J Housing Built Environ (2006) 21:203–213

DOI 10.1007/s10901-006-9043-8

Private home, public cultural asset: the maintenance

behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers

Sarah Hills Æ Derek Worthing

Received: 28 February 2006 / Accepted: 28 February 2006 / Published online: 29 April 2006
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract This article examines the maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-
occupiers. In particular it evaluates the degree to which owners are aware of and undertake
maintenance of their building from a conservation perspective, which emphasises maxi-
mising the retention of historic fabric and encourages preventive maintenance as the least
destructive of all conservation interventions. The research suggests that the primary
motivation for owners to carry out maintenance is that the building is their home: to avoid
the discomfort and financial cost of disrepair, and to gain the personal satisfaction of
keeping their home in ‘good order’. Whilst owners were keenly aware of their statutory
duty in relation to their building, they do not think about and prioritise maintenance from a
cultural perspective. The article concludes that encouraging owners to undertake mainte-
nance from a conservation perspective will require both mechanisms for awareness raising
and providing fiscal incentives and practical support. Crucially, there is a need for the
development of a framework for policy which addresses the inherent tensions in a system
which imparts on listed building owners a responsibility to protect something that is of
value to society as a whole.

Keywords Maintenance attitudes Æ Maintenance behaviour Æ Listed building owners

Introduction

In England, considerable responsibility for the sustainable management of listed buildings

resides with individual owner-occupiers who own just over a third (38 percent) of the listed
building stock (English Heritage, 2002). This paper examines the degree to which this

S. Hills (&)
Centre for Environment & Planning, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of
England, Coldharbour Lane, BS16 1QY Bristol, UK
e-mail: sarah.hills@uwe.ac.uk

D. Worthing
School of Land & Property Management, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of
England, Coldharbour Lane, BS16 1QY Bristol, UK
123
204 Sarah Hills & Derek Worthing

group of owners are aware of and undertake maintenance of their building from a
conservation perspective, which emphasises maximising the retention of historic fabric and
encourages preventive maintenance as the least destructive of all conservation
interventions.
Since the clear statement of principle to ‘‘put protection in the place of restoration, to
stave off decay by daily care...’’ (Morris, 1877) laid out in the founding document of The
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), almost all relevant international
and national conservation guidance has emphasised the role of preventive maintenance in
protecting the built cultural heritage (see for example, Brereton, 1991; British Standard
BS7913, 1998; English Heritage, 2000a; Feilden, 1994; ICOMOS, 1964, 1987).
For most buildings the purpose of maintenance is to protect function, asset value, and,
usually appearance. The difference for a historic building is that there is a more
fundamental overriding aim to protect (and enhance) the fabric because of its cultural
significance. That is, the building itself is an artefact and the fabric (usually) has an
‘archaeological value’ as well as a functional one. Most conservation guidance stresses the
important of concepts such as ‘minimum intervention’ as a key principle. The Burra
Charter (ICOMOS, 1987), for instance, states that ‘‘Conservation is based on a respect for
the existing fabric and should involve the least possible physical intervention’’.
Because in the majority of cases the fabric needs to be protected in its own right, it is
important to emphasise that, when considering historic buildings, the terms maintenance
and repair should not be used interchangeably as they might be for other building types.
This is because repair, whilst it may prolong the life of the element and the building, and
therefore be necessary for long-term protection of significance, will also involve damage to
the fabric. For the purposes of this research therefore, maintenance is defined as a sys-
tematic activity which seeks to extend the life of building elements and hence of the entire
building through day-to-day activities such as cleaning, clearing gutters, painting and,
minor repairs (e.g. refixing slipped roof slates) which involve little or no physical loss or
damage to the fabric of the building and which are aimed at preventing unnecessary
deterioration.

