Protecting built heritage

The deterioration of heritage assets represents a major missed opportunity. Their significant potential to support economic growth and tourism is being systematically constrained by a combination of financial, structural and policy pressures. Without a more coherent and proactive approach, increasing numbers of historic buildings will fall into disuse or managed decline, representing a loss not only to the historic environment but to growth and regeneration. The government must take sustained action to prioritise active use and remove the structural barriers that continue to hold the sector back. (Conclusion, Paragraph 8)

We recommend the government introduce a ‘heritage-to-housing’ scheme to bring vacant and at-risk historic buildings back into residential use. The scheme should draw on lessons from other countries such as Italy’s €1 house initiatives and renovation tax incentives, but be adapted to UK conditions. It should combine discounted transfer or leasing of heritage assets with time-limited restoration requirements, financial support for renovation and strong safeguards to ensure long-term occupation and smooth bureaucratic processes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 14)

We recommend that the government establish and lead a high street repurpose programme as a core intervention within the national reuse-first housing strategy. The scheme should require developers to demonstrate that reuse has been prioritised over demolition, empowering local authorities to designate High Street Regeneration Zones with associated funding and planning flexibilities, enforcing a strengthened use-it-or-lose-it regime for long-term vacant buildings, obliging public bodies to repurpose under-used town centre assets, and ensuring all repurposed homes meet modern standards of space, light and design. This could be implemented as part of the government’s upcoming High Streets Strategy, expected to be published later this year. (Recommendation, Paragraph 15)

Heritage-led housing is no longer a niche or peripheral opportunity, but a major and under-recognised means of addressing the country’s acute housing shortage. Historic England’s estimate that up to 670,000 47 homes could be delivered through the reuse of vacant or under-used heritage buildings is equivalent to almost half of the government’s current housebuilding target. However, the government is failing to prioritise the reuse of heritage buildings in a way that will enable its huge potential to be fulfilled. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18)

We recommend that the government adopt a reuse-first approach to housing policy, prioritising the conversion of vacant and under-used heritage buildings before pursuing new build. This approach should embed reuse as a clear priority in the National Planning Policy Framework, directing departments to assess reuse options for surplus sites and ensure that major housing funding mechanisms—including the National Housing Delivery Fund and related Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government programmes—actively support heritage-led schemes, with clear criteria and incentives to address viability barriers. Such an approach must be underpinned by clear safeguards to ensure that reuse does not come at the expense of heritage value, public access or the vitality of high streets. (Recommendation, Paragraph 19)

The Heritage minister should have regular and structured meetings with the Housing minister to align policy and delivery. This should include joint oversight of heritage-led housing schemes and clear accountability for unlocking reuse at scale. (Recommendation, Paragraph 20)

Our evidence points to a systematic weakness in how government collects data on its heritage assets. Without fully understanding the current state of the sector, the government will not be able to unlock the value of built heritage. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

We recommend that the government establish a comprehensive and standardised national dataset on the condition, ownership and maintenance of heritage assets across England. This should be delivered jointly with Historic England and include asset-level information on condition, risk status and maintenance expenditure. The dataset should be published, updated annually and made publicly available to support transparency, accountability and more effective stewardship across the sector. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24)

Existing frameworks for protecting built heritage do not adequately capture contemporary cultural heritage, leaving many culturally significant spaces vulnerable despite their clear value to communities. Without a broader definition of heritage, there is a risk that important aspects of the UK’s cultural life will continue to be overlooked, and in some cases, lost. (Conclusion, Paragraph 27) 48

We recommend that the government put in place processes for identifying and protecting buildings with high cultural and social value alongside architectural significance. This should include acknowledging the cultural importance of nightclubs, music venues and activist spaces where a particularly strong cultural significance can be demonstrated. (Recommendation, Paragraph 28)

