steps at regularintervals.

41

ABBREVIATIONS

KPI Key Performance Indicator

Joint Committee Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies

LA(s) Local authority (-ies)

LGA Local Government Association

LPOC Listed Property Owners Club

MEP Member of the European Parliament

MoH Maintain our Heritage

NHS National Health Service

NHTG National Heritage Training Group

NT National Trust

NTO National Training Organisation

NVQ National Vocational Qualification

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

PSNTO Property Services National Training Organisation

RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects

RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

SAVE SAVE Britain’s Heritage

SPABSociety for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UWE University of the West of England, Bristol

VAT Value Added Tax

ABI Association of British Insurers

BAR Buildings at Risk

BIFM British Institute of Facilities Management

BS British Standard

BSI British Standards Institution

Cadw Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments

CIOB Chartered Institute of Building

CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association

CITB-Construction Skills Construction Industry Training Board-Construction Skills (formerlyCITB; now part of Construction Skills Sector Skills Council)

CPD Continuing Professional Development

CSCS Construction Skills Certification Scheme

DCMS Department of Culture, Media and Sport

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

EC European Commission

EH English Heritage

EHS Environment & Heritage Service (Northern Ireland)

EU European Union

HHA Historic Houses Association

H&S Health and Safety

HBCG Heritage Building Contractors Group

HIT Heritage Information Trust

HLF Heritage Lottery Fund

HMG Her Majesty’s Government

HS Historic Scotland

HSE Health and Safety Executive

ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites

IHBC Institute of Historic Building Conservation

IMBM Institute of Maintenance and Building Management

PUTTING IT OFFMAINTAIN OUR HERITAGE40 PUTTING IT OFF


43

Historic Houses Association (2003): HistoricProperties Maintenance Relief: submission to theDCMS, Historic Houses Association, London.

Historic Scotland (2003): Look After Your Home and Avoid Expensive Repairs, on www.historic-scotland.gov.uk

Historic Scotland (2003a): Looking after your sashand case windows: a short guide for homeowners,Historic Scotland, Edinburgh.

Historic Scotland (2003b): Maintaining your home: a short guide for homeowners, Historic Scotland,Edinburgh.

IHBC (2002): A stitch in time: advice for buildingowners, IHBC (in association with the SPAB),Tisbury.

IHBC, English Heritage, Oxford Brookes University(2003): Local Authority Conservation Provision, IHBC(in association with English Heritage and OxfordBrookes), London.

Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies(1999): The impact of the current VAT regime on thebuilding industry, London.

Maxwell, I. (2003): Accreditation in Historic BuildingConservation: The work of the Edinburgh Group,paper delivered at the Historic Buildings, Parks and Gardens conference, 18th November 2003.

Newcastle City Council (2003): Grainger TownMaintenance Manual, Newcastle City Council,Newcastle.

Oxford Brookes University for IHBC/EnglishHeritage (2003): Local Authority ConservationProvision study, IHBC/English Heritage.

RCI (2003): ‘You can’t be serious!’ in RoofingCladding & Insulation, December, p.5.

English Heritage (2000): Power of Place: Theheritage sector’s response to the Government’s callfor a review of policies on the historic environment inEngland, English Heritage, London.

English Heritage (ed. Clark, K.) (2001): InformedConservation: Understanding historic buildings andtheir landscapes for conservation, English Heritage,London.

English Heritage (2002): The State of the HistoricEnvironment Report, English Heritage, London.

English Heritage (2003a): Managing Local AuthorityHeritage Assets – some guiding principles for decisionmakers, English Heritage, London (withDepartment of Culture, Media & Sport and theOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister).

English Heritage (2003b): Repair grants for places ofworship in England 2002-2005, Guidance notes andcontract conditions, English Heritage, London.

English Heritage (2003c): VAT: Seize the time,English Heritage, London.

English Heritage (2003d): Heritage Counts 2003: The State of England’s Historic Environment, EnglishHeritage, London

Heritage Link (2003): ‘LOBBY YOUR MEP ON VAT!’in Heritage Link Update No 35 – 14th November 2003,para. 7.

Heritage Lottery Fund (2001): The Horizons ofHeritage: Towards the new Strategic Plan for theHeritage Lottery Fund, Heritage Lottery Fund,London.

Heritage Lottery Fund: Training plans – helping your application, Heritage Lottery Fund, London.

Herzog, T. R. & Shier, R. L. (2000): ‘Complexity, age and building preference,’ in Environment &Behaviour, Vol.32, No.4, July, pp.557-75.

Historic Houses Association (2001): Survey intoEnglish Heritage grant aid, Historic HousesAssociation, London.


REFERENCES

Arup Research + Development (on behalf ofMaintain our Heritage) (2003a): Maintaining Value –Module 4: Technology – a review of products andservices within the field of preventative inspection and maintenance of buildings, Arup Research +Development, London.

Arup Research + Development (on behalf ofMaintain our Heritage) (2003b): Maintaining Value –Module 5: Demand and Supply: Building the BusinessCase for Planned Maintenance, Arup Research +Development, London.

Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) (2002):CITB Skills Foresight Report 2002, CITB, London.

Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) (2003):CITB Skills Foresight Report 2003, CITB, London.

