Review of Section 482 Relief - Department of Culture ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Review of Section 482 Relief
A submission to the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs,
and Department of Finance March 2017
1. Is the exchequer’s support of historic buildings and gardens through section 482
relief an efficient use of resources and if so why?
“…Not everything that counts can be counted…”1
The balance of ‘support‘ with ‘efficiency’ misses the question of responsibility. There
are a number of levels of responsibilty that are central to S.482 as an element of fiscal policy.
The question then is whether adequate support is given to S.482 properties and whether the
onus of responsibility on all parts is being effectively fulfilled:
• International: S.482 meets our international political responsibility under Article
6(3) of the Granada Convention to encourage private initiatives for maintaining
and restoring the architectural heritage.
• National: Collective responsibility filters through fiscal policy offering tax relief to
assist owners in the protection of historic fabric, but by insistence on public access,
the Act veers toward tourism resource provision over conservation.
• Local: S.482 properties offer local economic opportunity in the niche tourism retail
sector associated with value-added products – crafts, local and artisan foods,
amenity and accommodation, but local support is lacking, (eg. provision of
signage/promotion, guidance or assistance).
• Individual: For the S.482 owner the onus of responsibility increases due to the
requirement for public access and its attendant costs which are not adequately
covered under the Act. Furthermore, unless the owner is a taxpayer the costs
associated with repair, maintenance and restoration are not claimable.
Economic reports indicate that heritage investment represents a catalyst for sustainable
growth with an impressive multiplier effect in the economic landscape.2 There is also an
appreciation of the double public good model that distinguishes the multi-spectrum, non-
market value of cultural assets.3 In this context, at less than €3M/year, S.482 is cost and
resource-efficient.4 However, it does not follow that S.482 is achieving its aims, either for
the heritage sector, the public or the owners.
1
William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (New York: Random
Press, 1963). p 13.
2
Ecorys, "Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment," (The Heritage Council, 2012). Ecorys indicates that
construction expenditures in relation to historic buildings in 2009 represented over three times the estimated
employment intensity of public funds spent on infrastructure.
3
Karin & Kling Sable, Robert "The Double Public Good: A Conceptual Framework for ''Shared Experience'' Values
Associated with Heritage Conservation," Journal of Cultural Economics 25, no. 2 (2001). Heritage assets are
described as “communicators of social identity, forces for change and evidence of cultural continuity”.
4
The 2014 Home Renovation Incentive Scheme provides a tax credit to the value of 13.5% of expenditure on home
renovation and improvement split over the two successive years. Expenditure is limited between €5,000 – 30,000. It
was estimated it would cost €62 million per annum beginning in 2015. (Bacon Report.)2017 Review of Section 482
2. Is the current scheme maximising the potential economic benefits in terms of
stimulating local economic development and the repair, maintenance or
restoration of historic buildings and gardens? If not, why not?
“…as an economic development tool, historic preservation has proved its worth…historic preservation
5
tends to yield significant benefits to the economy.”
There are 2 parts to this question:
a. S.482 as a stimulant of local economic development:
The national and local spin-offs from S.482 cannot easily be quantified.6 However, the
Ecorys report commissioned by the Heritage Council suggests a return equivalent of €16 per €1
spent on heritage investment.7 Thus, S.482 can be viewed an efficient fiscal policy that can
unlock the economic benefits embodied in our private built heritage and cultural capital.8
Historic places are attractive to businesses; visitors to heritage locations stay longer and spend
2.5 times more than other visitors.9 Their expenditure is recognized to dissipate usefully into
the wider environment, a further stimulant to economic recovery.10
By linking public access with S.482 incentives, the current scheme prioritises tourism.
Indeed, S.482 properties fulfill all three of the top motivators for holidaymakers to Ireland - its
people, scenery, culture and history.11 At relatively low cost to the exchequer, and without
meaningful supports from Fáilte Ireland, S.482 properties comprise part of Ireland’s tourism
package - offering a variety of experiences, utilizing existing resources and promoting
economic activity at a geographical spread, without imposing on scenic quality or requiring
major infrastructural development.12 However, there are weaknesses in regards to access and
promotion that reduce effectiveness.
5
Randall Mason, Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature, (University of
Pennsylvania: The Brookings Institution 2005). Executive Summary.
6
The visitor numbers to S482 properties are not included in information provided as part of this submission. Nor
do the stats provided include those properties that provide on-site commercial activity associated with S.482.
7
Ecorys, "Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment." p 34.
8
David Throsby, "Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts. In: The Economics of Cultural Heritage, Assessing the
Cultural of Heritage," (Getty Conservation Institute, 2002).Cultural capital is defined as an asset that embodies a
store of cultural value, separable from whatever economic value it might possess; the asset gives rise to a flow of
goods and services over time, which may also have a cultural value. p 103.
9
Historic Environment Forum, "Heritage Counts " (London: English Heritage, 2010). p 2.
10
Rypkema Donovan, "Economics and the Built Cultural Heritage," in Heritage and Beyond, ed. Council of Europe
(Council of Europe, 2009). Research in Europe and North America shows that only 8-12% of the expenditures of a
heritage visitor are spent at the historic site itself, leaving 88 to 92% of the spending in hotels, restaurants, retail
shops and elsewhere in the local community. “The monument was the magnet that attracted the visitor to the
community, but the monument itself was only a very minor beneficiary of the economic impact.” p 113.