Place-based approaches offer an effective way of aligning investment with local need, strengthening partnerships and embedding community involvement. However, their impact is uneven. Areas with less capacity, particularly rural and deprived parts of the country, face barriers such as limited funding, skills and institutional support, which restrict their ability to deliver support effectively. (Conclusion, Paragraph 33)

We recommend that the government implement and promote place-based approaches to the protection of built heritage. These approaches should involve models bringing together the whole range of organisations working in the community. The government should also develop mechanisms such as community asset transfer and interim “safe harbour” arrangements to support sustainable community stewardship of heritage assets. In its response to this report, the government should set out how these approaches will be delivered consistently across regions, including those with lower capacity. (Recommendation, Paragraph 34)

We recommend that the government introduce a local high street assessment tool to tackle the challenge that a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective. This tool can be used to compare the cost and effectiveness of interventions, including planning, engagement, skills and ownership. The government should help local authorities select tailored regeneration packages. (Recommendation, Paragraph 35) Financial support for built heritage

The current funding landscape for built heritage is fragmented, short-term and does not adequately support the long-term nature of conservation. We recommend that the government sets out a clear, cohesive and long-term strategy for funding built heritage, aligning the various funding streams administered by the DCMS, Historic England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund and other bodies so that they operate as a more coherent system. This strategy should rebalance provision away from one-off, capital grants towards multi-year settlements and increased revenue funding, including dedicated support for ongoing maintenance and core organisational costs. Funding settlements should, wherever possible, be allocated over a minimum of three years to enable effective planning and support organisational resilience. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42) 49

The government should review the effectiveness of the current institutional landscape for heritage, including the division of responsibilities between Historic England, English Heritage and other funding bodies. It should assess the case for greater streamlining, or even the merging of organisations, and explore the potential for reducing administrative burdens, bringing expertise together, and improving the accessibility and impact of funding. This review should consider whether simplification of funding routes and organisational roles could enable additional resources to be directed towards the front-line protection of heritage assets. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)

We recommend that the government explore the feasibility of establishing a heritage funding model analogous to Arts Council England’s National Portfolio Organisation system, or a dedicated heritage investment fund to deliver consistent and strategic investment. Any such model must, however, be designed to reflect the specific needs of the heritage sector and ensure that organisations responsible for significant heritage assets are adequately supported to meet the costs of ongoing maintenance, repair and programme delivery. (Recommendation, Paragraph 45)

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its delivery partners should expand the scale and accessibility of early-stage development funding. This should include ringfenced funding to support feasibility work, design development and access to professional expertise. The government should also ensure that early-stage support is aligned with capital funding streams, so that well-developed projects can transition smoothly to delivery. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47)

The government’s decision to replace the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme with the Places of Worship Renewal Fund represents a significant shift. While we recognise the rationale for directing limited public funds towards areas of greatest socio-economic need, we remain concerned that reliance on area-based indicators risks disadvantaging places of worship of high historic and architectural significance that fall outside narrowly defined measures of deprivation. There is also a risk that the community value and reach of places of worship may be overlooked, particularly where their activities extend beyond their immediate postcode. (Conclusion, Paragraph 54)

We recommend that the government ensures that overall funding available through the Places of Worship Renewal Fund is at least as generous in real terms as the level of support provided through the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme prior to its reductions in budget and the introduction of per- site caps, to prevent any reduction in the number and scale of essential repair projects. The government must also ensure that the eligibility criteria for the Places of Worship Renewal Fund strike an appropriate balance 50 between measures of deprivation and the heritage value of buildings. The government should provide an update on the implementation and early progress of the scheme in its response to this report and should write to the committee again on the matter at six and 12 months thereafter. (Recommendation, Paragraph 55)

The current VAT regime creates a structural disincentive to repair, maintain and reuse historic buildings. Sector bodies have told us that changes, such as rebate schemes or equalisation with new-build rates, could unlock stalled housing schemes, prevent managed decline and generate wider economic benefits. The current approach is out of step with the government’s ambition to promote adaptive reuse and safeguard the UK’s historic environment. We understand the government’s reluctance to introduce tax relief in a time of fiscal constraint but given what we have heard about the potentially huge contribution that built heritage can make to meeting housing targets, it is clear that the returns would be more than worth the investment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)

