C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 2006 that his department would take their findings into account when preparing the Heritage White Paper (then expected in May). Since then we have waited and waited, but if the white paper in any way reflects the government’s rambling partial analysis of the select committee’s findings, the sector will have clear grounds for concern about the government’s intentions for heritage protection. The committee’s report, published in July, had been generally well received within the sector.While it had certain lacunae (some of which I identified in my last article) this was partly a consequence of a compressed inquiry timescale to meet the anticipated May date. Generally the government’s thin response of less than 20 pages accepted praise where the committee had offered it: for example, the support of Heritage Open Days, work with schools and a one-line reference to the committee’s endorsement of heritage reform. It also responded very thoroughly to the issue of the housing market renewal initiative, despite this being rather peripheral to the thrust of the inquiry. However, by lumping together its responses to the inquiry’s 57 separate recommendations, the government ignored or bypassed some issues completely and clouded (probably deliberately) rather than clarified others which the committee had been at pains to identify separately. Thus any opportunity for clarity, appreciation or commitment to the fundamental issues of heritage protection reform was lost (in relation to, for example, local authority responsibilities, skills or capacity, and especially the issue of the increasingly inadequate resourcing of English Heritage). Indeed, it seems that for English Heritage only more ‘punishment’ can be expected. The secretary of state appears to believe that pain is good for our souls and this is to be eternal. The sector’s expectations had been raised in 2006 partly as a climax to the six years we have travelled from Power of Place to the white paper via the heritage protection review, despite the secretary of state’s studied indifference. These expectations were made manifest in the evidence to the select committee, only to be deflated by the continuing delay of the white paper and worthless assurances of inclusion of a heritage bill in the Queen’s Speech. The government’s response to the select committee continues to reflect a lack of interest in heritage policy (as indeed was the case in its response to the ODPM Select Committee report on Heritage and Regeneration in 2003), and a lack of political commitment or impetus to resource it properly. Unless the heritage while paper reflects not only the apparent needs of the heritage protection review but the other wider, clearly articulated concerns of the sector (as expressed in the select committee’s recommendations), the DCMS’s (and DCLG’s) commitment fully to maintain the level of heritage protection will continue to be called into question, and the department’s battered reputation is unlikely to recover. But with the Olympics on the horizon does Tessa Jowell care anyway? We will wait and see. Bob Kindred MBE is a standing special advisor to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.The views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the committee. Focus on investment A report on the investment performance of listed office buildings claims to be the result of the only longterm project of its type comparing heritage and non-heritage investments. The research, carried out by Investment Property Databank, is sponsored by the Investment Property Forum, the RICS and English Heritage. The survey identified a sample of 221 offices, designated either Grade I or Grade II, and measured their performance against the 2,779 unlisted offices within a databank. The research showed that in the West End and outside central London, equivalent yields on listed buildings were in line with those of unlisted offices. In the City and midtown, equivalent yields on listed offices were 0.5 per cent below those on unlisted offices at the end of 2004. Outside central London total returns on listed offices ran slightly ahead of those on unlisted offices between 1980 and 2004. Rental growth on listed offices had matched that on unlisted offices, and listed offices had not suffered the negative yield re‑rating seen in central London, possibly because equivalent yields were never below those on unlisted offices. Over the long-term, listed offices have tended to follow the same market cycle as unlisted offices. Differences in the volatility of returns between the two types have been insignificant, indicating similar levels of risk. The main report is available on the HELM website www.helm.org.uk/ server/show/nav.10717. London Branch Conference 2007 The theme of this year’s IHBC London Branch conference, to be held on Tuesday 25 September at the Royal College of Physicians, Regents Park, London, will be ‘Renewable Energy and the Historic Environment’. The morning session will be a series of presentations setting out the issues, while the afternoon will comprise group question-and-answer sessions, providing the opportunity to gain practical advice from manufacturers of products appropriate for installing in the historic environment. Delegate rates will be £100 for IHBC members and £150 for non-members. Secrets of Castle Howard Castle Howard is running a series of special tours led by the curator, Christopher Ridgway. The Mausoleum Tour, for example, running on Thursday 19 April and Saturday 18 August, is an opportunity to visit the most mysterious building in the landscape, where generations of the Howard family have been buried in the vaults beneath the spectacular chapel. The tour also includes a visit to the interior of the Temple of the Four Winds. Neither building is normally open to the public. The Waterways Tour on Tuesday 14 August will explore the water features around Castle Howard, including the Atlas Fountain, the South Waterways, New River Bridge, and Ray Wood Reservoir. Details on www. castlehoward.co.uk.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=