NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
REPORTBY THE COMPTROLLERAND AUDITOR GENERAL
Upkeepof Historic Buildingson the Civil Estate
ORDEREDBY THEHOUSEOFCOMMONS TO BE PRINTED 13 NOVEMBER1991
LONDON: HMSO 37 f7.50 NET UPKEEP OF HISTORIC B”LDlNGS ON THE CI”L ESTATE
This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act, 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act.
John Bourn National Audit Office Comptroller and Auditor General 7 November 1991
The Comptroller and Auditor General is the head of the National Audit Office employing some 900 staff. He, and the NAO are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide rangeof otherpublic sector bodies; and he hasstatutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies use their resources. UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Contents
Pages Summary and conclusions 1
Part 1: Background and scope 5
Part 2: Condition of Historic Buildings 8
Part 3: Central arrangements 11
Part 4: Departmental arrangements: Property Holdings 13
Part 5: Departmental arrangements: HM Customs and Excise 16
Part 6: Departmental arrangements: The Lord Chancellor’s Department 19
Appendices
1. Management of building maintenance: Value for money 21
2. Five buildings inspected by the National Audit Office Consultant Surveyors 23
3. Examination of four Historic Buildings 30
4. Maintenance responsibilities 39
5. Building maintenance records examined by the National Audit Office 40 “KEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Summary and conclusions
1 The Nation’s built heritage includes nearly 600 historic buildings which form part of the Government’s Civil Estate of over 8,000 buildings. The Government are committed to the preservation and conservation of the built heritage and departments responsible for the upkeep of historic buildings are required to look after them expertly and sensitively. They are required to aim for the highest standards of conservation. These commitments were set out in the Environment White Paper “This Common Inheritance” (Cm 1200 September 1990).
2 In April 1990 there were major changes in responsibilities for the upkeep of the Government’s Civil Estate. Control of around 40 per cent of the properties passed from the former Property Services Agency to departments. The remaining 60 per cent formed the Common User Estate which is managed by Property Holdings. With the agreement of Property Holdings, departments may, however opt to assume all, or some, responsibility for maintenance of particular Common User Estate properties.
3 Against this background the National Audit Office examined: . the condition of historic buildings and the cost of any outstanding maintenance when responsibility for managing the Civil Estate passed to departments and Property Holdings in April 1990 (Part 2); . the central arrangements, notably the role of the Conservation Unit (Part 3): and . what Property Holdings, HM Customs and Excise and the Lord Chancellor’s Department are doing to eliminate the maintenance backlog and to keep their historic buildings in a good state of repair at minimum long-term cost (Parts 4-6).
The condition of 4 To assess the overall condition of historic buildings and the extent of any Historic Buildings backlog of maintenance when departmental responsibilities changed in April 1990, the National Audit Office examined the main features of the former Property Services Agency’s systems and related records, including those for a sample of 31 properties. The National Audit Office commissioned consultant surveyors, Watts and Partners, to advise on best practice, to develop criteria for achieving value for money from building maintenance and to carry out overview surveys of five of the buildings. The National Audit Office’s main findings and conclusions were: (a] The Property Services Agency estimated that the maintenance backlog on the whole of the Civil Estate at 31 March 1990 was about El53 million, including El35 million classified as either unavoidable or essential. But the Agency did not identify how much related to historic buildings (paragraph 2.2). (b) In 1985 the Property Services Agency began a programme of quadrennial inspections of historic buildings to identify, prioritise and assess the cost of restoration and conservation work. By March 1990 the
1 UPKEEP OF HlSTORlC BUlLDlNGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Agency had inspected 74 per cent of the buildings where an inspection was due (paragraph 2.3). (cl Of 254 quadrennial inspection reports examined by the National Audit Office, only 59 per cent contained costed recommendations (paragraph 2.4). Cdl The quadrennial inspection reports were of variable quality and often lacked essential information on cost, timing and priority of maintenance (paragraph 2.4). According to the inspection reports available, the condition of 26 of a sample of 31 buildings was fair or better. But in only six cases had conservation action plans been prepared (paragraph 2.5 and Table 3). (f) The maintenance records relating to the sample of 31 buildings were incomplete. It was not possible to establish the link between maintenance recommendations and the cost, timing and nature of the work carried out (paragraph 2.6). k) The National Audit Office’s consultant surveyors’ inspection of five of the 31 buildings identified: a poor standard of housekeeping maintenance by the occupiers, for example, uncleared gutters; unsympathetic repairs to the historic fabric of buildings, some of which had occurred before the Property Services Agency assumed maintenance responsibility; and some deficiencies in health and safety standards, for example, unsafe access ladders and walkways to roofs (paragraph 2.7 and Appendix 2). (h) The National Audit Office’s detailed reviews of four other buildings showed that the Agency were capable of achieving a high standard of conservation work (York Crown Court): that untimely maintenance can lead to expensive restoration (Dundee Custom House); and that some buildings (7 to 9 Babmaes Street and Teddington Hall) had been allowed to deteriorate well below the statutory standards required of private sector owners (paragraph 2.8 and Appendix 3).
5 The National Audit Office noted that the Property Services Agency had operated well-established systems for identifying, planning and carrying out maintenance work. But, because of the unreliability of the Agency’s records, it was not possible to form an opinion on the condition of the historic estate as a whole or to quantify the cost of clearingthe maintenancebacklog. Nevertheless, the evidence examined by the National Audit Office suggests that, while recognising the funding constraints to which the Property Services Agency drew attention, there is much work to be done to improve the standard of conservation and to safeguard the built heritage.
The Conservation 6 Following the reorganisation of the Property Services Agency in April 1990 Unit responsibility for the Conservation Unit transferred to Property Holdings. The National Audit Office examined the role of the Unit and found: (a) The Unit provide a valuable advisory service to departments on conservation matters (paragraphs 3.8 and 3.13). (b) The Unit are preparing a computerised register of historic buildings containing information which will be available to all departments (paragraph 3.8). (c) The Unit are developing a database of private sector specialist
2 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
consultants on which departments can draw. They are also revising their handbook and publicising their services, which are free to departments (paragraphs 3.8 to 3.10). (4 Until 1987-88 the Unit prepared an annual report on conservation work on the Civil and Defence Estates. There is now no such overview of achievement and plans for historic buildings on the Government estate. However, specific proposals to address these points are being developed by the Conservation Unit (paragraph 3.13).
7 In the National Audit Office’s opinion the Conservation Unit, which the Property Services Agency established in 1978, have an important part to play in the achievement of the Government’s conservation aims. But, with the change of responsibilities in April 1990, departments need to be better aware of the Unit’s services and to co-operate in providing information to inform the new database of historic buildings.
8 Although the Conservation Unit cannot dictate to others, their advisory role could be strengthened by an appropriately fuller knowledge of the state of historic buildings within Government. Property Holdings may therefore wish to explore how such information could most readily be provided; and whether they should be informed of departments’ conservation achievements. For their part, departments need to consider how to account for their conservation work. As a first step they might set objectives and targets for this work and record performance in their annual reports.
Departmental 9 Departments need to develop soundly based maintenance strategies. This arrangements will help ensure, amongst other things, that the upkeep of historic buildings meets the Government’s conservation aims. These strategies require comprehensive records for each building, clearly defined maintenance standards, priorities and inspection procedures and a careful determination of the financial and human resource needs. The National Audit Office examined the systems and procedures introduced in April 1990 by Property Holdings, HM Customs and Excise and the Lord Chancellor’s Department against the criteria summarised in the guide at Appendix 1. Their main findings and conclusions were: (a) The Departments recognise that they have a duty to meet the Government’s aims for conservation of historic buildings (paragraphs 4.5, 5.2 and 6.2). (b) To inform their estate and maintenance strategies, the departments had set up computerised building records needed as a basis for planning and monitoring maintenance expenditure (paragraphs 4.10, 5.4 and 6.7). (c) Because, amongst other things, of doubts about the completeness and accuracy of the Property Services Agency’s records and in order to fulfil their new responsibilities the departments were in the process of commissioning maintenance inspections of all of their buildings (paragraphs 4.12, 5.5 and 6.5). (d) Property Holdings are continuing the previous inspection strategy, including quadrennial inspections of their historic buildings. The Lord Chancellor’s Department are also continuing with quadrennial inspections. HM Customs and Excise have adopted a three year cycle of inspections, with special briefing for historic buildings (paragraphs 4.5, 5.5 and 6.6).
3 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CI”,L ESTATE
(e) The departments aim to identify and clear their backlogs of priority maintenance works as quickly as possible: Property Holdings by the mid-1990s, HM Customs and Excise by 1993-94 and the Lord Chancellor’s Department by 1996 (paragraphs 4.15, 5.8 and 6.9). (f) Property Holdings and the Lord Chancellor’s Department employed professional building and estates management staff. HM Customs and Excise had opted, however, to rely mainly on private sector consultants for identifying and managing maintenance and had introduced controls over the quality of their work (paragraphs 4.16, 5.10, 5.12 and 6.10). (g) All three departments are introducing competition for maintenance services. HM Customs and Excise completed their programme of market testing in August 1991. Property Holdings aim to have market tested all services by March 1994 and the Lord Chancellor’s Department by the end of 1993 (paragraphs 4.18, 5.16 and 6.12).
10 The National Audit Office recognise the difficulties the departments faced when they assumed their new responsibilities in April 1990; and the arrangements they have set up to manage their historic and other buildings. The National Audit Office endorse the departments’ commitment to identify and clear the maintenance backlog; their action to develop maintenance strategies and to set up reliable systems; and their aims of securing value for money through competition. The departments have also taken action to establish proper staffing levels and acquire professional expertise either in- house, or from private sector consultants.
11 More specifically, in order that departments may meet the Government’s objective of preserving and conserving the built heritage to the highest standards, and to make the best use of the funds available, they need to: . complete the work involved in establishing the condition of their historic buildings; . maintain a programme of condition surveys; . derive from them properly costed conservation plans: . set up comprehensive databases; . take decisions in concert with all parties involved at an early stage: and
l make full use of the expertise available in the Conservation Unit and elsewhere.
12 To do otherwise increases risks such as buildings remaining unoccupied for long periods or becoming seriously dilapidated, necessitating large scale and expensive repairs and renovations, perhaps to the extent shown in the examples referred to in Appendix 3 to this report.