11
Failte Ireland, "A Tourism Toolkit for Ireland's Built Heritage: How to Develop and Promote Heritage Attractions
for Visitors," (2015). Domestic visits are substantial - 800,000 visited heritage and cultural attractions in 2014 and
the figure is growing.
12
Marc McDonald, "Tourism, Heritage Buildings, and Tax Relief," Journal of Travel Research 38, no. 3 (2000). p 291.
2
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
Amongst these are:
• It is a big ask of S.482 property owners to open their homes to the public for 60 days a
year, affecting privacy, working commitments and family life. In return assistance in
costs of conserving buildings and gardens that are recognized as national treasures are
recouped at a marginal rate of tax that applies only if the owner is a tax payer with
adequate resources to initiate and undertake works. The balance of exchange is
unsatisfactory.
• S.482 properties do not currently form a cohesive tourism product and that
contributes to a lack of visibility. Being open at different and varying times throughout
the year works against the creation of heritage trails and a linked up network.
Heritage week is the exception.
• The lack of supports from Failte Ireland and Enterprise Ireland represents an
astonishing gap in the potential economic strength of heritage as an engine of local
prosperity. Barriers to strong and meaningful participation by S.482 properties include
lack of knowledge, information and funding.
• The lack of a dedicated website promoting S.482 properties is a weakness.
• Effective tourism networking is weak, so too website links to S.482 properties from
NIAH and Discover Ireland.13
• The educational, health and safety costs of opening to the public - universal access,
road and house signage, lighting, exhibition, sanitary facilities, parking and
interpretation - cannot currently be recouped under S.482.
• No obligation to provide historical information to visitors is required or funded under
the Act.
• Fáilte Ireland has not utilized S.482 properties effectively within packaged themes and
has not adequately consulted the sector.
• The geographical dispersal of S.482 properties distributes the economic benefit they
could bestow.14 Yet a nationwide system of signage to S.482 properties has not been
initiated.
• In Ireland, Heritage Week occurs during the last week of August, when 1700
competing events, organised by The Heritage Council take place. Its timing, during a
busy period, means that schools cannot actively participate.15
13
At present, just a selection are included.
14
Council of Europe COE, ed. Heritage and Beyond (2009).
15
The Heritage Council assumed the role of coordinator of National Heritage Week from the Department of the
Environment, Heritage & Local Government in 2005.
3
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
b. S.482 as a stimulant of better conservation:
In an ideal world, S.482 would be contributing excellent and comprehensive repair,
maintenance and restoration. Its flaw is has been summarised well by Bacon “…it remains a
rather small and exclusive list, and the structure of the scheme’s provisions overall indicate that
the value is seen in providing heritage properties for tourism purposes rather than the
protection of heritage properties based on the inherent value of heritage.”16
Weaknesses include:
• There is no independent assessment at the outset, or at regular intervals, of
desirable actions to promote excellence in conservation.
• A primary deficit in S.482 is that it restricts exchequer support to the earnings of
the owner rather than the specific and individual needs of the heritage property.
It means that those who are tax payers and earning well can utilize tax savings;
those who need it most derive least benefit.
• Many older buildings require capital funding to achieve heritage objectives.
• There is no monitoring of the quality or compliance of the works undertaken and
claimed through S.482.17
• VAT on approved heritage repairs is fiscally inappropriate and benefits commercial
entities over private individuals.
• Local Property Tax came into effect in 2013.18 Higher valuations apply to well-
maintained historic properties. LPT exemption does not extend to S.482
properties.19
• S.482 has an advantage in that it does not require complicated paperwork or
submission of approvals for works, tenders etc. as part of annual submission for
tax rebates, but the conservation prerogative may consequently be lacking.
16
Peter Bacon, "Assessment of Possible Fiscal Incentives in Relation to the Built Heritage in Ireland’s Towns," (The
Heritage Council, 2014). p 17.
17
Inter-Departmental Working Group, "Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage," (Department of
Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, 1996). ‘It should therefore be ensured that all works in respect of which fiscal relief
is claimed are carried out in accordance with good conservation practice and the working group recommends that
the current provisions of [the] Finance Act, be amended accordingly. 127.
18
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/
19
Residential property tax was not payable on the original scheme, Section 19 of the Finance Act 1982. McDonald,
"Tourism, Heritage Buildings, and Tax Relief." 283. Protected heritage structures in Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK, USA and Canada may be entitled to either an
exemption, abatement or freeze from property tax. ‘Where property tax assessments are related to market value
assessments, heritage property owners are reluctant to undertake substantial repairs for fear
of raising the market value assessment and thus the tax liability.’Tracey and Armitage Pickerill, Lynne, "The
Management of Built Heritage: A Comparative Review of Policies and Practice in Western Europe, North America
and Australia," in Pacific Rim Real Estate Society - 15th Annual Conference (University of Technology Sydney (UTS),
New South Wales, Australia: ARROW@DIT, 2009).
4
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
3. Are there economic or other arguments for restricting or terminating the scheme?
‘Protecting the built heritage … requires long term planning, consistency, and policy
commitment.’ 20
The question of who benefits21 and who pays for heritage22 has dogged the industry and
resulted historically in a restrictive and less creative set of solutions than might be wished for
by those in the heritage sector. “The majority of historic environment assets in Ireland are
privately owned and receive no public assistance for their management and maintenance.”23
S.482 forms part of a heritage legacy that has been continually underfunded. Though critical to
90% of applicants,24 core funding, via grants to historic properties, remains low, and veers
toward community projects.25 Yet the contribution the historic environment makes to the Irish
economy was estimated at €1.5 Billion in 2012 and continues to grow.26 Assisting heritage to
survive makes economic sense.
