My local park brings back many happy childhood memories, but they were always tinged with a slight sadness because of the dilapidated Gothic building that overshadowed Saltwell Park.
Back in the mid-1980s, us kids saw so much potential in Saltwell Towers, not least because the building reminded us of Castle Duckula.
But our sensible parents were more pessimistic. They remembered the building in its prime and could not see where money would come from in a time of cuts to treat the woodworm and structural damage that had made it out of bounds to the public.
I’m happy to say that for once the adults were wrong. By the mid-1990s Lottery money had come to the rescue and Saltwell Towers reopened a few years ago as a visitors’ centre for the park.
Of course, Gateshead Council had a key role in the process of safeguarding the building and ultimately restoring it with the help of lottery cash. But with cuts of up to 20% forecast for local government, councils’ conservation and heritage sections will be severely under pressure. An event hosted by URBED and New Start yesterday looked at the potential for community activists to fill the breach by taking on heritage assets and running them for the benefit of the community.
Ian Morrison, head of historic environment conservation at the Heritage Lottery Fund, told delegates that councils should learn the lessons of the 1980s when maintenance budgets were slashed.
At the time, many local authorities looked to maximise returns by selling these buildings off to investors who didn’t have the money to return them to their former glory.
Mr Morrison added that a 1989 report revealed that many buildings were in a parlous state – though many were thankfully saved through two decades of investment of lottery money. But he said the current round of cuts pose new challenges for heritage campaigners.
The question is, will the heritage sector step up to challenges posed by the Big Society, or will cuts leave it with a legacy of heritage buildings that will require millions of pounds of investment?
Mr Morrison said that anecdotal evidence suggests that there is an appetite within community activists to step in and provide services that were previously provided by the state. ‘If enquiries to the Heritage Lottery fund can be considered a barometer of activity… it suggests that this activity is gathering pace,’ he revealed.
As the event moved into workshops, it was clear that public sector cuts were not universally feared by delegates. In fact, some were positively relishing the cuts which they saw as an opportunity to take on assets discarded by cash-strapped local authorities. One told me afterwards that he deplored the amount of empty buildings in his area and blamed his local authority for neglecting these assets.
With more opportunities to take on these assets emerging, one challenge for heritage activists will be making sure that projects meet a genuine need as well as preserving historic buildings.
Barry Quirk, chief executive of Lewisham Council, who headed a heritage asset transfer review for the last government, said successful asset transfer was not about the asset itself but about ‘crystalising a common cause around a building’. He advised delegates to look for a connection between the social purposes of the future with the assets of today.
So community activists may be faced with the twin demands of running public services and making sure that cuts do not leave a heritage black hole too big for Lottery money to tackle.
Newstart Blog: LINK