4 UPKEEPOF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Part 1: Background and scope
1.1 The Government’s Civil Estate, excluding the and should aim for the highest standards of National Health Service estate and the Home conservation. They are required to look after Office’s prison estate, comprises about 6,000 historic buildings in their care expertly and properties, of which 563 [seven per cent) are sensitively. Departments can use their annual of historical merit. Some 470 of these Departmental Reports to set out the action buildings are listed as being of special they have taken to follow up the architectural or historical interest under the Environment White Paper. Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the Town and Country 1.5 These objectives continue the Department of Planning (Scotland] Act 1972, or scheduled as the Environment’s earlier policy that ancient monuments under the Ancient departments were expected to set an example Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act “of the highest order” in the care of historic 1979. The remaining buildings are in buildings, monuments and protected areas designated conservation areas under the (Environment Select Committee, First Report, above Acts, or have been given the non- Session 1966-87 HC 146). In November 1968 statutory classification of “buildings of merit” the Government told the Environment by the former Property Services Agency. The Committee that conservation work on estate comprises crown feeehold and historic buildings would be identified and leasehold properties and, as well as office carried out through the programme of accommodation, includes specialised quadrennial inspections co-ordinated by the buildings such as courts and custom houses. Property Services Agency’s Conservation Unit. Lower priority conservation work 1.2 In 1987-88, the last year for which would be done once the backlog of the comprehensive information was available, highest priority work had been cleared the Agency spent over f37 million on (Second Special Report, Session 1966-69 maintaining and renovating historic HC 60). buildings. But the Civil Estate as a whole has been seriously under-maintained in recent years. Although figures for historic buildings Historic Buildings alone are not available, the Agency estimated that at 31 March 1990 the total backlog of 1.6 Buildings are assessed for listing on behalf of maintenance work was about ~153 million. the Secretaries of State by inspectors from English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Cadw 1.3 In addition to the Civil Estate’s buildings and the Department of the Environment there are about 650 historic buildings on the (Northern Ireland). Government’s Defence Estate. The National Audit Office excluded these buildings from 1.7 Under the provisions of the Town and their study because of special conditions Country Planning Acts (paragraph 1.11 and attaching to their occupation, location and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological disposal. Areas Act 1979, privately owned listed buildings and monuments may not be demolished, extended, or altered externally Policy objectives or internally in any way which affects their character, without written consent from the 1.4 In September 1990 the Government local planning authority or, in some announced their commitment to preserving circumstances, the Secretary of State. Britain’s built heritage in the Environment Contravention of these Acts may result in a White Paper, This Common Inheritance: fine and imprisonment. The Acts also impose Britain’s Environmental Strategy [Cm 1200). an obligation on owners to ensure that listed Departments responsible for historic buildings are adequately maintained and not buildings are expected to be aware of the allowed to decay through neglect. If a local importance of the heritage they hold in trust authority, or the Secretary of State, consider
5 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
that a listed building is not being properly they therefore have to strike a balance maintained they may serve a repairs notice between funding operational and other on the owner. If the building is unoccupied, objectives, such as the maintenance of an authority may carry out urgent repairs to historic buildings. secure the building’s preservation and recover the costs from the owner. Similar provisions apply to ancient monuments and to unlisted buildings in conservation areas. Departmental responsibilities
1.8 Government departments enjoy Crown exemption from this legislation but, in order 1.11 Until April 1990 the former Property Services not to undermine its effectiveness, they Agency were responsible for almost all the follow its requirements. Under regulations maintenance of buildings, including those of issued by the Department of Environment in historic interest, on the civil estate. In April 1984 departments must consult local 1990 there were major changes in planning authorities about any proposal to responsibilities for managing and maintaining demolish a listed building (or an unlisted the Civil Estate. Control of around 40 per building in a conservation area), or to alter or cent of properties passed from the Property extend such a building in a way which Services Agency to departments. The would affect its character as a building of remaining 60 per cent formed the Common special architectural or historic interest. Any User Estate which is managed by Property disputes should be passed to the Secretary of Holdings-one of the successor bodies of the State for consideration. In extreme cases of former Property Services Agency. disagreement a non-statutory public local Departments occupying Common User Estate inquiry may be held. Any intended works on buildings may, however, choose which of a scheduled ancient monument should be three levels of maintenance responsibility notified to the Department of the they wish to assume for particular buildings Environment. There is no equivalent of a by agreement with Property Holdings repairs notice for listed buildings on the (Appendix 4). All departments, including Government estate. Property Holdings, became fully untied from PSA Services-the other successor body of 1.9 The Environment Committee recommended the Property Services Agency, who now offer in 1987 that English Heritage should be buildings and maintenance services in empowered to serve repairs notices in respect competition with the private sector. of all listed buildings, even if they were in public ownership (First Report, Session 1.12 Under these new arrangements, the 1986-87 HC 146). The Government told the departments responsible for maintaining the Committee that it would not be appropriate largest numbers of historic buildings in April to give English Heritage these powers. The 1991 are shown in Table 1: Government’s buildings were subject to Crown Immunity, but they would look to English Heritage to draw particular problems Table.- I to the attention of the Department of the ii ,artment No. of Buildings Environment and other authorities concerned K ~pertyHoldings 220 (First Special Report, Session 1987-88 LO1‘d Chancellor’sOepartment 96 Emplaynlent Service 42 HC 268). Scottish CourtsAdministration 41 HM Customsand Excise 1.10 Central and local government provide grants Other to private cwners for the repair and restoration of nearly all kinds of buildings of Source:Prqmty Holdings and PSA Services architectural and historic interest. But there is no separate funding provision for historic buildings on the Government estate. Their The number of buildings includes upkeep is thcrcforc subject to the same Departmental Estate properties and properties spending constraints as are applied to the rest on which departments have taken a devolved of the Civil Estate. Within these, maintenance option. Table 1 shows that in Departments have a responsibility to achieve April 1991 Property Holdings were the efficient and effective operation of their responsible for maintaining wer one-third of services to the public. In allocating resources the Government’s civil historic buildings.
6 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
1.13 There is no single central register of all Scope of the National Audit Office historic buildings on the Government estate. investigation The Property Services Agency’s Conservation Unit produced and issued between 1982 and 1.16 Against this background the National Audit 1984 a register of properties for which the Office examined: Agency were then responsible. In May 1990 the Unit, which is now part of Property the condition of historic buildings and the Holdings, started to compile a computerised cost of any outstanding maintenance register based on the earlier records, but they when responsibility for managing the depend on departments to keep them Civil Estate passed to departments and informed of changes and to provide Property Holdings in April 1990: inspection and maintenance information. the central arrangements, notably the role of the Conservation Unit; and The maintenance of Historic what Property Holdings, HM Customs and Buildings Excise and the Lord Chancellor’s Department are doing to eliminate the maintenance backlog and keep their 1.14 Managing and maintaining historic buildings historic buildings in a good state of repair present different and additional problems to at minimum long term cost. those faced generally by building managers. These include the identification of materials 1.17 The National Audit Office examined the in keeping with the original specification and records of the former Property Services engaging consultants and contractors with the Agency, including those of the Conservation right expertise. Additionally, deterioration in Unit, and the arrangements introduced since historic buildings may be hidden for some April 1990 by Property Holdings, HM time and may require extensive and Customs and Excise and the Lord expensive treatment. Delayed maintenance Chancellor’s Department for managing and may result in the loss of rare or unique maintaining historic buildings. A leading firm features and decoration. of consultant surveyors, Watts and Partners, with experience on the upkeep of historic 1.15 Planning maintenance work for historic buildings, assisted the National Audit Office buildings requires extra care and sensitivity. in their examination. The consultants It requires detailed specifications and advised on best practice and developed with consultation with the heritage and other the National Audit Office a guide for bodies. There may also be difficulties in obtaining value for money in the adapting historic buildings to meet maintenance of buildings, including the operational requirements, such as the special requirements for historic buildings. installation of computer equipment. This is reproduced at Appendix 1 and was Compliance with safety requirements may used by the National Audit Office to judge also be difficult to achieve. the departments’ performance. The guide takes into account the recommendations in British Standard 8210 -building maintenance management-issued in 1986. The consultants also carried out overview surveys of six buildings and a digest of their report is at Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 (case 3).
7 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Part 2: Condition of Historic Buildings
2.1 To assess the overall condition of the historic recommended quadrennial inspections by building estate and the cost of any qualified surveyors of historic buildings maintenance backlog, the National Audit which would identify, prioritise and assess Office examined the main features of the the cost of restoration and conservation work. systems and related records of the former The target date for completing the first round Property Services Agency. Their examination of inspections was December 1966. By March focussed on the quadrennial inspection 1990 inspections had been carried out on 74 reports held by the Conservation Unit, and per cent (356) of the buildings (477) requiring on the other inspection reports and records of a quadrennial inspection. Inspections were a sample of 31 buildings of historic interest. not undertaken on buildings where major refurbishment was planned or was in progress and where these were not required Maintenance backlog under the terms of the leases.
2.2 In April 1990 when the Civil Estate was 2.4 The National Audit Office examined 254 divided into the Common User Estate and reports of quadrennial inspections carried out departmental estates the Property Services between 1965 and 1990 (Table 2) and found Agency estimated that the backlog of that: maintenance work on the whole of the Civil completion of quadrennial inspections Estate was some f153 million, including f135 varied across the country. The inspections million classified as either unavoidable or were introduced progressively and while essential. These figures included the Midland Region, which was piloting the contractors’ cost of the outstanding work, but scheme, had almost completed their excluded the Agency’s administrative design second round of inspections, London, the and consultancy costs. The Agency did not last region to begin inspections, had not identify how much of the backlog related to completed one round; the Common User Estate and to the Departmental Estates. Neither did they the reports were of variable quality and identify how much related to historic cost; and often lacked the essential buildings. information for building managers such as cost, timing and priority of maintenance work: Quadrennial inspection reports the model brief for consultants recommends that maintenance work 2.3 In 1965 the Agency’s Conservation Unit should be prioritised and costed.
Table 2: Summary of quadrennial inspections 1985-1990, examined by the National Audit Office Numberof Numberof Numberof Inspection PSA Historic Inspection ReportsContaining Services Buildings Repotis Costed Region Identified’ Examined Recommendations Southern 51 3 R South East ii; 19 19 South West 27 16 Eastern 31 13 9 Midland 57 North West 56 ;: :i North East 56 23 Nil London 103 18 14 Scotland 115 88 31 Totals 583 254 150 Source: ConservationUnit. Note: *At the time of the NationalAudit Officeexamination there we 583 Historic Buildings.but the size of the estate fluctuates. Table 2 shows that only 150 (59 per cent) of the inspectionreports examinedcontained estimated costs of the maintenancerequirements.
8 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC B”IIJXNCS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
However, of the reports examined by the Works Offices and therefore the works National Audit Office, only 59 per cent requirements were not incorporated in contained costed recommendations; in the the forward maintenance register; and case of inspections commissioned by one local office had not kept a forward North East Region no recommendations maintenance register of work required. were costed. Where such registers were kept, the estimated cost of the work was not 2.5 The National Audit Office examined in mme always recorded; there was inconsistency detail local records, including those for a in interpreting priority classifications; and sample of 31 historic buildings (Appendix 51, in smne cases only the highest priority and interviewed staff in four of PSA Services’ work was included; regions. Table 3 summarises the results of this examination. it was difficult to determne the timing and extent of work carried out by 2.6 The National Audit Office also found that: occupants under their own delegated maintenance powers. although the Agency had a system of maintenance classifications, these were not applied consistently; 2.7 The National Audit Office commissioned maintenance records were incomplete and consultant surveyors to inspect the condition it was not possible to determine the of five of these 31 buildings with particular extent to which identified maintenance reference to conservation issues. The results requirements were programmed. Neither are summarized in Appendix 2. The main was it possible to reconcile expenditure findings were: on maintenance with the estimated cost thcrc is a need for the occupiers of of maintenance work recommended in buildings to improve the standard of the inspection reports; routine housekeeping maintenance such the Agency’s system for classifying the as clearing gutters regularly; priority of identified maintenance work sxne repairs were unsympathetic to did not include a timescale for completing buildings’ historic status and, in the case such work; of the Probate Registry Cardiff, virtually some work on historic buildings, all internal elements of historic interest including work carried out by the had been removed some time ago; occupants, had not been sympathetic to there were mm deficiencies in the historic fabric; compliance with health and safety inspection of some properties had not standards including ventilation, electrical followed the recommended frequency. In supplies, access to roofs and fire other cases, biennial or annual precautions; and inspections were carried out shortly after maintenance strategies for each building detailed quadrennial inspections; did not have full regard to conservation in home cases regional offices had not sent requirements, future use and the quadrennial inspection reports to District economic programming of work.