S.482 in its current form is flawed, but it accepts two fundamental principles – that owners
of historic property are the custodians of national heritage and that the expense of
maintaining the asset for future generations should be shared with the nation.27 Should S.482
be terminated, those principles are relevant to its replacement.
a. Arguments for restricting the scheme:
• It can be argued that the scheme as designed is already inhibitively restrictive, indeed
so much so that numbers participating are reducing; so too the cost to the Exchequer.
• Currently, the balance of exchange that exists in S.482 - loss of privacy and time to
enable the State share the burden of repair, maintenance and restoration - favours
those already ‘open for business’, the commercial entities such as retail centres,
guesthouses and public houses.
20
Bacon, "Assessment of Possible Fiscal Incentives in Relation to the Built Heritage in Ireland’s Towns." Executive
Summary.
21
Mason, Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature.‘Historic preservation has
important economic values and produces certain economic benefits for both private actors and the public at large.
Preservation projects can be profitable; and preservation projects do make sound fiscal sense.’ p 5.
22
Rosemary Clarke, "Book Reviews of Does the Past Have a Future? (Peacock 1998) & Economic Perspectives on
Cultural Heritage (Hutter & Rizzo 1997)," Journal of Cultural Economics 24 (2000).
23
Ecorys, "Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment." p 12
24
The 2011 report prepared for the Heritage Council, the DEHLG and the Department of Finance states that, ‘grant
giving was critical to 90% of applicants who carried out conservation works’. Carrig Conservation International
Carrig Conservation International Ltd, "Grant Aid for Building Conservation : ‘Quanta’ Research," (The Heritage
Council, DEHLG & Dept of Finance, 2011). 6.
25
The Heritage Council’s Community Grant Scheme was just half a million euro in 2015; 600 applicants were
whittled to 197, of which just 2 succeeded in obtaining funding of over €5,000. Many successful applications to the
Heritage Council were for interpretation purposes, which might be considered a function of Fáilte Ireland.
26
Ireland’s historic environment directly supports more than 25,000 jobs. Ecorys, "Economic Value of Ireland’s
Historic Environment.".
27
Inter-Departmental Working Group, "Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage." ‘The case for
preserving our architectural heritage as an essential part of our cultural patrimony has been long established, if not
always widely accepted.’ p 79.
5
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• The value of the S.482 incentive increases with the wealth of the tax payer.28 That
paradox is the underlying factor that is most disconcerting.
• Fiscal policy that differentiates between categories of participants - private, not-for-
profit and for-profit properties29 - can respond more accurately to sectoral, heritage
and financial need.
• Rarity of opening might attract more, rather than less, visitors to private houses and
gardens, but at defined and nationally coordinated times and dates.
b. Arguments for terminating the scheme
The single compelling reason to justify termination of a scheme that assists heritage exemplars
is the ambition to replace it with something better - a creative and well-funded scheme.
Current S.482 properties should not suffer as a result of the scheme’s removal. It is in this light
that that these comments are submitted:
• S.482 is a blunt fiscal instrument that does not distinguish between the different types
and needs of participants.
• S.482 is based on the principle of public accessibility in return for financial assistance.
The number of opening days is onerous, restrictive and demanding on the
homeowner. 30
• S.482 does not recognize the need for capital injection.
• S.482 represents a critical move away from direct31 to indirect32 sources of funding. It
can be argued that the fiscal mechanisms utilised by the State, in the case of historic
houses in private ownership, may be more suited to a wider policy for protected
structures, rather than those few identified as being of national distinction,33 and may
not match their conservation obligations under international conventions.
• There are examples of schemes around Europe that offer alternatives to S.482 that are
more inclusive of historic properties and advance entire areas or contexts.
28
J.Mark Shuster, "The Other Side of the Subsidized Muse: Indirect Aid Revisited," Journal of Cultural Economics 23.
1-2 (1999). p 62.
29
The properties included in 482 may be open to the public, but different charges apply, and high charges are
applied by some that benefit most. In the case of one commercial demesne, where entry to the garden costs €9.50
(adult), it might be argued that the public already pay entrance via taxes, and the Estate derives ancillary benefit
from their presence, via the shopping mall, the garden centre and the restaurant.
30
Section 19 of the Finance Act of 1982 required owners to open their homes for a minimum of 30 days a year. The
requirement has since doubled. (Section 482 of the Taxes Consolidation Act in 1997.)
31
Traditional forms of public funding include subsidies, grants or acquisition.
32
Indirect funding channels via the taxation system.
33
There are approximately 60,000 properties on the Record of Protected Structures and the figure is rising. Since
1982, just 800 have been approved as of intrinsic merit and included in Section 482. 199 are currently operating
within the scheme, (2016).
6
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• S.482 can become a fiscal noose around the necks of participants. The current
clawback clause is not justifiable for genuine participants; it recognises neither years of
participation nor changes in circumstance - age, infirmity, illness, lack of income – all
legitimate reasons to withdraw from a scheme without penalty.
4. What possible changes to the existing scheme, if any, should be considered and
why?
