Restoration is an inherently uplifting subject. That’s not only because returning objects or buildings to use and decent appearance after a period of neglect and defacement is a physical improvement. Properly done, restoration breathes new life into old things and, in the process, recognises both their original quality and imbues them with present value. It further allows the past to touch the present in a way that dignifies the former and enriches the latter. No less importantly, at the present moment, it is an act of recycling. Over recent decades, the world of architecture has become addicted to a pattern of development, demolition and rebuild. With the construction industry accounting for nearly 40% of global emissions of carbon dioxide, this is a habit that urgently has to change.
An example of a heroic restoration project is Northwold Manor, in Norfolk. The particulars of this story are remarkable and they illustrate how vulnerable even important historic buildings can be. One of the reasons for this is that, although local authorities do have the power to demand repairs and to issue enforcement notices, as a rule, they are reluctant and slow to act. At root, that is because in practice they don’t want to be left to foot massive bills and the law is a treacherous recourse. It doesn’t help that the legal proceedings are themselves costly and move at a glacial speed. Where buildings are seriously neglected, the deterioration of their fabric, meanwhile, can be very rapid.
The restoration of Northwold Manor in Norfolk was covered in Country Life in December 2025.
No less important are the incentives that exist for the clearance and redevelopment of historic building sites. Land is usually the single greatest cost of a development project, so attempting to realise that as an unencumbered asset makes financial sense. Added to which, new-build is exempt from VAT, but repairs even to listed buildings are not. As if that wasn’t bad enough, repairing historic fabric is complex, involves the use of expensive materials and specialist craft skills. In other words, it is necessarily more expensive than work to a new building and it comes with a 20% tax mark-up to boot.
For the unscrupulous developer, therefore, it makes sense to abandon a historic building and then claim it is beyond economic repair. Even listing doesn’t protect such buildings from demolition. The reward is a nice, clear building site and tax-free construction. In the meantime, planning officers are acutely conscious that any errors of process on their side can be hugely costly. It can make them cautious confronting developers — favouring the easy decision above the correct one — and officious with those who do take on restoration projects. The cumulative wonder is that anyone troubles with restoration at all. In reality, however, we need a system that encourages it.