Table 3: Summary of National Audit Office’s findings on Historic Buildings PSA Services Reoion Condition Quadrenniallnsoection No. with No. of Exceptionally No. of Costed Conservation POLY Fair/Good Good Inspections Recommendations Action Plans London 9 1 z l - South West and Wales 3 5 - Midland 1 5 - ! 3” 6 Scotland 1 5 1 - Total 5 24 2 24 16 6 Source:PSA Services. Table 3 shows that the condition of over 80 per cent of the 31 buildings was. accordingto the inspection reports. fair 01 better. Twenty-four of the buildings had quadrennialinspections: 16 inspection reports containedcosted recommendations;and in six cases, all in Midland Region. ConservationAction Plans had been prepared.
9 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE C,“IL ESTATE
2.8 To demonstrate the implications of good and . departments’ lack of estates strategies led poor conservation practice, the National to the serious neglect and dilapidation of Audit Office examined the history and two buildings, Teddington Hall and 7 to 9 current state of four listed buildings. One of Babmaes Street [Cases 3 and 4); these buildings was also inspected by the l lack of timely maintenance had led to National Audit Office’s consultants. These Dundee Custom House needing expensive case studies are described in detail in restoration. HM Customs and Excise plan Appendix 3 and indicate lessons learned and to vacate the building shortly after recommendations which may assist completion of work and Property departments in their future work. The Holdings plan to dispose of it thereafter National Audit Office found that: (Case 1). l where maintenance work was properly planned and executed very high standards of conservation were achieved, for example, York Crown Court (Case 2):
10 UPKEEPOF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Part 3: Central arrangements
Policy They found that: only a small amount of information had 3.1 Property Holdings were established in April been transferred, largely because most 1990 to manage the Common User Estate of departments were continuing to use PSA general purpose offices and to act as a central Services for the management of the bulk source of expertise on estate management of their estates; including, through the Conservation Unit, the special requirements of historic buildings. departments were asked to pay for some information provided, or to extract it 3.2 As a first step towards fulfilling their themselves from PSA Services’ records; advisory role Property Holdings have issued PSA Services considered that some to all departments “A Guide to Estate records, such as reports of quadrennial Management Responsibilities” and are inspections, were commercially sensitive revising, during 1991, guidance on the role of and had not made them available to accommodation managers and on the departments, pending clarification of their maintenance of historic buildings. They are role and responsibilities under the also responsible for maintaining databases of untying arrangements; and contractors and consultants to which all departments have access. In December 1990 because of doubts about the accuracy and the Treasury recommended this latter service completeness of the records supplied by to all departmental accounting officers as an PSA Services, and as a first step in aid to combating fraud and irregularity. exercising their new responsibilities, the three departments examined by the 3.3 In April 1990, Property Holdings took over National Audit Office had arranged from the Property Services Agency the Chair preliminary inspections of all their of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Civil properties. These were undertaken in Accommodation. This provides a forum for some cases without departments having exchanging information and experience first obtained details of recent inspections about departments’ estate management completed by the former Property responsibilities. The larger departments, Services Agency. excluding Property Holdings, have also formed their own liaison group chaired by The Conservation Unit HM Customs and Excise. This group shares experiences on untying from the Property Services Agency and has also arranged for 3.6 The Property Services Agency established the the Civil Service College to provide training Conservation Unit in 1978 to provide advice courses for administrative staff dealing with and guidance to their staff on conservation accommodation matters. matters. Following the reorganisation of the Agency in April 1990 the Unit transferred to Property Holdings. Transfer of records 3.7 As a result of these changes the Head of the Conservation Unit redefined the Unit’s role 3.4 Prior to April 1990 the former Property and objectives as being: Services Agency agreed to transfer to departments data which would assist them in l to continue to advise the Government on market testing maintenance services. Data the conservation of its historic estate; relating to other buildings would, in the short . to ensure that high standards of term, be restricted to the minimum essential. conservation are achieved on the Civil Estate; and 3.5 The National Audit Office examined how the arrangements for the transfer of data from l to assist the Ministry of Defence in the the Property Services Agency had worked. conservation of the Defence Estate.
11 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
3.8 In carrying out their activities the Unit’s role number of historic buildings-Property is not to provide a full consultancy service to Holdings, the Ministry of Defence and the departments, but to give them initial Lord Chancellor’s Department. These guidance on how best to proceed in departments have discussed with the Unit conservation matters. They have achieved the provision of information for updating the this by: historic buildings register.
l answering departments’ queries and 3.12 In April 1991 the Unit began a survey of providing advice on conservation work, Common User Estate historic buildings to sometimes through site visits and reports: identify any which may be seriously at risk l producing written guidelines on as a result of neglect. conservation work. The Unit are currently working on separate 3.13 The National Audit Office found that: conservation guides for the Defence and the Unit provide a valuable advisory Civil Estates, based on the Property service to departments, which has Services Agency’s Conservation resulted in a good standard of conservation Handbook; work on a number of the Government’s l continuing to develop since 1988 a historic buildings. For example, they computerised historic buildings register to provided direct advice on restoring the replace the printed register published interior of York Crown Court and between 1982 and 1984. The transfer of recommended a consultant conservationist data should be completed by the end of who saved a significant amount of 1991 and it will include for each building unnecessary work from being carried out; a brief historical record, a condition the Unit also provide an important service report and a record of inspections and in cases where the conservation demands maintenance expenditure. The of heritage bodies are in conflict with the information will be available to all operational needs of departments; they departments; and also maintain useful links with English l providing external training in conservation Heritage and other conservation bodies in for some Government departments. complying with the non-statutory consultation procedures required by the 3.9 The Conservation Unit have a staff of five, Department of the Environment; including three architects and an expert on the Unit’s advice is complementary to historic interiors. For 1991-92 Property that provided by English Heritage for Holdings have allocated f220,OOO for the Crown buildings throughout England and Unit’s work. Their services to departments especially for major buildings in London. are provided without charge. English Heritage have recently taken responsibility for providing an overview Development of Crown historic buildings in England, but havetold the NationalAudit Office that this expanded role is still being 3.10 The Unit are continuing to develop their developed; activities to reflect the changes in responsibility for managing the Government there is no means of ensuring that all estate. They are creating a database of departments will supply the information consultants with expertise in conservation needed to keep the central register of matters so that they are better placed to historic buildings up to date; and provide advice in this area. This will be until 1987-88 the Unit prepared an complementary to information held by annual report on conservation work on Property Holdings’ Contracts Management the Civil and Defence Estates. There is Information System. The Unit are also taking now no such overview of achievement steps to publicise more widely the and plans for historic buildings on the availability of their services. Government’s estates. Property Holdings told the National Audit Office in August 3.11 Since April 1990, the Unit’s main contacts 1991 that specific proposals to address have been with the three departments these points were being developed by the responsible for maintaining the greatest Conservation Unit.
12 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Part 4: Departmental arrangements: Property Holdings
Background 4.5 Property Holdings recognise from the Government’s Environment White Paper that 4.1 In April 1990 Property Holdings became they have a duty to set the best possible responsible for the management and example in the maintenance of historic maintenance of just under 3,500 properties buildings in their care. This duty is reflected on the Government’s Common User Estate. in their Occupancy Agreements with These properties are occupied by cwer SO departments. Accordingly they have Government departments and public bodies, established procedures for quadrennial and include over 200 historic buildings. Like inspections: entrust maintenance work to the rest of the Common User Estate, the specialised contractors; and obtain advice historic properties mostly provide general from their Conservation Unit. purpose office accommodation in larger towns. 4.6 Maintenance priorities are governed by the physical condition of buildings and are 4.2 By agreement with Property Holdings, ranked under four classifications: departments have so far opted to assume full Priority 1 Unavoidable services which maintenance responsibility for smne 900 cannot be deferred without singly-occupied buildings on the Common breaching statutory obligations, or User Estate; for other Common User Estate health and safety requirements. buildings, including all of those which are or without seriously affecting jointly-occupied, responsibilities are divided occupying departments’ between Property Holdings and the operations and functions, or are departments. needed to meet lease or covenant obligations to landlords. 4.3 The National Audit Office noted that the division of responsibilities between Property Priority 2 Essential services whch cannot be Holdings and occupying departments for deferred without serious penalties maintaining buildings on the Common User such es damage to property or Estate has resulted in en inconsistent increased costs for either Property approach to the maintenance of historic Holdings ur occupying buildings. For example, in the case of ecnne departments. buildings, departmental accommodation Priority 3 Urgent Services which are highly officers have carried out unsympathetic desirable to maintain the value internal maintenance without consulting and utility of the estate. Property Holdings’ Conservation Unit, English Heritage, or Historic Scotland. Priority 4 Desirable services which are necessary to maintain proper standards or which would show a Estate strategy saving in running or operational costs.
