Famous names such as Champagne Charlie performed there under a chandelier of 300 gas jets made from 27,000 cut crystals. Now,happily, it is being put back together - though probably not all 27,000 crystals.

Neglect is an enemy

Neglect remains a problem for too many historic buildings. In some cases, neglect is deliberate and the owner hopes to persuade the authorities that it is beyond hope and so must be demolished. Far more often neglect just happens. It my be that maintenance budgets are cut, it may be that the manager or owner prefers to wait until something actually goes wrong before putting any work in hand. It may be lack of a systematic procedure, forgetfulness, indolence, or simple procrastination. There is a long-held view that buildings will more or less look after themselves and that tomorrow is someone else’s problem.

Whatever the cause, the effect of neglect is deterioration of building elements and an accumulation of repair work that will have to be done eventually. Neglect is an enemy. It is not as sudden and spectacular as the developer’s whim or the wrecker’s ball. But in its relentless, even insidious way, it does great damage to our heritage.

Systematic and preventative

The alternative to neglect is maintenance, that is activity such as cleaning, painting and minor repair carried out systematically, on a planned cycle 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 remove the need for repairs.

Maintenance rather than neglect has many advantages. It:

• Keeps up a building’s appearance, extends its life,and safeguards its investment value.

• Reduces or eliminates the cost and disruption to occupants that flow from failures and occasional large-scale restoration.

• Is sustainable, using fewer new materials and involving less extraction, processing and transport, waste and energy use, while reducing pressure for Greenfield development.

• Retains historic fabric because less material is lost in regular, minimal and small-scale work than in disruptive and extensive restoration.

• Provides a business activity that is steady and counter-cyclical, bringing jobs all year round in all parts of the country.

Given these advantages, it is no surprise that the maintenance approach to looking after historic buildings is recognised philosophically as the optimum strategy.

Back in 1877, William Morris called for owners to ‘stave off decay by daily care’. Maintenance is advocated too in the review of heritage policy Power of Place and in the Government’s response to it, The Historic Environment: A force for our Future. And in the bible of conservation PPG 15, it says: “Regular maintenance and repair are the key to the preservation of historic buildings. Modest expenditure on repairs keeps a building weather tight, and routine maintenance can prevent much more expensive work becoming necessary at a later date.”

Yet in practice little maintenance is done. Many owners wait for things to go wrong before acting. The value of systematic and preventative maintenance is not widely appreciated.

Needless expense

Many of the buildings that featured in the recent BBC TV Restoration series proved to have deteriorated through neglect. Decay could be seen to come from damp … that came from a hole in the roof … that had been left unrepaired for years. The damage is not only complete loss of a building, though that can happen. More often the damage is that more of the building has to be renovated than was necessary.

Take the church of St Paul, Leicester. The parish was faced with a £300,000 bill for roof repairs, following rot infestation, both wet and dry, that might have been nipped in the bud with regular inspection of the roof covering. Other churches have undergone major works that could and should have been avoided by systematic preventative maintenance. It can be as simple as blocked gutters and hopper heads which,if left blocked, could result in cumulative damage to the walls, and great cost to put it right.

It is not just churches that suffer such needless expense on avoidable works. And of course it is not just a matter of wasting money. Historic buildings are being reduced in their real heritage value because their original fabric – with its historic value, its patina, the way it speaks of the past – is being lost.

Encouraging maintenance

At last, there are signs of greater commitment to the concept and practice of maintenance from bodies such as English Heritage and Historic Scotland and some local authorities. Meanwhile some owners have quietly been getting on with maintenance - but not that many of them.

Now, for the first time, we have the results of wideranging research on maintenance issues led by Maintain our Heritage (a group formed in 1999 to promote a new,long term, sustainable strategy for the care of historic buildings with pre-eminence given to maintenance rather than sporadic major repair). The research shows that current legislation and policies do not adequately encourage maintenance. The deficiency is particularly anomalous for historic buildings where the philosophy of maintenance as the best means of conservation is widely accepted and the research focussed on this sector.

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

Owners, the research shows, tend to take a short term view and do not see the benefit of maintenance that would prevent major faults appearing later. They are not driven by conservation principles but seek to avoid the inconvenience of disrepair which would adversely affect their use and enjoyment of the properties. They mostly do not have the skills required to undertake or manage maintenance works, and see maintenance as a low priority activity.

At the same time, owners, the research made clear, are not helped to maintain historic buildings. VAT is imposed on maintenance and repair but not on alterations and new build.There is little national leadership or encouragement to undertake maintenance. The research delineates a gaping hole in information provision and support for listed building owners, especially the individual householder. For example, 42 percent of individual owners surveyed suggested that they use magazines as a source of guidance,while only 34 percent of owners seek advice from national and local conservation bodies.

Owners indicated that information is particularly hard to find on the responsibilities of a listed building owner,maintenance techniques and about how suppliers, materials and techniques of maintenance can be sourced.

Owners need help in making maintenance simpler to manage,particularly in respect of insurance,health & safety,access, and sourcing suitably skilled builders. There are few services available that make maintenance easy for owners –building firms have not developed preventative maintenance services for historic buildings.

Maintain our Heritage (MoH) sees an anomaly at the heart of heritage policy: listing proclaims public interest in protecting historic buildings, but there is no support (practical or financial) for the owner to serve that public interest by maintaining the building.

New direction for maintenance

MoH has issued a report based on the research that sets out the challenges and makes recommendations to encourage and facilitate the maintenance of historic buildings.

The report shows that government policy on maintenance is at odds with conservation principles; that best practice is not shared;that convenience is put above conservation by many owners;and that maintenance is seen mainly on a short-term view and as a low priority.

The report calls for a UK strategy to promote maintenance; a duty of care to be placed on owners balanced by financial support; best practice to be disseminated, leading by example; and maintenance guidance and information sources to be more widely accessible. The report is intended to stimulate debate and re-thinking. Maintain our Heritage believes the time is ripe for a wholesale change in policy and practice – in Government, the construction industry, the professions, local authorities and owners – to promote the maintenance of historic buildings. MoH, in short, is calling for a change in approach from passive endorsement to pro-active encouragement of maintenance. MoH’s call was backed by Griff Rhys Jones who spoke at the launch of the MoH report saying: “We need a change of attitude among owners. We are all of us lying in the gutter but only some of us clear them out!"

Maintain our Heritage

Timothy Cantell is a heritage consultant and Project Coordinator of Maintain our Heritage Maintain our Heritage (MoH) undertook the research project in partnership with a range of bodies in the construction and heritage sectors. The research was financed by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund with contributions also from CITB-ConstructionSkills and the University of the West of England.

Putting it off - how lack of maintenance fails our heritage is on www.maintainourheritage.co.uk.

Copies can be obtained from: Maintain our Heritage,Weymouth House, Beechen Cliff Road, Bath BA2 4QS. Tel: 01225 482228 email: tcantell@maintainourheritage.co.uk

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend