Written evidence submitted by The Heritage
Lottery Fund
1. Introduction to HLF
1.1 The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is the largest
non-government funder of the UK's heritage, currently distributing
around £205 million a year. The recent change in the share
going to the heritage Lottery good cause combined with strong
Lottery ticket sales will mean an increase to £300 million
a year in 2012-13.
1.2 HLF is now consulting on our strategic framework
for 2013-19. We have set out our proposals on a range of issues,
based on analysis of the emerging funding environment for heritage
in the next few years, research and evaluation of the impact of
our funding, and discussions with other organisations, partners
and funders across the heritage sector. It will focus on three
areas:
— what
we should continue doing;
— what
we may need to do differently;
— and
what new initiatives could have the greatest impact.
1.3 HLF's approach is driven by the nature of
its funding from Lottery players. We support heritage that is
valued by the public and helps them to get involved with and learn
about it, thereby sustaining heritage for future generations.
Lottery funding totalling £4.7 billion has been awarded to
a broad range of heritage—from national icons and collections
to small, neighbourhood projects; from landscapes, National Parks
and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty to castles and piers;
from projects that develop and promote skills, training and job
creation; and from steam trains, museums and parks to oral history
and local traditions. More than 34,000 projects of all sizes have
been funded, with grants ranging in size from £500 to over
£20 million, in every part of the UK. Almost half of this
funding has been awarded to voluntary and community organisations
with nearly all projects involving volunteers. The need and demand
for Lottery funding remains strong. In 2009-10, HLF received applications
for £524 million—more than two and a half times its
annual grant budget.
1.4 HLF's investment of £4.7 billion has
been matched by partnership funding of £3.4 billion giving
a total of over £8 billion for the UK's heritage since 1994.
1.5 We operate a number of different grant schemes:
the most relevant to regeneration are:
— 1.5.1 HERITAGE
GRANTS
Grants of £50,000 or more can be awarded to
projects that relate to the national, regional or local heritage
of the UK. This is the programme through which the bulk of larger
capital grants for the repair of historic buildings have been
made, the refurbishment of national museums and galleries, and
the restoration of iconic industrial, transport and maritime heritage.
— 1.5.2 TOWNSCAPE
HERITAGE INITIATIVE
(THI)
Through THI we support schemes that aim to regenerate
the historic environment in towns and cities across the UK—explicitly
targeting areas of social and economic deprivation. In England
THI's are generally managed by local authorities. An independent,
long-term evaluation of the programme since 1998 has demonstrated
the impacts of this heritage-based approach: improving the quality
of townscapes, bringing vacant properties back into use and changing
the perceptions of local areas.[126]
We have found that the most successful schemes have been those
where the THI has been underpinned by a positive trend in the
local economy and—especially—where our funding has
been combined with that of others, in a larger, strategic approach
to area-based regeneration.
— 1.5.3 PARKS
FOR PEOPLE
This is a programme directed towards historic public
parks. They are usually owned and managed by a local authority.
Parks for People is jointly funded by HLF and the Big Lottery
Fund.
— 1.5.4 YOUR
HERITAGE AND
YOUNG ROOTS
These are smaller-scale projects of less than £50,000—frequently
run by local community and voluntary organizations—that
can be very successful in delivering community benefits in areas
of social and economic disadvantage. Though both are UK-wide programmes,
40% of funding has been awarded to projects within the most deprived
quarter of all local authorities in the UK.
— 1.5.5 SKILLS
FOR THE
FUTURE
In May 2010 we awarded £17 million to 54 projects
that will create 800 new heritage training opportunities. Skills
for the Future offers work-based training in a wide range of skills
that are needed to look after buildings, landscapes, habitats,
species, and museum and archive collections, as well as equipping
people to lead education and outreach programmes, manage volunteers
and use new technology.