4.4 Property Holdings’ objective for estate management is to maintain the Common Maintenance strategy User Estate to meet departments’ opeiational needs at minimum cost, having full regard to environmental objectives, and to preserve 4.7 Property Holdings’ seven local outstations and improve the value of the Estate, and their London Division have eliminating the backlog of maintenance by responsibility for managing maintenance the mid-1990s. schemes up to f100,000 and new works and acquisitions up to E150,OOO.Each of these offices also fulfil Property Holdings’ role es
13 UPKEEP OFHISTORIC BUlLDINGS ON THE CIVILESTATE
landlord of the Common User Estate. Their 4.12 Local offices are commissioning PSA Services activities include: budget monitoring and or private sector firms to undertake control; development and implementation of inspections of all buildings. This initiative is estate strategy; client liaison: commissioning expected to be completed by April 1994. of works; investment appraisal; market Property Holdings intend to review the scope testing; and the preparation of estimates. The and results of these inspections to inform Department’s central Sponsorship Division their maintenance strategy development, commissions new works and maintenance including that for historic buildings. schemes above the outstation’s delegations. The Commissioning Unit advise Sponsorship Division and the outstations on the placing of Funding those Commissions with both PSA services and the private sector. 4.13 Property Holdings’ expenditure on Major and Minor maintenance on all buildings in 4.8 The Department’s Headquarters estates staff 1990-91 was f94 million. In 1991-92, the have a strategic role and provide an advisory provision for Major and Minor maintenance service for local offices. They monitor expenditure is f:105 million. Property regularly the spending of the outstations and Holdings do not identify separately advise on cases referred to Headquarters expenditure on historic buildings and do not where they exceed the outstation’s know to what extent the level of spend might delegations or are otherwise especially affect the backlog of maintenance on such sensitive. They also carry out spot checks buildings. and professional audits of completed maintenance work. Clearing the maintenance backlog 4.9 Property Holdings monitor the efficiency with which the Common User Estate, 4.14 Property Holdings have no reliable figure for including its historic buildings, is managed the whole of the maintenance backlog on the through target indicators, such es the Common User Estate. Once condition surveys percentage of unused office space. A series of have been completed for all properties, indicators are being developed to monitor the Property Holdings will have a database from Department’s progress against its main aims: which to make en initial assessment of the meeting departments’ operational maintenance backlog. requirements: managing with efficiency and economy; and putting in place mechanisms to ensure that they act as en environmentally 4.15 Property Holdings aim to clear the backlog of enlightened organisation. priority works on the Common User Estate by the mid-1990s. As work of the highest 4.10 In April 1991 Property Holdings began priority, which may include work on historic implementing an enhanced computerised buildings, accounts for almost all available database. This will provide, for all properties: funds, the scope for any less urgent informationon location:listing status, where maintenance of historic buildings may be appropriate; floor area; maintenance limited, thereby risking further deterioration. expenditure; and operating costs. In the case of historic buildings this will be supplemented by information provided from Human resources the Conservation Unit’s new database (paragraph 3.8). All local offices were also developing computerised forward 4.16 Property Holdings employ professional estate maintenance registers, budgetary control management staff to manage the Common systems and systems for managing minor User Estate, both centrally and at local level. works. Their Headquarters Estate Operations branch has eight estate surveyors and 31 4.11 Property Holdings have issued to all administrative staff. The Central London departments a Guide to Estate Management Division, and seven local offices have 61 Responsibilities drawing on the former professional staff and 128 administrative Property Services Agency’s guidance, staff. including the Conservation Handbook.
14 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
4.17 Many of Property Holdings’ professional and maintenance, design and project lay staff have gained experience in managing management] out to competition by 31 March and maintaining historic buildings. They are 1994. In practice this will entail putting out also able to consult with their specialist under 10 per cent, by fee value, of services to Conservation Unit. competition in 1991-92, with the programme accelerating thereafter. In the meantime PSA Services will continue to provide to Property Competition Holdings those services which have not yet been put out to competitive tender. They will 4.18 Property Holdings aim to obtain value for do so under an annually renegotiable supply money by introducing market testing for the and services agreement. This agreement entire range of services which, at the start of provides for quadrennial inspection of their existence, were almost all provided by historic buildings, as will the terms of PSA Services. The aim is to have put all contracts developed for market testing. services (estates surveying, management of
15 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Part 5: Departmental arrangements: HM Customs and Excise
Background occupancy costs, space standards, energy efficiency and service facilities including 5.1 HM Customs and Excise (the Department) forward maintenance plans and inspection occupy some 480 buildings, including a programmes, and whether the requirements number of historic custom houses. From of occupying listed buildings have been fully April 1990, the Department assumed full met. responsibility for the management and maintenance of about half these buildings, 5.4 In May 1991 HM Customs and Excise were including 18 historic buildings. The developing a computerised database of all remainder form part of the Common User buildings currently occupied. For each Estate under the control of Property building, the database will record location, Holdings, but from April 1990 the historic listing status, usable area, Department became responsible for the maintenance expenditure and running costs. maintenance of 140 of these buildings, including seven of historic interest. 5.5 To ensure that all work is identified and properly planned the Department are commissioning consultants to undertake Estate Strategy detailed inspections of all their buildings as they progressively introduce market testing 5.2 HM Customs and Excise have an overall for the procurement of maintenance services objective to achieve value for money in the (paragraphs 5.13 to 5.16 below). The use of accommodation and to raise the Department have adopted a three year cycle quality of their Departmental Estate by of condition surveys and will give the improving existing buildings, taking on new consultants a special briefing for historic ones and relinquishing unsuitable ones. The buildings. The detailed surveys will be Department also have a general policy supported in between years by annual objective to maintain historic buildings routine inspections. within their estate in a sympathetic way. They told the National Audit Office that thei 5.6 The Department have issued to local approach is to retain historic buildings so managers an Estate Management Guide long as they do not impede significantly the which includes their policy objectives for the efficiency of their operations. maintenance of historic buildings (paragraph 52). Theyalso use guides produced by Property Holdings, their managing Maintenance strategy consultants and the former Property Services Agency. 5.3 HM Customs and Excise have delegated to local offices [Collections) responsibility for Funding managing building maintenance and minor new works. Each Cullactiuu is respunsible for reviewing accommodation needs; financial 5.7 Using information provided by the former monitoring; and for maintaining the buildings Property Services Agency the Department in their areas including the selection of identified maintenance and minor new works contractors. Collections are held accountable needs costing some fl3.9 million in 1990-91. for their actions through contracts of Their 1990-91 Estimates included provision performance and, from 1991-92, through of f10.2 million against these requirements. estate plans set by senior management. These The 1990-91 outturn was f12.6 million. In plans specify performance indicators to be 1991-92 the Department’s provision included achieved for each building, such as f7.1 million against an identified requirement of f 8.4 million for minor works and
16 UPKEEPOFHISTORICBUILDINGSONTHE CIVILESTATE
maintenance. The Department have not Department have arranged for the Civil identified separately how far these shortfalls Service College to provide suitable courses. will affect the maintenance of historic buildings. 5.12 The Department have recognised that, without their own professional staff and before their administrative staff are fully Clearing the maintenance backlog trained, they may be unable to supervise estates work. As a result there is a risk that 5.8 Because of the inadequacy of the former consultants or contractors may recommend Property Services Agency’s records, the unnecessary or over costly work, or not Department have no accurate estimate of the comply with best conservation practice. To accumulated maintenance backlog, or the reduce these risks, and after consulting the effects of not being able to undertake Treasury Central Unit on Purchasing, the maintenance work at the optimum time. The Department have contracted with their Department told the National Audit Office managing consultants to carry out selective that the detailed inspections they are checks on the content and quality of commissioning for all buildings should help inspections and maintenance work. They also them to assess the full extent of the plan to introduce independent audit checks maintenance backlog which they aim to on the services provided by the managing eliminate by the end of 1993-94. consultants themselves. This should guard against possible malpractice when the 5.9 The Department have taken a number of consultants identify works requirements and initiatives to improve control. To take into select a suitable contractor, or carry out the account revised customs procedures they aim maintenance work themselves. to complete, by 1992, a major review of operations and management which should result in some estate rationalisation. So far Competition the Department have identified three historic buildings which are likely to be surrendered 5.13 By October 1990 HM Customs and Excise on grounds of operational unsuitability and had market tested the management of inefficiency (Custom Houses at Poole and maintenance and minor works services in Dundee, and the Waterguard Offices, three Collections and two Headquarter Cardiff). They also intend to introduce better centres covering in all some 94 buildings. budgetary control procedures and improved The value of work tested represented about prioritisation of maintenance work as 47 per cent (f3 million in 1991-92) of the condition surveys of all buildings are total cost of those services to the Department. completed during 1992-93. 5.14 The market testing arrangements required the appointment of a managing consultant to Human Resources identify maintenance requirements, arrange for work to be carried out through contracts 5.10 HM Customs and Excise have no in-house let in the Department’s name and maintain expertise for dealing with the special records. The Central Unit on Purchasing requirements of historic buildings and their advised on the appointment of a managing conservation. They mainly employ consultant; they provided the standard consultants who advise on management of format of the tenders and assisted in the their estate and assist in letting contracts to evaluation of the tender offers. The companies with experience and knowledge in Department invited tenders from PSA these specialised areas (see paragraphs 5.14 to Services and seven companies but did not 5.16 below]. The Department have one seek advice from the Property Holdings’ professional engineer to advise generally on Conservation Unit as to the expertise or accommodation matters. experience of these firms in handling conservation work. 5.11 The Department have a Headquarters estates staff of 16, and up to seven full time staff on 5.15 The Department awarded the contract to estates and accommodation duties in each of SERCO. The firm employ conservationists their 26 Collections. As few of these staff from their partner company, Giffords, who have training in estate management, the can advise on the work required on historic
17 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
buildings. Local staff are not obliged to use for a few buildings in Northern Ireland, had SERCO and may make their own contracted out to five regional consultants arrangements so long as they meet estate responsibility for managing maintenance and plan targets set by Headquarters. These minor works services. For work not market targets include the need to set up a tested maintenance services would continue maintenance programme for listed buildings to be provided by PSA Services under a devised by a properly qualified consultant. Supply and Services Agreement. This would include provision for quadrennial inspections 5.16 In September 1991, HM Customs and Excise of historic buildings. told the National Audit Office that they had successfully completed the remainder of their market testing programme and, except
18 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Part 6: Departmental arrangements: The Lord Chancellor’s Department
Background and in central locations responsibility for maintaining the estate, including the 6.1 The Lord Chancellor’s Department occupy management of budgets. The Department aim 509 buildings of which 224, including 86 to eliminate the maintenance backlog by historic buildings, became part of their 1996. Departmental Estate in April 1990. The remaining 285 buildings are part of the 6.5 The Department recognised at the outset the Common User Estate managed by Property need to establish the condition of their Holdings. In April 1991 the Department Departmental Estate. Because of the general assumed responsibility for fully maintaining unreliability of information provided by the 104 of these buildings, including 10 of former Property Services Agency and as an historic interest. essential first step in exercising their new responsibilities, they had commissioned inspections which would cuver all properties Estate strategy by the end of 1992. Their concern was with the whole of their estate and they had not 6.2 The Department’s main objective is to given particular attention, or priority, to the provide accommodation which enables the problems of historic buildings. Court Service to operate efficiently and effectively at the lowest possible cost. While 6.6 The Department’s approach from April 1990 the operational requirements of the court had been to establish a framework of service are seen as paramount, the inspections, including annual inspections of Department recognise the need to meet all their buildings. They told the National Government policies for conservation and Audit Office in September 1991 that the improvement of the environment and to bear conclusions emerging from these inspections the costs involved. In May 1991 they were had led them to adopt a policy of quadrennial preparing a IO year accommodation plan, inspections for their historic buildings, which which included the development of would take into account conservation performance indicators. requirements.
