---

Listing Buildings

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned on this issue for a long time. I am sure that the Minister will have heard his fervent plea. The draft Bill will simplify things by creating a single system for designation—to be called the heritage register—which will replace listing, scheduling and registering. However, the decision to designate will still be made on the basis of special architectural historic or archaeological interest. During consideration of this draft legislation, I would like other subsidiary criteria such as economic regeneration plans debated and taken into consideration before a recommendation is made to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a building to be designated or listed. Recent frustrating experiences in my own constituency of Stockport have led me to that view. May I make it clear that I am not making any criticisms of the individuals involved? I would like to thank Henry Owen-Jones from English Heritage for his help. The criticisms that follow are of the system itself. Those experiences have made me believe that the designating of buildings should be more specific and spell out exactly what should be retained in any future developments. For example, clear descriptions of the materials to be used would enable future developers to tie down and contain costs and know from the beginning exactly what was required of them and how much it would cost. That would prevent expensive proposals from emerging at a later stage, often during informal pre-application discussions with English Heritage, which can severely hold up building projects or indeed jeopardise them altogether. As I have explained, my interest in this whole issue arose out of tensions between heritage and regeneration in a multi-million pound development of Stockport college's town centre campus in respect of one particular building. The new campus is to be on the site of the old St. Thomas's hospital, the buildings of which have fallen into disrepair since the hospital was closed. The building in question, called merely ““building 25””, was not a listed building, but because it fell within the curtilage of the principal listed structure, it was regarded as listed. It was attached to a listed building. The problem was that English Heritage wanted to keep building 25, but Stockport college did not want to keep it. The college did not think it had any value for its vision of a 21st century educational facility and believed that its retention would compromise the design of the front aspect of its new college campus. As the building was riddled with asbestos, restoration would add further expense to the project. The college had already spent £11.217 million on the refurbishment of listed buildings as a result of pre-planning meetings with English Heritage. As the cost of refurbishment of listed buildings is 16 per cent. higher than the cost of new build, the excess costs were £1.53 million. The college did not want building 25, and the proposed alternatives of boarding it up or selling it were not ones that the college considered to be viable. The college recognised the historical significance of the two listed buildings, but felt that building 25 detracted from the overall scheme. The frustration for the college was that it was always trying to discuss matters against a background of historical significance, irrespective of cost to its budget or the need to cater for 21st century learners. From a heritage point of view, the college was keeping the best of the site, spending a lot of money on buildings that had hitherto been left to decay with little or no interest from anyone. It was also bringing a £55 million regeneration scheme to Stockport and simply could not go on investing in buildings for which it had no use and that it felt would serve no educational purpose. English Heritage first advised Stockport council that it wanted to keep building 25 during pre-application advice meetings, and argument went on for months. The college spent £145,032 preparing a case for demolition, employing specialists in this field and commissioning architectural surveys to respond to English Heritage's aspirations for the site as a whole. The college purchased the site in March and the estimated delay, due to the involvement of English Heritage, is likely to be 12 months. The whole affair has added other costs to the project, including £37,500 in staff time and £117,000 in interest costs. It also had a major consequence for the college's cash flow as it delayed Learning and Skills Council approval and the subsequent grants by almost a year. Ironically, English Heritage did not in the end formally object to the planning application submitted by the college, which involved the demolition of building 25. From my involvement, which included several meetings with English Heritage, the Government office for the north-west and council officers, it became clear to me that if a building is listed but alongside that listing there is no description of the work that has to be done to preserve its heritage aspects, the developers cannot possibly know the costs that they might incur and, even worse, those costs will become clear only from advice by either local conservation officers from the council or the local representative from English Heritage. That organisation, of course, will be concerned to improve the heritage aspects, but doing so does not come out of its budget; every helpful piece of advice usually costs somebody else money. The other difficulty, of course, is that it is not often clear to the recipient of the advice from English Heritage what the status of the advice is. It was clear from my involvement that the college was certainly under the impression that English Heritage was able to exercise some kind of veto on the planning application if its advice were not accepted. That, of course, is not the case. I think there is a need for a much more