sign in sign up
<<
Home , Blore with Swinscoe, Brown Edge, Draycott in the Moors, Endon and Stanley

“Counting our heritage” – an example of how local authorities can use volunteers

Richard Tuffrey How do we assess the condition of our heritage assets?

• In the order of 500,000 listed buildings in (Historic England)

• Of these, approximately 92% (460,000) are listed as Grade II (Historic England)

• From 2006-2017, number of specialist heritage staff employed in local government declined from approx. 800 FTE to 500 FTE – a fall of approx. 38% (IHBC) Counting our heritage • One of 19 pilot schemes arranged by English Heritage in 2013 • Objective to test the practicality of working with non- professional volunteers to carry out a survey of all Grade II listed buildings • Project ran across the whole of High Peak and Moorlands (outside the National Park)

Counting our heritage

The process Remember:

• Volunteers are acting as agents of the Council and so the same duty of care applies to both them and the public: o Act in professional manner o Health and safety

• Owners of properties can be understandably suspicious: o Why is the Council undertaking the survey? o Why are volunteers being used? How: • Advertised the survey in the local press and contacted known sources of potential volunteers

• Alert owners that the survey is taking place

• Appoint suitably experienced consultant to act as Project Managers

• Issue volunteers with: • Identifying lanyard • Letter of introduction from the Council and a point of contact back in the office • Hi vis jacket • Series of training events held: o Introduction to the project and why it is being undertaken o Introduction to ‘heritage assets’ and ‘assets at risk’ o Covered all relevant aspects of health and safety o Limitations of access for reasons of insurance cover o What to do if challenged o Volunteers allowed to choose an area to focus on o Practical example

• Fieldwork o Issued with lots of 10 properties at a time o Encouraged to record everything digitally and email responses o Project team moderated results to ensure consistency between Volunteers 2 COUNTING OUR HERITAGE 1 COUNTING OUR HERITAGE 4. CONDITION HERITAGE AT RISK SURVEY FORM Building elements Good Fair Poor Very bad Chimneys Please complete one form for each building/structure (even if the listing covers more than one building/structure) Roofs

Rainwater goods 1. BUILDING DETAILS Wall structure Doors and windows Designated site name Architectural details Building name Walls, gates & railings

Street number Other (specify)

Street name Good Fair Poor Very bad Locality OVERALL CONDITION See definitions on page 4 District / Borough

County

Postcode Other comments on building

condition National Grid Reference

Region List Entry Number

5. OCCUPANCY 6. RISK ASSESSMENT

Occupied / In use Low Risk / Not At Risk 2. BUILDING TYPE Partly occupied / Partly in use Vulnerable Building type - original Vacant / Not in use At Risk

Building type – N/A Use diagram on page 4 current/last known use Unknown

3. OWNER TYPE (tick all relevant) Charity - heritage Charity - other 7. SURVEY INFORMATION Commercial company Educational - independent North elevation East elevation South elevation West elevation

Educational - state sector English Heritage Photographs Government Health Date taken Other not for profit Local Authority community/voluntary groups Date of site visit Private Religious organisation Date of assessment (if different Unknown Multiple owners (tick all relevant) from above) Other (specify) Assessed by

2 1 COUNTING OUR HERITAGE 3 COUNTING OUR HERITAGE 4

APPENDIX A BUILDING USES OR TYPES APPENDIX C DEFINITIONS OF BUILDING CONDITION

AGRICULTURAL – Barn, stable, pigsty, outbuilding GOOD: Structurally sound; weathertight; no significant repairs needed. ANCILLARY – Outbuilding, wall, garden building, FAIR: Structurally sound; in need of minor repair; showing no signs of a lack of COMMERCIAL – Bank, office, post office, public house, shop, retail warehouse, market hall general maintenance. GOVERNMENT – Town hall, hall, government office, POOR: Deteriorating masonry; leaking roof; defective rainwater goods; usually INDUSTRIAL – Factory, mill, warehouse, watermill, windmill, brewery accompanied by rot outbreaks; general deterioration of most elements of the building fabric, including external joinery; or where there has been a LEISURE – Cinema, theatre, museum, swimming baths, fire or other disaster which has affected part of the building. RELIGIOUS – Church, chapel, mosque, temple, lychgate VERY BAD: Structural failure or clear signs of structural instability; loss of significant RESIDENTIAL – House, flat or apartment, farmhouse, lodge, hotel areas of the roof covering, leading to major deterioration of the interior; or PUBLIC BUILDING – School, library, hospital, workhouse, institute, courthouse, prison, where there has been a major fire or other disaster affecting most of the STREET FURNITURE & MONUMENTS – Milepost, statue, cross, sculpture building. UTILITY – Bridge, station, lock, sub-station, viaduct, aquaduct, pumping station

