THE DEBASEMENT OF HERITAGE

Gavin Stamp finds

the civil service mind blighting the care of historic buildings

A FEW weeks ago, in the course of a largely unnecessary external cleaning of Chiswick House, unsupervised workmen sandblasted the statues of Lord Burling- ton's two heroes, Andrea Palladio and Inigo Jones. Neither the architect nor the historian responsible for this most famous and important building had been con- sulted. The ultimate perpetrator of this outrage was the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, a.k.a. English Heritage, but there was nothing particular- ly remarkable about it, as Chiswick has for long been incompetently and badly man- aged by various government bodies.

What was remarkable was the response of English Heritage to questions about its treatment of this national monument. The head of Properties in Care wrote a furious letter to the Georgian Group denying its criticisms and impugning its competence to comment. Here was the instinctive reac- tion of a civil servant to outside interfer- ence rather than the response to legitimate public concern by the national body re- sponsible for conservation and the care of ancient monuments — a body which is meant to be independent of government.

At about the very moment that Chiswick was being maltreated, provoking the res- ignation of the new curator after less than a month in the job, the Head of Conserva- tion at English Heritage sent the following memorandum to all heads of department: 'I have noticed lately that the use of the names "The Historic Buildings and Monu- ments Commission" and "The Commis- sion" is still frequent in internal corres- pondence, letters, publications etc. The Commission and the Management Group have agreed that English Heritage should be used in all correspondence. The only exceptions should be when there is legal advice that our statutory name should be used. Would you please ask all your staff to follow this practice.'

It might well be thought that the time and effort wasted in this bureaucratic exercise would have been better spent on supervising conservation at Chiswick. More important, perhaps, about this memorandum is that it suggests that mem- bers of staff are unhappy about the name 'English Heritage', what with all the cur- rent debasement of the word 'heritage' resulting from its excessive and often frivo- lous usage. English Heritage is, in fact, an appropriate name as it suggests the uncer- tain and equivocal status of the Commis- sion, which produces confusion in the public mind. For, whether for better or for worse, English Heritage is a quango. As English Heritage celebrates its fourth birthday on 1 April, it is worth considering how well it is fulfilling the intentions of its creators.

English Heritage was the brainchild of Michael Heseltine, whose extended reign as Secretary of State for the Environment increasingly seems like a Golden Age. His consultation paper of November 1981, on the Organisation of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings in England, envis- aged a new conservation and curatorial body which, although principally funded by the Treasury, would be 'at arm's length' from central government. This body, he hoped, would be 'more able to stand up against cuts in central government funds' by being independent as well as more

'God, she's thin.'

active, more impartial, less subject to political pressure and less bureaucratic. Heseltine was also 'convinced that there is considerable scope for a more imaginative approach to promoting monuments with- out detracting in any way from their historical importance', and the quango created by the 1983 National Heritage Act has certainly followed 'a more commercially-minded approach'.

However, in other respects, because Heseltine had departed from Marsham Street, his creation was sabotaged at birth. He had felt that, 'It is essential that the Commission be enabled to advise on the preservation and maintenance of historic buildings in the government estate', but government buildings as well as royal palaces were excluded from English Herit- age's control. Furthermore, the chair- manship of the new commission was initial- ly offered to Jennifer Jenkins, then Chair- man of the Historic Buildings Council. In the event, the job was given to Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. Lord Montagu has contributed much to English Heritage, particularly in the field of displaying coun- try houses, which is his particular enthu- siasm, but it is fair to say that he does not have the concern for urban issues, nor the understanding of political pressures, which Dame Jennifer would have contributed. The impression is that either the Govern- ment or the civil service was determined that the new independent body would not be too independent.

At first, the principal worries with En- glish Heritage concerned its evident delight in a rather vulgar commercialism, what with its silly logo, T-shirts, keyrings and such like. Marketing and management consultants were brought in and were even allowed to write guides and brochures. The feeling within the Commission is that things are now getting better as the com- mercialism has been tamed, although only this year an inaccurate publicity leaflet about the Armada Exhibition at Tilbury Fort was issued by the commission's adver- tising agency. Such things matter, as they undermine the commission's vital role as an authoritative professional body.

In the event, however, the real threat to English Heritage has come not front marketing men but from bureaucracy, and an obsession with management. Along with the inspectors, historians and architects from the Department of the Environment in 1984 came administrators, and these have since been joined by yet more civil servants. Although all the Com- missioners and members of the various advisory committees are expert outsiders, the top three jobs in the commission ,- Chief Executive, Head of Conservation and Head of Properties in Care — are all performed by former 'high flying' civil servants, not necessarily with any particu- lar interest in or knowledge of historic buildings. All this leads to a certain caution and timidity, an obsession with niceties of

procedure rather than objectives. The atti- tudes of the Treasury must be responsible for the fact that, in 1987, the Commission actually managed to underspend its budget by £3 million — which makes me furious when I remember how Monkton was lost to the nation partially because English Heritage would not come up with a serious amount of money.

