The Local Heritage Initiative (LHI) was launched in February 2000 as a 10 year programme to help rural communities investigate and care for their local landscapes, landmarks and traditions. It is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and run by ...
Countryside Agency Archive

Breadcrumbs

LOCAL HERITAGE INITIATIVE: PROPOSED URBAN EXTENSION AP02/15

Principal Manager Responsible: Nicola Webley Lead Board Member: Bishop Graham James

FOR DECISION

To accept the Heritage Lottery Fund's invitation to manage an extension of the Local Heritage Initiative into urban areas provided that:

  • it is an extension of the existing scheme and is run as one scheme;
  • funding is available from partners (HLF & Groundwork UK) or others to ensure that there are no major additional costs to the Agency;
  • the terms of the partnership agreement fit within the Agency's strategy and bring clear benefits.  
Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan:
  • This would be additional to the current Corporate Plan. (but should be cost neutral)
  • Extending LHI into urban areas would enable the Agency to test new and imaginative approaches for reaching disadvantaged/excluded people through new partners and new ways of operating; for the Agency and communities to learn from wider experience elsewhere; and to lead to increased understanding between town and countryside.  
Staff and financial implications:
  • Additional staffing and funding would be need (unquantified at present) to meet the Agency's contribution but we would aim to secure this from other sources, so that the net impact on the Agency's budget is modest.  
Main issues to concern the Board:
  • How do we ensure an effective relationship with Groundwork UK? 
  • How far should we test new approaches to engage with disadvantaged groups?
  • Do the benefits of a single scheme for the whole country outweigh the inevitable loss of rural emphasis?
  • How do we ensure rural and countryside communities do not lose out?
  • Do the Board agree with the line that we only take this on if there is no major additional cost to the Agency?  

Background

1. The Local Heritage Initiative (LHI) was launched in February 2000 as a 10 year programme to help rural communities investigate and care for their local landscapes, landmarks and traditions. It is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and run by the Agency with additional sponsorship from the Nationwide Building Society (NBS). The cost to the Agency in 2002/03 is expected to be £472,000 (including £287,000 in running costs) with income of £1,827,000 (including £337,000 towards running costs but excluding individual project grants). By the end of March 2002 358 grants had been awarded, totalling just over £4.032 million. 

2. At present, LHI is funding some projects in towns and cities, usually with a defined link to green space. Out of the current 358 live projects, using the applicants' definitions of their location, 0.5% (2) are in inner cities, 18% in towns, 17% urban fringe and 59% in rural areas. 

3. During LHI's first year (2000/1) HLF asked the Agency to advise it on the options for extending LHI into urban areas. A paper was submitted in March 2001, based on research and our experience of running the main scheme. Our recommendation was for a more locally-led scheme. We suggested that HLF should consider a franchise approach, clearly setting out the package they wish to be delivered and offering it to the most suitable partners in each of the regions or large conurbations. HLF could then contract with the Agency to provide an advisory role and to maintain standards and coherence with the existing LHI. 

4. Later in 2001 HLF commissioned consultants to research suitable delivery agents. The consultants' report recommended that the Agency should be invited to deliver LHI in urban areas, but involving a fourth partner to bring in additional audiences and expertise specific to urban communities. In February 2002 the HLF Board agreed that they wished to see a single, national urban LHI scheme to be administered by the Agency and involving Groundwork UK as a partner. HLF officers were authorised to enter negotiations to establish the most suitable partnership arrangements and delivery model and the resource implications. 

5. At an initial scoping meeting in mid April, attended by representatives of HLF and Groundwork UK and Margaret Clark and Nicola Webley from the Agency, the following main points were established:

  • HLF considers LHI to be a small scheme so HLF would not want to run the main LHI in-house, let alone an urban extension. 
  • HLF wishes to see the urban activity as an extension of the existing LHI rather than a separate scheme in order to benefit from economies of scale.
  • HLF would expect funding to be on a similar basis to the present scheme including a 'contribution' from the Agency. It would be up to us how we found that.
  • Groundwork UK confirmed its mandate to negotiate on behalf of its member Trusts. Examples were given of other initiatives of similar scale run by GUK. GUK expressed initial interest in adding value to the scheme through providing specialist advice and support to project groups but could not provide details of levels of commitment or possible financial contributions at that stage. 
  • That further work was needed to establish the likely levels of demand for urban LHI.  

 

6. We made it clear at the meeting and in previous discussions that we would need our Board's approval to taking on this new work and that we would need to demonstrate the benefits to the countryside from it. In our view there are clear advantages in having a single national scheme rather than two, potentially competing, schemes; that there are economies of scale from having one data base and administrative systems, that communities will benefit in being able to learn from wider experiences; and that it will foster links and understanding between town and country. We have also made it clear that we have no provision in our Corporate Plan for this and that we would be looking for no substantial additional costs to fall to the Agency, especially running costs.

7. At the scoping meeting it was agreed that we would seek the Agency Board's views before confirming our involvement to HLF. In the meantime, LHI team and Groundwork UK are meeting and exchanging information and the Groundwork representative is consulting colleagues. 

Relevant powers or duties

8. The CA's powers enables it to work in urban areas where this will bring benefits to the countryside and rural communities and will help to meet the Agency's wider objectives for the countryside.

9. The co-operation agreement with HLF commits the Agency to delivering 3000 LHI projects across rural England over a ten year period. 