“…the commitment of resources is desirable both on the grounds of the improved protection
which will be afforded to the architectural heritage and the resulting tourism and employment
benefits which will accrue to the economy.”34 Michael D Higgins
At a European level, recognition of the compelling power of heritage as an engine of
sustainable economic growth35 has spurred European commitment to funding initiatives36 that
favour investment in heritage projects. 2018 is set to become the European Year of Cultural
Heritage.37 This is a strong motivator to improve our heritage resource, attract investment and
promote tourism through enhanced fiscal supports.
Observations and recommendations for the current scheme are set out below, to be
considered in tandem with points made throughout this document:
Property Type:
• The 60-day public access requirement of S.482 is an onerous challenge that may be
more appropriate to commercial entities than the private home.38 This may explain the
relatively few private properties that are participating.
34
Speech in Dáil Eireann by the first Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Michael D Higgins. Dáil Éireann
Debate Vol. 472 No.8. 12 Dec 1996.
Houses of the Oireachtas Service, "
Convention for Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe: Motion,"
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1996121200008?ope
ndocument#. Accessed April 2016.
35
The measurable impact of heritage investment is jobs - over half of which are located in the wider economy,
(Heritage Counts 2010) - urban revitalization, small business incubation and increased property values. (Cultural
Heritage as a socio-economic development factor, an EU funded project by Archimedes.) English Heritage has
shown that for every £1 invested in heritage attractions, an extra £1.70 is generated in the wider economy.
36
Europe also recognizes cultural spending as a strategic resource for peace. The CHCfE Consortium, "Cultural
Heritage Counts for Europe," (Krakow: The CHCfE Consortium, 2015).
37
Europe also recognizes cultural spending as a strategic resource for peace. Ibid.
38
Shuster, "The Other Side of the Subsidized Muse: Indirect Aid Revisited." 58.
7
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• Tax law should delineate the boundaries between the non-profit and for-profit
enterprises.39 A tailored policy is necessary to address the specific needs of the private
owner, the guesthouse40 and the commercial entity.41
• The conversion of historic private properties into commercial enterprise is not
necessarily incompatible, but ‘as a building is planned, built, inhabited, and
interpreted, so its meaning changes.’42 Conversion of a building to provide retail may
not be attuned to heritage value.43
• Determining which properties embody the nation’s value of intrinsic, significant
interest requires a transparent, objective and competent process with an independent
appeals system. 44
Conservation and Incentive
• Conservation spending should direct at the buildings most requiring it, rather than
their owners. S.482 currently benefits high earners; the value of the S.482 incentive
increases with the wealth of the tax payer.45
• Claw-back, repayment of the previous 5 years rebate, means that retiring from the
current scheme could prove prohibitively expensive. But reluctant participation will
not enhance the experience and may dissuade new participants.46
39
The properties included in 482 may be open to the public, but different charges apply, and high charges are
applied by some that benefit most. In the case of one commercial demesne, where entry to the garden costs €9.50
(adult), it might be argued that the public already pay entrance via taxes, and the Estate derives ancillary benefit
from their presence, via the shopping mall, the garden centre and the restaurant.
40
A guesthouse open for 6 months is considered to fulfill the requirements for 482, existence as a tourism provider
deemed sufficient to offset tax foregone. ‘Whether it was necessary to go so far as to remove the public
entitlement to visit a historic home to cater for the accommodation business of the owner/occupier is open to
question.’ McDonald, "Tourism, Heritage Buildings, and Tax Relief." 290.
41
The raison d’être of the commercial entity is the income the heritage resource derives. ‘As with the polluter, the
challenge is to find ways of making the ‘heritage producer’ pay, rather than such producers constantly seeking to
deflect costs, however elusively, onto the fiscally remote state.’
Pat Cooke, The Containment of Heritage: Setting Limits to the Growth of Heritage in Ireland (Dublin: The Policy
Institute, TCD, 2003). 37.
42
William Whyte, "How Do Buildings Mean? Some Issues of Interpretation in the History of Architecture," History
and Theory 45, no. 2 (2006).p1. It might be argued that commercial entities in historic buildings should have an
incentive separate from 482.
43
The Swedish retailer’s H&M shop located in the Former National Irish Bank is an approved S.482 property. It may
be accessible, but visibility of the interior is hampered by clothing racks. Emphasis of lighting is on the retail
requirements, rather than enhancing the historic features, (particularly the intricate plasterwork of the ceiling and
pilasters). The security door attaches uncomfortably to the original corner entrance door, damaging visual
authenticity. Neon signage is garish. This visitor was uncomfortably quizzed by a security guard, ‘industrial
espionage’ being mentioned. 31 Mar 2016.
44
Council of Europe, "Guidelines on Cultural Heritage: Technical Tools for Heritage Conservation and Management,"
(2012). p 15.
45
Shuster, "The Other Side of the Subsidized Muse: Indirect Aid Revisited."p 62.
46
Some countries require applicants to be in residence for 20 years before they can apply under a tax incentive
scheme. This seems excessive – but a min requirement could be considered to dissuade mis-use of the scheme.