We recommend that the DCMS initiate formal discussions with HM Treasury on the impact of VAT on heritage repair and reuse. The government should introduce targeted VAT relief for maintenance and conversion of listed heritage buildings. This could include reducing or removing the VAT rate altogether for eligible restoration works or establishing a rebate scheme for listed properties open for a minimum number of days each year. Any such measures must also be designed to unlock the delivery of new homes through heritage-led reuse, helping to meet the government’s housing targets. (Recommendation, Paragraph 61)

We recommend that the government reform VAT rules applying to the repurposing of existing buildings to remove the current disincentive to investment and to support national carbon reduction objectives. The new rules should replace the narrow and complex 5% reduced-rate provisions— which exclude most heritage buildings and energy efficiency upgrades—and end the structural bias towards demolition over conservation. These reforms would be part of a revised regime that reduces the disparity between new- build construction and heritage conversion and promotes reuse and retrofit as the default development pathway. (Recommendation, Paragraph 62)

We recommend that HM Treasury review the impact of the business rates system on high street premises and heritage buildings and bring forward reforms that reduce burden on these properties. The reforms should include proposals to shift a greater share of the business rates burden onto retail parks, large distribution warehouses and high-profit logistic sites. (Recommendation, Paragraph 64) 51 The public heritage estate

Publicly owned heritage assets are too often allowed to deteriorate, with responsibility spread across departments, weak compliance with existing protocols and no effective mechanism to enforce minimum standards. While the government has acknowledged the need to improve oversight, this must now be matched by a more robust and accountable framework. The government must lead by example by ensuring that the buildings it owns and is responsible for are properly maintained, actively managed and, where appropriate, brought back into beneficial use. (Conclusion, Paragraph 73)

We recommend that UK Government departments be required to produce and publish asset-level heritage management plans for all listed buildings within their estate, including condition assessments, maintenance schedules and plans for reuse or disposal. These plans should be updated regularly and subject to external scrutiny. (Recommendation, Paragraph 74)

While the One Public Estate programme represents a valuable attempt to coordinate the management and disposal of public assets, heritage considerations are not systematically embedded within its operations. Evidence suggests that decisions are still primarily driven by broader regeneration and housing objectives, with heritage outcomes treated as secondary rather than integral. We therefore see opportunities to reuse historic assets and secure their long-term conservation. Without explicit and consistent integration, the government will struggle to ensure that its own estate is managed in a way that protects and realises the full value of the historic environment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 77)

The government should embed built heritage within the One Public Estate programme, making heritage considerations a specific factor to be taken into account when it comes to the management, reuse and disposal of publicly-owned assets. This should be supported by a new robust regime that incentivises public bodies to properly manage their heritage assets or dispose of them where decline is evident, including by exploring financial and performance-based incentives to support good stewardship. Alongside the incentives, the government should also put in place penalties for departments who fail to comply and allow assets to fall into avoidable disrepair. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78) Workforce and skills

Workforce and skills shortages now pose one of the most serious risks to the long-term protection of the UK’s built heritage. An ageing workforce, limited training routes, insecure funding and declining local authority 52 expertise are combining to create a fragile skills pipeline that is unable to meet current demand. Additionally, delivery remains fragmented, short- term and insufficiently coordinated. Without sustained intervention, these gaps in capacity will continue to drive up costs, delay essential works and accelerate the deterioration of historic buildings. (Conclusion, Paragraph 81)

The government should build on the success of the Hopwood Foundation’s heritage skills training programme at HMP Thorn Cross by supporting the expansion of similar schemes across prisons and further education sectors. Such programmes could help address critical shortages in traditional building and heritage trades while also improving employment outcomes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 85)

