1.  INTRODUCTION

  1.1  The Garden History Society (GHS) is the national amenity society for the study and protection of historic parks and gardens. It is a member of the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies. It is a statutory consultee on all planning applications affecting sites on the English Heritage Register of parks and gardens of special historic interest. It is also an occasional adviser to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) on applications affecting historic parks and gardens. The Society's Conservation Officer is, in a personal capacity, a member of the HLF's Parks Advisory Panel.

2.  THE URBAN PARKS PROGRAMME

  2.1  The Society has been a supporter of almost all that the HLF has achieved since its inception. In particular we have welcomed the Urban Parks Programme (UPP). In 1993 we and the Victorian Society wrote a gloomy account of the problems facing urban parks in our joint report, Public Prospects. We were therefore surprised and delighted when the HLF announced the Programme. Two years on, we consider it a great success. It was a pioneering initiative for an area of the garden heritage which has been long overlooked, but which makes the greatest contribution to public life and the quality of the urban environment.

  2.2  The Urban Parks Programme has united popular feeling with conservation priorities; it has brought the historic environment under the umbrella of wider environmental concerns; it has demonstrated that conservation need not be a minority interest but can be part of the mainstream political discourse of the country.

  2.3  The UPP has been given a huge boost to those arguing that urban parks should be seen as fundamental to urban regeneration programmes, and also as an important part of Local Agenda 21 strategies and movements. The work of the HLF on urban parks has been of far-reaching benefit, not just to historic parks and gardens, but to the urban environment and the lives of millions living in towns and cities.

  2.4  Despite the unprecedented sums available and their size comparative to the resources previously available for urban parks and gardens, the UPP funds have only begun to address the long-term needs of these sites. We would urge strenuously that this work be continued; not only as fundamental to the use of funds from a People's Lottery, but also as a lifeline to the many—a majority of—parks and gardens still needing repairs.

 3.  LOCAL VERSUS NATIONAL HERITAGE

  3.1.  We would especially draw attention to the most ground-breaking aspect of the UPP's achievements, namely to extend grant beyond nationally important sites (those included on the very selective English Heritage (EH) Register of historic parks and gardens of special historic interest in England, and likewise the corresponding Cadw Register, Historic Scotland Inventory, and Northern Ireland Inventory) to those of local heritage merit. The national lists represent only a small proportion of the historic parks and gardens in a region which make a positive contribution to the environment. This has been reflected in the awards under the UPP, of which we understand about half have been to non-registered parks. The HLF's treatment of what constitutes "heritage merit" and its view of "public benefit" as of equal importance has been a blast of fresh air through the dusty drapes of the conservation world.

  3.2.  The HLF has, in this aspect of its work at least, genuinely targeted a "people's heritage". The philosophical basis for such an approach is enshrined—although often overlooked—in the first paragraph of PPG15 on Planning and the Historic Environment. While the paragraph first rehearses the established justification that "the physical survivals of our past are to be valued and protected for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage and our sense of national identity", it then continues, "Their presence adds to the quality of our lives, by enhancing the familiar and cherished local scene and sustaining the sense of local distinctiveness which is so important an aspect of the character of our towns, villages and countryside." The PPG emphatically links heritage to a local and popular agenda. But not until the HLF was established has there been either the resources or the will to direct grant-aid towards that agenda.

  3.3.  The HLF openness to sites that have not previously been eligible for major grants has transformed the way in which local authorities across the country have viewed their stocks of public parks and gardens. From being often ignored and always a low priority in budgetary decisions, they are now the focus of attention, and their role in the local identity and character is at last being recognised. The HLF initiative has given a focus and a channel, an official sanction, for the aspirations of local communities to improve their environments. This is a heritage funding source which is in tune with the priorities of a sizeable proportion of the public. The weight of public and media support for the HLF's work on urban parks bears testimony to the fact.

4.  THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND AND ENGLISH HERITAGE

  4.1.  In the light of the above, we would strongly urge that the HLF should not follow the practices and priorities of English Heritage, but should instead continue to develop its own. EH's grant-aid for parks and gardens has, like its grants for listed buildings, has been based on "outstandingness"—targeting the minority of registered parks which are Grade I or II*. The approach to assessment pioneered under the UPP will continue to command popular support and to deliver projects to a local agenda. The tendency to follow EH's lead may increase as the HLF resources reduce and prioritisation becomes ever more pressing.

5.  OTHER MATTERS

  5.1.  There is a need for more HLF staff at case officer level with their own expertise. At present, the lack of expertise or delegated decision-making can be frustrating for applicants, who are dealing with officers who have to refer back to experts, and who are essentially conduits for comments from experts and responses from applicants.

  5.2  We also believe there is a need to develop what the HLF has called "hand-crafting", that is personal guidance to applicants to assist them in making an application fit the aims and objectives of the Fund. In our experience, the ability of officers to give practical advice on preparing an application has been greatly appreciated by applicants.

  5.3  The HLF has followed the good practice established by English Heritage and the Countryside Commission in offering grants for the preparation of restoration plans for parks and gardens. These are essential documents, the funding and small cost of which represents excellent value. They help to galvanise local understanding and enthusiasm, and HLF grant ensures that they are prepared to an acceptable standard thus removing the danger of wasted time and effort on the part of applicants. We trust that the Fund will continue to support their funding.

  5.4  We welcome the decision of HLF trustees in March 1998 to grant-aid a study into the setting up of Landscape Heritage Trust, to act as a centre for training and education. The HLF's support has been most welcome: the examination of existing resources and of the scope for a new body will be extremely valuable. We look forward to the results of this study.

  5.5  There remains a shortfall in grants to the fringes of the UK—Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We appreciate that this is due to a lack of good quality applications. However, we would urge that more positive encouragement of applications from these areas, and guidance on their preparation, would help to redress this situation.

6.  THE FUTURE

  6.1  There is a clear perception amongst potential applicants who have contacted us that grants for historic parks and gardens are becoming more difficult to secure. The HLF has made a magnificent contribution to the conservation of parks and gardens, but we fear that this grant-aid may be squeezed as HLF funds are reduced and demand increases.

  6.2  We would urge the Committee to recognise the importance of parks and gardens, especially public ones, to the environment, to tourism, and to public amenity. They are much more than just heritage sites. We are conscious that they may not be a high priority for the HLF in competition with more established heritage areas—fine art, historic buildings, museums etc—but we firmly believe they are often closer to people's hearts than these other areas and therefore, from a People's Lottery, deserve a continued high level of support.

June 1998