C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 15 Andrew Beckett has recently completed an MSc in historic conservation at Oxford Brookes University, following a career (still continuing) in finance and business.This article is based on the findings of his dissertation. concluding that while there is no overall shortage of buildings at risk, in some areas the supply of buildings traditionally adopted as classic BPT projects is less than it was. Where such buildings are available, competition from private buyers and developers pushes the price/ risk equation further than BPTs are generally willing to accept. The long property boom of 1998-2007 has placed a high value on even the most unlikely of derelict buildings. Rather than acquiring a building for a comparatively token sum, BPTs have been faced with significant price competition for prospective revolving fund projects. The prevailing view has been that BPTs are developers of last resort, taking on a project only when the market has failed. In the 1970s and 1980s this allowed BPTs a relatively free hand in the field as property developers had little involvement in historic building restoration. However, since the 1990s the private sector has entered this market on an unprecedented scale. Two of the largest companies in this sector, Urban Splash and PJ Livesey, annually account for over £100 million of activity alone, clearly dwarfing the whole of the BPT sector. These private-sector companies have demonstrated that profitable and successful projects can be delivered, even where there are significant acquisition costs and little or no public subsidy. While it may make sense for BPTs not to be involved where the private sector achieves perfectly acceptable results, a considerable number of commercially driven restorations do involve an unacceptable degree of compromise. Developers often use the conservation deficit as leverage to gain extra planning concessions. As BPTs are not active in this market, developers can claim that there is no alternative to their enabling development or intensive remodelling if the building is to be saved. The self-exclusion of BPTs from such projects has more to do with focus and capability than with any conflict of interest with their charitable objects. As the history of revolving fund projects has demonstrated, there is no inherent problem in making a surplus on a project, especially where enhanced conservation is the outcome. The main difference, irrespective of project type, between developers and all but a few BPTs is that the private companies have sufficient skills and experience to tackle major projects and manage financial risk. The findings in Table 1 would suggest that this capability is achieved with a core of professional staff. Few volunteer-based BPTs seem to be able to sustain periods of considerable activity, due to the increasingly onerous conditions and bureaucracy entailed with major grant applications. This is compounded by an evident bias of the larger HLF grant awards towards organisations which have a track record of delivery, thereby placing most volunteer and especially singlesite BPTs at a distinct disadvantage. As a result, BPTs did not fully exploit the opportunities offered through HLF funding, with only eight of the 300 UK-wide projects listed in the HLF 2008 annual report being by BPTs. The way to reverse this would appear to be to increase the number of professional trusts, or for volunteer trusts to have access to experienced project organisers from within the movement. The direction in which the sector has been moving, towards single-site BPTs, tends to mitigate against such developments. Indeed, the nature of such trusts means that they generally do not have the experience or skills to undertake projects without outside help. The AHF has recognised this weakness and has refocused its grant-giving programme towards helping them. In 2007–8 the AHF awarded £569,673 in options appraisal and project development grants, the majority going to single-site trusts. On the face of it, this policy would appear to be successful. But as most of this is spent with external consultants, an unintended consequence is that once such projects are completed, the knowledge and experience gained is not necessarily retained within the movement. The key issue facing the stakeholders is how to build and maintain professional capacity, and yet to achieve this within current funding constraints. This will require some new thinking and a willingness to change many aspects of the current modes of operation.This may take the form of a cadre of professional project organisers working within the BPT movement and the strengthening of the existing larger trusts to create a tier of super trusts.These could form a professional back-bone of the movement and be of sufficient stature to enter into partnerships with smaller trusts, regional development agencies, English Heritage and private developers. At the same time the sector, particularly the HLF, needs to reconsider the approach to revolving fund projects. Whereas preservation projects are fully dependent on grants and donations, it often only requires the bridging of a small conservation deficit to make a revolving fund project viable. Consequently grant aid directed to such projects is much more effective than towards preservation projects. A revitalised revolving fun movement could again prove a major force within conservation and build capacity that is much less exposed to the vagaries of public funding. An enthusiastic visitor in the kitchen at 14 Maurice Street after restoration
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=