8
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• VAT on professional input and works to protected structures represents a significant
conservation tax. A universal removal of VAT on heritage expenses for S.482 and RPS
properties would act as a stimulus to the sector.47
• There is no monitoring of the quality of the works undertaken and claimed through
S.482.48 Professional assurance that it is compliant is desirable.49
• LPT exemption should apply to privately owned S.482 properties and RPS properties of
national significance and should be retrospective.50
• A sliding scale of tax incentives, that accommodate opt-in/opt-out preferences within
S.482 would offer options to the private owner.51
• Rarity of opening might attract more rather than less visitors, but at defined times and
dates. A credit rating for special events attracting more than 15 persons might also be
considered.52
• The higher cost of insurance for protected structures results in higher premiums.
S.482 provides for this. The additional cost should be recognized for all structures on
the RPS.
• A wider system of grants for properties on the RPS would be more equitable, and
provide stimulus in the economy.
• The removal from relief available to passive investors, (2010), curtails the opportunity
for heritage works to S.482 buildings requiring capital injection. Re-evaluation of the
conservation benefits that can ensue is desirable.53
47
Pickerill, "The Management of Built Heritage: A Comparative Review of Policies and Practice in Western Europe,
North America and Australia."An EU-wide campaign is gaining momentum among heritage lobby groups to
encourage unanimity among member governments to specifically recognize the regular maintenance and repair of
the architectural heritage in the European Commission’s VAT Directive. p 10.
48
Inter-Departmental Working Group, "Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage." ‘It should
therefore be ensured that all works in respect of which fiscal relief is claimed are carried out in accordance with
good conservation practice and the working group recommends that the current provisions of [the] Finance Act, be
amended accordingly. p 127.
49
Bacon, "Assessment of Possible Fiscal Incentives in Relation to the Built Heritage in Ireland’s Towns." (12.viii.
Executive Summary.) Also Paul and O’Cofaigh Arnold, Eoin "Policies and Priorities for the National Heritage; Building
Regulations and the National Heritage," (The Heritage Council, 1999).
50
Residential property tax was not payable on the original scheme, Section 19 of the Finance Act 1982. McDonald,
"Tourism, Heritage Buildings, and Tax Relief." p 283. Protected heritage structures in Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK, USA and Canada may be entitled to either an
exemption, abatement or freeze from property tax. ‘Where property tax assessments are related to market value
assessments, heritage property owners are reluctant to undertake substantial repairs for fear
of raising the market value assessment and thus the tax liability.’Pickerill, "The Management of Built Heritage: A
Comparative Review of Policies and Practice in Western Europe, North America and Australia."
51
A sliding scale would accept the private nature of home and family. For example, opening during heritage week
might allow 70% of conservation expenditure to be offset; perhaps 80% if opened on the May and June bank
holidays. In France, a private house that chooses not to open to the public can charge 50% of eligible expenses.
Tracey and Pickard Pickerill, Rob ed. A Review of Fiscal Measures to Benefit Heritage Conservation (2007). p 15.
52
The 60 day public access requirement is significant for those employed outside the home, for the lone house
owner for whom visits represent a security issue and for older members. Claw-back, repayment of the previous 5
years rebate, means that retiring from the scheme could prove prohibitively expensive. But reluctant participation
will not enhance the experience.
9
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• Rather than tax rebate, a tax credit is suggested.54
• Concessions/exemptions for loan interest, inheritance tax, gift tax and capital gains tax
are appropriate in S.482.55
• Grant-aid recognises the role of building owners as ‘custodians who maintain our
architectural heritage.’ 56 It also fulfills obligations as a signatory of international
conventions. 57 Conservation grants currently direct towards community. The
Structures at Risk Fund 201658 seems a placatory mechanism and funding is currently
insufficient. Revision of supports is necessary particularly in light of proven economic
and social benefits.59
• The Irish Historic House Association can, by agreement, represent the shared needs of
S.482 owners. Provision of core funding and automatic membership is desirable.
Tourism and Promotion
• The 60 day public access requirement is onerous for those working, for those for
whom visits represent a security issue and for older members. Opening one’s home
curtails privacy. It is proposed that opening be curtailed to Heritage Week, (7 days
rather than 8), and the June Bank Holiday Weekend, or similar.
• An attractive website concentrating on S.482 properties would benefit the sector,
needs resourcing and implementation.
• Links to an S.482 property website from the NIAH, Discover Ireland and OPW websites
are desirable.60
• Strengthen the link between participants of S.482 and Fáilte Ireland61 and ensure all
S.482 members are given automatic membership of local and regional tourism
organisations.
53
The Heritage Council, "Financial Support for Architectural Conservation in Ireland," (2003). ‘forms a
recommendation also in 4.3, and recommendations 2-5 have been referred to. p 13.
54
A tax credit system lowers the amount of income tax owed, (€1 of tax credit reduces the amount of tax owed by
€1), whereas a tax deduction lowers the amount of income subject to taxation.
55
Pickerill, A Review of Fiscal Measures to Benefit Heritage Conservation. ‘Various forms of inheritance, gift tax and
capital gains tax concessions/exemptions are available to the owners of protected heritage structures in all of the
countries examined with the exception of Denmark and Canada. Eligibility requirements vary greatly from country
to country regarding public access, family continuity, holding period prior to sale of property and charitable status
of recipient body.’ 7. Also Pickerill and Armitage. (The Management of Built Heritage, 11.)
56
Carrig Conservation International Ltd, "Grant Aid for Building Conservation : ‘Quanta’ Research." p 6.
57
Granada Convention, Faro Convention, Amsterdam Treaty etc. See Appendix 1.
