Protecting Built Heritage

We will begin with the Select Committee statement. Jo Platt will speak on the publication of the third report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, “Protecting built heritage”, HC 144, for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of this statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Jo Platt to respond to them in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each. I call Jo Platt to give the statement on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

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.

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?

The hon. Member is absolutely right to mention councils and local authorities, which are trying to do so much work in the country. The report points out that every place will be different; it is about pulling on the expertise of local authorities and town councils to find what fits within particular areas. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and it is now up to the Government to read the report and look at best practice throughout the UK.

I thank my hon. Friend for presenting this excellent report. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have declared a heritage emergency, but the restoration of our historic buildings is repeatedly held back by fragmented funding and the need to negotiate separately with numerous funding bodies. Does she agree that the Government should bring together the main Departments and heritage funders around one table in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, so that we can turn our beautiful yet endangered buildings into engines of regeneration?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which goes back to the previous question. The report has highlighted schemes that have worked for particular areas, such as the community ownership fund and heritage action zones, something we had in my area. These things pull on the expertise of partners, including local authorities and the community, by getting them around the table. Getting everyone around the table to make sure that funding goes where it is needed is an important factor that we are trying to lead on with this report.

I commend the hon. Lady for her clear and excellent presentation of this report. Sadly, there is not time for me to list all the very many great heritage assets in East Hampshire. The hon. Lady talked about the importance of heritage to tourism and the possibility of using some underused heritage assets for housing. Does she think there is also a case to be made for looking at how we can best use some of those assets for hotel and holiday accommodation?

The right hon. Gentleman is a great contributor to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and it is an honour to sit alongside him there. I agree that there is significant scope for heritage buildings to play a bigger role in providing such things as hotel accommodation. One of our findings was that the best way to protect many historic buildings is to ensure that they remain occupied, economically viable and actively used. The report focuses on a reuse-first approach, rather than a housing-only approach. Where hotel accommodation can provide a sustainable future for historic buildings, it can support tourism and create local jobs and is an excellent way of bringing our heritage back into use.

I echo the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my fellow Committee member, in praising my hon. Friend for doing such a brilliant job of presenting this report on behalf of all of us on the Committee. I also thank the excellent Committee staff, who helped me when I had to speak at the Night Time Economy Summit in Liverpool in February. There was a panel on this very subject—protecting heritage buildings—in a city that had UNESCO world heritage site status between 2004 and 2021. My question is really about the changing nature of these things; Liverpool’s status was taken away when the new Everton stadium spoilt the skyline. How can we future-proof some of these things? The Committee staff helped me with my remarks at that Liverpool conference, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend’s new constituency neighbour and the future Prime Minister, also spoke, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the former Deputy Prime Minister. I was being lobbied at the summit, and the point being made to me was that the United Nations also has something called intangible cultural heritage: stuff like human traditions and practices—

Order. Questions should be short.

My question requires a lot of context, Sir Desmond. I am springing it on my hon. Friend, so I do not want to just say, “Do you approve of this?”; I need to explain. Sorry—I am getting to the point. Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a way of knitting together heritage buildings and the intangible cultural aspects of value? For example, what about Wigan Casino and Northern Soul music? Could we find a way of mixing up the two?

It is also an honour to sit alongside my hon. Friend on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. She makes an important point, one that I referred to in my earlier remarks. The mill that I worked on was used for cultural and creative value, and there is a bit in the report about how we can connect those up. The report sparks the conversation about what fits in our individual towns, villages and cities. I look forward to working alongside her to continue that conversation.

I thank the hon. Lady and her Select Committee for their many positive recommendations when it comes to the repair and conservation of shared heritage. Previous schemes have retained and restored churches and other shared heritage across the Province of Northern Ireland, including in my constituency. The listed places of worship grant scheme can do so much more. What discussions has the Select Committee had with the Northern Ireland Assembly to develop and deliver that much valued and important scheme?

That was a major part of the report and the inquiry. I have visited two derelict churches over the last few weeks, including Sacred Heart only last week. We know that places of worship are among the most significant heritage assets in our communities. The Committee heard concerns about funding pressures and the impact of changes to the grant scheme. The Government have decided to replace the scheme with a new fund that prioritises areas in most need. However, there is a risk that that could disadvantage churches of real historical significance, as the report highlights. The Government need to make sure that funding is at least as generous under the new scheme as under the old one, and that religious buildings are continually prioritised.