IHBC NewsBlog Archive

The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC), the professional body for built and historic environment conservation specialists, has co-signed a letter to the Chancellor urging him not to press ahead with the VAT raid on approved alterations to listed buildings because of the damage it will cause to heritage and jobs.

Charities such as the IHBC, the Heritage Alliance and the SPAB, as well as organisations as diverse as House Beautiful, the Federation of Master Builders (FMB) and the RIBA, are among those supporting the concerted campaign to challenge the Chancellor over the proposed tax take.

IHBC Chair Jo Evans said of the proposals to remove VAT relief from approved alterations to listed buildings that, ‘they represent a missed opportunity to rationalise VAT in ways that would benefit jobs, the environment and the economy by encouraging building care, maintenance and improvement’.

IHBC Director Seán O’Reilly said: “We are delighted at the recent news that the HMRC seems to be back-tracking on the proposals for listed places of worship, but that only confirms the real threat to the wider historic environment from the VAT raid.

More than ever, the urge now is to enhance and improve our historic buildings for future use, and new planning policies and climate change initiatives urge on us all the need to prepare our built stock for the 21st century.  So it seems especially perverse to scrap the sort of scheme that could not only underpin proper improvements in our most valued heritage, but also set standards for work across our wider stock of traditional buildings!

Jobs losses are also a real concern!  Our publication partners, Cathedral Communications, have advised us that there has been a worrying number of quality conservation firms going under, or into administration, over the past year. These include Killby & Gayford Group (255 staff), Linford-Bridgeman Limited (240 staff, including those of subsidiaries Dorothea Restorations and Trumpers), Holloway White Allom (170 staff).  As the removal of the zero rate will increase costs, it is perfectly obvious that the change will impose further strain on many specialist conservation businesses.”

Other companies hit by the downturn include the Bricknell Conservation Limited, C J Building Ltd, Period Property Preservation Ltd, J Oldham & Co (Stonemasons) Ltd, Cumbria Stone Quarries, Caradale Traditional Brick, Copsale Oak Ltd, Crane Forge Blacksmiths, G Burditt & Co Ltd, Cy-Pres (lime products), and Devereux Decorators Ltd. Many other specialist conservation companies are, like Stonewest, now a fraction of their former size.

Extracts fom the letter to the Chancellor:

We are writing to urge you to reverse the decision to remove the zero rate of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings announced in the Budget. It is quite apparent that the impact of this decision will have many serious consequences for the economy and our historic environment. Within a short period of time a large amount of evidence has appeared to demonstrate the disruption that the removal of the zero rate of VAT has caused to planned building projects, which points to a worrying future for the UK’s heritage assets…

Furthermore, this change will clearly have an adverse effect on the construction industry, causing projects to be cancelled or curtailed.  Apprenticeship places will be put at risk, closing the door on the next generation of tradespeople with specialist heritage construction skills and making it even harder to look after our historic buildings in the future. It is apparent that the decline in construction sector output helped drag the economy back into recession in the first quarter of 2012. Therefore, it is very hard to understand any decision that leads to a further fall in construction activity at this time. Far from encouraging a sustainable private sector led economic recovery; this decision will further hold back growth in important sectors of the economy…

All owners of a listed property, regardless of their status, are restricted by planning and conservation rules, which are designed to protect these important buildings against inappropriate changes. Alterations are already controlled by the need for Listed Building Consent and a large amount of time and money must be spent before an owner can even get to the stage where consent has been granted. Therefore, removing the zero rate of VAT takes away the incentive to apply for Listed Building Consent and is likely to lead to owners ignoring the consent system. This achieves the exact opposite of the Government’s stated aims…

The letter is signed by the senior officers of the 17 subscribing oprganisations.

For details see: LINK

For background links see: LINK

Download the letter to the chancellor HERE: LINK

Built Environment Forum Scotland, the link body for built and historic environment interests in Scotland, of which the IHBC is a member, has successfully promoted in the Scottish Parliament a motion against the VAT raid by the HMRC on approved work to listed buildings, calling on ‘the UK Government to reverse the proposed measure’.

The motion is supported by Anne McTaggart, Drew Smith, Iain Gray, Jackie Baillie, Elaine Murray, Hanzala Malik, Lewis Macdonald & Mark Griffin.

The motion, entitled ‘VAT on Historic Buildings’, reads:

That the Parliament notes what it considers to have been the surprise proposal in the 2012 UK Budget to remove the zero rating on VAT for approved alterations to certain listed buildings; acknowledges the benefit it understands that the existing fiscal arrangement brings to individuals and small charities that deal with the most challenging and often complex conservation projects; believes that the sympathetic adaptation of Scotland’s cherished listed buildings to new uses is the best way to ensure their long-term sustainability, and, in order to help safeguard the nation’s heritage for future generations, calls on the UK Government to reverse the proposed measure.

