The National Heritage Memorial Fund cannot solicit applications for the now vast amount on money it controls but it can stimulate interest. This was the fine but important distinction drawn by Lord Rothschild in his 'Lastword Lecture' given at the Royal Geographical Society early in February. One of the mechanisms for stimulating this interest has been the launch of a number of 'themes' which will help to identify blocks of funding for specific purposes and, as we know, the Urban Parks Programme has been one of the first launched, almost literally, in the snow at Western Park in Sheffield. The importance of parks in the urban environment is now accepted and the fact that 'parks' was chosen as the first 'theme' is in no small part due to the long campaign of David Lambert and the Garden History Society, Hazel Conway and the Victorian Society and Alan Barber, Vice-President of the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Managers. It is fitting that all three are now Members of the Parks Advisory Panel under the Chairmanship of Professor Ron Brunskill. The Urban Parks Programme creates a novel situation; public parks so short of funding and so low on the priority list of many local authorities for so long can now look forward to a period of investment and attention, all thanks to the Lottery. The timescale for the first round of applications is tight, between 30 April and 30 September for this year's applications, but this is not a one-off opportunity. The Urban Parks Programme is designed to run for at least three years and it is clear that, during this period, if not longer, there will be continued interest in parks, sustained at the very least by the prospect of potentially high levels of funding. Lottery funding to support CONTEXT50 THE NATIONAL LOTTERY AND THE NATION'S PARKS the restoration and rejuvenation of parks is going to be an important factor, probably the most important one, until at least the end of this century. Is this a good thing? Where will it lead us? The impact of the Lottery on the attitude of government agencies towards funding the long term care and conservation of the built environment, in all its forms, is as yet unknown. What is known is that it will be profound. The effect will extend beyond the ways in which repair of fabric may be funded and will undoubtedly begin to affect perhaps not the way in which we think about the process and technicalities of conservation but the scale of the projects and the framework within which repair, restoration and rejuvenation can operate. This is clearly one of the aims of the Heritage Lottery Fund; the first paragraph ofAdditional Guidance Note 1: Urban Parks describes the role of urban parks and spaces and states the desire to 'encourage new ideas and to galvanise thinking'. Before we move on to the potential for new ideas let's look at some more basic points. The Additional Guidance Note sets out very clearly the stages, timescale and requirements of the application procedure and it is not the intention of this article to rehearse them again. However, atthe 'Lottery Funding Opportunities for Historic Public Parks' conference held at De Montfort University in March one or two points did emerge from a review of the criteria which may be worth reporting. The main point, of course, is that the park which is the focus of the bid must have a demonstrable 'heritage' value to be enhanced; it must have a historical significance which can be identified and illustrated on the basis of archival and field evidence. The fact that field evidence, the record of its history which a park carries in its own physical fabric, is included is important since urban parks, particularly those designed by for example, the borough engineer, may very well have lost their 'archive' in one of many local government or departmental reorganisations; if indeed an formal archive ever existed. The ability to 'read', analyse, interpret and explain the history of a park through its documents, landform, buildings and vegetation requires training and skill. If the park has a long history, such as those parks which began life as private estates, or if there are special features, such as special plant collections, then expert advice should be sought. Professor Brunskill has stated that there is no need to 'overresearch' but this is a vital stage of the application and it important that it should be done well since it establishes the park as being a legitimate candidate for 'heritage' funding. Scanning through the remaining assessment criteria, what does become apparent is that the application, as a whole, will depend on the co-operation of a multi-discipline team of specialists each reporting on a different aspect of the park's role and future management, and specialists command a fee. This, of course, is where the application starts to become serious and where the application itself begins to cost sometimes substantial amounts of money in officer time or consultants' fees or both. Some Conservation Officers have expressed the view that preparing a lottery bid is 39
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=