6.7 By May 1991 the Department had established Maintenance strategy a computerised database which would be used to record maintenance expenditure and premises’ operating costs. They intended to 6.3 In preparation for their new estate extend these records to include the results of management role from April 1990 the Lord inspections, forward maintenance Chancellor’s Department commissioned programmes and special requirements of consultants in January 1989 to advise on their historic buildings, such as listing status. future needs for estate management systems. The consultants recommended that the Department should enhance its in-house Funding property expertise, establish new information systems, and produce a long term [five year) planned maintenance programme. These 6.8 Using information provided by the former recommendations were accepted by the Property Services Agency, the Department Department and are being reflected in their identified maintenance needs costing f14.5 new systems and procedures. million in 1990-91. Expenditure in 1990-91 was f12 million which conformed with their 6.4 The Department have delegated to Estimates provision. In X991-92 the accommodation managers in their six circuits Department’s Estimates included provision for maintenance of 02.9 million against an
19 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
identified need of f18.2 million. The when introducing competitive tendering for Department had not, however, separately the management of building maintenance in identified how much of the maintenance January 1991 as few historic buildings were backlog was attributed to historic buildings. involved. But they may consider doing so for more suitable cases in future. Clearing the maintenance backlog Competition 6.9 In February 1990, based on information provided by the Property Services Agency, 6.12 PSA Services have carried out the the Department calculated that there was a Department’s maintenance works under maintenance backlog of fZ1.67 million. They standard supply and service agreements. ! planned to clear this over a three year period However, in January 1991 the Department starting in 1991-92 with a provision of f13 introduced competitive tendering for the million. In addition, the Department management of building maintenance which estimated that new maintenance work would they intend to introduce progressively in be identified at a rate of about f3 million their six Circuits during the next three years. each year. The Department, however, have In April 1991 the Department awarded the doubts about the reliability of the first contract, which covered 49 buildings, information provided by the Property including one ancient monument and three Services Agency and uncertainty about the historic buildings in the South Eastern full extent of the maintenance backlog will Circuit, Chelmsford Group, to Drivers Jonas. remain until they have completed the first round of annual inspections of their 6.13 The contract is for a three year period and buildings in 1992. In May 1991 the requires Drivers Jonas to carry out initial Department estimated that as the result of inspections. Detailed inspections will be funding constraints the maintenance backlog carried out at intervals not exceeding five would not be eliminated until 1996. years. They are also required to prepare and update five year strategic maintenance plans and annual detailed programmes of works; Human Resources maintain properties to specified standards including programmes of preventive 6.10 The Department have ten administrative staff maintenance: and let contracts for at Headquarters responsible for estates maintenance works on behalf of the management. They also have four Department. professionally qualified staff and plan to increase this to six. The latter group provide 6.14 The contract makes special provision for a focal point for conservation matters. Each historic buildings, including the use of of the Department’s six Circuits have up to experienced specialists and for repairs and nine administrative staff responsible for replacements to be sympathetic and in estate matters which represents a local character with original design. Prior approval increase of up to two staff to manage their must be sought fromthe Department, the new maintenance responsibilities from April Local Authorities and appropriate 1990. The administrative staff are being conservation bodies before commencement of trained in estate management through any work. These conditions will form a courses organised by the Civil Service standard package for use in future College and at the Department’s training competitions. Management of maintenance centre. for the Western Circuit was let in two geographic groups from October 1991 and 6.11 The Department have consulted the Property will be extended to other Circuits Holdings’ Conservation Unit on specific jobs progressively thereafter. such as the repairs to Exeter castle and on the soundness of specialist consultants 6.15 The Department plan to introduce towards employed on the few historic buildings the end of 1991 management checks on the projects arising since April 1990. But they did quality of the managing consultant’s not consider it necessary to consult the Unit performance.
20 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CI”,L ESTATE
Appendix 1 Management of building maintenance: Value for money
Achieving value for money from building maintenance, including the special requirements for historic buildings, requires the following aspects to be considered:
Aspect Issue Risks to value far money Information and action required Estate strategy A sound. long term estate The location. size and natureof the Undertakea full swey of the size. location. managementstrategy helps ensure buildings.- may not match the needs of the condition.value. use, tenure and development that estate activity ri organisation potential of the existing estate. Identify efficiently and effectively the constraints of historic buildings. directed towards the achievement Historic buildings may be a constraint of operationalobjectives. an the achievementof operational Establish a strategy consistentwith the objectives. operationalobjectives. priorities and future needs of the organisation. An effective maintenancestrategy may not be developed. Reviewthe strategy regularly and exploit opportunitiesfar securing best value for ,lVXley. Establish a maintenancestrategy consistent with the aims of the estate strategy.
Maintenancestrategy A sound maintenancestrategy Maintenanceactivity may be reactive. Establish: recognisesthat buildings are resulting in the inefficientuse of . mainenamestandards: both an asset and a ~esoume. funds. . cOrnprehenSiverecords for each It helps to ensure that b”ildi”g: buildings are maintainedto a Capitalvalues may be diminished. . SyStenlSfor planningand executing standardsufficient to preserve maintenamework: their value and to secure Liability for termination . reSO”rCereq”lrements; operationalefficiency. dilapidationsmay be increased. . pmed”re~for monitoringthe effeCtive”eSSOfthe maintenance Buildingsmay be under or over strategy. maintained.
Operationalefficiency may be impaired.
Maintenancestandards Maintenancestandards provide a Failureto determinemaintenance Definemaintenance standards for each building I sound basis for ensuringthat standardsfor each building may lead to which reflect its status. including any buildings are adequately unecomicand inefficientuse of conservationrequirements and the needs of maintainedat reasonablecost. reso”rces. “WS They also help to enwe that historic buildings are The nation’s built heritage may be at maintainedat a standard risk. consistentwith the Government’s aim to “set a good example in conservationand environmental issues”.
Building records Adequaterecords help to ensure Managementdecisions may not be properly Establish and maintain records of: that maintenanceis managed informed. . floorand roof plans; effectively. . maintena”Cestandards: . c”rre”t am expectedf”t”re uses: . brief details of historic features and listing StatuS: . l"5Pec110"reports: . cmt Of cmlpleted work.
21 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVL ESTATE
Appendix l-continued
Aspect Issue Risks to value for money Information and action required Planninomaintenance Carefulolannino ensures that Maintenancerequirements may not be Inspect buildings at frequenciesin line with require&nts necess&y w&s identified properly identified,leading to a those recommendedin British Standard8210 and carried out with maximum loss of operationalefficiency. (1986): Building MaintenanceManagement ~CO”NilY. Maintenancemay not be carried out at Routine-continuous regular observations Regularinspections of the the optimum time, resulting in by the user: conditionof the buildings help additionalcosts. Annual -visual inspectionsof main inform maintenanceplanning. elements under the supervision Fundsfor maintenancemay be allocated of qualified personnelin years inefficiently. without detailed inspections; Detailed-full inspectionof the fabric Resourcecosts of inspectionsmay be by qualified personnelat wasted if maintenancerequirements are intervals not exceedingfive not developedinto a forward maintenance y%i‘S. pk3ll. Standardisedbriefs should be developedfor detailed inspections.The frequency of detailed inspectionshould be determinedas part of the brief. Detailedinspections of historic buildings should pay particular attentionto the special requirementsof conservationfeatures taking into considerationadvice from English Heritageand the Properly Holdings’ ConservationUnit.
Introduceplanned maintenance systems and set up. for each building, a forward maintenanceplan.
Resources Carefuldetermination of A maintenancebacklog may accumulate. Allocate financialresources in accordance resourceneeds, both financial with the planned maintenancefor each and manpower,should ensurethat Maintenanceprogrammes may not be building. buildings are maintainedto an managedefficiently, economically and wE;opriate standardat least effectively. Determinethe staffing requirementsto managemaintenance programmes.
Considerthe need for in-housespecialist staff against contractedstaff specialising in conservation.
Implementationof Effectivecontrols Poor quality work may result in Identify suitable contractorsand consultants: maintenancework over maintenancework ensure high remedialcosts. obtain advice on specialist contractorsand that it is carriedout to the consultantsfrom the Property Holdings’ requiredstandard and for Maintenancework may be unsympathetic ConservationUnit. historic buildings is with the historic style of the building consistentwith the statutory and impair its appearance.The Ensurethat consultationprocedures with the requirements. conservationof historic buildings may statutory coneervationauthorities are fully be at risk and may result in high observed.Seek expert advice from the remedialcosts. Property HoldingsConservation Unit, English Heritageor recommendedpractitioners. Establish proceduresfor monitoringthe quality of maintenanceand conservationwork,
Monitoring The regular monitoringof Maintenancestrategy may not be fully Establish a managementinformation system progressof the maintenance informed,planned. and executed. to report and facilitate review of: strategy helps to ensure the Optimumallocation of funds may not be l maintenancestandards and priorities: achievementof the strategy. achieved. l compliance with inspection cycle: l regularreview of committedand fmcast annualexpenditure: . the cost of work in progress and completedWDlP compared with the budget: . the cost and Operatim, disadvantages of delayingmaintenance work; s changesto fomardmaintenance plans; l quality of work carried out.
22 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Appendix 2 Five Buildings inspected by the National Audit Office Consultant Surveyors
Building: Old Treasury Buildings, 70-72 Whitehall, London SW1
Occupier: Cabinet Office
Description: The buildings comprise: a terrace of former houses, constructed at the end of the 18th century and facing Downing Street; Kent’s Treasury, an ornate stone and brick building dating from 1734 and forming an important part of Horse Guards Parade; and Old Treasury Buildings rebuilt behind a retained facade and facing Whitehall.
Recmllmendedrepairs between .w”S CD”diUD” Connervation Heanhand safely ,991 and ,993 k8O”S learned E A ListedGrade I Safisiactory.except Primeareas of historicinterest CmtRCtorShad not Roof Work 175.000 Theimportance of buildingin a ‘0, the CO”di,iO”Of arein goodorder. twf thereare mmllY camrlleteda ID9 External manina 215,000 establishinga f”lly CO”SNVatlO” Rat1001s and a somer&sing andslipped slates and book of maintenanceon repair Ofstone- plannedmaintenmx area,with a backlogof routine localiseddamage to the roofsof safetyeye bolts Cornices& Fixings 30,000 strategy,having regard RDOlarea Of maintenance: Kent’sTevS”iy. All principal An inspectionin early1991 NewWindows 15,000 to the historical 8,205square bindingioinery. elevationsof the buildingare by PSASewices had importance01 tile metres blockedguttm and stainedby trafficand other identifieda lackof proper 435.000 buildings.Also the a runningoverRow. po11”lio”. ventilationin gasBred tea needto improvethe points.and an unacceptable StandardOf routine Tempolalyreplacement windows, for number(30 oer cent) Of pre”entatiYe thosedamaged in the March1991 inoperativeemergency light mal”te”a”C8. monaratLaCk. are Of poor Quality 6itings.The inspection anddo notmm Originalmllaged alsoidenti#ed the needto frames.If wasnot known when renewthe risingmains permanentleplOd”CtionS Ofthe cablingto imwwe the originalswould be made. SUPPlYOf O”erlOa* areaS and 10wnoYe debris from Cornices,stone fixings and d”C1S. jointing3to the Kenf’sTreasury elevationShOUld have been repaired as an anernatiwto cowing With leadflashing, which is a treatment mm apmpnateto a model” building.
Someelectrical alterations to Kent’sTreasury are not sympathetic to the characterof the building.