58
Heritage & the Gaeltacht Department of Arts, "Structures at Risk Fund: Circular Srf/2016," (2016). The fund
allocates just €74,000 towards the Irish Historic House in private ownership across Ireland.
59
Irish Georgian Society, "Response to Budget 2015. Letter to Minister Heather Humphreys, Dept. Of Arts, Heritage
& the Gaeltacht," http://www.igs.ie/conservation/at-risk/project/igs-response-to-budget-2015. ‘Ireland’s built
heritage forms an integral part of its national patrimony, and as its preservation greatly enhances urban and rural
areas, the Irish Georgian Society is of the view that the provision of public funding through grant programmes is
more than justifiable. It should also be noted that protected structure owners face a legislative requirement to
maintain buildings and onerous penalties for failing to do so adequately.’
60
At present, just a selection are included.
10
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• Barriers to successful participation include lack of knowledge, information and
funding. A dedicated infopack for S.482 owners would lead to a streamlining of
provision without loss of individuality. 62 A dedicated outreach person63 to advise, locate
grants and devise a national visitor promotional programme would ensure that the
interests of the owner meet those of the visitor.64
• The communication of architecture changes through the experience of it. 65 Yet costs
of opening to the public – presentation, access, road and house signage, lighting,
exhibition, sanitary facilities, parking and interpretation - cannot currently be
recouped. This gap might be addressed through a tourism product development grant
system or similar.
• ‘Buildings are not simply texts, and architectural history is not simply a process of
reading them.’66 No obligation to provide historical information to visitors is required
under the Act. An evidence-based historically accurate perspective requires research
that includes the social and political context. Funding to facilitate meaningful research,
leaflets and training would enhance the visitor experience without necessarily diluting
the pleasant informality of visiting private properties.67
• Heritage can become the ‘past viewed through the prism of nostalgia.’68 Heritage also
represents changing times. Contemporary, creative, funded approaches to
interpretation are recommended.
• The geographical dispersal of S.482 properties distributes the economic benefit they
can bestow.69 An aesthetically pleasing system of signage, devised in consultation with
the sector and funded by Fáilte Ireland would ensure that the exchequer removes the
expense, bureaucracy and burden of obtaining planning consents and promotion from
the S.482 property owner.
61
Fáilte Ireland liaison with IHHA to agree methodologies is a recommendation in Department of Arts Heritage &
the Gaeltacht in collaboration with Irish Historic Houses Association, "An Action Plan for the Sustainable Future of
the Irish Historic House in Private Ownership," (2015). (Action 6).
62
The infopack might cover: Vision-Challenges-Principles-Actions-Delivery.
63
From Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Fáilte Ireland or indeed a dedicated department in the
Heritage Council.
64
ICOMOS, "The Icomos Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites," (2008). Seven
objectives of the Charter to: Facilitate understanding and appreciation; Communicate the meaning; Safeguard the
tangible and intangible values; Respect the authenticity; Contribute to the sustainable conservation; Encourage
Inclusivity; Develop technical and professional guidelines.
65
Umberto Eco, "Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture," in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural
Theory ed. Neil Leach (London: Routledge, 1997).p 182. Umberto Eco notes, …”we commonly do experience
architecture as communication, even while recognizing its functionality."
66
William Whyte, "Reading Buildings Like a Book: The Case of T. G. Jackson," in Current Work in Architectural
History: Papers Read at the Annual Symposium of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2004, ed.
Peter Draper (London:Society of Architectural Historians, 2005). p 27-34.
67
Hilda Kean, "People, Historians, and Public History: Demystifying the Process of History Making," The Public
Historian 32, no. 3 (2010). 24. Inviting the public into the private house is the very essence of public history.
However, it implies a need to impart information, (history) to the public (the consumer), in an accessible way. The
house owner becomes the agent imparting the information, yet may not have the skill and historical perspective, to
accurately convey it. John Tosh, Why History Matters (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
68
Donald A. Yerxa, " Why History Matters; an Interview with John Tosh," Historically Speaking 10, no. 5 (2009).p25.
69
COE, Heritage and Beyond.
11
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• Coordination of Heritage Week with the European Heritage Days 70 initiative each
September would seem appropriate and allow greater school and college
participation71
5. Do interested parties agree that there is merit in continuing section 482 beyond
2017? If yes, why? If no, why not?
‘The architecture of a people is a living expression of its culture and an integral part of its
identity’.72
Privately owned heritage is shared and a cultural experience imparted by the conditions
set out in S.482. Though the scheme as currently designed is flawed, there is merit in retaining
public accessibility in a reviewed format. There is a pressing need for a wider system of
supports that is not based on earnings, but on historic relevance, one that is equitable and
effective, easy to administer and access.
It is not desirable to remove a heritage tax scheme without first proposing a creative
alternative to match need.
6. Any other input with regard to this scheme?
“More than mere structure buildings represent the collective memory of society; tangible
evidence of previous generations.” 73
The European momentum towards cultural heritage protection, as a fundamental role
of an inclusive and economically sustainable Europe, culminated on 19th April 2016 when the
European Commission agreed to propose 2018 as the European Year of Cultural Heritage.74
70
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/heritage-days_en.htm European Heritage Days, a joint
initiative managed by the European Commission and the Council of Europe, was launched in 1985. It takes place in
the 50 signatory states to the European Cultural Convention in the month of September, with national coordinators.