For background links see: LINK

See the motion at: LINK

The government is recognising the scale of the impact of the proposed VAT raid on heritage buildings, as it seeks ways to backtrack the tax take from listed places of worship (LPOW).

Following discussions between the Treasury and the Church of England (CoE) it appears that the Chancellor, recognising the substantial impact the proposals will have on churches and other historic religious structures, will either will either continue the exemption for listed places of worship, or address the impact by increasing funds to the LPOW scheme.

As part of the case made for exempting places of worship, it was pointed out that 45 per cent of Britain’s grade 1-listed buildings are churches.  Anne Sloman, chairwoman of the Church Buildings Council, said that most big renovation projects extended churches for community use.

‘This has absolutely driven a landmine under the [government’s] Big Society,’ she said, arguing that Britain’s 12,500 listed churches were maintained with almost no public money and represented a good deal for the state.

Download the report of the Church Commissioners Questions on 26 April 2012: HERE

For background links see: LINK

See also the report at: LINK

Civic Voice is asking civic society members to join a sector wide campaign to ask the Government to reverse its proposed decision to remove ‘VAT relief on alterations to listed buildings’.

Civic Voice states:

You can support this campaign by writing to your MP.

In the 2012 budget, the Chancellor proposed removing the zero rating of VAT on alterations to listed buildings and this decision has prompted huge interest from civic groups including Guildford, Hexham, Northenden and Newbury (to name a few).

Up to now approved alterations to listed buildings have been exempt from VAT. This means that projects that have ‘altered listed buildings’ have not had to pay VAT on their work at 20%. A building is altered when its fabric, such as its walls, roof, internal surfaces, floors, stairs, windows, doors, plumbing and wiring is changed in a meaningful way.

Civic Voice said ‘Sensitive alteration is often needed to secure a viable long-term use for many Listed Buildings. We fear that withdrawing VAT relief to these types of projects will be off-putting and many projects may not go ahead. Listed buildings are important as they contribute to the architectural heritage of an area, providing interest and variety to the streetscene and giving an important ‘sense of place’ to the locality. They play a very real role in promoting a sense of civic pride’ .

For background links see: LINK

Civic Voice Campaign: LINK

Huw Lewis AM, Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage in Wales, has issued a statement saying that he has ‘established a working group to create a process whereby the core functions of the Royal Commission could be merged with other organisations, including Cadw.’

The statement, entitled ‘Planning for the future of historic environment services in Wales’ reads:

In a climate of reducing public funding, there will inevitably be pressure for the historic environment sector in the future in terms of resourcing and resilience.  The Welsh Government needs to consider how to respond to these challenges and I want to ensure that the core functions of the sector bodies which are funded through the Housing, Regeneration and Heritage portfolio are shaped for coherent and sustainable delivery. I have therefore asked the Royal Commission to work with Cadw and CyMAL in 2012-13 to consider how best to achieve this.

I have established a working group to create a process whereby the core functions of the Royal Commission could be merged with other organisations, including Cadw. The first meeting of the working Group was held on 27 April.  I have asked the working group for a report on an agreed way forward by July 2012. I expect them to:

· establish the key activities and functions of the bodies funded by the Welsh Government which deliver its statutory responsibilities and published priorities

· identify pressures, in terms of future need, resourcing and resilience, impacting on those key activities and functions

· propose headline options to address those pressures for my consideration and develop a ‘route map’ for implementation

This is not a comfortable process, but I am taking this action because of the importance I attach to the work being carried out across the historic environment sector and my concern that it needs to be as robust as possible so as to withstand what is going to be an extended period of budget reductions. My intention is to ensure the budgets are efficiently targeted at the areas of greatest priority.

I am very aware that the prospect of major organisational change can be unsettling for staff of the organisation concerned.  I have instructed the working group to ensure that staff of both Cadw and the Commission are kept informed of the progress of the working group. Furthermore, a staff communications plan is being developed to ensure that all concerned are informed and involved as the process continues.  I will keep Assembly Members and other sector stakeholders informed of developments.

Welsh Government Cabintet Statement: LINK

A historic hospital is to be demolished after the Scottish Government upheld a planning appeal against Glasgow City Council.

The report states:

Scottish Enterprise applied to the council to flatten the 11 listed buildings which form the Ruchill Hospital site last year so the land could be sold on for housing development.

After the council refused planning permission, the publicly funded body applied to the government to overturn the decision to knock down the buildings on Bilsland Drive.

A spokesman for Scottish Enterprise said the fabric of the buildings – which housed wards, administration blocks and a mortuary – had deteriorated so much since the hospital closed in 1998 that it would be impossible to see the the site unless they were knocked down.

A government planning report stated that the buildings had been vandalised and valuable lead and slate removed, leaving them damaged by water and in poor condition.