The public policy context

In England, as in many other countries, buildings which are considered to be of special

historic or architectural interest are protected. In England the process is commonly called
‘listing’. The lists contain no explicit information on what it is about the building that is
important (its cultural significance); it merely describes some of its characteristics.
In England the statutory and policy situation is not consistent with regard to mainte-
nance for listed buildings. The law does not impose a specific duty of care or requirement
to maintain a listed building although there are a series of provisions for local authorities to
react to situations where listed buildings are not being properly maintained. Moreover, the
current situation on Value Added Tax (VAT), which is charged to work carried out on
listed buildings is also a potential incentive for owners to carry out alternations rather than
maintenance. This is because VAT is charged at the full rate (17.5 percent) on repairs and
maintenance activity (for all buildings whether listed or not), but is zero rated for approved
alteration and demolition of listed buildings.
The lack of coordination between statutory instruments, Acts and fiscal measures seems
particularly poor, when compared to other European countries such as Denmark and the
123
The maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers 205

Netherlands. In Denmark, there is a legal duty of care and listed building owners are
obliged to maintain a listed building. At the same time the state supports this statutory
requirement by offering fiscal relief against income tax for the maintenance of historic
buildings. In the Netherlands, in addition to offering fiscal relief against income tax, VAT
is reduced from 19 to 6 percent for maintenance and repairs carried out on any building
over 15 years of age. Moreover the regulations relating to the provision of financial support
for works carried out to listed buildings require the owner to maintain the building and, as
part of this, to put a 10 year maintenance plan in place.

Maintenance behaviour in the general owner-occupier population

Whilst the maintenance and repair behaviour of the general owner-occupier population has
been the subject of considerable research attention in the last 10–15 years, evidence about
the maintenance practice of listed building owner-occupiers is limited. A report by
Wedgewood Markham Associates Ltd (1994) appears to be the only previous piece of
research to even touch upon this issue. The report looks at what aspects of repair and
maintenance owners expected to carry out over the next 3 years and their planned expen-
diture for this. The research does not distinguish between ‘improvements’ ‘repairs’ and
‘maintenance’ and, therefore, gives little insight into preventive maintenance behaviour.
There is more detailed evidence about the home improvement attitudes and behaviour
of the wider owner-occupier population in the UK (Davidson & Leather, 2000; Leather &
Mackintosh, 1994; Leather, Littlewood, & Munro, 1998; Leather & Younge, 1998;
Littlewood & Munro, 1996; Munro & Leather, 2000; Sadler & Ward, 1992). For the
purposes of the current research, however, one key limitation of this literature is that it does
not distinguish between maintenance and repair.
Collectively the literature suggests that whilst owners in general are aware of the main
disrepair problems, basic maintenance and repair is often neglected. Leather et al., (1998)
also suggest that the forward planning of maintenance and repair is almost non-existent.
A more recent survey carried out by Mori on behalf of the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings (Venning, 2003) supports the idea that owners carry out little basic
maintenance and repair. The survey carried out on the general owner-occupier population
suggests that one-third of all property owners have carried out no building maintenance or
repairs in the past 5 years. Lack of confidence rather than difficulty in finding skilled
tradesmen was more of a constraint on undertaking maintenance although there were
variations by region, gender and social class.
The academic literature highlights age, income and savings, gender make-up of
owner-occupiers and aversion to the disruption and mess associated with building work
as key factors which may constrain maintenance and repair. Littlewood and Munro
(1996) and Leather et al. (1998) suggest, for example, that the propensity to undertake
such work increases with age, but peaks in the 60–64 age group and then drops off
sharply after this point. Littlewood and Munro suggest that the age, type and location
of the building itself are also factors in disrepair, whilst Leather also identifies lack of
awareness about the importance of maintenance and repair and inadequate strategies
for managing and financing work as key barriers to owners carrying out improvement
work.
Leather and associates (Davidson & Leather, 2000; Leather et al. 1998, Munro &
Leather, 2000) situate their work in a framework, which broadly conceptualises housing as
123
206 Sarah Hills & Derek Worthing

both an investment and consumption good. This work suggests that improving the
functioning and comfort of a dwelling rather than investment per se is a far greater
motivation for carrying out home improvement behaviour. This economic framework may,
however, not adequately capture the situation in regard to the maintenance behaviour of
listed building owners who care for a public cultural asset with the different and or
additional maintenance ends and means (as discussed in the introduction to this paper) that
this may imply.