APPENDIX D ENGLISH HERITAGE RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B CONDITION OF MAIN BUILDING ELEMENTS BUILDING ELEMENT DEFECTS TO LOOK OUT FOR Pots missing; visible lean; flashings defective or missing; eroded Chimneys mortar joints; defective masonry – cracks, spalling, etc. Roof Individual roof covering elements: loss, displacement or damage Rainwater goods: debris collected/blocked, overflows Rainwater disposal Rainwater goods: cracked or leaking

Perimeter drainage channel: debris collected

Below ground drainage: clogged with debris

Copings or parapets defective or missing

Masonry wall cracked or visibly leaning; eroded masonry elements; eroded masonry joints Wall Structure Vegetative growth; ventilation grilles, air bricks or louvres obstructed; trees or vegetation close to walls; evidence of root damage to walls Timber frame members decayed or rotten; rendered or daubed panels cracked or eroded Window panes broken or missing; window frames, doors or fascia THIS FORM IS AVAILABLE IN OTHER FORMATS, IF REQUIRED. Doors and windows boards decayed, rotten or in need of decoration FOR DETAILS PLEASE CONTACT Architectural details Eroded or cracked surfaces; damaged or missing elements URBAN VISION NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE, SCHOOL OF ART, QUEEN Walls, gates and Damaged or missing elements; eroded surfaces; in need of STREET, , STOKE-ON-TRENT ST6 3EJ, decoration railings TELEPHONE NO: 01782 790595 !

3 4

HERITAGE AT RISK SURVEY RESULTS

HIGH PEAK Buildings List Entries List Entries List Entries Surveyed Not Surveyed Surveyed At Risk Vulnerable Not At Risk Surveyors (List entries surveyed) Photographs Buxton 94 93 1 93 5 8 80 Phil Jones (22); Judith Hubble (20); David Morten (26); Janet Byers (25) Chapel-en-le-Frith 56 56 0 56 4 3 49 Mike Smith (17); Guy Martin (22); Jocelyn Street (17) Charlesworth 7 5 1 6 0 0 5 Judith Hubble (6) Chinley, Buxworth & Brownside 17 17 0 17 1 0 16 Richard Hubble (17) Chisworth 6 5 1 5 0 0 5 Adrian Lyne (5) Glossop 84 118 0 84 4 11 103 Adrian Lyne (34); Frank Ackley (14) ; Mike Tomlinson (1); Phil Teece (18); Linda Newman (14); Phil Ashley (3) Green Fairfield 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Phil Ashley (1) Hartington Upper Quarter 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 Phil Ashley (2) Hayfield 25 26 2 23 0 2 24 Phil Ashley (23) King Sterndale 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Phil Jones (1) New Mills 62 56 6 56 1 5 50 John Pritchard (26); Francis Worsley (18); Phil Jones (9); David Morten (3) Tintwistle 3 7 0 3 0 0 7 Adrian Lyne (3) Whaley Bridge 20 20 0 20 1 3 16 John Pritchard (20) Total = 378 407 11 367 19 32 356 97.09% 4.67% 7.86% 87.47%