De Montfort Expertise Ltd (on behalf of Maintainour Heritage) (2003): Maintaining Value – Module 6:Maintenance education and training for listedbuildings, De Montfort Expertise Ltd. (on behalf ofArup Research + Development), Leicester.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (withDepartment for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions) (2001): The Historic Environment: aforce for our future, HMSO, London.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2003):Protecting our Historic Environment: Making thesystem work better (‘Heritage Protection Review’),HMSO, London.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2004):Review of Heritage Protection: The way forward

Department of the Environment/Department ofNational Heritage (1994): Planning Policy GuidanceNote 15: Planning and the Historic Environment,HMSO, London.

English Heritage (ed. Clark, K.) (1999): ConservationPlans in Action, English Heritage, London.


45

MAINTAIN OUR HERITAGEDIRECTORS AND ADVISORY PANEL

44

SPAB (2003): Driving bad from the borough, SPABNews, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 35-37.

Spilsbury, T. (2001): The sustainable re-use of listed buildings in the context of urban regeneration,thesis submitted for PhD degree to University ofNottingham, Nottingham.

University of the West of England, Bristol (onbehalf of Maintain our Heritage) (2003a):Maintaining Value – Module 1: Best practicemaintenance management for listed buildings,University of the West of England, Bristol.

University of the West of England, Bristol (onbehalf of Maintain our Heritage) (2003b):Maintaining Value – Module 2: Individual owners’approaches to the maintenance of their listedbuildings, University of the West of England, Bristol.

University of the West of England, Bristol (onbehalf of Maintain our Heritage) (2003c):Maintaining Value – Module 3: The provision ofcommercial maintenance services for listed buildings,University of the West of England, Bristol.

Venning, P. (2003): ‘Stats and ladders,’ in SPABNews, Vol. 24, No.1, pp.4-6.


DirectorsRichard Pollard, Chair, Researcher, Pevsner’sBuildings of England series; formerly Secretary,SAVE Britain’s Heritage

George Allan, Commercial solicitor working forBT; organiser of volunteer maintenance workingparties on historic buildings in Kent; Councillor &Executive Member, London Borough of Islington

Roland Billington, Building Inspector; Inspector,MoH Bath Area Pilot 2002-03; ArchitecturalAssistant, Bath Preservation Trust

Nigel Dann, Senior Lecturer and researcher,University of the West of England, Bristol

Dr Tanya Spilsbury, Freelance surveyorspecialising in building conservation projects

Tim Steene, Business Unit Manager, Mouchel Parkman Property Management; formerly Director of Projects, South West Region, English Heritage

Adam Wilkinson, Secretary, SAVE Britain’sHeritage

Project CoordinatorTimothy Cantell

Advisory PanelStephen Bond, Director, TFT Cultural Heritage;Partner, Tuffin Ferraby & Taylor

Michael Briggs, Chair, Bath Preservation Trust

Peter Burman MBE, Director of Conservation and Property Services, National Trust for Scotland

Dr Thomas Cocke, Chief Executive, NationalAssociation of Decorative and Fine Arts Societies;formerly Secretary, Council for the Care ofChurches

Dorian Crone, Director, Heritage Information

Rory Cullen, Head of Building, National Trust

Bob Kindred MBE, Borough Conservation Officer,Ipswich Borough Council; Heritage Adviser, LocalGovernment Association

David Lovie, President, Institute of HistoricBuilding Conservation

Georgina Nayler, Director, Pilgrim Trust

Catherine Porteous, former Trustee, HeritageLottery Fund

John Sell CBE, Chair, Joint Committee of NationalAmenity Societies

James Simpson, Simpson and Brown Architects

Barry Stow, Barry Stow Architects

Marianne Suhr, Co-presenter, BBC TV Restorationseries; Technical Operations Officer, Society for theProtection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB)

Primrose Wilson OBE, Deputy Chair, NationalHeritage Memorial Fund and Heritage LotteryFund; former Chair, Historic Buildings Council forNorthern Ireland

Photo credits – Front cover, pages 32, 40:©English Heritage. NMR.Pages 01 (left and right), 19: MoH.Page 01 (centre): David Heath, English Heritage.Pages 04, 08, 09, 30, 42, 44: Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West ofEngland, Bristol.Page 15: David Lodge.Page 19: Monumentenwacht Utrecht.Page 29: Roofing Cladding & Insulationmagazine.

Designed by NorthbankPrinted by Flexiprint

©Maintain our Heritage November 2004All rights reserved

Maintain our HeritageWeymouth HouseBeechen Cliff RoadBath BA2 4QST: 01225 482228tcantell@maintainourheritage.co.ukwww.maintainourheritage.co.uk

Organisations involved in ‘Maintaining Value’Maintain our HeritageAssociation of British Insurers British Institute of Facilities Management Build Assured CADW: Welsh Historic MonumentsChartered Institute of BuildingConstruction Industry Research and InformationAssociation CITB-Construction SkillsDTI English HeritageEnvironment & Heritage Service (Northern Ireland)Heritage Building Contractors Group Heritage Information TrustHeritage Lottery Fund Historic ScotlandInstitute of Historic Building ConservationInstitute of Maintenance and Building ManagementNational TrustUniversity of the West of England, BristolSociety for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

putting it off how lack of maintenance fails our heritage · heritage and heritage lottery fund...

Documents