Research approach and methods

The research discussed here was part of a larger research programme on the maintenance
of historic buildings, entitled Maintaining Value, which was carried out on behalf of
Maintain our Heritage and funded under the Department of Trade and Industry’s Partners
in Innovation Programme. The research focused on the listed building sector.
A multiple method approach was adopted for the work on the maintenance behaviour of
listed building owner-occupiers. A focus group was used to elicit some of the key main-
tenance issues for individual owners. The data from this informed a questionnaire sent to
1000 listed building owners. In the absence of a comprehensive national database of listed
building owners, questionnaires were sent out to a sample taken from the database owned
by the Listed Property Owners’ Club (LPOC). The sample was chosen to reflect the
national proportion of listed building grades and the geographical distribution of listed
buildings. An additional 66 questionnaires were sent to owners whose names had been
supplied by local conservation officers. Two hundred and seventy questionnaires were
returned.
Key issues to emerge from the survey were explored in more depth through telephone
interviews with 20 of the respondents. The original intention was to select interviewees
from three contrasting geographical regions and settlement types with high concentrations
of listed buildings: Bristol/Bath; London; and Northumbria. This proved difficult primarily
because of the lack of respondents from the London area in the original survey. Respon-
dents were instead chosen from two of the areas (Bristol/Bath and its environs and
Northumbria) plus Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Within these geographical
regions, an attempt was made to get a spread related to settlement type (urban, rural,
suburban) and dwelling type.

Motivations for maintenance

Both consumption and financial factors were strong drivers for maintenance (Table 1). In
the latter case, however, motivations relating to personal financial management such as
fear of large future bills appeared to be stronger than those relating to the building as an
investment (Fig. 1).
Of the 16 percent of respondents who added additional motivations to those suggested,
the majority suggested that a strong motivation for carrying out maintenance was that the
building was their home. This was strongly confirmed by the follow-up interviews which
gave the clear impression that this was the most important factor for the majority of these
owners in making maintenance decisions. As one remarked, ‘‘my decisions are born out of
the needs of it being a house’’.

123
The maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers 207

Table 1 Reasons for

Reasons % Share
anticipating maintenance needs
Purely financial reasons (1) 3.1
Mainly to avoid inconvenience and damage 15.7
from disrepair (2)
Just in interest of preventing unnecessary 5.1
loss/damage to the historic fabric (3)
1, 2 & 3 31.9
1&2 15.4
1&3 6.7
2&3 22.0

Recommendation from a third party 10 28 Very important

Moderately important
To uphold guarantees from previous work 9 21

Condition of insurance 11 27

Most cost effective approach 59 33

Personal satisfaction 67 26

A moral obligation 47 40

Peer pressure 4 14

The building is an investment 55 32

To avoid inconvenience of damage from disrepair 67 28

Fear of large future bills 65 29

The building is listed 42 43

The building is old 64 32

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Fig. 1 The motivation to maintain

Eighty-nine percent of owners said that they tried to anticipate the maintenance needs of
their buildings. Of these 65.7 percent indicated that preventing unnecessary loss or damage
to the historic fabric was a motivation. The interviews suggested, however, that living in a
cultural artefact was a secondary factor when it came to owners’ approaches to maintaining
and repairing their buildings. That is not to say that they are unaware of, or do not take
seriously, their statutory duty and, clearly for some, their moral obligation. What it does
seem to mean, however, is that generally they think about, and prioritise, work from a
functional perspective rather than a cultural perspective—even though they know that
listing will affect the manner of the repair, materials used etc.
There was, from the interviewees, a clear sense that the majority do not translate a sense
of obligation to protect the historic nature, listing status, nor indeed the ‘functional or
financial asset’ into undertaking maintenance—at least in the sense of taking action to
prevent loss of historic fabric. The common reference point for the interviewees in dis-
123
208 Sarah Hills & Derek Worthing

cussing maintenance in fact related mainly to repairing or replacing things appropri-

ately—and appropriate is usually seen as being driven by appearance (this is probably
reinforced by their perception of their statutory obligations). That is, there was a real sense
from the interviews that historic character is invested in appearance—and can therefore be
reproduced.
Again, any sense of a need to prevent fabric loss is driven by functional and cost
considerations. Statements made by interviewees who had previously, or currently own a
non-listed building suggested that preventive maintenance is something that the individual
would undertake, or not, irrespective of whether the building was listed. It is also clear that,
for most of the interviewees, the timing of maintenance relates to when failure has taken
place, rather than an attempt to prevent deterioration.

