Research and analysis

England's cultural infrastructure: volume one - executive summary

Published 29 January 2026

Applies to England

0.1 Background

In late 2023 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport commissioned Purcell, with Harlow Consulting, to undertake research into the repair, maintenance and renewal (RMR) needs in key parts of the cultural sector in England. The research arose from an understanding that substantial backlogs of repair and maintenance work may have developed, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic.

0.2 Scope

The specific types of destination in scope were limited to venues in the following categories, where they are owned, managed or operated either by public bodies or third-sector organisations (thus excluding privately-owned venues):
*   Theatres
*   Other performing arts venues, (e.g. concert halls, performing arts centres)
*   Cathedrals and churches in their role as visitor destinations
*   Non-accredited museums and art galleries Historic houses, ruins and monuments where publicly accessible
*   Visitor destinations with a strong heritage aspect

0.3 Methodology

The main aim of the research was to provide a sound understanding of the size and nature of the repair, maintenance and renewal liability. In order to do this, the research has sought to:

•   estimate the cost of the repair and maintenance backlog
•   identify the specific types of repairs and renewals required
•   understand why buildings have fallen into disrepair assess the impacts of repairing or not repairing the in-scope destinations
  The research used a variety of methods:
•   detailed desk research
•   stakeholder interviews with 20 sector organisations a detailed online questionnaire for in-scope organisations which received 324 valid responses specialist cost analysis
•   the development of 14 case studies based on site visits by conservation-accredited architects and surveyors

0.4 Estimated cost of repairs, maintenance and renewal

Extrapolating from figures reported by survey respondents, the research has estimated that the total value of necessary works is c. £7 billion. Of these the estimated cost of urgent RMR (needing to be completed within the next five years) is c. £3 billion. Of the urgent RMR, there is a reported current funding deficit of c.£2 billion.

Because of the limitations of the available data sources on in-scope venues, the sampling frame is known to be incomplete, and for this reason, the figures above should be viewed as a conservative estimate. Within the achieved sample, where it was possible to compare responses given with a costed condition survey, the figures given were reviewed by an experienced cost consultant and found to be credible.

0.5 Overall condition

The survey asked respondents to rate their buildings using a five-step descriptive scale, where buildings with no active repair needs are rated 1 and those in state that puts their continued survival at immediate risk rated 5.

The condition of the in-scope buildings is very varied. Some venues are in very good or good condition (condition categories 1 or 2) but a substantial minority of more than 20% are in poor or very poor condition (condition categories 4 or 5). Overall, most buildings (nearly 70%) have needs beyond routine repair & maintenance (condition categories 3-5).

Churches reported the poorest overall condition. Theatres and performance venues reported relatively better condition for the basic building envelope, but many reported specific issues with the technical infrastructure - both backstage and front-of-house facilities and equipment - needed to operate to industry standards. Heritage destinations came between them. All reported a substantial minority of sites in poor or very poor condition.

Roofs were the most frequently reported element that needed repair or replacement for which funding was not available. This is especially the case for places of worship and heritage destinations.

Rainwater goods, such as gutters and downpipes, were generally regularly maintained and in adequate repair, but climate change means that some venues need to make changes to increase their drainage capacity.

Walls present special issues to places of worship, which have extensive masonry repair needs. Heritage destinations also reported a high value of works to walls.
Windows and doors were another area of significant need, particularly for places of worship, but also more generally across all venues.

Key structural components were generally said to be in good condition.
Many venues planned works to external signage and lighting, with theatres and performance venues planning the highest cost works.

Building services present particular challenges and are one of the highest areas of expenditure. They are also the most important category of unfunded, necessary works. Replacing older heating systems with new, more efficient low-carbon alternatives is a particular priority, but high upfront costs make it difficult to realise the resulting potential environmental and financial benefits.

Interiors were an area of high spend for heritage destinations. Some churches also reported expecting high spends for interior conservation work or reordering.