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS Buildings List Entries List Entries List Entries Surveyed Not Surveyed Surveyed At Risk Vulnerable Not At Risk Surveyors Alton 55 25 30 25 2 5 18 Mel Trafford (9); Rachel Trafford (10); David Slade (6) Bagnall 17 19 0 17 1 2 16 John Newall (17) 50 23 27 23 0 2 21 Hilda Sheldon (14); Helen Roberts (9) 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 5 5 4 0 1 4 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 Cheadle 71 69 2 69 1 4 64 Alan Wigley (22) ; Mike Plant (22); John Smith (25) 52 0 52 0 0 0 0 75 54 22 53 8 10 36 Chris Hesketh (27); Joan Bennett (28) 9 6 2 7 1 1 4 Faith Cleverdon (6) Cotton 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 18 17 1 17 3 4 10 John Sambrook (17) 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 and Stanley 45 47 4 41 3 21 23 John Sambrook (23); Cath Walton (17); Faith Cleverdon (5) Farley 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 Heaton 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 Horton 26 17 9 17 2 3 12 Rob Ford (6); Lee Whittaker (11) 89 56 33 56 4 10 42 Brian Forrester (19); Alison Lee (23); Fred Edgerton (10); Janet Nash (4) Kingsley 48 0 48 0 0 0 0 Leek 134 107 45 89 4 13 90 Faith Cleverdon (24); Liz Rhodes (22); Roger Warrilow (24); Michael Stapleton(19) 4 4 0 4 0 0 4 Rob Ford (4) 18 9 9 9 0 0 9 Lee Whittaker (7) 14 5 9 5 1 0 4 David Slade (5) Rushton 27 21 6 21 1 2 18 Margaret Mullins (12); Dorothy Kay (12) 6 5 1 5 0 2 3 Rob Ford (4) Waterhouses 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 Werrington 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 Total = 895 489 433 462 31 80 378 51.62% 6.34% 16.36% 77.30%

Total Buildings = 1273 896 444 829 5.58% 12.50% 81.92% 65.12% Counting our heritage

Results • Nearly 1,200 Grade II listed buildings across the two districts

• 41 volunteers came forward • Wide range of skills and experience from conservation accredited architects through to unskilled enthusiasts

• Work undertaken between May to August 2013 • High Peak: 377 out of 378 list entries were surveyed – 99% - 24 each

• Staffs Moorlands: 462 out of 895 list entries were surveyed – 52% - 18 each

• Combined: 839 out of 1273 list entries were surveyed – 66% - 20 each

• Pilots nationally: Approx. 5000 buildings surveyed Counting our heritage

Lessons learnt • Heritage sector fortunate in having a huge resource to be used – turn their enthusiasm into action

• Ensure that there are no hidden agendas or ‘hobby horses’

• Need for a project manager and how to resource it – project budget £26,850 • Limitations: o Access – publically accessible land only o Technology – digital cameras, Excel and possible future use of tablets o Skills – the English Heritage form needs simplifying o Skills – complexity of buildings

• How to maintain interest: o Knowledge sharing and thank you event

• Started in 2011 to assess 9,000 heritage assets across the county • Funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (£353,700), Lincolnshire County Council, Lincoln City Council and 6 districts • Aimed to develop a county-wide strategy to improve the management of heritage at risk by: o Involving local communities o Recuiting and training a network of volunteer heritage stewards o Raising awareness of issues facing Lincolnshire’s heritage • Project budget was just over £630,000 but would be scalable • 375 people developed skillls to carry out heritage asset condition surveys • 152 people actively volunteered contributing £153,000 • 116 young people (16-25) trained and 30 volunteered. • Found volunteers via the internet, newsletters, volunteering centres and local history groups • Were limitations with certain types of heritage assets – recording condition of listed buildings was the most successful Heritage Champions: Addressing Derbyshire’s Heritage at Risk • Bid to the HLF by the Derbyshire Historic Buildings Trust and Derbyshire County Council • Seeking support from all of the 9 district councils, Derby City Council and the National Park Authority • Targeting up to 300 volunteers • Seen as part of a re-launch of the Derbyshire Historic Buildings Trust Conclusions • Heritage sector fortunate in having a huge resource to be used – turn the public’s enthusiasm into action

• Projects demonstrate that there is scope to make use of non- professional volunteers to supplement professional staff

• Having a comprehensive survey of the condition of the heritage stock enables limited local authority resources to be focused

• Limitations

• Raises public awareness of heritage issues

• Scope for skills development and training