Anticipation of maintenance need

Although the questionnaires indicated that the percentage of owners who tried to anticipate
the maintenance needs of their building was high (89 percent), the follow-up interviews
tended to suggest that for the majority this was only a vague intent and that again it applies
mainly to anticipating when something will need repair or replacement rather than
maintaining it in order to delay failure and the need for repair.
Owners appear to be aware of possible consequences in a general sense but in reality
their focus is on the need to carry out repairs before further deterioration, which may result
in failure, occurs. It is the functional loss/future costs that drive action. This was reinforced
by the fact that in an opening question most of the interviewees did not distinguish between
repair and maintenance and when asked what kinds of activities might the term mainte-
nance cover, most gave examples of repairs or replacement. A few gave examples of
processes which would be categorised as alterations.

Maintenance practice

Seeking advice

The interviews suggested that owners felt that advice in terms of both clarity about legal
obligations and how and where to seek advice on maintenance and repair was very poor.
This was corroborated by owners who had some ‘inside knowledge’ by dint of their
profession or personal contacts who suggested that, but for their personal knowledge on the
subject, they would have been ‘floundering’.
The questionnaires asked the owners how likely they would be to consult certain pro-
fessionals and friends/family members for maintenance and repair advice about their listed
buildings. The results suggest that owners are most likely to consult builders and con-
servation officers for advice (Table 2).
The interviews tended to qualify the questionnaire finding that conservation officers
were a significant source of advice. Whilst a number of interviewees had established good
relationships with their local authority and would readily seek advice, the majority of
interviewees would not. A number of the latter group referred to local authorities being
aggressive and unhelpful and some referred to a local authority tendency to concentrate on
penalties whilst providing little in the way of support and advice. Where conservation

123
The maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers 209

Table 2 Sources of advice

Advice Source % Share

Architect 22
Building surveyor 25
Conservation officer 44
Friend/family member 23
Builder 54

officers were asked for advice this tended to be in relation to clarification of the statutory
requirements.

Inspections

Monitoring a building’s condition through formal and informal inspections is emphasised

as a cornerstone of good maintenance practice in the conservation literature (see for
example, Chambers, 1976; Feilden & Jokilehto, 1993; Brereton, 1991; Dann, Worthing, &
Bond, 2002). This again is in order to minimise damage or loss to historic fabric by
identifying potential problems that may require preventive action (e.g. clearing leaves from
gutters) at the earliest possible moment.
Results from the questionnaire suggest that a considerable proportion of owners did
monitor the condition of their house on a regular basis. Forty-six percent of respondents
said that an inspection of the main external elements was carried out on their building
every year. Where respondents identified another time period, 21 percent said that the
frequency of inspection was 2–5 years. Eight percent said that they never carried out an
inspection of the main external elements of their listed building. Again the interviewees
tended to qualify the rather positive picture painted by the questionnaires.
Of the owners who said that inspections were undertaken, 63 percent of these said that
they were undertaken by the owner themselves, a friend or a family member. In 23 percent
of these cases the individual concerned was a builder, a surveyor or an architect. Thirty
percent of owners employed a builder to undertake such inspections, 11 percent a surveyor,
and 9 percent an architect.
Responses to the interviews suggest that, in respect of inspections, whether people carry
them out or not is irrespective of whether the building is listed. Owners appeared to be
making decisions based on the fact that the building was their home—and they either are,
or are not, the type of people that inspect and plan their maintenance irrespective of
whether they own a listed building.