2. HLF funding for regeneration
2.1 HLF is not dedicated solely to regeneration
funding. Our income is from the National Lottery and our funding
must always be for heritage of all kinds, in all parts of the
UK. However, the previous government issued HLF a set of policy
directions in 1998 that included a requirement that we take into
account "the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation"
in our grant making. As a result, local authorities amongst the
25% most deprived in England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland have
benefited from our funding to a greater extent than the rest of
the UK, having received around 30% of our funding to date, a proportion
which has been close to 40% in more recent years. On this basis
HLF recognises that our role in regeneration is an important and
potentially growing one.
2.2 Partly in order to encourage more applications
from deprived areas, in 2002 we established geographic priority
areas in each of our regional and country offices, which are a
focus for development activity.
2.3 For HLF regeneration of places needs to start
with what people already have—which could be local iconic
buildings, distinctive housing and streets, historic parks and
other open spaces or the civic buildings in the area, including
museums and galleries. We also believe it includes areas which
are not physical—customs, traditions, a collective "memory".
Heritage projects in deprived areas—including activity projects—have
the potential to contribute to regeneration. Good heritage-led
regeneration is based on what people value locally which fits
very well with the government's emphasis on localism and enabling
communities to determine their own future.
2.4 Given that places have individual and independent
histories, so heritage-based regeneration ensures that the unique
distinctiveness of place is retained, helping to maintain a sense
of identity that is vital for social well-being and economic vitality.
Research undertaken by the HLF since 2005 has consistently demonstrated
the benefits of local heritage to people[127]—for
example three quarters of people believe HLF projects have made
their local area more attractive, and 61% believe HLF projects
have made their area a better place to live. A snapshot of several
individual projects illustrate the ways in which HLF funding can
contribute to regeneration through:
— 2.4.1 PROVIDING
A COMMUNITY
FOCUS FOR
REGENERATION
An HLF grant of £1.7 million to Midlands Regen
Limited brought Nechells Baths in Birmingham back to life. Threatened
with demolition, the restored baths became a community hub, home
to Nechells Regeneration Partnership, an employment service and
other community groups.[128]
— 2.4.2 CREATING
EMPLOYMENT
The regeneration of Chatham Dockyard with £12.3
million of grant from HLF, has helped to create a site that is
both a visitor attraction and a base for 140 businesses, employing
over 1,000 people. The historic attractions at the dockyard attract
170,000 visits a year and improvements to the site have already
had wider regeneration implications for the Thames Gateway area,
in which Chatham is situated.
— 2.4.3 ENCOURAGING
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
Bexhill-on-Sea's De La Warr Pavilion was the first
Modernist public building to be built in the UK. An HLF grant
of £2.3 million contributed to its renovation, including
a new gallery space and refurbishment of the original 1,000-seat
auditorium. De La Warr received over half a million visits in
its first year of completion—a 60% increase on the pre-refurbishment
figure. Over 70% of visitors come from outside of the local district,
with three-quarters of staying visitors travelling to Bexhill
specifically to see the Pavilion. Economic impacts of the project
have been strong, with 67 jobs created within the local tourism
economy, and more than £1 million generated in annual value
added through profits and wages for local businesses and employees.
— 2.4.4 ENHANCING
PEOPLE'S
QUALITY OF
LIFE
Alexandra Park in Oldham has been transformed with
£3 million of HLF funding from a vandalised space, not regarded
as a safe place to play, into a focus for community life. An HLF
survey of local residents found 60% saying the appearance of the
park has improved and 40% believing there is now more to do at
the park. For a third of local people their perception is that
the park is now safer than it used to be and 44% say the restoration
of the park has made a positive impact on their own quality of
life.[129]
— 2.4.5 CONTRIBUTING
TO SOCIAL
INCLUSION, LEARNING
AND HEALTH
The Sherwood Initiative received a £3 million
award from HLF and brought together more than 40 organisations
and landowners for a five year scheme that combined landscape
restoration with a training programme. The project took place
in an area dominated for a century by coal mining, and some of
its greatest impacts were through training and education activities,
including garden nursery, archaeology, catering and forest ranger
schemes. The project has had a big effect on how local people
think and feel about the landscape, and seven former coal tips
have become community woodlands.[130]
— 2.4.6 CONTRIBUTING
TO ATTRACTIVE
LIVING AND
WORKING CONDITIONS
Birmingham Cathedral Square is one of the key open
spaces in the city. An HLF grant of £2 million has restored
the physical fabric of the square and provided a high-quality
open space. This has acted as a catalyst for the widescale regeneration
of the surrounding area and contributed to a fall in vacancy rates
in the nearby business premises.