Other issues and questions

10. One of HLF's drivers is the need for it and its schemes to be more inclusive. It has been criticised for having a narrow definition of heritage and for not ensuring that its funding reaches beyond the usual suspects. HLF's aims in its new five year strategic plan (to be launched in May 2002) are: achieving greater involvement; supporting conservation; enhancing access and learning . (In full, the aims are: "to encourage more people to be involved in and make decisions about their heritage; to conserve and enhance the UK's diverse heritage; to ensure that everyone can learn about, have access to and enjoy their heritage"). Because of its unique capacity building element in helping communities to identify and work up projects and then to share their experiences, LHI is seen to be meeting some of the need for greater social inclusion. At the same time, however, HLF are keen to see it targeted more on 'needy' areas and communities. In extending the scheme, we will need to be careful that HLF does not demand more from LHI than it can deliver.

11. Nationwide Building Society (LHI's private sector partner, contributing £ 1 million over the first five years of LHI) has the expectation that Local Heritage Initiatives will be available to communities throughout the United Kingdom. The Welsh and Scottish LHI pilots now up and running both include urban areas, as will the planned initiative in Northern Ireland. We would like to continue our partnership with NBS but we will want to make clear that we would wish to see additional funding ie that they do not expect the current £1m to be spread more thinly to the detriment of rural areas. (Potential changes to the way HLF funds individual projects may free up NBS resources for other things.)

12. Groundwork UK (GUK) is the Federation of Groundwork Trusts. There are 41 Groundwork Trusts in England and their purpose is to build sustainable communities through joint environmental action. HLF has selected Groundwork to be a partner in the urban expansion of LHI as HLF considers that urban areas require different skills and networks which the CA does not necessarily have. We agree that it would be useful to have another partner. We accept that Groundwork Trusts have considerable experience of working with urban communities, especially in deprived areas, and that they are used to building and supporting local initiatives. However, as Groundwork comes from a platform of community regeneration through environmental action, we would need to be assured that they have the relevant experience of the different heritage types within LHI eg built heritage or customs and traditions, which we believe could be very popular with urban groups. 

Possible benefits to the Agency 

13. At the January 2002 LHI annual steering group meeting, HLF asked the Agency to look at whether LHI should be focussing more on geographical "cold spots" and on reaching people in areas of disadvantage and to assess to what extent LHI is a mechanism for delivering capacity building. This work is progressing and could mean changes to the way that LHI is promoted and marketed. Working in more urban areas could mean opportunities to developing new approaches and new skills which could be translated to more rural communities. 

Levels of demand

14. Levels of demand are very difficult to quantify. HLF's consultants estimate about 30 urban projects per region per year, but that is based on feedback from some of the existing LHI Advisers. 

Possible delivery models

15. More detailed work on the way the scheme might be delivered is needed. Whatever happens, we need a simple single contract with Groundwork UK - rather than separate arrangements with each of their trusts. We would look to Groundwork to be responsible for ensuring common standards of delivery for all urban projects. We also needs to ensure that Groundwork or external funders cover the additional costs of operating in an urban environment (especially if urban projects in more disadvantaged areas require more staff input per case).

.

Financial and manpower consequences

16. Currently, LHI costs the Agency just over £470,000 per year (including staff and project costs and the ICT project) and during 2002/03 it will lever in £4,153,000 from HLF and NBS. HLF provides 100% of the funding for the individual project grants as well as 75% of the delivery costs (e.g. LHI Advisers, specialist advice, marketing etc.) and half of the administration costs.

17. HLF would expect the extended scheme to operate on a similar basis. We would need to find funds to cover 25% of the delivery costs and 50% of the admin costs. Some of this might come from efficiency savings through economies of scale, but we would also need to look elsewhere for funding or help in kind eg secondments.

Next steps

18. If the Board considers that the Agency should take up HLF's offer, we will enter into detailed negotiations with HLF and Groundwork UK with view to putting a formal proposal to the HLF in early summer and to launch the urban expansion (whether full scheme or phased roll-out) in April 2003. 

Risks and mitigation measures

19. The main risks are as follows:

  • That the Agency is unable to find its 'share' of the resources, or is unable to reach agreement with HLF and/or GUK on the arrangements, or simply declines HLF's offer and another organisation comes forward to deliver LHI in urban areas giving rise to the potential for competition between the schemes and confusion around boundaries. To mitigate this we are stressing the importance of a single scheme and the confusion and additional costs of 2 schemes and are looking to work creatively with HLF and GUK on the arrangements;  

 

  • That there is a shift from rural to urban in the scheme. We will need to safeguard partners' existing commitments and monitor the operation of the new scheme. But an integrated scheme has more potential benefits than disadvantages;  

 

  • That we lose profile and LHI is not seen as an Agency programme and that the delivery partners receive all the credit. LHI projects already have to display three partners' logos. We would need to reach a clear understanding with HLF, Groundwork UK and Nationwide about promotion and badging;  

 

  • To engage successfully with an urban audience, we will have to build partnerships with new partners and look for new, creative ideas for catching the imagination and securing the involvement of inner urban communities. We will need to build new networks which could include inner city churches, arts networks etc. as well as our usual open space and "townscape" and design partners. This might fail. But if it succeeds, it could provide good practice models for other Agency activities.  

N Webley

April 2002