It places new cultural treasures on display and opens up historic buildings normally closed to the public. The
thematic initiative, which provides opportunities ranging from guided tours to open-air performances, takes place
across Europe every year. It aims to raise awareness of Europe's cultural richness and diversity and cultural
heritage; encourage greater tolerance for other cultures across Europe; Improve awareness of the need to protect
cultural heritage; and to respond to the social, political, and economic challenges of the culture sector.
71
Recommended actions 7-9 representing ‘Developing a Public Value Approach, are a valuable addition to the
didactic prerogative. Department of Arts Heritage & the Gaeltacht in collaboration with Irish Historic Houses
Association, "An Action Plan for the Sustainable Future of the Irish Historic House in Private Ownership."
72
Heritage and Local Government Environment, "Government Policy on Architecture 2009-2015 - Towards a
Sustainable Future: Delivering Quality within the Built Environment," (2009). 8.
73
Whyte, "How Do Buildings Mean? Some Issues of Interpretation in the History of Architecture."
74
During the opening session of the bi-annual European Culture Forum in Brussels, on 19 Apr 2016, Tibor
Navracsics, European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, publicly announced that the European
Commission will propose to the EU Council and the European Parliament that 2018 will be the European Year of
12
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
This represents a milestone in the changing perception of heritage value, that reflects on the
multiple benefits, tangible and intangible; social, economic, cultural and environmental. It
offers an opportunity to incorporate the European ideals of shared legacy, and to pioneer
modus operandi within a suited to heritage, owners and society.
• This is a time to advance a creative, innovative fiscal scheme to unlock the economic
benefits embodied in our built heritage and cultural capital.75
The following are suggestions to fuel a new approach :
“…the analysis concludes that net benefits can be realised, and that the exchequer could
recoup expenditure, as a result of new economic activity generated. This means that the
public sector should invest in heritage…” 76
• A ‘decay per annum’ figure for maintenance, similar to that applied in Denmark, would
assist private owners of S.482 properties.77 The agreed annual sum could be held by an
independent entity, (a Trust), and withdrawn as required, against approved
expenditure items. By accumulating unused sums, capital expenditure is readily
available, removing the inherent problem of S.482, whereby money to be reclaimed,
must first be sourced. Public access would not be a requirement, but should one
participate in an opening scheme, additional benefit could derive on the basis that
entry is free.
• A dedicated percentage of lottery funding towards property conservation projects is
recommended, similar to the UK’s Heritage Lottery Fund that has provided literally
billions towards Heritage projects.78 (The dedicated entity, as described above, might
manage eligible funds.)
• Access to capital funding for conservation works is challenging. The development of
heritage fund low-interest loans system separate from the banking system would
assist. A dedicated, exchequer and lottery funded independent entity/trust dedicated
to heritage projects might be considered.
Cultural Heritage, following an exchange of letters between President Jean-Claude Juncker and President Martin
Schultz. “Culture and cultural heritage should be the new soul and new identity for a new Europe," concluded Silvia
Costa, MEP, who is the Chair of the Committee on Culture and Education of the European Parliament. (Source:
Europa Nostra.)
75
Throsby, "Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts. In: The Economics of Cultural Heritage, Assessing the
Cultural of Heritage."Cultural capital is defined as an asset that embodies a store of cultural value, separable from
whatever economic value it might possess; the asset gives rise to a flow of goods and services over time, which may
also have a cultural value. p 103-104.
76
Bacon, "Assessment of Possible Fiscal Incentives in Relation to the Built Heritage in Ireland’s Towns." p i.
77
The Danish Historic Houses Owners Association, (BYFO), operates an enterprising scheme to encourage regular
maintenance by provision of a ‘decay per annum’ figure for private owners of protected structures. Decay per
annum provides a formula for independent assessment of building elements as a rate for the entire necessary
maintenance figure/annum, updated by a building cost index. Pickerill, "The Management of Built Heritage: A
Comparative Review of Policies and Practice in Western Europe, North America and Australia." p 10.
Also: Pickerill, A Review of Fiscal Measures to Benefit Heritage Conservation. p 14.
78
Oxford Economics, "Investing in Success: Heritage and the Uk Tourism Economy," in Report prepared for Heritage
Lottery Fund and VisitBritain (London: Heritage Lottery Fund, 2010).
13
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
• Cultural heritage is eligible for significant EU funding from 2014-2020. Exploration of
opportunities and participation at EU level is recommended.79 So too is exploration of
conservation assistance schemes that work well throughout Europe.
• A number of learned research studies have previously been undertaken, (see
references) that provide ample information to inform targeted solutions.
Summary:
‘The question to ask is not the old one of what is the price of heritage but what is the price
of not looking after and sensibly using heritage.’80
Innovation, creative vision, forward planning, and effective managementcan transform the
‘cost’ of preservation into ‘investment.’ 81
79
Horizon 2020, the new EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, offers €80 billion in supports for
2014 to 2020. Challenge 6 "Europe in a changing world: Inclusive, Innovative and Reflective Societies" focuses on
the transmission of European cultural heritage preservation, restoration and valorisation.
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/library/reports/2014-heritage-mapping_en.pdf Other programmes include European
Structural and Investment Fund, Creative Europe, Erasmus+, and Europe for Citizens.
80
COE, Heritage and Beyond. New Heritage Frontiers, Graham Fairclough. p Irish Georgian Society, "Response to
Budget 2015. Letter to Minister Heather Humphreys, Dept. Of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht". p 36.