— 2.4.7 DEVELOPING
SKILLS
All projects receiving an HLF grant of more than
£1 million need to involve an element of training. In addition,
our Skills for the Future programme—set up partly in response
to the recession—is providing training opportunities that
link with regeneration strategies in some areas. For example Tyne
& Wear Archives and Museums are currently delivering a project
that aims to address an identified heritage skills gap in engineering,
by providing work-based training for people who are keen to develop
the practical skills associated with maintaining working industrial
exhibits across the North East.
3. How effective is the government's approach
to regeneration likely to be? Will it ensure that progress made
by past regeneration projects is not lost and can, where appropriate,
be built on? Will it ensure that sufficient public funds are made
available for future major town and city regeneration projects
as well as for more localised projects?
3.1 Sections 3 and 4 of our submission are based
on the interpretation we have made of the government's regeneration
policy, as laid out primarily in the Local Growth White Paper
and the DCLG publication, "Regeneration to enable growth",
alongside other departmental papers such as the BIS Discussion
paper "Understanding Local Growth" dealing with changes
in thinking about economic geography.[131]
3.2 The recent changes in government policy have
most obviously been seen in the abolition of the regional development
agencies and the creation of local economic partnerships. However,
our interpretation is that there is a more fundamental change
in thinking about regeneration taking place, beyond the matters
of spending cuts and institutional changes.
3.3 The abolition of RDAs is already having an
adverse effect on projects that we have jointly funded. We are
currently aware of six projects in our Heritage Grants programme
where partnership funding is under threat due to the withdrawal
of RDA funding, along with two of our recently funded Townscape
Heritage schemes.
3.4 A further concern is that important projects
we have already committed to supporting may struggle to maintain
the local authority match funding that has been put in place,
including both capital commitments and forward revenue funding.
We are already experiencing a rise in the number projects seeking
grant increases to deal with funding shortfalls, however it is
still currently extremely difficult to accurately predict where
the pressure will come and to what degree.
3.5 Looking to the future, reductions in budgets
are likely to make it more difficult for local authorities to
develop and bring forward for consideration new heritage-based
regeneration projects. In our THI and public parks programmes,
for example, the proportion of match funding coming from the public
sector has traditionally been high.
3.6 Equally important may be the loss of skilled
local authority staff, especially conservation and archaeology
officers, who we know are key to the management of heritage-based
regeneration schemes.
3.7 Furthermore, we know that the impact of our
funding can only be sustained if local authorities operate the
system of statutory heritage protection effectively and fairly,
including statutory consent, enforcement, repairs notices, compulsory
purchase orders and directions. The loss of other types of local
authority staff—such as parks, biodiversity and countryside
officers, and museum and library departments—could also
have a detrimental effect on heritage-based regeneration initiatives.
3.8 All of these issues mean that we are concerned
that the legacy of Lottery investment of the last 16 years, which
has achieved so much for heritage and people, should not be jeopardised.
As we have outlined in a previous Select Committee submission,
the increase in heritage funding through the Lottery can in no
way make up for the reductions in central and local authority
budgets.[132]
We estimate that the loss of central and local authority funding
for heritage in England will be over £500 million a year—far
more than the additional £50 million that we are receiving
in additional income for grants.
4. What lessons should be learnt from past
and existing regeneration projects to apply to the Government's
new approach?
4.1 We do recognise that the country is in a
very different fiscal environment compared to the last 10 years.
In our recent submission to the CMS Select Committee we acknowledged
that with less public funding available, the heritage sector's
financial model will have to be re-configured. The same applies
to regeneration. Here too organisations will need to evolve, to
be flexible and to adapt to overcome the loss in public funding.
Heritage organisations in regeneration areas certainly have the
willingness to play a new type of role—reflected, for example,
in the recent increase in applications to HLF for asset transfer
projects.
