1.  The Select Committee has requested a memorandum from the Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC) "describing its role in advising the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) on design and construction and setting out any views on the Fund's policies, programmes and criteria for the distribution of funds".

THE ROYAL FINE ART COMMISSION

  2.  The RFAC is an independent body, established by Royal Warrant, which advises central government, local government, and other bodies on all matters affecting the visual environment in England and Wales. It has no statutory powers.

  3.  The Commission has 18 members, including its chairman. It currently comprises five architects, a civil engineer, an industrial designer, a landscape architect, a sculptor, a planner, two property developers, two architectural historians, an art historian, an artist and a conservationist. Members are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

  4.  The Commission is mainly concerned with architectural design but also advises on the design of bridges, roads, major landscaping proposals and art in public places. It offers advice in any of the following circumstances: if the development proposal is of national importance; if the site is of national importance; if the proposal would have a substantial impact on a sensitive environment; or if the site would provide an opportunity to upgrade the quality of the surrounding environment. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the RFAC's Chairman, will decide whether proposals meet any of these criteria. Where a proposal is not deemed of sufficient importance for formal advice to be given by the Commission, it may be discussed informally with those who have consulted the Commission.

  5.  Schemes are generally referred to the RFAC by planning authorities. A number of other schemes are referred by architects, developers and public bodies such as Government Departments and the lottery distributing boards. The remainder are referred by individuals or are called in by the Commission itself.

  6.  The table below shows the number of schemes referred to the Commission in the calendar years 1995-1997 and the number of those schemes on which formal advice was offered.

	1995	1996	1997
No of schemes referred to Commission	290	326	386
No of schemes on which formal advice given	141	145	150

  7.  Schemes are presented to the RFAC at its three-weekly meetings. Before these meetings, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary, generally accompanied by a Commissioner, will undertake site visits to gather information on the schemes to be presented. At the meeting itself, the first object is to ensure that Commissioners have as full an understanding as possible of what is proposed. Before arriving at a judgement, they will hear oral presentations from the architects and clients concerned, as well as studying drawings, models, photographs and material samples. Planning authorities and, where appropriate, English Heritage and amenity societies also give their views. Then, after questions, the Commission holds a private discussion to arrive at an agreed view, which is sent to the interested parties in the form of a letter.

RELATIONS BETWEEN RFAC AND HLF

  8.  The RFAC is not, and has no wish to be, a confidential adviser to any of the lottery distributing bodies. It is an independent body which offers advice openly to all parties involved in a development proposal and whose views are expressed as a matter of public record.

  9.  The ability of the RFAC to offer practical and timely advice on design quality in the public interest depends on co-operation with planning authorities and (where lottery schemes are concerned) with the relevant distributing bodies. Co-operation helps ensure that the right schemes are referred at the right time and that the RFAC's views are given due weight in the process of deciding whether planning permission (or funding) should be given.

  10.  At an early stage in the existence of the lottery, the RFAC alerted the distributing bodies to its existence and to the kind of projects on which it might usefully be consulted. The Chairman of the HLF, the Chief Executive of the Millennium Commission, the Chairman of the Arts Council Lottery Board and the Chairman of the Sports Council have each visited the RFAC to discuss matters of common concern with Commissioners. But no formal written agreements exist between the RFAC and the distributing bodies to govern consultation. Working relationships have evolved as a result of informal discussions at officer level and through common membership where it exists; Mrs John Nutting is both a Royal Fine Art Commissioner and a Trustee of the Heritage Lottery Fund and has thus brought an especially informed voice to the deliberations of both bodies.

  11.  Amongst the lottery distributing bodies, most of the RFAC's dealings have been with the Millennium Commission and the HLF. This is partly because the work of these two bodies has the greatest overlap with that of the RFAC; and partly because they have shown the greatest willingness to seek the advice of the RFAC on the design quality of major capital projects.

  12.  From the first application round in 1995 onwards, the Millennium Commission sent the RFAC details of future capital projects before they were considered for grants. The RFAC was asked its opinion on the designs of those schemes which met its criteria for giving formal advice and was asked if it was aware of any reasons why the schemes should not be funded. The RFAC's response was then circulated to Millennium Commissioners before the relevant grant application was decided upon.

  13.  The Arts Council Lottery Board has only very rarely sought the advice of the RFAC and the Sports Council has never done so, despite attempts by the RFAC to encourage consultation. The general impression the Commission has gained is that both bodies have been uninterested in seeking advice. The Arts Council Lottery Board has established its own machinery for assessing design quality; the Sports Council does not appear to be interested in design.