transparent process for striking a balance between heritage and the need to make buildings fit for the purpose for which they are developed. If, when buildings were listed, the listing were accompanied by descriptions of features that had to be retained, together with acceptable materials for restoration, developers would have a clearer idea of the costs. In arriving at such descriptions, some regard needs to be paid to the future use of the building. For example, it is important that we provide affordable housing, but if old buildings are to be converted to flats, every extra cost imposed to meet heritage standards will affect the affordability of the housing. I understand the value of heritage, but it is also important to make buildings fit for purpose in the coming century, so we need an approach to heritage and the listing of buildings that takes that into account. I was also concerned that money intended for further education and other public services was being disproportionately spent on buildings that had no national significance, although they had local listings, and, indeed, on buildings that were not themselves listed, but were attached to listed buildings. I do not think it right that money intended for educating young people should be spent on heritage, and there is a case to be made for having separate heritage budgets that can support such restoration work. I am also convinced of the need for such a separate budget by another example in my constituency that involves the derelict St George's Church of England vicarage and St. George's Church of England primary school, which are both grade II listed buildings. The Victorian vicarage is set in a large garden and has been disused since 2001; it is boarded up because it has major disrepair and structural problems—for example, there is no staircase. Groups of children are trespassing and lighting fires inside, endangering both themselves and the surrounding area—a cause of continual complaints to the local police. The school and the church diocese want to demolish the vicarage to make space for a much-needed green playing field. At the moment, the pupils have just a concrete playground. However, the conservation officer at Stockport council has told the church vicar that the vicarage windows or doors cannot be broken up or demolished because they are part of a conservation area and English Heritage would object, so we are stuck with a derelict, rotting building that nobody wants, can use or indeed, can properly conserve. That is another example of advice being given at an informal level. The consequences of such advice can be far-reaching. Of course, the Church could put in a planning application that involves demolishing the vicarage, but it is not clear that people understand that this is an option. There is a sense, however unreal, that English Heritage has an automatic veto. Meanwhile, the school building itself is in need of some repairs. For example, the roof tiles have recently needed to be replaced. The school governors were told that they had to use a specific quality and colour of slate, and it turned out that the right tiles could be obtained at great expense only from Vermont in the United States. Again, on what basis was that advice given? Where is it said that only those particular tiles could be used? Why should this school use money that was intended for education to buy expensive tiles for something that nobody can see, simply because the building is listed? Surely, when listed buildings are being used, there need to be clear agreements about how the building is to be maintained. The advice should be more transparent, and it should take into account affordability for the user. These sorts of extra hidden costs can come as a shock and can jeopardise the finances and, in some cases, the continuation of projects. Three lessons have been learned from the examples of Stockport college and St. George's. First, the criteria for listing buildings should be widened, and more consideration should be given to wider economic and regeneration issues in the listing or designating of buildings. That is particularly important in inner-city and town-centre developments. Secondly, if buildings are listed, the listing should specify exactly what features any future developers would be expected to retain, together with descriptions of the acceptable materials to be used. Thirdly, there should be a separate heritage budget to support such restoration work so that money intended for educating young people, for example, is not diverted away. English Heritage has a statutory obligation to give advice, but with ever more complex applications involving millions of pounds of investment, we need to look again at the process of listing and the balance between heritage, the extent to which developments are fit for purpose and how those decisions are made. The right balance has to be struck between the future and the past. Many hon. Members will have examples of derelict boarded-up buildings in their constituencies which have stood vacant for years and which no one can afford to renovate. They are not being conserved at all but just being allowed to decay. Is it not ironic that the listing itself may be a deterrent to development and may lead to decay and eventual demolition of a building that is so significant that it was listed for preservation? However, unless some account is taken of the possible use of a building in the application for listing, I cannot see how the Bill in its current form is actually going to achieve its objectives of preserving our heritage. Buildings stand not in the past but in the present. They carry the heritage of the past, but they will not survive unless they can meet the aspirations of the future. Not all can become perfectly preserved museums. They have to be schools, houses or new offices. The process of listing buildings should take account of that, both in the application and when listed.