information and sought early feedback on the proposals. There was a six month gap between the final date for submission and consideration by the HLF's Parks Advisory Panel. Rather than being a quiet time, there was considerable activity as the design was refined, consultation continued and final Cqmmittee approvals were sought. A requirement for a 20% contingency sum was a late bombshell that had us rushing around in panic to secure commitment from already stretched Council budgets. Normally, a site visit is held with the case officer and a member of the Parks panel. They like this to be informal and not involve too many people. I arranged for four members of the Project Team to attend including the architects. The discussion was helpful and whilst we did our best to sell the project we were up-front about the few issues where a detailed design solution had not been finalised such as security and lighting. It was certainly a nail-biting time waiting for the HLF's decision, but great to get the good news. We're now in the middle of tender preparation and awaiting approval of the listed building application. Work should start on site in the autumn. At the beginning of the project I don't think any of us appreciated the amount of work involved but as a learning process it has been invaluable. To summarise those factors which should make a bid suc€essful are: • Make sure adequate resources are allocated to the bid. • Ensure you have an appropriately skilled project team. • Include extensive historical research and stress your heritage asset. • Closely follow the HLF's guidance notes. • Get early feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the bid and get English Heritage on board. • Allow plenty of time for preparation of the documentation, and make sure it is well presented. • Carry out extensive consultation. • 'Sell' the project and be enthusiastic! I hope this encourages some of you to submit bids to the HLF for good conservation projects. It's certainly a worthwhile experience if only to give a chance to see things from the other side of the development process. In the meantime, keep buying those Lottery tickets - we need the money! David McDonald is Head of Conservation and Design, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. 12 CONSERVATIONFUNDING Secondthoughts ofa Lottery Jonathan Hurst expresses an entirely personal view that there are two worrying aspects of the funding of historic building conservation. The first is the total unreliability of pronouncements on English Heritage's budget and highlights the summary of the proceedings of the AHF's 20th Anniversary Conference: 'Collaboration or conflict- the preservation challenge' last November in Manchester, where it was remarked in relation to BPTs (but where the comments could apply to any other eligible project): "Cuts in English Heritage's budget - a cause of acute concern in England and wholly contrary to the government's pledges about the National Lottery and 'additionality' mean that BPTs are being advised to look first to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), even though the two organisations' eligibility criteria and grant conditions differ in a number of important respects". The other is the extreme foolishness of becoming tied to a variable alternative source - the Lottery. 'Nobody knows if those making the handouts may not suddenly change their policy with regard to historic building conservation' First, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the level of 'handouts' can be predicted accurately over the years into the future as the volatility of the 'punters' is completely unknown. Who can say that their level of ticket buying will not be affected by changes in the football pools, the world economy or anti-gambling crusades. Secondly, nobody knows if those making the handouts may not suddenly change their policy with regard to historic building conservation. This is exactly what has happened in New Zealand where an over-reliance on lottery handouts has caused disaster following an arbitrary change in policy. The Journal of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust reported in September 1996 under the heading 'Heritage in crisis' that "That need to co-ordinate the resourcing and managing of our heritage system has been underlined in recent days by the Lottery Environment and Heritage Committee's decision to slash its grant to the Trust by almost a third. More ominously, Lotteries says it will not fund operating costs for Trust properties from 1998'.Lotteries calls these costs a Crown responsibility. The Crown disagrees. The Trust, caught in the middle, is already struggling to make ends meet. Unless the Trust can find a dramatic and •imaginative solution, properties acquired, conserved and managed through a mix of Trust, Crown and Lottery funds over the last thirty years, will be placed at risk." In March this year the Trust reported that "Lottery grants were reduced by more than $500,000. A cut of another half-million is forecast for 1997-98." The British lottery boards are vulnerable to political interference and abrupt changes in public opinion (which could follow, say, a medical epidemic or a natural calamity) and cannot be considered a suitably reliable source of finding. Reliability of funding over lengthy periods is vital to undertake complex and difficult historic building repair programmes. The IHBC must make an enormous effort in lobbying, whatever the new government, to revert to sensible and reliable sources of funding for historic building conservation. Context 54 June 1997
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=