81
Aylin Orbasli, Tourists in Historic Towns; Urban Conservation and Heritage Management (London: E & FN Spon,
2000).
14
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
References
Arnold, Paul and O’Cofaigh, Eoin "Policies and Priorities for the National Heritage;
Building Regulations and the National Heritage." The Heritage Council, 1999.
Bacon, Peter. "Assessment of Possible Fiscal Incentives in Relation to the Built
Heritage in Ireland’s Towns." The Heritage Council, 2014.
Cameron, William Bruce. Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological
Thinking. New York: Random Press, 1963.
Carrig Conservation International Ltd. "Grant Aid for Building Conservation : ‘Quanta’
Research." The Heritage Council, DEHLG & Dept of Finance, 2011.
Clarke, Rosemary. "Book Reviews of Does the Past Have a Future? (Peacock 1998) &
Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage (Hutter & Rizzo 1997)." Journal of
Cultural Economics 24 (2000): 257-65.
COE, Council of Europe, ed. Heritage and Beyond, 2009.
Cooke, Pat. The Containment of Heritage: Setting Limits to the Growth of Heritage in
Ireland. Dublin: The Policy Institute, TCD, 2003.
Council of Europe. "Guidelines on Cultural Heritage: Technical Tools for Heritage
Conservation and Management." 2012.
Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht. "Structures at Risk Fund: Circular
Srf/2016." 2016.
Department of Arts Heritage & the Gaeltacht in collaboration with Irish Historic Houses
Association. "An Action Plan for the Sustainable Future of the Irish Historic
House in Private Ownership." 2015.
Donovan, Rypkema. "Economics and the Built Cultural Heritage." In Heritage and
Beyond, edited by Council of Europe, 113 - 24: Council of Europe, 2009.
Eco, Umberto. "Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture." In Rethinking
Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory edited by Neil Leach. London:
Routledge, 1997.
Ecorys. "Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment." The Heritage Council,
2012.
Environment, Heritage and Local Government. "Government Policy on Architecture
2009-2015 - Towards a Sustainable Future: Delivering Quality within the Built
Environment." 2009.
Failte Ireland. "A Tourism Toolkit for Ireland's Built Heritage: How to Develop and
Promote Heritage Attractions for Visitors." 2015.
Historic Environment Forum. "Heritage Counts ". London: English Heritage, 2010.
Houses of the Oireachtas Service. "
Convention for Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe: Motion."
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates
authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1996121200008?opendocument.
ICOMOS. "The Icomos Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural
Heritage Sites." 2008.
Inter-Departmental Working Group. "Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural
Heritage." Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, 1996.
Irish Georgian Society. "Response to Budget 2015. Letter to Minister Heather
Humphreys, Dept. Of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht."
http://www.igs.ie/conservation/at-risk/project/igs-response-to-budget-2015.
15
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.com2017 Review of Section 482
Kean, Hilda. "People, Historians, and Public History: Demystifying the Process of
History Making." The Public Historian 32, no. 3 (Summer 2010): 25-38.
Mason, Randall. Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the
Literature. . University of Pennsylvania: The Brookings Institution 2005.
McDonald, Marc. "Tourism, Heritage Buildings, and Tax Relief." Journal of Travel
Research 38, no. 3 (Feb 2000).
Orbasli, Aylin. Tourists in Historic Towns; Urban Conservation and Heritage
Management. London: E & FN Spon, 2000.
Oxford Economics. "Investing in Success: Heritage and the Uk Tourism Economy." In
Report prepared for Heritage Lottery Fund and VisitBritain. London: Heritage
Lottery Fund, 2010.
Pickerill, Tracey and Armitage, Lynne. "The Management of Built Heritage: A
Comparative Review of Policies and Practice in Western Europe, North America
and Australia." In Pacific Rim Real Estate Society - 15th Annual Conference, 1-
18. University of Technology Sydney (UTS), New South Wales, Australia:
ARROW@DIT, 2009.
Pickerill, Tracey and Pickard, Rob ed. A Review of Fiscal Measures to Benefit Heritage
Conservation. Edited by No 6 RICS Research Paper Series: Volume 7, 2007.
Sable, Karin & Kling, Robert "The Double Public Good: A Conceptual Framework for
''Shared Experience'' Values Associated with Heritage Conservation." Journal of
Cultural Economics 25, no. 2 (2001): 77-89.
Shuster, J.Mark. "The Other Side of the Subsidized Muse: Indirect Aid Revisited."
Journal of Cultural Economics 23. 1-2 (1999): 33-49.
The CHCfE Consortium. "Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe." Krakow: The CHCfE
Consortium, 2015.
The Heritage Council. "Financial Support for Architectural Conservation in Ireland."
2003.
Throsby, David. "Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts. In: The Economics of
Cultural Heritage, Assessing the Cultural of Heritage." 101-17: Getty
Conservation Institute, 2002.
Tosh, John. Why History Matters. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Whyte, William. "How Do Buildings Mean? Some Issues of Interpretation in the
History of Architecture." History and Theory 45, no. 2 (2006): 153-77.
Yerxa, Donald A. " Why History Matters; an Interview with John Tosh." Historically
Speaking 10, no. 5 (Nov 2009): 25-27.
16
Delphine Geoghegan B.Arch, MRIAI, IHBC, M.Phil (Public History & Cutural Heritage) E: iconarc@me.comYou can also read