23 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUlLDlNGS ON THE ClVlL ESTATE
Building: Middlesex Guildhall, Parliament Square, London
Occupier: The Lord Chancellor’s Department
Description: The building was constructed as a Guild Hall in 1913. The principal elevations are of stone with much carved detail. A bell tower forms a significant feature in the local landscape.
Recommendedrepairs between Stat”* Condition CDnServatiDn Heanh and safely ,991 and 1993 kSEO”S learned c A listedGrade I Extensive Therepairs we genedly P,niflcialighting within Pitchedroof facing Withoutroutine fleehold anerationsmainly sympatheticto the historicSening me newCustody SUite does infernalSiaimell 75.000 inspectionand advice. buildingin a OUtSidetile phliC anI3fabric Of the building. not confoimto Hmmofke Emrnalstonework maimena”Cemay be CO”WV~tlO” areaswere COmpleieC re~“iremeni*.I” paniC”lar cleaningand pigeon ~ondwfedon a reactive area.A floor withinthe Ilf Themain public areas and three the wardm areais poorly plOteC,iO” 150.000 b&S andresult in areaOf 4.321 threeyears and tile largeCO”nrOOmS remain Ii,. poorvalue for money. squaremetIes. buildingis in good S”bStanfiallyin theirOliginsl 225.000 Maintenanceneeds to be COnmtlOn. pleSrigiO”sCO”m3”S. carefullyplanned to avoidmore Costly A pitchedlOOf Therepon on the conditionof the repairsat a later nearingtile endOf buildingbefore the extensive stage. its life facingme refurbishmentdid notprovide much internallightwell detailon whatexisted beiwe the wasnot re-covered workwas carried out. If is duringthe recent pOSSiblethat mlle historicdetail re”o”atio”. mayhW beenlost.
samegutters needed somenew fixtures and mtings cieaningat time of wereobtrusive and alterations “IS,,. to someServiCeS me irreparablydamaged historic ThereWere some tilingand sfonework. problem with drainage. Someoriginal cast iron rainwaterpiping at a high ,ew hasbee” replacedby PVC.
Thereis SOme“matched repairingof openjoints on the fmt elevation. Lightcleaning of elevafim to pmwe appearanceshould be consideredwhilst scaiiold access is availableduring external
24 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CWIL ESTATE
Building: Probate Registry, 49 Cardiff Road, Cardiff
Occupier: Lord Chancellor’s Department
Description: The building dates from the mid-19th century.
Recmnmnded repairs between status CD”di,iO” Cmewation HeaImand Safety 1991and ,993 l.eosonslearned f A listedGrade Thebuilding has Considerableinternal Theinternal alterations Rainwaterdutiing BecauseOf tile needfor 111freehold beensubiect to alte‘atitionrSome,ime ago tOokinto aCCO”ntthe fire andpipes, rendering Co”tln”o”SOCNpstlOn buildingwith a majormaintenance resultedin theremwal of 0Mcer’srequirements. andredecoration andCD”SfRi”fS 0” floorarea Of workover a period viliuallyalI historicinternal 01tile rear fundingthere was 315square of yem whilein elementsand linle Ofrn”Ch YalUe Electricalinstallation and elevation.Rat mis-programmingof the metres. occupation.It is remainSwithin fix building. mamr WI”.%were renewed roofcovering. 8.000 sequenceOf WOIRE. generallyin a good in ,990. - paniculallyconnected conditionbut some Renewal01 pitched roof SlOPeS 8,000 withdecorating and internaldamage WithWelsh green SlateS had renewingwindows resultedfrom properregard to ule Chamlel pxSibly leadingto deteriorationOf of the building. extracosts. NO rainwatergutters eYal”atiO”was callied andpipes. outto determine whetherthis mighthave Furtherexternal beenkSS than the cost work.Of a high Oftemporaly standard,was relocation. startedin 1991.
25 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Building: 10-11 Carlton House Terrace, London
Occupier: Commonwealth Secretariat and Foreign Press Association
Description: Forms the end of a terrace of outstanding buildings constructed in 1827-29 to the design of John Nash and virtually unaltered externally.
Recommendedrepairs between Stalus CondmOn Conservation Healthand Safely ,991ano 1993 Lessonslearned f ListedGrade I me principal E*el”al redecorationis carried Accessladders and wakways RoofRepairs 450,000 Thereis a needto b”ildi”& intern hiStorK O”fat four-yearlyi”fervalS by tile to rootswere unsafe in Renewal& overhaul prioritisefunds so as leasehold(f”II featuresare Of fair owners--theCrown Commissionerr. pIaceS and SE preca”iiO”S Ofdoors 8 Wi”dOWS 20.000 to meetthe urgent waiting to goodcondition. fail SiwlfOf C”m”f Eradicationof malrtena”Ce andinsuring, Eat,externally. In accordancewith EnglishHeritage SiandardS. dampIleS* 20.000 requirementsof the with a Rm roofsand some requirements.mly minimal mm resewing areaOf 2.690 joinelyrequire preparationof e*emal paintwork 4!3o.coo infernalredecmtlon squaremetres. mapr maintenance, is carriedout priorto andminor stone andthere is redecoration.AS a ES”lf.the cleaningto the more dampnessin tile longterm life Ofthe paintworkis visiblydeteriorated barementand as a g”eSfiOnable. arm Thereis a need les”lt Ofleakage a, to addressthe health the cornices. Thereis a riskOf damage to andsafety internalhistoric features if EWUll~“fS. Thereis a backlog leakagefrom roofs is not remedied Ofmm q”ickly. housekeeping maintenance,but TheprOpOSed phasing. Owl me this doesnot affect years.Of the mot WYIS the historicfabric. becauseof fundingcmstmintS is notthe mo*fcost effectiveway to Layinga newcarpet maintainthe building. costingE9,em in the ForeignFess. someaIteratiOnS hW been Asociafionarea carried014 with lihle 01no beforecomplefion 0, regardto the historicfabric. a pmgnmmed S”Chas i”S,alla,iO”Of modern internaldecoration Rwh doorsin periodframes s”geestsPODl andsurrounds. planning.
TIE Scaleand chamfer Of a principal,OOrn With a em artist-paintedceiling have beendeStroyed by useOf half heightpartitioning Of a utilitarianstandard.
TheFmpeltg senrices Agency classifiedthe maintenance standard.as “normal”. whereas in viewof thelisting status “exceptional”would be more
26 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Building: Waterguard Offices, Britannia Road, Roath Basin, Cardiff
Occupier: HM Customs & Excise
Description: A mid- to late-19th century stone-built building, located between the main entrance to Bute and Roath Docks, and used as a watching post. It has two 1960s extensions.
Recmlmendedrepairs between status CO”diliO” Conservation HeaMand Safely 1991and 1993 Lessonslearned E
A buildingOf Thebuilding is No specific issues If the buildingis retained lndecisio”as to tile meritWith a isolatedin a tile foIlawingWOh on f”,“W strategic floorarea Of d&k, waterside historicareas would be “Sef”lnesSOf the 236Square areaand its appropriate: buildingmay have led metres. continueduse is to unnecessary Leasehold(,“I, uncertain. Stoneworkand rainwaier maintenanwwork being repairingand ducting 12,000 carriedwt. i”S”,i”p,. If is in fair Eradicationof conditionwith a iniernaldampneSS 5,000 limitedpotential An originalwindow opening has for dilapidations beeninfilled with ill-matched 17,m liability. concreteblockwork with no considerationgiven to Thereis some appearance. spallingsfmewrk, rusungralnwafel Withan uncertainfuture, a goodsam windand weathertight deteriorated maintenancestandard would *em paintwork. appmpriate.
27 UPKEEP OF HISTORlC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Examination of Four Historic Buildings (Details at Appendix 3)
Case 1: Dundee CustomHouse
Photographreproduced by kind permiss&? of PSA Serwces
Case 3: 4 St James Square
Stainingand damagecaused by blocked rainwateroutlets UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Examination of Four Historic Buildings (Details at Appendix 3)
Case 2: York Crown Court
A fine example of conservation practice
Circular lights re-introduced in a restored court Photographsreproduced by kind permissionof PSA Services
Case 4: Teddington Hall
External deterioration Photographreproduced by kind permissionof Property Holdings
29 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUlLDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Appendix 3 Examination of four Historic Buildings
Case 1: History Dundee Custom House I. Dundee Custom House, part of a Category A listed building, dates from 1642. In 1990 a Scottish Office Minister described it as ‘. architecturally, among the most important government buildings in Scotland, and one of the most significant monuments of the Greek Revival anywhere in the UK’.
2. It was built as one of two self-contained adjacent units which form a single architectural concept. The smaller unit has always housed the Dundee Harbour Board, and the Board and the Government both own their own freehold. From April 1990 the Custom House has been part of the cmnmm user estate, and as a single occupied building, maintenance responsibility has been assumed by HM Customs and Excise (the Department).
3. In 1976 falling masonry led to scaffolding being erected to protect pedestrians, and by 1962 further falls had led to the whole building being scaffolded. A consultant’s report in 1985 suggested renovation of the stonework would take 15 months and cost f153,OOO. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate of the Scottish Office, however, saw considerable aesthetic compromises in the treatment proposed, and suggested mcm extensive work estimated later by consultants to cost f1.3 million. In June 1988 the former Property Services Agency let a contract for the work at an estimated cost of f1.35 million to be completed by September 1991.
4. HM Customs and Excise had been looking for a single building for all their Dundee Staff since 1985. In September 1969 the Department identified a suitable building and began to plan to vacate Custom House. In December 1969 they learned of the Agency’s renovation contract and, realising they would otherwise inherit liability for this substantial contract expenditure from 1990-91 onwards, sought to leave Custom House by April 1990 and mwe to cheaper temporary accommodation, pending availability of the new building. Custom House would be given up to Property Holdings for disposal.
5. The Agency’s consultants advised that between f360,OOO and f500,OOO could be savedif the contractwere determined early, but that the buildingwould probably be unsaleable, not least because of the threat of a listed building repair order on any new private buyer. Work could not be delayed indefinitely because the stone was being won from a specially reopened quarry which would close in 1993. There would also be widespread public and official dissatisfaction with the extremely unsightly appearance of the building. The Agency therefore decided to finish the work and HM Customs and Excise agreed to remain in Custom House until their new accommodation was ready in March 1992. They also agreed to fund the 1990-91 work up to f 730,000 from their total maintenance budget for the year of f6.5 million. Custom House would be disposed of when vacation was complete.
6. In May 1990 Property Holdings and Customs and Excise agreed that f168,OOO of work should be deleted from the contract including most work to the rear of the building. The total cost of the refurbishment by March 1991 was E0.9 million out of a revised total of f1.3 million of which HM Customs and Excise met SO.5 million. Property Holdings would take responsibility for any residual expenditure in 1991-92, currently estimated at E0.4 million.