The move has been welcomed by Alex Neil, the cabinet secretary for infrastructure and capital investment, who said it was a ‘significant step towards regeneration of a difficult site.’

The hospital was built in the 19th century and specialised in the treatment of infectious diseases. The B and C listed buildings date from 1895.

Scottish Enterprise’s director of business infrastructure, Allan McQuade, said: ‘We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government and local authority to explore all viable options for the Ruchill site.   Despite ongoing maintenance over the last decade, the structures continue to deteriorate with pace.  We have made every effort to market the site with its existing buildings, but regrettably the only feasible route forward is for demolition of the Grade B and C listed structures.’

Scottish Enterprise have been trying to sell the land since 1999. One housing developer pulled out of plans for the site in 2008 and there have been no other developments earmarked since the start of the recession.

Mr McQuade added: ‘We are therefore pleased that listed building consent for demolition has been granted and will now proceed to implement a programme of works which includes retention of the Grade A listed water tower and prepare the site for future development.’

Alex Neil, Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, said: ‘This is a significant step towards regeneration of a difficult site and, given its scale, of Ruchill itself.  I have been working closely with the local politicians, Scottish Enterprise and Glasgow City Council over the past few months with the aim of developing proposals to take to the community.  A cleared site, apart from the iconic A-listed water tower which will be retained, will certainly provide further impetus to development.’

The council had refused planning permission because that they believed more work should be done to discover whether the buildings could be retained and that they were not convinced that it was not economically viable to restore the buildings.

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council said: ‘We are aware of the Scottish Government’s decision to uphold the appeal to demolish some of the buildings on the site.’

Download DPEA Heritage Statement: LINK

See Wikipedia entry: LINK

STV Glasgow: LINK

The proposal by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) to scrap the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and in the process reputedly save £1.6bn (which IEA says would go ‘some way’ towards abolishing inheritance tax), has been receiving especially close coverage in the media.

Commenting on the implications of closing down the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Mark Littlewood, Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: ‘The subsidies provided by DCMS should be ended altogether and any residual regulatory functions should be substantially liberalised and transferred to other departments.  A complete closure of all DCMS functions could save the taxpayer around £1.6bn per annum. Whilst this is a small proportion of overall government expenditure, it would allow for some worthwhile reductions in overall taxation.’

Museums and Heritage writes in response:

… It also proposed an end to government funding of museums, claiming an additional £0.5bn could be clawed back if free entry to national museums was abolished. The report estimated that the cost to the taxpayer per visit per person to some of London’s National Museums and the British Library ranged from £5 to £72.
…
In a BBC Radio Four Interview between MA head of policy Maurice Davies and Littlewood, Davies pointed out that many of the estimated savings would instead be transferred to other departments: ‘The cost of actually running DCMS itself is very small – the actual cost of the civil servants – and since DCMS was set up, first as the department of national heritage, museums have become far, far better, and culture has become far, far better.’

‘All the evidence suggests that the numbers drop by about half when you start charging, which means ironically it costs more to the taxpayer for each visitor because most of the cost in those museums isn’t people coming through the door, it’s all the behind-the-scenes work.’

‘I think about 90% of the money that goes to DCMS goes straight on to funding good things that millions and millions of people in this country enjoy and learn from.’

Littlewood replied: ‘Maurice can’t have it both ways round. These are either museums and activities that millions of people gladly engage in and would pay for or they’re not – and if millions of people would gladly engage in and pay for them, let’s allow pricing to reflect that.’

In a statement after the interview, MA director Mark Taylor commented: ‘The IEA director was very muddled and did little to hide the ideological nature of the proposal.

‘He didn’t seem to understand the difference between getting rid of DCMS and scrapping any public investment in the arts, he didn’t seem to understand the contribution and impact of museums.

‘He clearly did understand the price of everything – it’s just that he understood the value of nothing.’

The IEA proposal follows rumours that the government is planning to close DCMS after the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and transfer responsibility for museums to the Department for Education.

For the Museums and Heritage report see: LINK

For the IEA report see: LINK

For the evening discussion ‘Should we abolish the DCMS?’ on YouTube, you can follow the c.27 other viewers at: LINK

The Institute of Conservation, ICON, has launched its education strategy for 2012-16, endorsed by the IHBC an other key heritage bodies, entitled ‘National Conservation Education and Skills Strategy 2012–2016’.

ICON states:

Icon is launching a National Strategy, setting the direction for conservation education over the next five years. The Strategy recognises the particular contexts of the devolved nations within the UK, as well as the European and wider international framework.

Having facilitated the development and articulation of the strategy, Icon itself has formal ownership of it.  Responsibility for delivery of the Strategy however is not Icon’s alone – this lies with the UK cultural heritage community at large and Icon recognises the many contributions that have already been made by partners and stakeholders. The Strategy acts to weave these various threads together, to persuade others to contribute, and to ensure that the us