Review of Policies Relating to the Historic Environment
Historic Cinemas
Editorial September 1999
April 1999
February 1999
SAVE is 25 years old. The first meetings were in February 1975; regular attendees included Marcus Binney, Peter Burman, Timothy Cantell, David Pearce, Margaret Richardson and Simon Jenkins. At the third meeting, on 18 Feb 1975, it was minuted that SAVE had "£285 in hand" and it seems we have never had much more than this in the bank at any time since! And yet despite its modest means and often very modest size, SAVE has had an enormous impact - far out of proportion to its resources. It can count numerous scalps to its name, from the rescue of individual buildings such as Barlaston Hall and the Lyceum in Liverpool and changes in policy, such as listing resurveys, to generating an understanding and appreciation of whole types of buildings, from non-conformist chapels and textile mills to barracks and asylums. Above all, SAVE has helped change public and political perceptions about what constitutes the historic environment (a new term which itself recognises the vastly broadened meaning of "heritage"), how it can be used and its need of effective protection.
It seems somehow appropriate, therefore, that the government has chosen to launch a "sweeping strategic review" of conservation policy and legislation in this our anniversary year. The world that SAVE attacked in 1975 has changed almost beyond recognition. Over twice as many historic buildings are listed now, yet 90% fewer listed buildings are demolished each year. Now we have English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, widely praised planning guidance in PPG15, a Ministry for Culture, numerous buildings at risk registers, the Twentieth Century Society, conservation officers in nearly all planning authorities, an Historic Chapels Trust, converted warehouses and mills by the score and a listed building owners club, displaying plaques as badges of pride.
However, all these triumphs for the conservation movement have caused a widespread popular and political perception that the battle has been won. And in many respects it has been. As a result conservation is no longer able to grab the headlines in the same way - the need for regular maintenance and the spread of uPVC windows simply does not make as good copy as the demolition of a country house. And therein lies a very real danger for conservation. At SAVE we know, as do our colleagues at the amenity societies and English Heritage that there are still many more battles to be fought than there are resources to fight. SAVE cannot devote as much energy as it would like to every case that comes its way because we are still often swamped with calls to arms. But the fact remains that conservation has slipped down the agenda and having won so many great victories it has lost some of its sense of direction. It needs to be injected with a new sense of purpose if it is to continue to attract the attention and resources that it needs and deserves.
To this end we intend to celebrate our birthday by publishing our own ideas for the future of conservation, which we hope will be taken up in the government review. We would also like to debate them later in the year.
And finally, we would like to celebrate this anniversary with a party and we hope to announce later in the year a suitably festive occasion to which all supporters of SAVE, past and present, will be invited to toast past victories, and future success.
Review of Policies Relating to the Historic Environment"
. . . is the rather catchy title of the Government's recently announced strategic review. In the last newsletter we wrote that so lacking in any kind of strategy was the DCMS, and the conservation sector in general, that the idea put forward last summer by the Culture Select Committee of the House of Commons of a review leading to the creation of a comprehensive strategy had to be taken up. The contrast between the lack of direction and information in the historic environment sector and the cohesiveness and purpose of the natural environment sector was striking. Nevertheless it was with some surprise that SAVE learnt that such a review was indeed to be undertaken and it must be warmly welcomed. Some aspects in particular deserve praise, such as the (perhaps over ambitious but nonetheless worthy) aim of producing a vision for at least the next 25 years.
However, we have some major reservations. Most important amongst these is that, in one crucial respect, this review is exactly what we said in September it should not be: an exercise conducted by English Heritage. English Heritage so dominates conservation and its influence is so strong that it is vital that its policies and performance are subject to detailed and critical investigation by an independent body. Though it dwarfs other organisations, English Heritage holds no monopoly on expert opinion and the review must absorb the views of all the many intelligent and perceptive professionals working across the spectrum of conservation. This is why we favoured an all encompassing "heritage forum". It is therefore essential that the membership of the Steering Group and five specialist Working Groups that will oversee the review will draw widely from outside English Heritage as well as within, reflecting diverse experience and opinion. We look forward with keen interest to the announcements of their membership.
Our other main concern is a nagging worry about some of the language and concepts that pervade the "invitation to participate" which sets out the terms of reference for the review. Much of this is inevitable New Labour-speak - this is after all a government review. Hence there are plenty of references to social inclusion, economic regeneration, joined-up thinking, partnership, stakeholders, community involvement and targets galore. The worry, expressed by some, is that much of this has little to do with conservation - which is fundamentally about protecting and repairing old buildings, places and landscapes for their intrinsic cultural and historical value. You could argue that this is simply an outdated analysis, that beyond the jargon these concepts have always been a more or less inherent part of conservation and that we must think in these terms if conservation is to be seen as relevant to the needs of society in the future.