  14.  In May 1995, at the RFAC's request, the HLF sent the RFAC a list of all future projects with a capital cost of over £1 million. Since then, the HLF has sometimes referred schemes to the RFAC, on an ad hoc basis. In all, three of the 24 HLF-funded or part-funded schemes on which the RFAC has been consulted were referred directly by the HLF. In some other cases, the HLF has established informally that the RFAC was being consulted by others.

  15.  It should not be inferred that because the RFAC has not been consulted on a particular scheme by the HLF, its views play no part in the HLF's decision-making process. The RFAC understands that, in certain cases such as the Canterbury Cathedral visitor and education centre, its known support for a scheme has had an impact on how the HLF itself has perceived the scheme, even though its advice has not been directly sought.

  16.  The HLF has tended to solicit the RFAC's advice in those cases where it has had strong doubts about the design of a scheme (eg the Neptune Hall project at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich and the Wales Millennium Centre at Cardiff Bay). Both projects offer examples of the RFAC and HLF working together to assess whether a proposed building represents good design and offers value for money. The Wales Millennium Centre proposal was for an auditorium, permanent accommodation for the Welsh National Opera and an industrial museum containing an IMAX cinema and dock-related exhibitions. The promoters had applied to the HLF for funding for the museum element of the project. The HLF referred this part of the proposal to the RFAC and the scheme was formally presented to the RFAC in October 1997.

  17.  The RFAC expressed strong reservations about the design and planning of the proposal as a whole and of the museum in particular. It suggested that a museum display on six levels was " likely to be highly unsatisfactory in use" and that "the largely blank wall of the museum makes a highly unsatisfactory stop to the proposed Bute Avenue and has an unfortunate impact on views of the Pierhead building, apparently blocking them entirely from one side of the Avenue". The Commission advised that it did not support the proposal and that a fundamental reappraisal was needed. This advice was communicated to the HLF after the presentation, in time for it to be taken into account by HLF Trustees at their meeting on 25 November 1997.

  At that meeting, Trustees refused funding for the museum element of the Millennium Centre; one of their reasons for refusal, stated in a letter of 26 November 1997 from the HLF Director to the Chairman of the Wales Millennium Centre project, was that "the proposed museum building has weaknesses in its design and planning and did not meet [the Trustees'] stated wish to support new buildings of architectural excellence".

  18.  Proposals by the Building Design Partnership for the Neptune Hall at the National Maritime were first presented to the RFAC in July 1995. The HLF had been approached for a grant of £8 million towards the total cost of £14 million and had asked for the RFAC's views. The Commission raised a number of serious objections to the design, following which the HLF instigated a major review of the scheme. As a result of this review, Rick Mather Architects were engaged to develop the BDP design.

  19.  The amended scheme was presented to the RFAC in January 1996 and was warmly welcomed. The Commission believed that its earlier criticisms had been fully understood and that the proposals were now being developed with the skill and sympathy required for the historic context. It expressed the view that the HLF had an important role to play in monitoring quality through all states of the scheme.

  20.  Where the HLF has not had strong doubts about the design of a scheme, it has not solicited the advice of the RFAC; in some such cases it has awarded funding on the basis of very early designs, from which it would be impossible for the RFAC, for example, to make a definitive judgement on design quality. The Ruskin Library at Lancaster University and the American Air Museum at Duxford Aerodrome offer two examples. These were not referred to the Commission by the HLF, and as no other party referred them, no RFAC advice was given on the design of either building. In the judgement of the RFAC, both the Ruskin Library and the Duxford Aerodrome have turned out to be buildings of the highest design quality. Both have won RFAC design awards. However, the decision by the HLF to grant funds appears in both cases to have been given on the basis of design information which falls short of what the RFAC would require to make a final judgement on design quality. This state of affairs is less likely to recur now that the HLF provides funds for feasibility and design studies.

  21.  The RFAC recognises that it is not the only source of independent design advice available to, and used by, the HLF. Under the National Lottery etc Act 1993, the Secretary of State has issued a number of Policy and Financial Directions which govern the way in which Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund distribute National Lottery funds. These include the requirement that Trustees should obtain such information as they consider necessary to make decisions on each application, including independent expert design advice where required. In accordance with this, the HLF has a number of Expert Panels and has sought advice from outside experts such as the architects Sir Philip Powell and John Winter (both Emeritus Commissioners).