Maintenance activities

From the questionnaires it appears that the number of owners undertaking preventive
maintenance activities is quite high. Data on numbers undertaking gutter clearances and
external painting and decorating are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Just over one half of the
respondents made minor repairs to windows and doors, roof coverings and to the roof
structure on an ‘as required’ basis.
Thirty percent of respondents carried out external painting and decorating themselves.
Sixty percent employed someone to do this type of work, whilst in 11 percent of cases this
work was shared between the owner and ‘someone else’. Similarly, minor repairs to
external joinery were carried out more often by someone else (51 percent) than by the
owners themselves (41 percent) whilst in eight percent of cases the work was shared.
123
210 Sarah Hills & Derek Worthing

100

90

80

70

60 57
Percent

50

40

30
17 19
20

10 4
3
0
5 years or less 6-10 years > 10 years as required no response
Fig. 2 Frequency of external painting and decoration

100

90

80

70

60
Percent

53
50

40

30 27

20 14
10 6
0
12 months or less > 12 months as required no response
Fig. 3 Frequency of gutter clearances

Not surprisingly minor repairs to both roof coverings and structure were principally
carried out by ‘someone else’ (80 percent of cases), whilst five percent of owners carried
out this type of work themselves. Five percent shared this work with ‘someone else’. In 55
percent of cases, the owners themselves carried out gutter clearance. Respondents to the
123
The maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers 211

questionnaire were given the opportunity to add to the list of maintenance activities that
they carried out. Few did so but the most frequent addition was pointing.
Through the interviewees, it emerged that owners appeared to do things to protect
functionality even if a ‘heritage loss’ resulted, that is, they did not prioritise from a
conservation perspective. This seems to be not just to do with pragmatism, but is also
related to the sense that they see heritage mainly in terms of appearance—and therefore
that things can be replaced because they can be reproduced.
Lack of skills was mentioned by 60 percent of the respondents as the most significant
constraint on their carrying out maintenance by themselves. Lack of time and the
requirement for specialist equipment was reported by 48 percent of respondents, ranked as
the second most significant factor. Lack of knowledge, reported by 44 percent of
respondents, was nearly as significant a constraint.
Thirty-six percent of respondents indicated that the requirement for specialist materials
was a constraint on maintenance being carried out by themselves, whilst problems with
access were reported by 27 percent of owners. Difficulties with access were either related
to the building itself, making it dangerous and/or requiring specialist equipment, or to
age/ill health/fear of heights.

Conclusions and policy implications

International guidance suggests that conservation should involve the least possible inter-
vention in the fabric of the building. In this context, preventive maintenance is viewed as
the least destructive of all the conservation interventions. This research focussed on the
maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers whose home is both their private
space and a public cultural asset.
Whilst owners were keenly aware of a sense of statutory and a moral duty to protect that
part of the cultural heritage that they owned, generally they did not think about and
prioritise maintenance from this cultural perspective. Owners also seemed to have little
awareness of those ‘philosophical’ principles of conservation, which emphasise both
preventive maintenance and minimum intervention, and, therefore the importance of
retaining authentic fabric. That is, there was a real sense from the interviews that historic
character is invested in appearance—and can therefore be reproduced.
From a purely functional perspective, levels of engagement with maintenance activities
were high among our sample. A significant number of owners also said that an inspection
of the main external elements was carried out on a regular basis, although the follow-up
interviews suggested that such inspections may be less systematic and comprehensive than
might be deduced from the questionnaires.
In many respects, however, our research suggests that the approach to and motivations
for carrying out maintenance among listed building owners is similar to that of the general
owner-occupier population. In particular, the primary factor influencing the way that
individuals conceive of and carry out maintenance is the fact that the building is their
home.
Of course the fact that the building is their home will always be a strong driver in the
approach that owners take to the maintenance of their listed building. A policy response is
needed which treats this as a given and at the same time optimises the conditions for
owners to better integrate this domestic perspective with a cultural one. Four issues are key
here. First there is a need to raise awareness among listed building owners about the
importance of building fabric as a cultural artefact and to make clear the invaluable role of
123
212 Sarah Hills & Derek Worthing

preventive maintenance in protecting this, as well as the potential financial benefits to

