From grand palaces to Victorian terraced housing, historic buildings are part of the UK’s cultural fabric. England has roughly 350,000 listed buildings, and 2.8 million homes in conservation areas (zones of special historic or architectural interest).
Conscientious retrofit projects, which preserve original character while upgrading buildings for the modern age, can help to conserve our built heritage, while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions, lowering energy bills and boosting economic growth. It is estimated that retrofitting the UK’s historic buildings could generate £35bn of economic output per year. In April, a roundtable held by London-based international property group Grosvenor explored the barriers facing these retrofit projects and how they could be overcome through policy change and sector collaboration. Held in the fitting setting of the renovated Royal United Services Institute building in Westminster, the roundtable marked the launch of Grosvenor’s new related report Retrofit or Ruin.
Chaired by Grosvenor’s chief sustainability officer, Tor Burrows, the roundtable had 15 cross-sector attendees, including representatives from the Wellcome Trust, Whitbread, National Trust, Historic England, Octopus Energy, Greene King and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, among others. There was consensus that overcoming the hurdles to retrofitting listed buildings is a necessity for their longevity. “We think it’s really important that historic buildings are adapted and continue to be seen as attractive places to live and work, and that means ensuring that they can continue to be developed to meet modern standards,” said Ian Morrison, director of policy and evidence at Historic England. “We need to find ways to make it easier and simpler to make our historic buildings more energy efficient, because we do not want them to be obsolete.”
Improving the planning system
A consistent thread was the amount of red tape in the planning application process, which significantly impedes progress on retrofit projects.
James Wickham, partner at the real estate adviser Newmark, highlighted how property developers still need planning permission from the local authority to proceed with projects, even when they have already been granted listed-building consent. Streamlining this process could be an “easy fix for the government”, he said.
In its report, Grosvenor laid out two key policy recommendations to streamline the process: a new national listed-building consent order (NLBCO), which would remove the need for individual listed-building consent applications, and would provide consent for low-risk retrofit measures on a national scale; and a new national model local development order (LDO), which can be adapted by local authorities and would remove the need for individual planning consent applications in conservation areas, providing consent for low risk retrofit measures on a national scale.
Data from Historic England would suggest that making the process more straightforward would benefit homeowners and free up local authorities, with 93 per cent of listed-building consent applications for retrofit works given the green light, yet only a third are approved in the required eight-week period. Grosvenor is already implementing this proposed “blanket” approach locally in Westminster, where London’s largest residential square,
Eaton Square, is now subject to a local listed-building consent order (LLBCO), permitting large-scale improvements to windows, awnings and solar panel installations that could reduce residents’ annual carbon emissions by 19 per cent.
It was noted that many historic buildings in England are formulaic, such as residential terraced houses. Having a set of design guidelines for these “simpler, more repetitive buildings” would be “invaluable”, argued Cordula Zeidler, head of placemaking and heritage at conservation architectural firm Donald Insall Associates.
Consistency in local authorities
Another issue that came up was the lack of clarity from local government, with a confusing lack of consistency between – and sometimes within – local authorities on planning permission. The Wellcome Trust has a £3bn property portfolio, concentrated on an estate in South Kensington, London. Tracey Hartley, head of asset management, said the trust had faced major hurdles in upgrading its properties with technology such as heat pumps or insulation. In one building, they were told by the local authority to install “heavy floor-length curtains and decorative fabric walls” instead.
“We have had various challenges around the installation of heat pumps… and we’ve had quite conflicting advice,” she said. “We’ve had a planning officer say one thing, and then heritage come along and say something else. “We feel that the problem is not so much the planning system itself, as the uncertainty around how it’s interpreted and implemented.” Lizzy Carlyle, head of climate and environment at the National Trust, said the organisation has successfully installed heat pumps and fabric insulation into historic buildings, highlighting Osterley House in Isleworth, which has had its damp and mould issues eradicated. But she agreed that “inconsistency across planning authorities does erode that confidence and makes it a harder capability to build into our teams.”
A dearth of skills in heritage refurbishment was discussed, which has led to a cultural problem of avoidance and a lack of confidence in local government. But attendees also acknowledged that local authorities are under-resourced and lack the capacity to move away from case-by-case decision-making and adopt a more strategic approach. In its report, Grosvenor recommends a funding grant for an upskilling programme, offering local planning authorities access to training and conservation specialists.
Given how difficult it is for local authorities, understanding planning procedures as a residential owner can be even more complex. Morrison highlighted how Historic England has a tool on its website called Your Home, which offers helpful advice and guidance on living in, maintaining and upgrading old buildings. More public-awareness campaigns like this would help people navigate the system.
A need for government focus
Property owners, including Whitbread and Greene King, agreed that the current system makes retrofitting listed buildings particularly challenging, with high costs, complex planning requirements and limited government impetus often pushing investment towards easier-to-treat assets. Attendees felt that more government investment is needed. Matthew Blades, director of the built environment at the Oxford Street Development Corporation, suggested a nationally funded programme could help to test LBCOs on different types of streets, then applied more widely.
Emma Fletcher, director of low carbon homes at Octopus Energy, added that the sector should lobby the government for ring-fenced funding within the Warm Homes Fund, which provides free energy efficiency improvements to low-income households. Many listed buildings are not on track to meet the government’s Energy Performance Certification (EPC) requirements by 2030. She noted the prevalence of listed properties in rural communities, and said there was a perception issue: those living in highly valued or historically significant buildings are not necessarily wealthy themselves. Attendees agreed that historic buildings have not been a priority. “There’s a lot of pressure on planning,” said Andrew Short, head of development management policy at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. “One of the challenges that heritage has is… it is only a small element of the housing stock.”
Historic buildings are roughly a quarter of all UK homes and a third of all commercial buildings. Despite this, upgrading historic buildings will be crucial in helping the UK reach its net zero targets, given that buildings are the UK’s second-highest carbon-emitting sector. But conservation of these treasured buildings also has other purposes – not least delivering growth, and rebuilding civic pride and cohesion, at a time of increasing societal and economic division.
Read Retrofit or Ruin: Planning for the future of heritage here
Related