 RFAC RESPONSE TO SCHEMES FUNDED OR PART-FUNDED BY HLF

  22.  Schemes funded or part-funded by the HLF and referred to the RFAC are listed as an annexe to this memorandum*[18].

  23.  By their nature, only a small proportion of proposals considered for funding by the HLF are appropriate subjects for RFAC advice. The large majority do not come within the RFAC's remit, as defined in paragraph 4 above. The creation of a sixth good cause under the National Lottery Act 1998, and the move away from funding major capital projects, suggests that in future there will be even fewer such proposals.

  24.  Of those schemes listed in the annexe, the RFAC considered that the following demonstrated a high quality of design: the Great Court at the British Museum, the Lowry Centre in Salford, the Falmouth Maritime Museum, the Canterbury Cathedral Visitor and Education Centre, World Squares for All, and the extensions to Manchester City Art Gallery and the Dulwich Picture Gallery. Detailed criticisms were made by the Commission in each of these cases and it believes that a number of schemes, such as the Great Court project, have reached an even higher design standard as a result.

  25.  The majority of the remaining schemes were considered by the RFAC to be broadly acceptable in design terms. Again, a number of detailed criticisms were made in each case; and again, improvements were made to the designs of several schemes, notably the National Maritime Museum, in response to the Commission's comments.

  26.  The RFAC expressed serious doubts over the designs of two schemes on which it made a formal comment: the proposed extension to the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (for which the HLF granted£1.2 million in June 1997) and the Brighton Museum and Art Gallery (for which it granted £7.56 million in January 1998). The RFAC expressed formal reservations about both these proposals in April 1997; revised proposals were then presented in June 1997 (Fitzwilliam) and July 1997 (Brighton) and at that time the Commission noted the efforts made by the architects of both schemes to improve the designs. The RFAC's comments on the Brighton scheme were sent to the HLF in September 1997, at the HLF's request, so that they could be taken into account by Trustees before a decision on funding was made.

  27.  The RFAC considers the majority of schemes listed in the annexe to be well-conceived in architectural terms and worthy of lottery funding. One or two of them, such as the Great Court project, have the potential to be schemes of the highest quality. Collectively, they suggest that, from the point of view of design quality, the HLF has on the whole demonstrated good judgement in its funding decisions.

 CONCLUSION

  28.  This review suggests that working relations between the RFAC and HLF have so far been reasonably effective. The RFAC has, by one means or another, offered advice on the majority of major capital projects funded or part-funded by the Commission; most such schemes have reached at least an acceptable standard of design, with several reaching a notably high standard; the two major capital projects on which the RFAC was unable to give advice (the Ruskin Library and Duxford Aerodrome) were designed to an exceptionally high standard; and there are two major capital projects (the Wales Millennium Centre and the Neptune Hall at the National Maritime Museum) where the RFAC's advice to the HLF was an important factor in preventing what, in the RFAC's view was a substandard design.

  29.  The Commission warmly welcomes the fact that one of the criteria by which the HLF judges grant applications for new buildings is "quality of design and materials". This is a crucial first step in ensuring that major capital projects reach a quality threshold, although its usefulness as a guarantee of quality depends on the standard of the design advice received by those who decide whether the criterion is met. The RFAC also welcomes the fact that the HLF seeks independent design advice from a range of sources.

  30.  However, since the RFAC exists as an independent and expert judge of design quality (and is the only body in existence set up for that purpose), it is clearly desirable that all lottery distributing bodies, including the HLF, should take into account the RFAC's opinion before a decision is taken on whether a proposal for a major capital project is of adequate design quality. This would make it more likely that major capital projects approved for funding were of high design quality and represented value for money.

  31.  This may suggest that though should be given to modifying the HLF's assessment procedure for major capital projects, so that it includes a mechanism for ensuring that the RFAC has been given an opportunity to comment on matters within its remit. In many instances, schemes which are not referred to the Commission by the HLF will be referred by another party, such as the local authority or architect. But that cannot be relied upon to happen in every case, and even where it does the HLF may not become aware of the Commission's advice.

  32.  If the RFAC is to have any real beneficial effect on the design of schemes for which lottery funding is sought, it is also essential that referral is timely. The RFAC needs to be consulted on major capital projects early in the design process, at a point when it can comment usefully. This injunction applies as much to the other lottery distributing bodies as to the HLF.

July 1998