0.6 Obstacles to repair

Finance

All venue types overwhelmingly reported that lack of finance or funding was the biggest obstacle. Overall, nearly 40% of venues are operating in deficit and 70% reported drawing on cash reserves to pay for RMR costs. Most venues reported and anticipated declining income from most revenue streams. The partial exception was commercial revenue, where a substantial minority expected to increase their income.

Condition monitoring and management

The great majority (93%) of places of worship reporting having a current condition survey. In contrast, the figures for theatres and other heritage destinations were 32% and 42% respectively. Nonetheless, many venues reported good basic monitoring and maintenance processes.

Competing priorities and pressures

A majority of all destination types stated that attracting audiences, maintaining event programmes, and retaining staff took priority over building repairs. This was both to maximise income and meet funder requirements. Attempts to be ‘entrepreneurial’ to maximise income and minimise costs led to reduced repair, maintenance and renewal budgets whilst increasing need due to greater wear and tear on buildings. There was evidence that in some venues this situation had reached the point where repairs were now so urgent that they could no longer be deferred.

0.7 Impacts

When asked about impacts, respondents gave ‘mirror image’ responses for the risks and impacts of declining building condition compared to the benefits of addressing repair, maintenance and renewal (RMR) needs:

Impacts of RMR liabilities	Benefits of RMR investment
Risk to heritage	Preservation of heritage
Risks to health and safety of employees and audiences	Safety for employees and audiences
Increasing cost of RMR when backlogged repairs can no longer be deferred	Reduced ongoing RMR costs due to improved basic condition Assured future opening
Risk of disruption or closure	Growing audiences, increased activity, higher income
Declining audiences, reduced activity, lower income Less money to invest in RMR Reduced social and economic benefits	More money to invest in RMR Wider social and economic benefit

In both cases, the picture respondents gave was a self-sustaining cycle - either vicious or virtuous. Many venues anticipate that addressing RMR issues could lead to a virtuous cycle of increased audience engagement and associated enhanced revenue flows, that would increase long-term sustainability (notwithstanding that greater activity would increase wear and tear).

0.8 Conclusions

Taken as a whole, the built infrastructure of the in-scope cultural venues requires considerable investment. Whilst there is a minority of buildings in good to very good condition, most buildings have needs that go beyond routine repair, maintenance and renewal; a substantial number are in poor to very poor condition. There is a large RMR deficit, and at least £2 billion of unfunded, necessary works.

The research found that the primary factor underlying accumulated RMR liabilities is financial pressure on in-scope venues. There is a clear correlation between financial resources and basic building conditions across and within venue types. Churches, which often lack stable or adequate income streams, are most likely to be in deficit and most likely to be in poor condition; theatres and performance venues are most likely to be in surplus and in better relative condition. Heritage destinations lie in between in both respects. However, there are substantial issues across all three venue types, and specific issues in many theatres and performance venues with the technical infrastructure and facilities needed to ensure they are able to operate safely to industry standards.
The findings suggest that without additional funding to support organisations with vulnerable buildings, condition problems will grow worse, across all destination types. At the same time, long-term sustainability is likely to require changes to the broader ecosystem of skills, practices and funding.

Summary of report findings

	Theatres & performance spaces	Places of worship	Heritage destinations
No. of venues in sample frame	681	383	517
No. of completed surveys received	143	82	99
Percentage of listed buildings [footnote 1]	43%	99%	67%
Percentage in good condition [footnote 2](category 1 or 2)	39%	24%	28%
Percentage in poor condition [footnote 2] (category 4 or 5)	16%	36%	23%
Percentage having a current condition survey [footnote 2]	32%	93%	42%
Percentage on Historic England’s ‘At Risk’ Register [footnote 2]	None	17%	7%
Total value of all necessary repair and maintenance [footnote 3]	£4,040 million	£1,738 million	£1,369 million
Cost of urgent repair works03	£1,799 million	£619 million	£671 million
Total value of unfunded urgent works03	£1,178 million	£481 million	£501 million

1. This is the percentage of venues that are either Listed Buildings or Scheduled Monuments ↩

2. This is the percentage of the venues providing completed surveys ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

3. This is an extrapolated figure based on the received surveys and applied to all the venues in the sample frame ↩