It is commonplace in Conservative cir- cles to remark that nobody now laments the passing of the Greater London Coun- cil. I do, and not least because of the unparalleled excellence of its Historic Buildings Division. Established within the London County Council after the second world war by the architect, W. A. Eden, this was a body not equalled in expertise and activity by that in any other capital city. Its success lay in the employment of professionals — architects and historians — who worked closely together and today the London Division can still boast some of the best people in the country.

It was most fortunate that the London Division was rescued entire from the wreck of the GLC two years ago — on 1 April 1986 — but, inevitably, the separateness and peculiarity of this body have provoked resentment within the rest of English Heritage. The civil service mind cannot tolerate the traditions of professionalism and independence within the London Divi- sion, where, in the days of the GLC, employees were actively encouraged to write books and establish reputations in a wider world. Such individuality must now be suppressed, so the staffing review has made sure that administrators are graded more highly than professionals. Instead of informed flexibility, every post now must be defined and graded.

The complaints — from the profession- als — are loud and consistent. Staff are `not allowed to get on with the job', so `reducing the Division's effectiveness'. There is now just 'more paper' while the general atmosphere is felt to be 'anti- prokssionar. Civil service administrators seem unable to understand what staff actually do, so multifarious are their activi- ties in the field of historic buildings. The result has been a serious loss of morale; downgraded posts — like those of architects — are not being filled, and now has come the resignation of Ashley Barker, the Head of the London Division. The official reason for this melancholy event is that he wishes to return to private architectural practice before he is too old, but it is impossible not to conclude that Mr Barker is distressed at seeing the decline of the division he has built up. Staff outside London have suggested that the complaints really result from London people finding their higher salaries and privileges reduced while they have now to work as hard as the over-worked Inspectorate elsewhere. But this is unfair,

as there are wider issues at stake. Lord Montagu quite rightly wants English Herit- age to be 'a centre of excellence on, and spokesman for, conservation matters'. If so, perhaps the administrators should have considered modelling the rest of English Heritage on the London Division rather than vice versa. It is now widely believed that there is a danger of the London Division either being broken up or break- ing up if the best people leave. This would be serious as it would mean the loss of the London Division's unique statutory power to determine listed building cases. If it is suggested that London is not England, it is nevertheless true that London is the na- tion's capital in which ten per cent of England's listed buildings are to be found and where there are also the strongest pressures to demolish and redevelop.

The desire of the civil service mind to tame the London Division also extends to other legacies of the GLC. In 1986 English Heritage acquired three more properties: the Ranger's House at Greenwich, Marble Hill and Kenwood House. All three were run well by the GLC — it is only necessary to compare the state of Chiswick House with that of Marble Hill, a less important monument, to see that. But English Herit- age seems anxious to re-examine and change the way Kenwood, in particular, is administered while failing to understand that a building which is an art gallery as well as a monument must be labour- intensive.

All is far from lost elsewhere in English Heritage. Outside the Thames region, historic houses and properties are usually well run and presented. Furthermore, En- glish Heritage occasionally can fight pub- licly and hard — I just wish it would do so more often. The defeat of Thames Water's plan to moor a floating shopping centre longer than Westminster Abbey by West- minster Pier was a great victory for Lord Montagu and for Dr Philip Whitbourne of the London Division (although it is then depressing to learn that the administrators want Dr Whitbourne to retire now at 60 rather than 65 even though this architect- historian is the most resourceful and suc- cessful fighter of public inquiries the orga- nization has). English Heritage has, in fact, benefitted from its independence, just as its founders hoped. Because it is now clearly separate from the Department of the Environment, it has won the confi- dence of local authorities.

On the other hand, the evident hostility between the commission and the DoE does not encourage English Heritage's work. Information and goodwill are withheld by an arm of government which seems now to take pleasure in turning down requests to have buildings listed. English Heritage was established to be the official advisory body on the statutory listing of historic buildings and the recent all-party environment com- mittee recommended that the whole pro- cess of listing should be carried through by the Commission. The present Secretary of State for the Environment will not have this, however, and, at present, English Heritage's formal recommendations for the listing of post-war buildings and of more of London's • maltreated Under- ground stations are being blocked at some level between the DoE and the Cabinet. This is an area in which English Heritage ought to be making a very loud fuss.

English Heritage has powerful enemies who would love to see its effectiveness diminished. Mr Ridley has chosen to re- duce the number of Commissioners to the minimum. English Heritage must fight back, as its founders intended, but it cannot do this with pliant Commissioners and compromising members of its advisory committes any more than it can if it is run by individuals with the mentality and im- agination of Treasury officials. The care of historic buildings is more important than methods management. Perhaps I am too conscious of the special problems of the London Division, but until I realised what is going on there I had not fully appreci- ated the emasculating, undermining, ener- vating power of civil servants. All those who care about historic buildings must beware the Historic Buildings and Monu- ments Commission for England going the way of the National Health Service.