30 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Findings 7. The National Audit Office found that: l the poor condition of the stonework, which was caused by its original composition, was first identified by surveyors in 1983 and in a consultant’s report in 1985, but the development of a more radical programme and funding constraints delayed contract action until June 1988; l HM Customs and Excise had informed the Property Services Agency in 1985 of their preference to centralise all their activities in Dundee under one roof, but the Agency took no action to verify current policy before letting the renovation contract in 1988; l HM Customs and Excise’s decision to try and leave Custom House by 1 April 1990 was based on the realisation that they would otherwise inherit substantial renovation costs from the former Property Services Agency; l After discussion, Property Holdings and HM Customs and Excise agreed that HM Customs and Excise would pay for work carried out in 1990-91, up to an agreed cash limit, and Property Holdings for work thereafter. Both departments were concerned to ensure that work done to the building should be worthwhile and economical. l In determining the extent of maintenance work required Property Holdings took some account of how this might improve the chances of subsequent sale to a private purchaser.
Lessons learned 8. The Dundee Custom House renovation exemplifies the special difficulties and costs associated with the maintenance of historic buildings. With the advice of Historic Buildings and Monuments, the Property Services Agency embarked on a renovation scheme largely as an investment in the heritage but with little benefit to Customs and Excise’s operating efficiency.
9. There are also general issues concerning dual responsibility for buildings, especially at a time of change. There were misunderstandings between the departments about the continued occupation of the building and as to who should Curd [ha cumrnilled rasluraliuu wurk. 11111~ arxl HM Cuslums and Extiise saw lit& choice but to commit 11 per cent of their entire 1990-91 national maintenance budget to a single building housing 32 of their 27.000 staff, and which they plan to vacate six months after the work is completed.
Recommendations 10. Departments should: l clearly differentiate in project budgets the costs of conservation requirements from the costs of operational and safety maintenance; . determine the long term requirement for a building before starting major work, and plan such work in liaison with occupiers before contracts are let.
31 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Case 2: History York Crown Court 1. York Crown Court is listed Grade 1 and built on the site of a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The Greek revival facade, entrance hall and two domed court rucuns constitute Car’s Assize Court of 1773-77, additional accommodation being added in a series of extensions starting in 1818. The building is of considerable operational importance and has great architectural value as a fine example of John Car’s work in his home town.
2. The building was transferred from the County Council to the former Property Services Agency in 1976. In April 1990 it became part of the departmental estate of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, who then became responsible for its maintenance.
3. In 1911 an attempt to halt the settlement of the front wall was made by tying it to the rear with steel rods through the roof. This has eventually led to the rear wall being pulled eight inches out of true with the front wall continuing to settle and being a foot out of true. In 1983 small cracks in the domes of both court ruums were identified and it was not certain whether these were caused by fresh settlement. The condition of the domes was therefore monitored until a full survey of the roof was carried out in 1986.
4. By June 1988, when the identified restoration work for the roof alone had been tentatively estimated to cost &!SO,OOO,very little had been done due to lack of funds, which were then not expected to be available until April 1989. In July 1988, as the extent and cost of the remedial work became clearer, its scope was extended to include general refurbishment embracing conservation work agreed with English Heritage.
5. The project was to be carried out in two phases: Phase I, an initial exploratory and investigative phase to select the best way of proceeding and to produce time and cost estimates; Phase 2, the main work, involving closing the Court.
6. As a result of phase 1. which started in March 1989, it was decided to stabilise the building by using 50 feet steel piles and tying the front wall to steel towers built within the existing structure. The building would be fully redecorated and the services upgraded. The Carr building would be returned to nearer its original state both in its decoration and by having sane later additions removed. The estimate of f2.8 million included a substantial contingency reserve of f125,OOO.
7. Phase 2 was due to last 13 months and started in mid-August 1989, the earliest date convenient for the occupying Department to vacate the building. The business of the Courtwas transferred to nearbytowns. By May1990 the contingencyelement had been exhausted by a series of unexpected problems. A further fl20,OOO was found through savings on other estimated costs. The work was completed at a cost of sane f3.2 million including fees, and the building was handed cwer on time on 3 September 1990. The Court reopened on 9 October 1990.
8. The Agency spent f787,OOO in 1989-90 and the Department spent f2,403,000 in 1990-91. This was much more than the Department had expected as the Agency had agreed to try to complete most of the work and pay for it by 1 April 1990. But, as a consequence of a cutback in the Agency’s budget, the Department had to find an extra f1.2 million from their 1990-91 budget by reducing the amount allocated to other backlog maintenance.
Findings 9. The National Audit Office found that:
l regular detailed inspection of the building by the Property Services Agency after 1976 would have identified the problems earlier, although specialist quadrennial inspections of historic buildings were not introduced until 1985;
32 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
l work initially identified in July 1986 was not started until March 1989 because of funding constraints, and, after 1988, because of the extension of the original proposal. During this time the Lord Chancellor’s Department were told that the structural defects did not endanger the occupants and they continued to use the building; l the structural solution adopted was very sympathetic to the aesthetic appearance of the building, and caused a minimum of archaeological damage: l beyond the necessary repair works the contract included remedying any items likely to give rise to maintenance problems in the next twenty-five years; l the Lord Chancellor’s Department had to find an extra ft.2 million from their 1990-91 budget to pay for the completion of the project. This was at the expense of other work; l the provision of a large contingency reserve was prudent planning, given the adventurous nature of the work and the lack of a full set of plans when the building was acquired in 1976; l the Property Services Agency were unaware until February 1989, when phase 1 was being planned, that the site was a scheduled ancient monument; . internal Scheduled Monument clearance (under Department of the Environment Circular 16/84 provisions) was not applied for in respect of phase 2 of the project until after the main contract had been let in August 1989, and was granted only seven days before work was due to begin: l the work was carefully planned, with a high level of liaison between the project team and English Heritage, the local authority, archaeologists, the occupying Department and the Property Services Agency’s Conservation Unit; . work undertaken to restore the Court to its original 1777 design layout including removing a staircase, moving a corridor, restoring the original courtroom rooflights, removing a ventilation box from the roof and returning to historically authentic colour schemes cost some EIS~,OOO; l the Conservation Unit made a notable contribution to the quality of the restoration work: this included the identification of suitable experts, advice on techniques and the provision of guidance on interior decoration and furnishings. Advice was also obtained from English Heritage: l the restoration of the Carr building was completed with great attention to detail: for example the services of a colour specialist, recommended by the Conservation Unit, cost flo,ooo for analysing paint samples and producing a colour scheme to ensure that the building was returned to its original decor. Users, including the Judiciary, have welcomed the return of this building to its original profile and improvements in its lighting and other features; l since completion, the heating of the building, particularly in the cells area, has been found to be unsatisfactory. The problems appear to arise from a design fault. The consultant engineer is considering the situation and may be held responsible: . the maintenance of the building is currently being managed by PSA Services who are responsible for arranging the necessary programme of inspections.
Lessons learned 10. The extensive work required by York Crown Court illustrates the special problems which can arise when a historic building is not regularly inspected by specialists. Although alert observation in 1983 drew attention to the faults, earlier identification of the scale of the problem, before further deterioration occurred, would have been far more preferable.
33 “KEEP OF HISTORlC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVK ESTATE
11. The work to restore the Carr building to its original 1777 design layout did not improve the operational efficiency of the occupying Department, but was, a fine example of conservation practice.
12. This project benefited from the full involvement of all interested parties from the beginning. This very full co-operation, the establishment of the contingency fund and the good use made of external experts, enabled the project to be completed substantially to time and broadly to a somewhat speculative budget; this was a considerable achievement.
Recommendations 13. Departments need to have in place procedures which:
l provide for detailed and regular inspections of historic buildings. This may cause operational disruption for inspection purposes but is preferable to major disruption later;
l identify the extent to which historic buildings might require conservation work, including reinstatement of original features, which go beyond normal repairs. Any such work should be planned, costed and timetabled in relation to other maintenance priorities.
l record accurately and fully the listing and scheduling status of all properties:
l ensure that all consents required under Department of the Environment Circular 18/84 are obtained before entering into contractual obligations;
l provide for consultation at an early stage with all interested parties before work starts;
l ensure full use is made of advice from Central Government centres of expertise such as the Conservation Unit and English Heritage.
34 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Case 3: History 4 St James’ Square and I. 4 St James’ Square, London, is a Grade II* listed building dating from the 1720% 7 to 9 Babmaes Street It is a four storey five-bayed town house in typical Georgian style, with several ‘Grand Rooms’. 7 to 9 Babmaes Street is a Grade II listed building and was built in the grounds some 50 years later to house the kitchens and staff quarters for the main building.
2. The buildings were requisitioned from the Astor family in 1942 and the freehold was acquired in 1948 specifically for the use as headquarters for the Arts Council of Great Britain. This use continued until 1968. From 1968 to 1970 the building was used for various purposes including Civil Service examinations and from 1970 to 1975 it was occupied by the Lord Chancellor’s Department for the purpose of emergency courts. Since 1976 the Employment Appeals Tribunal have occupied the premises. The Babmaes Street building was acquired with the main building and until 1968 was used for chauffeurs’ accommodation and storage. Since then it has been empty. From 1 April 1990 both buildings became part of the Property Holdings c0mm0n user estate.
3. The Property Services Agency wanted the buildings vacated because the maintenance backlog was mounting and the accommodation was far too big for the occupants. The Agency have therefore been trying to relocate the Tribunal for some 10 years. The Tribunal were reluctant to leave and it has proved exceptionally difficult to identify acceptable alternative accommodation. The Tribunal have now agreed to relocate to Audit House, Victoria Embankment, but the refurbishment of this building is delayed because of construction problems. In the meantime it has proved impractical for security reasons to let or dispose of the unoccupied parts of the properties.
4. Property Holdings’ intention is to sell the properties which in 1989 were valued at f14 million. In October 1990 their selling agents began discussions with Westminster City Council and English Heritage with a view to seeking planning permission and listed building consent for a scheme of rehabilitation and restoration for hotel, residential or office purposes. On the advice of the local planning authority a scheme for offices was to be drawn up. Once approval has been obtained and the Tribunal vacate the property it will then be placed on the market. Property Holdings intend to carry out some minor remedial work to the Babmaes Street building to limit further deterioration of the property as sunn as possible.
Findings 5. Following physical inspections of the properties with their consultants, the National Audit Office found that:
l during the protracted relocation negotiations the normal standard of maintenance of 4 St James’ Square had ceased. This was largely due to funding constraints and reluctance of the Department of Employment and the Property Services Agency to spend money on a building due for disposal;
l the Property Services Agency had carried out patch repairs to cope with the entry of rainwater, but these were insufficient to preserve the overall condition of the property to the normal standards for an occupied historic building;
l the building had defective external decoration, blocked rainwater outlets, and growing vegetation which made one balcony unsafe to use. Property Holdings carried out repairs to the roof in 1991 at a cost of E15.674;
l internally, the top floor was unusable and both the second and first floors had unrepaired damage from rainwater; however public areas were well-maintained, having been decorated in recent years;
35 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVlL ESTATE
l the Grand Rooms were restored in X950-51 but were now in poor order. These rooms are still covered by an original condition of sale in 1948 which required the purchaser to restore and preserve them to their 1942 state;
l 7 to 9 Babmaes Street has suffered considerable movement of the rear wall, being classified as dangerous by the Agency in May 1988; it was repaired by steel cables running through the building: . the building was in a deplorable internal condition, with considerable falls of plaster, and evidence of infestation by pigeons suggesting that it was not even kept to the ‘wind and weatherproof’ standard for empty buildings recommended by the Agency’s Conservation Unit. However, immediately after the National Audit Office visit f5,000 was spent on dealing with this specific public health hazard;
l the latest estimated date of April 1992 for the Tribunal to relocate to Audit House is likely to be met. The continuance of minimal maintenance of both properties up to the date of disposal might result in further deterioration. On advice from Property Holdings’ agent, and as a result of the National Audit Office review and of Ministerial interest arising from the Teddington Hall case (case 4), Property Holdings are considering carrying out protective works to preserve the buildings to an acceptable standard pending vacation.
