Protecting Built Heritage
Debate between Tom Gordon and Jo PlattWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Desmond. I am pleased to be here to present the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report “Protecting built heritage” and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. I also thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for handing on the baton to a fellow Committee member.
The Committee launched its inquiry into the state of our built heritage back in December 2024. Over 12 months, we held five sessions, heard from 26 witnesses and received 113 pieces of written evidence. We also visited the National Gallery, the Southbank Centre, Buckingham Palace and V&A East Storehouse. I thank all those who gave evidence and welcomed us on visits. Our report, published on Monday, is the product of extensive evidence from heritage organisations, local authorities, faith groups, businesses, community organisations and individuals from across the country.
This inquiry is particularly important to me. Before returning to Parliament, I oversaw Leigh Spinners Mill, a grade II* listed former cotton mill in the heart of Leigh in my constituency. There I saw at first hand both the challenges and the opportunities that come with preserving historic buildings. I was involved in efforts to restore and repurpose the site so that it could support heritage, enterprise, arts and culture while serving our great community. That experience reinforced my belief that our historic buildings are not simply reminders of the past, but assets that can contribute to our future prosperity and wellbeing. Built by previous generations with confidence in the future of their towns, they should continue to be valued, preserved and invested in as part of our future.
That is one of the central messages of this report. Built heritage plays a vital role in the identity of our towns, villages and cities. Historic buildings support tourism, provide community spaces, create opportunities for economic growth and contribute to a sense of place and belonging. However, we heard concerning evidence that many of these assets are under growing pressure from rising costs, workforce shortages and a planning system that is too often inconsistent and difficult to navigate.
Yet alongside those challenges lies a tremendous opportunity. Historic England estimates that up to 670,000 homes could be created through the reuse of vacant or underused historic buildings. That is almost half of the Government’s 1.5 million homes target. We were struck by an initiative in Italy where homes can be sold for as little as €1, so long as they are neglected heritage assets that are successfully transformed into homes. We should demonstrate similar ambition. Too often, policy treats reuse as an afterthought rather than a priority. Our report argues that that must change. We therefore recommended the development of a national “heritage-to-housing” approach, and a broader strategy that puts the reuse and adaptation of existing buildings at the heart of regeneration policy.
We also believe that there is merit in establishing a dedicated programme to support the repurposing of underused town centre and high street buildings, helping local authorities to unlock opportunities for housing and economic development. Our Committee also found that a one-size-fits-all approach to high street regeneration does not work. Communities face different challenges and opportunities. We therefore recommend better tools and frameworks to help local authorities to identify the interventions that are most likely to succeed in their area, and to ensure that investment is targeted effectively.
The Committee also heard consistent concerns about the operation of the planning system. Owners, developers and community organisations told us that lengthy waits for planning and listed building consent can discourage investment and delay projects that would otherwise bring historic buildings back into use. We heard evidence that many listed building consent applications are ultimately approved, but decisions are often delayed, creating uncertainty and additional costs. Although recent reforms are welcome, the Government must go further to streamline processes, encourage the wider use of the local listed building consent orders, strengthen conservation capacity in local authorities and promote earlier engagement between applicants and planning authorities.
Financial barriers remain a major obstacle to the preservation of built heritage. Witnesses repeatedly highlighted the fact that the current VAT regime often makes repairing and reusing existing buildings more expensive than demolishing them and starting again. While works on residential buildings and some conversions are zero-rated for VAT, owners of listed buildings are still required to pay VAT at 20% on construction and alteration works. We found that that creates a difficult incentive that runs counter to heritage protection and wider environmental objectives. We also heard of the pressures that that regime places on historic high streets and the businesses that occupy heritage buildings. We therefore urge the Government to review and reform that tax framework so that it better supports retrofit and reuse, conservation and the future of our high streets.
We also heard compelling evidence about the challenges facing churches and other listed places of worship. England has over 370,000 listed buildings, almost 15,000 of which are churches and religious buildings. Many are not only important heritage assets but vital community spaces, providing support, activities and services far beyond their primary religious function. However, many of those buildings face significant financial pressures. Witnesses raised concerns about the reduction in support previously available through the listed places of worship grant scheme, and the potential impact of its replacement with a new grant scheme, the places of worship renewal fund.
Although targeting funding at areas facing the greatest challenge is an understandable objective, we concluded that there is a real risk that places of worship of exceptional historic and architectural significance could be disadvantaged if heritage value is not given sufficient weight. We therefore call on the Government to ensure that the new funding arrangements provide adequate support for repair and conservation works and properly recognise the national and local importance of those irreplaceable buildings. The loss of an historic church is not simply the loss of a place of worship; it is often the loss of a key part of a community’s history, identity and shared heritage.
The future of built heritage depends on people. One major risk identified in our inquiry was the shortage of specialist skills across the sector. From traditional crafts and conservation skills to planning, expertise and heritage management, there is an urgent need to attract and train the next generation. I was particularly impressed by an innovative heritage skills programme in the north-west, offered by the Hopwood Foundation and implemented at His Majesty’s Prison Thorn Cross, which can create pathways into employment while helping to address workforce shortages. The Government should build on those successes and work with the sector to expand opportunities for training and careers.
We also heard that many small and specialist heritage buildings struggle to make full use of existing arrangements, despite being responsible for passing on many of the traditional skills that the sector relies on. Greater flexibility in the apprenticeship system would allow businesses to pool apprentices, share training costs and collaborate more effectively. If we are serious about safeguarding our built heritage, we must ensure that the next generation of stonemasons, joiners, roofers, conservators and heritage specialists have clear pathways into these careers.
Ultimately, our report makes a simple argument. Heritage should not be viewed as a constraint on growth; it should be recognised as an enabler of growth. The Government now have an opportunity to adopt a more ambitious approach that will secure both the protection and potential of our built heritage for generations to come.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My constituency has loads of fantastic built heritage, including Knaresborough House, Knaresborough castle, Starbeck Baths and much more. I really enjoyed reading the report and noted the recommendation about safe harbour, where trusted bodies could temporarily take control of at-risk assets to stabilise them. The report does not mention town councils such as Knaresborough town council or Harrogate town council. Does the hon. Lady agree that they would be best placed to look after some of our much-loved built heritage?