Why does Scotland have twice as many of its heritage buildings at risk (8%) compared to the 4% in England?
Is it that we aren't looking after our old buildings? No-one has batted an eye at the permissive approach to demolition slipped into the permitted development regulations with no consultation.
Historic Scotland is distracted by merger and mainstreaming as expertise in heritage buildings in local authorities dwindles.
Many agree that too many of our old buildings are falling vacant and into disrepair. The combination of the structure of available funding and an economic climate leading, for instance, to school, NHS and court closures has made it very difficult to to make refurbishment and reuse schemes stack up.
Full VAT on repairs and metal thefts have made matters worse. Research by the London School of Economics indicated a 23% uplift for buildings in conservation areas but, in Scotland, heritage is seen too often as a problem rather than the asset it should be.
So how do we develop a pro-active and preventative approach? The regeneration and local government committee has taken evidence on a bill that seeks to strengthen the recovery of expenses when councils undertake work on defective or dangerous buildings. This is too little too late.
Scotland needs to move beyond focusing on recovery of expenses to more ambitious options. These include:
l How a formal duty of care might best be promoted, perhaps starting with a formal legislative responsibility on all public bodies to protect, enhance and have special regard to Scotland's historic environment and designated assets in state ownership.
l How fiscal policy could better encourage building repair and maintenance: for instance, a £3000 tax allowance over a three-year period to help improve maintenance and provide jobs.
l Exploring whether, as recently suggested for London, council tax could be doubled on vacant properties after due notice, perhaps a period of two years to allow time for action to sell or renovate the property. At present, there is minimal financial penalty (often a tax saving) on owners who let a building deteriorate to the point of becoming uninhabitable.
l How a lower VAT rate would act as an incentive to encourage repair and maintenance work, as opposed to the present new-build VAT incentive. This might also address the incentive to use non-VAT registered companies and the related "cash" economy.
We have worked with many other groups including the Federation of Master Builders to research the benefits of a lower 5% VAT rate for heritage building repair. All too often, a 20% VAT rate adversely affects the viability of refurbishment projects, which favoures house builders over home owners.
A simple, cost-effective relaxation of tax on maintenance and repairs would offer a much wider range of benefits to the Treasury, while also supporting carbon reduction, building standards, heritage skills and lower heating bills.
l How "short life" uses might be encouraged, either via a national Scottish short-life housing association or encouraging "pop-up" temporary uses. Temporary Licences of at least two years would help minimise deterioration during the development process and promote effective temporary uses.
These options are likely to be more successful than the suggested "certification and inspection" regime.
The formal housing, building, planning and conservation notices remain poorly used. There is a recovery rate of only 48% on costs of work undertaken in default.
No Scottish council has utilised compulsory purchase order powers to tackle blight and put property immediately up to auction with a legal agreement to secure repairs within a reasonable period. Some 50 English councils use such orders. Is Scotland up for responding to this challenge?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article