Counting the cost of a priceless heritage

Historic buildings are a huge asset to Scotland; and nowhere more so than in Edinburgh. They also present significant practical challenges. The secret of success is to combine differing perspectives to yield opportunities – long-term restorations which benefit the beauty of the built environment and provide living uses … which provide varied benefits to enhance the cultural and economic life of a building for those who use and enjoy it.

Great architecture is inspirational; age and a sense of permanence are sources of pride and reassurance.

Buildings are listed for the following reasons:

n age and rarity

n architectural interest

n close historical association.

In a recent survey, 80 per cent of tourist respondents said their most enduring memory of Edinburgh was the historic cityscape. We imperil that at our own risk. As the recent struggles of National Trust for Scotland have shown, however, we need living, paying solutions for our old buildings. Preserving our heritage “in aspic” eats money and is not sustainable.

The playground in which these questions are resolved has many participants, and development proposals have to win twice, once for planning approval and again for listed building consent.

Key public agencies are leaders in governance of heritage property. Planning authorities provide a policy framework for the built heritage of their areas. Historic Scotland is the government’s adviser and the statutory consultee for listed building applications.

The local authority manages planning and listed building applications, which can go all the way up to ministers, if applications are “called in”. The authority, using information and advice provided by Historic Scotland among others, decides whether proposals for change to a listed building are acceptable. Historic Scotland is consulted on all applications affecting Category A and B listed buildings, and those proposing demolition of C(S) listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

A register of buildings at risk in Scotland is maintained by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland [RCAHMS] on behalf of Historic Scotland.

A “building at risk” is usually a listed building, or an unlisted building within a conservation area, that meets one or more of the following criteria:

n vacant with no identified new use

n suffering from neglect and/or poor maintenance

n suffering from structural problems

n fire-damaged

n unsecured, open to the elements

n threatened with demolition.

Examination of the Buildings at Risk Register (BARR) shows that work to rescue our finest buildings from ruin is happening, albeit slowly. The percentage of A-listed buildings at risk has decreased from 8.7 per cent in 2009 to 8.2 per cent in 2011; seven A-listed buildings have been removed from the register in two years. So something is going right. But at the current rate it would take more than half a century to find solutions for all remaining Category A buildings.

Why does this matter? Without adequate engagement with willing investors, we will lose the opportunity to rescue many of these buildings. But investors need working solutions – and we all need living buildings. The process of achieving this is not a simple one. No sensible person would welcome the degradation of our historical legacy in the built environment, but between building regulations, listed building consent and practical usage we need a careful balance to achieve results that work. Owners depend upon sound professional advice to achieve this. Old buildings eat money. No-one will make that investment unless they can see a reasonable return. In moving the debate forward, we need to accept these realities.

The key lies in understanding the difference between conservation and preservation; and not being too prissy about the use to which a building should be put. Most of our landmark buildings, Edinburgh Castle for one, have evolved over time and what we see today is an amalgam of structures that were built, part removed, and added to again, as circumstance required. So long as repair work is competent and honest, the sequence of the building can be read and its integrity retained.

We need not be bashful about alterations that prolong a building’s useful life or bring it back into use after a period of decay, because losing a special building means extinction. The one rider is that alterations should be reversible, in case the next new use demands a different adaptation of the original; and the essential prerequisite is that practitioners must have the expertise to understand what is original, how to read it, retain it, repair it and adapt it without damage.

It is far more difficult, more costly and fraught with delay to adapt a special old building than to build new. It is also environmentally sound – the carbon cost of demolition and replacement is massively higher than that of repair and adaptation, because the energy embodied in building the original, hauling materials, cutting stones, lifting and fixing, is wasted.

Those prepared to develop listed buildings need our support.

lHugh Garratt LL.B FRICS is a director of Smith & Garratt Rural Asset Management, project managers for the Panmure House project.