We recommend that the government work with Skills England, Historic England and sector bodies to create protected training pathways for endangered heritage crafts, including the specialist skills identified on the Heritage Crafts Red List. It should establish a “heritage skills hub” to promote careers in the heritage sector and provide advice and guidance to those looking for a career. As a first step, within 12 months, the government should formally engage with and build upon existing sector-led mapping of endangered crafts to identify priority skills gaps in training provision. The government should then set out how this assessment has informed the design of targeted interventions, such as funded placements and accredited training routes and report back to this committee within a further 12 months on progress and delivery. (Recommendation, Paragraph 86)

We recommend that the government, within 12 months of the introduction of the Growth and Skills Levy, review how greater flexibility can be built into the levy scheme to better support the heritage sector. This review should assess whether levy-funded training is sufficiently accessible to small employers, charities and sole traders and whether current provision reflects the sector’s need for flexible, shared and non-standard training models. As part of this review, the government should set out how it will measure success, including uptake by heritage employers, completion rates and employer feedback, and report its findings to the committee. (Recommendation, Paragraph 92)

We recommend that the government consult on and implement proposals to establish and then promote multi-employer apprenticeship schemes tailored to the heritage sector, enabling small and specialist heritage businesses to pool apprentices, share costs and benefit collectively from sustained skills development. (Recommendation, Paragraph 93)

We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its arm’s-length bodies develop a funded support framework that gives volunteer-led organisations access to practical assistance, including ‘critical friends’, mentoring and shared technical resources. This could include, 53 for example, funded access to short-term professional support (such as surveyors, project managers or conservation architects) to help volunteers develop realistic plans, manage complex heritage projects more effectively and reduce the risk of volunteer burnout. (Recommendation, Paragraph 98) The planning system

While the government’s proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework are welcome, they must go further to address the persistent delays, inconsistency and administrative burden experienced by developers, owners and community organisations. Without change in how the system operates in practice, there is a risk that well-intentioned policy reforms will fail to deliver the intended outcomes on the ground, leaving historic buildings to deteriorate rather than be brought back into beneficial use. (Conclusion, Paragraph 105)

We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the revised National Planning Policy Framework delivers tangible improvements for the heritage sector. In particular, the government, within two years of the revised framework coming into force, should publish an assessment of the framework’s impact on heritage outcomes, including the number of heritage buildings brought back into use and evidence of greater consistency in decision-making across local planning authorities. (Recommendation, Paragraph 106)

Where Local Listed Building Consent Orders have been used, they have reduced administrative burdens, lowered costs and provided greater clarity for applicants and authorities alike, enabling straightforward and low-risk works to proceed efficiently. However, their implementation remains uneven and the unused potential of National Listed Building Consent Orders points to a failure to fully utilise existing tools. (Conclusion, Paragraph 110)

We urge the government to make both Local and National Listed Building Consent Orders a standard and accessible route for the approval of low- risk and routine heritage works by supporting Local Planning Authorities to consider their immediate adoption. This should also include clearer national guidance encouraging early engagement, informal advice and the use of repair notices and proactive enforcement to prevent deterioration. The government should set out how this approach will be embedded in planning practice and review its effectiveness within two years of its implementation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 111)

We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government work together to develop targeted and sustained support to increase the 54 number of conservation officers and heritage specialists within local planning authorities. This should include dedicated central government grant funding to increase capacity and resourcing, alongside measures to improve recruitment, retention and access to consistent national guidance – particularly for authorities with large numbers of listed buildings and conservation areas. (Recommendation, Paragraph 115)

The government must ensure that planning policy and regulation enable and prioritise, rather than inhibit, climate adaptation and the decarbonisation of historic buildings. This work must include clearer national guidance for local authorities, reform of energy performance certificate methodology to reflect the needs of traditional buildings and greater weight in planning decisions for low-impact retrofit measures that support energy efficiency while safeguarding heritage value. (Conclusion, Paragraph 118) 55