The Government’s Response to ODPM Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee Report on the Role of Historic Buildings in Urban Regeneration was presented to Parliament in November 2004 (Cm 6420).

The Committee had argued that ‘the historic environment has an important part to play in regeneration schemes, helping to create vibrant interesting areas, boosting local economies and restoring local confidence. When historic buildings including churches and theatres are no longer needed for their original use, they are capable of conversion for a wide range of other purposes.’

The Government response was to ‘agree wholeheartedly … that the historic environment has an important part to play in regeneration. The Government agrees with the Committee’s findings that … heritage-led regeneration reinforces the sense of community pride, makes an important contribution to the local economy and acts as a catalyst for improvements to the wider area.’

Recognising that sympathetic conversion of historic buildings is often at the heart of regeneration, the Government noted that ‘this reduces the use of natural resources and energy and helps add value and distinctiveness.’

A specific recommendation of the Committee was that ‘the reuse of historic buildings can be more environmentally sustainable than, and the environmental performance can be as good as, new-build projects’.

The Government’s response included the following points.

‘Well designed new extensions, and the imaginative use of internal spaces can help some older houses meet today’s needs, whilst retaining the character that is part of their value. The problem of size can be overcome by simply combining two houses into one (or three into two) to create larger units.

The adaptation and reuse of historic buildings is environmentally sustainable. Our current building stock represents a huge investment in terms of environmental capital and energy. Recent research undertaken by English Heritage in the North West of England found that, on the basis of repair cost projections stretching over 30 years, the cost of repairing a typical Victorian terraced house was between 40% and 60% cheaper (depending on the level of refurbishment) than replacing it with a new home.

Repair and refurbishment is cost effective. Much of the historic building stock that survives is robust, highly adaptable and with regular maintenance could survive almost indefinitely. Research for Heritage Counts 2003 has demonstrated that older housing costs less to maintain and occupy over the long-term life of the dwelling than more modern housing.

When the energy used in demolition, site remediation and the construction of new houses is considered, there is an even stronger environmental argument for promoting the reuse of the historic built stock.’

A good practice example in Derby . . .  

In a section of the paper on Government Departments as Land and Property Owners , the Government’s response mentions that English Heritage’s Government Historic Estates Unit (GHEU) gives advice to government departments and other Crown bodies on all aspects of their historic estate.

It mentions that in June 2004 the GHEU held its annual conference in the refurbished Treasury Building in Great George Street.

Under the theme of sustainability, the conference provided an opportunity for those involved to disseminate new policy initiatives and to share best practice. The Treasury Building itself is described in the paper as ‘the embodiment of a sustainable approach to the built environment. Here the retention and repair of a historic Grade II* listed building went hand in hand with the creation of a high quality contemporary office environment that incorporates award winning environmental benefits and delivers access for all.'

 

Another example quoted in the Government’s paper is the Magistrates' Courts Centre, St Mary's Gate. This too is an award winner. For more about the Derby scheme, go to Green Apple National Civic Pride Awards 2004 - Derby's success.