Lessons learned 6. The departments involved should have taken a more proactive role in achieving accommodation requirements and to maintain properties properly pending disposal. The condition of neither of these properties meets the Government’s aim to ‘set an example of the highest order’ in the conservation of historic buildings. Furthermore, their condition will represent a substantial cost for a private purchaser, and a consequent diminution in disposal value, which might have been avoided by appropriate expenditure at the right time. In the longer term comprehensive remedial work, rather than a patchwork of emergency repairs, might have provided better value for money.
Recommendations 7. Departments need to:
l settle their accommodation requirements and dispose of surplus historic buildings as quickly as possible;
l maintain occupied historic properties awaiting vacation and disposal to normal standards and empty buildings to at least wind and weatherproof condition.
36 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Case 4: History Teddington Hall and 1. Teddington Hall is a Grade II listed building built in 1863 in the Tudor Gothic Cramer House ‘baronial’ style: it was extended several times towards the end of the century. The nearby Cramer House was built in the mid-19th century, and has been identified by the local planning authority as a Building of Townscape Merit. Neither building is of overpowering architectural virtue, but they are interesting examples of their type, and a part of the environment which is highly valued by the local community.
2. The Government acquired the buildings in 1946 when many parts of Teddington Hall were already infested with dry rot. They formed part of the specialised estate of the National Physical Laboratory, but were vacated in the late 1970s and have remained unoccupied. Since vacating the buildings the Laboratory have not committed funds for their upkeep. Teddington Hall was listed in 1981.
3. In 1982 the former Property Services Agency advised the Laboratory that the properties, which although in need of some repair, were fundamentally sound, should be disposed of or reused quickly. However, the Laboratory wished to retain the buildings on the grounds that they might have a future use and that the land enhanced the site’s physical security.
4. By mid-1983 consultants estimated the cost of renovation of Teddington Hall as fl30,OOO and of Cramer House as f95,OOO. Over the next six years the Agency explored other uses for the buildings, including moving in their own site staff. Some of these proposals reached an advanced state of planning and the Laboratory were able to reassure interested parties (including English Heritage) that action was in hand. In practice, however, none of the plans succeeded as neither the Laboratory, nor their sponsors the Department of Trade and Industry, were prepared to spend money on the buildings, and the Agency had no available funds.
5. By May 1986 the Agency’s Conservation Unit advised that the buildings were not ‘wind and weatherproof’. Ministers were however reluctant to commit Agency funds for such work. A year later the Agency’s local office examined the options for the future of Teddington Hall and reported long-term deterioration and extensive rot requiring renovation costs of some f300,OOO. They repeated the call for immediate action; but none was taken.
6. In early 1989 the Ministry of Defence decided to close the adjacent Admiralty Research Establishment and the Treasury agreed to fund the Department of Trade and Industry’s acquisition of the Establishment on condition that Teddington Hall, Cramer House and the site (2.12 acres) were released for disposal by the Agency. This was achieved in March 1990. With the change of status of the Agency in April 1990 the buildings and site were taken into Property Holdings’ common user estate and were boarded up and fenced off. At this time f&O00 was spent on emergency roof repairs to Teddington Hall. Property Holdings told the National Audit Office in August 1991 that a temporary roof was in place and the interior of the building cleared of builders’ rubbish to reduce deterioration of the floor timbers. Expert advice was being obtained to determine what further action could be taken to minimise continued deterioration pending disposal.
7. Since 1987 the local planning authority and English Heritage have taken an increasing interest in the worsening condition of the property, culminating in Ministerial correspondence which led to a senior Property Holdings officer visiting the site in November 1990. He found Teddington Hall to be in a deplorable state, with serious structural defects, extensive dry rot, a holed roof, decayed brickwork and fallen internal and external decoration. The stairs were too dangerous to be used and the fireplaces had been stolen. A consultant building surveyor appointed by Property Holdings estimated the cost of renovating Teddington Hall to be in excess of f 1 million.
37 UPKEEP OF HlSTORlC BUILDINGS ON THE Cl”IL ESTATE
8. In April 1990 when the buildings and land were released for disposal Property Holdings had approached the local planning authority to consider development proposals for the site in order to expedite its sale. The authority initially required an application for full planning permission based on architectural drawings, but in November 1990 agreed to a less formal planning brief with sketches. Property Holdings submitted four such proposals for office developments, incorporating Teddington Hall, in early 1991. Property Holdings were preparing in August 1991 an outline planning application. Assuming outline approval is obtained without the need for appeal, the property should be offered for sale and, dependent on the market, sold before the end of the current financial year.
Findings 9. The National Audit Office found that:
l the Property Services Agency’s conservation handbook advises that historic buildings should not be retained against the possibility of future use. If no alternative use is identified the presumption should be in favour of immediate disposal. However, Teddington Hall has remained empty since it was listed in 1981;
l the handbook advises that while an empty historic building remains on the Government estate it should not be allowed to deteriorate and must be kept wind and weatherproof and generally protected. None of the responsible departments safeguarded Teddington Hall in this way;
l although Department of Environment Circular 18/84 provides for non-statutory consultation with local planning authorities over proposed alterations or demolition of Government owned historic buildings, there is no similar procedure equivalent to the listed building repair notices served on private owners;
l the increase over seven years from EI~O,OOO to cwer El million in the estimated restoration costs of Teddington Hall indicates how rapidly a building can deteriorate if not subjected to proper inspection and maintenance procedures;
l in March 1991 Ministers asked Property Holdings to check the common user estate to see if there were any buildings in the same deplorable condition as Teddington Hall. As a result 4 St lames Square and 7 to 9 Babmaes Street [see case 3) were identified for possible protective works pending vacation and disposal:
l Property Holdings told the National Audit Office in March 1991 that they were looking to identify any listed buildings which, although sound now, may be at risk. This should prevent any recurrence of cases like Teddington Hall.
Lessons learned 10. The history of Teddington Hall since the late 1970s demonstrates the special risks faced by historic buildings, particularly vacant ones, at a time of funding constraints. The restoration costs, comparatively modest at first, rose steeply as the building deteriorated.
Recommendations 11. Departments should:
l have clearly defined accommodation strategies which identify their medium and long term requirements and which forestall redundant historic buildings from being left vacant and vulnerable to vandalism and theft;
l maintain the asset value and historic fabric of properties by taking proper care of them when unoccupied;
l consult closely with English Heritage on the repair of historic buildings. Whenever possible surplus historic buildings should be placed on the market before the last occupants leave to minimise the period of vacancy.
38 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Appendix 4 Maintenance responsibilities
The Devolved Model In single occupied buildings the Department may choose to exercise executive and funding responsibility for all works of maintenance repair and renewal except for services that affect more than one property (eg district heating) which will remain the responsibility of Property Holdings. Under this option the Department will also take on responsibility for all minor new works within its area of responsibility.
The Standard Model This model applies where occupying Departments in joint-occupied buildings want to take on the maximum responsibility for maintenance and minor works or where it is selected by a Department in a single-occupied building. In general terms Departments will be responsible for executing and funding internal redecoration, together with non-structural maintenance, repair and renewal work. Property Holdings will be responsible for work to the main structure of the buildings, to main services and external finishes.
The Restricted Model This model will apply where occupying Departments wish Property Holdings to exercise the maximum responsibility for works services. Departments will be responsible for executing and funding maintenance and minor works up to El,000 per job; Property Holdings will be responsible for all other works services.
39 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Appendix 5 Building Maintenence Records examined by the National Audit Office
Property Holdings lo-11 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1 Grade I listed Scottish Office, Dover House, Whitehall, Grade I listed London SW1 13/14 Park Crescent, London NW1 Grade I listed 43/45 Bedford Square, London WC1 Grade I listed Admiralty House, Whitehall, London SW1 Grade I listed Old Treasury Building, 70-72 Whitehall, London SW1 Grade I listed Probate Registry, 49 Cardiff Road, Llandaff, Grade II listed Cardiff Cleveland House, Sydney Road, Bath Grade II listed Tudor House, 5 Higher Street, Dartmouth, Devon Grade II listed Crown Buildings, Newarke Street, Leicester Building of Merit Castle House, Newport Road, Stafford Building of Merit The Old Post Office, Leicester Street, Walsall Building of Merit Old St Andrew House, Regent Road, Edinburgh Category B listed General Register House, 1 Princes Street, Category A listed Edinburgh X/27 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh Category A listed Queens House. 36 Moray Place, Edinburgh Category A listed 11 Melville Crescent, Edinburgh Category A listed Montrose House, 187 George Street, Edinburgh Category B listed
HM Customs and Excise London Custom House, Lower Thames Street, Grade I listed London EC3 Waterguard Offices, Roath Basin, Cardiff Building of Merit Custom House, 3 Bayards Cove Quay, Dartmouth, Grade II listed Devon Custom House, Custom House Quay, Greenock, Category A listed Renfrewshire
The Lord Chancellor’s Middlesex Guildhall, London SW1 Grade I listed Department Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2 Grade I listed 26/29 Park Crescent, London NW1 Grade I listed The Guildhall, Broad Street, Bristol Grade I listed The Old Council House, Corn Street, Bristol Grade I listed Exeter Crown Court, The Castle, Exeter, Devon Grade II* listed Shire Hall, Market Square, Stafford Grade II* listed County Court Offices, 3 Priory Street, Dudley, Grade II listed West Midlands County Court, Lichfield Street, Walsall, Grade II listed West Midlands
40 UPKEEP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE CIVIL ESTATE
Classification of listed buildings in England and Woks: Grade I : Buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II*: Particularly important buildings of more than special interest. Grade II : Buildings of special interest which warrant every effort being made to preserve them.
Classification of listed buildings in Scotland: Category A : Buildings of national or more than local importance, either architectural or historic or fine, little-altered examples of some period, style or type. Category B : Buildings of primarily local importance or examples of some period, style or type which may have been altered. Category C(s): Good buildings of any type or style which may be considerably altered, but retain elements of interest, and simple, often traditional buildings which group well with others in Categories A and B or are part of a planned group, for example an estate or an industrial complex.
Non-statutory classification: Buildings of Merit: Buildings of interest which have not yet qualified for listing or scheduling (see Part I, paragraph 1.1).
41