However, the presence of this jargon here and in other recent English Heritage literature are manifestations of rather uncertain attempts to redefine conservation. English Heritage in particular feels very strongly the need to convince its political paymasters of the relevance of its work to the New Labour crusade. It could be argued that two positions are emerging in response to this uncertainty in conservation, one that might be termed "progressive", the other that might be termed the "traditional". The progressive position sees the future of conservation as a more explicitly environmental and bottom up movement. It seeks to protect and celebrate local diversity through greater community participation and the philosophies of Agenda 21. It does not want to be seen as "heritage" in the elitist sense, but believes alignment with wider environmental concerns and sustainability is the route to the future good health of the cause. The HLF's recently launched Local Heritage Initiative typifies this. Though not necessarily opposed to much of this, the other position might argue that with dwindling resources and political interest, efforts must simply be concentrated on the business of conserving outstanding buildings and landscapes.
This debate can be seen within English Heritage. On the one hand, the chief executive is writing a leader in its "Conservation Bulletin" arguing that sustainability is more than just a buzzword and that the concept will lie at the heart of future English Heritage policy; on the other, the new repair grant programme is launched with bleak reminders of limited funds available only to small numbers of Grade I and II* listed buildings (which themselves make up less than 10% of all listed buildings) - and the inevitability, therefore, of the loss of historic buildings.
English Heritage is confused. What it needs now above all is a period of stability, after the recent turmoil of regionalisation and the merger with the RCHME. Stability should be accompanied by a restatement of core values. Drop the ridiculous idea of promoting the heritage of the future - that is what the new Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is for. Concentrate on the task of identifying and conserving historic buildings, places and landscapes. Properly thought out concepts of sustainability will no doubt become part of core conservation philosophy values - it is after all an inherently sustainable cause. Equally, it is a natural step to align with the wider environmental movement - all share a goal of protecting and enhancing our environment. Likewise the value of local community participation is clear. But the fundamental aim must be to stand up for buildings and gardens and parks and towns and protect them from the ever present, though perhaps now more insidious, threat of damage, decay, alteration, abuse and destruction.
Return to the top of the page
If railway stations and warehouses were the buildings of the 19th century surely cinemas along with airports, power stations and carparks, must be one of the defining building types of the twentieth century. The importance of the cinema as a building type is well recognised - 124 of them are already listed, the majority Grade II, with a few Grade II* scattered amongst them. In December, after a thematic survey, English Heritage came up with a list of 30 more cinemas to be added to the statutory lists, 7 cinemas to be upgraded from Grade II to II* and one to be upgraded to a Grade I listing. It also held a day long conference on The future for England's Historic Cinemas: Their use, reuse and regeneration.
Not surprisingly over the last century the expectations of the cinema goer and the demands of the operator have changed and cinema forms have changed with them. Many buildings have outlived their original use, such as the State cinema in Greys, which is included in the SAVE register of buildings at risk. It has a single auditorium with a capacity of 2,000 which simply isn't viable today. So what should happen to them? As with many churches it is often the interior of a cinema, the volumes and fittings, which are of most importance, so finding a new use can be tricky. A large number of listed, and unlisted, cinemas are now used as bingo halls, some as clubs and pubs and a few as churches. There are many others which have specialised as arts cinemas or theatres, but also a fair number sitting empty and decaying.
More important than finding new uses for historic cinemas must be keeping them in use in the first place. For this to happen they must be able compete with their new rivals. How many times have you been to an out-of-town multiplex instead of the old local cinema? Perhaps it is because of the easy parking, the film not yet showing in the smaller cinema or because your children refuse to see Star Wars in a cinema which doesn't have surround sound. This is what the smaller, older, cinemas have to compete with.
One of the most interesting presentations at the conference was made by Richard Segal, Managing Director of Odeon Cinemas Ltd. He argued that listing cinemas placed unreasonable restrictions on them, especially in the areas of disabled access, signage and retail space. In the case of the Odeon in Barnet, where discussions with English Heritage on these matters have dragged on for a number of years, he alleged that this has contributed to putting the cinema into a position where it is ceasing to be a viable business.
It is excellent that English Heritage has recommended so many more of these magnificent buildings for listing. However, it appears that there is a divide between what EH considers acceptable alterations and what operators consider is viable. Whilst there must be controls to protect the historic fabric of these buildings, it is also essential that this protection is flexible enough to allow them to continue to function. It would be a great shame if listing, rather than of helping to protect cinemas, contributed to their closure instead.
More information about historic cinemas can be found in English Heritage's Picture Palaces - New life for old cinemas. This is available for free from English Heritage on 0207 937 3434.
Return to the top of the page