How should heritage be funded? What are the opportunities and challenges around public, private and philanthropic funding models? These are some of the key questions underpinning the 2024 Heritage Debate. This year the The Historic Environment Forum worked in partnership with The Heritage Alliance to produce a series of case studies which will contribute to the debate – sharing different models of funding heritage, as well as a diversity of views on the subject.
Martin Hulse, Trustee of Tyne & Wear Building Preservation Trust
What type of funding has been effective in supporting your work?
Tyne & Wear Building Preservation Trust (TWBPT) operates a mixed mode of funding. The core of the Trust is supported via rental activity, return on investments and business development funding. Projects are then supported by grants and some investment from the Trust’s reserves. For every project we undertake a Conservation Deficit Appraisal to understand the return on investment and the gap in the economic model.
A good example of this is the Old Low Light in North Shields where the building was restored using a Lottery Townscape Heritage Initiative Grant (at 75% intervention) matched by funds from TWBPT. The building is now leased to another Charity who pay rent for the building and during the twelve-year lease, our investment has been recouped.
The three-year support from the Architectural Heritage Fund (AHF) as part of their Heritage Development Trust initiative has been crucial in building the organisation’s ability to undertake capital projects. This core funding allowed us to appoint an Office Manager to bring organisation and financial stability to the Trust.
What setbacks have you experienced related to funding?
TWBPT has been hugely successful over the past ten years and has been building the relationship with key funders. You cannot expect to achieve 100% success, however a high win rate can be achieved by thoughtful and appropriate applications.
The funding arena has been complicated over the past few years with changes to the route of funding via regional organisations. Both Historic England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund (NLHF) have been producing new strategies and it seems that the delivery cycle is quicker with funds such as Community Ownership Fund.
The Trust relies, historically, on project viability funding from the Architectural Heritage Fund and then continues project development with funding from Historic England, local authority sources and National Lottery Heritage Fund. These sources also provide capital delivery funding.
There is a well-recognised gap between stages of project delivery where one grant stops as you wait for the approvals of further work. This needs to be bridged with separate funding.
What solutions are required to address funding challenges in heritage?
The major stakeholders (Historic England, NLHF and AHF) need to support the development of ‘Heritage Development Trusts’ to ensure the survival of delivery vehicles able to undertake project delivery.
Building Preservation Trusts (BPTs)/Heritage Development Trusts (HDTs) are fragile organisms that need support with core funds to maintain a steady delivery programme. These organisations will never be 100% self-supporting, even the most successful need help. However, the outcomes from their work can be extraordinary and diverse.
HDT’s require income streams to support their core work and provide unrestricted funding. A recent five-year interest free loan of £120,000 from NLHF has had an incredible impact on our work and needs to be repeated.
It has taken TWBPT over 40 years to achieve an element of self-sufficiency, but we still need support.