4.2 The government's Local Growth policy does
present wider-ranging challenges to HLF and other funders interested
in regeneration, which go beyond the matter of public spending
cuts. It is very evident that a radical rethinking is underway
among all those involved in physical-led regeneration and we have
reflected our own commitment to new approaches in our consultation.
4.3 HLF has already begun to address some of
these concerns through our own business processes and criteria.
We have, for example, responded by relaxing our match funding
requirements to allow greater flexibility in funding arrangements
that are coming under greater pressure.
4.4 However we recognise that we may need to
go further and are keen to play a full role in shaping and responding
to emerging regeneration strategies. It may be the emphasis on
"place making" as part of regeneration will have less
prominence than during the last 10 years. Beginning with the 1998
Urban Task Force, the objective of the "urban renaissance"
was to attract knowledge and service industries back into major
towns and cities through high density mixed use redevelopments,
improvements to public realm, quality streetscapes and investment
in culture. Heritage was often used very effectively—including
through our THI scheme—with successful examples from around
the country such as Sheffield, Liverpool and Glasgow. In the future
it seems likely there will be fewer resources available for this
type of physical regeneration. Instead, economic growth will need
to arise from new private sector activity, based on the skills,
traditions and ambitions of local businesses. We still see an
important role for heritage here, since economic development that
is locally distinctive will be based on the history of trading,
production, invention and creativity that enabled places to first
develop.
4.5 This change of emphasis appears to be reflected
in the criteria for the new Regional Growth Fund: that initiatives
should specifically be for private or private/public partnerships,
and not from public sector organisations alone; and that proposals
must show how they will create private sector jobs, achieve private
sector leverage, have a commercial logic and contribute to green
economic growth.
4.6 We believe that HLF—and other heritage
organisations involved in regeneration within the public, private
and civic sectors—will need to be responsive and flexible
to this changing regeneration environment. For example, though
tourism and property re-development are frequently thought of
as the most obvious ways in which heritage has a role to play
in economic regeneration, there are other important connections,
especially within the context of a growing knowledge-based economy
in the UK. Heritage fits very well within the bigger picture of
structural change predicted for the next decade, and "anchor"
heritage organisations could form an important component of local
regeneration strategies.[133]
4.7 These issues are very much a part of our
current strategic consultation, which is underway until the end
of April 2011. We are currently considering what the best options
will be for our funding in the period beginning 2013, and have
made regeneration a particular feature of the consultation, in
order to inform our future direction in this important area.[134]
APPENDIX
HLF FUNDING BY CURRENT PROGRAMMES APRIL 1994-MARCH
2011
| Programme | Value of awards
(£m)
| Number of
Projects |
| Heritage Grants | 2,967.2 |
4,738 |
| Your Heritage | 186.9 | 4,911
|
| Public Parks Initiative / Parks for People |
601.9 | 567 |
| Townscape Heritage Initiative | 188.1
| 239 |
| Repair Grants for Places of Worship | 150.1
| 2,353 |
| Landscape Partnerships | 61.2
| 45 |
| Young Roots | 24.4 | 1,139
|
| Skills for the Future | 17.4
| 54 |
| Collecting Cultures | 3.0 |
22 |
March 2011
126
Oxford Brookes University, 2008: Evaluation of the Townscape Heritage
Initiative Back
127
BDRC for HLF, 2010: The Impact of HLF funding-Neighbourhood Surveys
2005-2009 Back
128
GHK for HLF, 2010: The Economic Impact of HLF Projects Back
129
BDRC for HLF, 2007: Neighbourhood survey for Alexandra Park, Oldham Back
130
GHK for HLF, 2010: The Economic Impact of HLF Projects Back
131
BIS Economics Paper No. 7 "Understanding Local Growth"
October 2010 Back
132
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2010: Submission to Culture, Media and
Sport Select Committee on funding for arts and heritage Back
133
The Work Foundation, 2010: Heritage and the 2020 Knowledge Economy Back
134
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2011: Shaping the Future: Consultation
on the HLF strategy 2013-19 Back
| 