owners in spreading out costs over time.
Second, there needs to be an articulation of what it is about each individual building that
makes it culturally significant in order that better informed decisions about protecting that
significance can be made by both the owner and the statutory authority. This could be done
by replacing or supplementing the list description with a ‘statement of significance’.
Third, there needs to be a step change in the statutory and fiscal environment which
shifts the emphasis from repair to maintenance. Lowering the VAT on maintenance and
offering fiscal relief against income tax for the maintenance of historic buildings would
provide a greater incentive for owners to carry out preventive maintenance. The current
grants system, which only provides grants for repair work, is also in need of review. As
previous commentators have noted (e.g. English Heritage, 2000b), the current system
which awards grants for repair work only (and even then only to work on the small
minority of listed buildings (6 percent) with the highest listing Grades) appears to reward
neglect whilst at the same time penalizing owners who have maintained their property.
Fourth, there is a clear need for the current situation of piecemeal advice spread out over
many sources to be replaced by a single, comprehensive and easy to access source of
information and technical support. If the appropriate systems of advice, technical support
and fiscal incentives are put in place, then it may be appropriate to tighten up the statutory
requirements on owners to undertake preventive maintenance, through a statutory duty of
care.
The mechanisms for raising general awareness among listed building owners about the
importance of preventive maintenance may be relatively easy to implement but the
development of ‘statements of significance’ will not because of the resources needed given
the number of listed buildings in England. Clearly though a start could be made by using
the approach for all new listings and as part of the process for giving listed building
consent.
Raising the profile of (and perhaps the obligations to carry out) preventive maintenance
seems likely to heighten the inherent tensions in a system which imparts on listed building
owners a responsibility to protect something that is implied to be of value to society as a
whole. These tensions will ultimately need to be addressed through a wider reflection on
the ‘trade-offs’ between responsibility and reward for the owners of listed buildings and
through a framework which clearly establishes the principles upon which policies, financial
incentives, practical support and education initiatives, designed to encourage preventive
maintenance behaviour, are based.

Acknowledgements This work was carried out on behalf of Maintain our Heritage and funded under the
Department of Trade and Industry’s Partners in Innovation Programme.

References

Brereton, C. (1991). The repair of historic buildings – Advice on principles and methods. London: English
Heritage.
British Standards Institute (1998). BS 7913:1998 Guide to the principles of the conservation of historic
buildings. London: BSI.
Chambers, J. H. (1976) Cyclical maintenance for historic buildings. Washington DC: US Department of the
Interior.
Dann, N., Worthing, D., & Bond, S. (2002). The role of condition surveys in maintaining the built cultural
heritage. Bristol: University of the West of England.

123
The maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers 213

Davidson, M., & Leather, P. (2000). Choice or necessity? A review of the role of DIY in tackling housing
repair and maintenance. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 747–756.
English Heritage (2000a). Power of place. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage (2000b). Consultation papers issued as part of the review of policies relating to the historic
environment. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage (2002). The state of the historic environment report. London: English Heritage.
Feilden, B., & Jokilheto, J. (1993). Management guidelines for world cultural heritage sites. Rome: IC-
CROM.
Feilden, B. (1994). Conservation of historic buildings. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
ICOMOS International (1964). The Venice Charter. France: ICOMOS.
ICOMOS Australia (1987). The Burra Charter. Burwood, Australia: ICOMOS.
Leather, P., & Mackintosh, S. (1994). Encouraging housing maintenance in the private sector, SAUS
occasional paper. 41. Bristol: SAUS Publications.
Leather, P., Littlewood, A., & Munro, P. (1998). Make do and Mend? Explaining homeowners’ approaches
to repair and maintenance. Bristol: Policy Press.
Leather, P., & Younge, S. (1998). Repair and maintenance in the owner occupied sector. Birmingham:
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham.
Littlewood, A., & Munro, M. (1996). Explaining disrepair: Examining owner occupiers’ repair and main-
tenance behaviour. Housing Studies, 11(4), 503–525.
Morris, W. (1877). The Manifesto for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, available online
@ http://www.spab.org.uk/ (Accessed 22/09/03).
Munro, M., & Leather, P. (2000). Nest-building or investing in the future? Owner-occupiers’ home-
improvement behaviour. Policy & Politics, 28(4), 511–526.
Sadler, R., & Ward, K. (1992). Owner occupiers’ attitudes to house repairs and maintenance: a research
study for the Building Conservation Trust. (Surrey, SCPR/Building Conservation Trust).
Venning, P. (2003). Stats and ladders. SPAB News, 24(1), 4–6.
Wedgewood Markham Associates Ltd (1994). Historic houses: a growth sector. London: WM Associates
Ltd.

123