Want to buy Apethorpe?

[Nemesis]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/architecture_and_design/article4035870.ece

A snip.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I'd love to - but am a few bob short fo the asking price.

Given the billions we are spending on various wars, you would have thought we could have found £100m per year (less than £2 per head of population) to purchase buildings of such historical significance to the nation. I don't think buildings such as the should go into private ownership once the opportunity comes up.

I know there are organisations such as the National Trust, but they still seem to rely heavily on donations and appeals. What's wrong with a bit more direct funding from the taxpayer?

I don't know,but would imagine our cousins across the Channel take a different approach to securing their architectural treasures?

 

[Nemesis]

But we have bought it - it was compulsorily purchased by the nation. A rare occurrence indeed!

It now requires a new owner to pass it to, to see through the next phase.

Not all agree:

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article4026910.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2006/09/30/papethorpe30.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2055791/Taxpayers-lose-andpound4.5m-on-Apethorpe-Hall.html

http://www.countrylife.co.uk/culture/architecture/article/108555/The_rebirth_of_Apethorpe_Hall.html

The NT is a charity - it's a membership organisation, not actually anything government funded (apart from grant aid).

No, I don't think we are worse than anywhere else really. Maybe better than many. Stlll not brilliant though.

 

[Flyfisher]

I know there are organisations such as the National Trust, but they still seem to rely heavily on donations and appeals. What's wrong with a bit more direct funding from the taxpayer?

I'm not convinced. Using taxpayers money would, ideally, require the taxpayers to vote on the subject and, I suspect, there may be less support for such things across the country than is represented by the self-selected membership of PPUK. A donation-based system allows people to spend their money where they want, as well as ensuring almost complete autonomy of the organisations overseeing the expenditure of such funding.

I remember talking with people from the RNLI at one of their many fund-raising events and the topic of conversation came around to how awful it was that a nation with such a rich maritime history was reliant on voluntary donations - and indeed volunteer seamen - to provide such a wonderful search and rescue service and why couldn't the Government provide adequate funding. The RNLI people were adamant that they didn't want Government funding because they would then lose control over the RNLI and the whole 'service' ethic of the organisation would be undermined or destroyed. An interesting perspective, I thought.

I don't know anyone who thinks the RNLI does anything less than a first-class and heroic job, yet it seems to manage perfectly well on donations, so I'm not sure that EH or NT or whatever other bodies shouldn't be able to do the same.

 

[Nemesis]

Not sure you have the plot exactly.

EH does own some buildings - on behalf of the nation. The NT is a different type of organisation entirely.

http://amaxus.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.166

http://amaxus.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.13897

 

[Flyfisher]

No, that is my point, exactly.
EH doesn't seem to be covering itself in glory over Apethorpe Hall, so perhaps it would be better to minimise Governmental influence rather than extend it by handing out even more taxpayer's money. A bit simplistic, I admit - these things are always more complicated than they seem - but I liked the contrast with the universally respected RNLI as proving that government funding isn't always (ever?) the answer to everything.

 

[Nemesis]

I don't think EH had much choice other than to do as it has really. The history of Apethorpe is a long and complex one, and EH could have allowed it to fall into further ruin or it could apply the law as it stands - which it did - on behalf of the nation. It hasn't the cash to do much other than it is currently doing, and put it up for sale.

EH has rather a more complex role than the RNLI and I can't see the comparison as being a particularly useful one.

The NT is a totally different type of organisation.

 

[shelli]

"blemishless oatmeal and honey-coloured stone, and has the timeless, ravishing beauty of an ancient Oxbridge College"

Oooh Marcus - you really should get started on a novel - "ravishing" - love it!

Shelli

 

[Nemesis]

I'll tell him.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I know there are organisations such as the National Trust, but they still seem to rely heavily on donations and appeals. What's wrong with a bit more direct funding from the taxpayer?

I'm not convinced. Using taxpayers money would, ideally, require the taxpayers to vote on the subject and, I suspect, there may be less support for such things across the country than is represented by the self-selected membership of PPUK. A donation-based system allows people to spend their money where they want, as well as ensuring almost complete autonomy of the organisations overseeing the expenditure of such funding.

EH (like Cadw and Historic Scotland and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service) is a part-privatised (not quite the right word but it’ll do) remnant of part of the old Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (later Department of the Environment, later still lots of other things).

In common with most civilised countries, the UK has historically had a system of publicly-funded and essentially state-controlled agencies to deal with most aspects of built environment conservation.

Some of those activities (opening monuments to the public) are also carried out independantly by other bodies (such as the National Trust, and private owners), while others (listing) are not.

Taxpayers do, however, have a vote on how the money is spent, just as they do on every other aspect of public and quango spending – it’s called a General Election. There has never been a tradition of public-spending referenda on subjects as trivial as what would inevitably become a beauty contest like the BBC’s “Restoration” programme.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I don't know,but would imagine our cousins across the Channel take a different approach to securing their architectural treasures?

Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower, yes, but over there all churches are owned by the state (in some form or other) and attitudes to them vary (as in these photos of the local council dealing with a problem last year)View attachment 1

 

[Nemesis]

Nationally, our objective should be the same writ large. The nation (through its government and institutions) must: be clear about the value it places on its architectural heritage; have systems of training, organization and representation in place; adequately fund essential work (in the interests of society and the economy as a whole); keep ahead of threats through commissioning diligent study and research; be aware of, and learn from, experience elsewhere in the UK and abroad; and make use of eager and committed groups and societies to facilitate needed work, overcome obstacles and ensure volunteer energy is channelled to achieve desirable outputs.

Readers might observe that the papers included in this publication follow very closely this list above. Many great churches and well-loved secular buildings are managed in a manner that is mindful of this approach. Strangely, this easy lesson about benefiting from advice, support and assistance has, in very recent years, not only been ignored by the UK government, but leading politicians have increasingly questioned sector opinions, attempted to devise their own philosophies, and proposed policies based on prejudice and suspicion of the sector’s attitudes and ambitions.

I have some sympathy for the English Heritage director who recently and positively expressed the view that ‘…given the cross-cutting nature of the historic environment, which has never been easy to keep within administrative boundaries, it was… particularly encouraging when in 2003 ODPM [the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister] and DEFRA [the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs] joined DCMS as joint signatories of English Heritage’s funding agreement … It was probably this that marked the historic environment’s real coming of age as a proper concern for government.’

I risk being considered dreadfully naïve, but I cannot find real evidence of conservation being a concern for government in a manner that might attract critical praise; as for the identification, protection and support of the nation’s architectural heritage being dependant upon effective collaboration between three Whitehall ministries, collaboration even within one is sometimes quite a cause for celebration.

http://www.donhead.com/journal_architectural_conservation/jac_12_3.htm

 

[plumbers mate]

""oatmeal and honey-coloured stone"" -- is the door gingerbread? Is it edible?

 

[shelli]

I don't know,but would imagine our cousins across the Channel take a different approach to securing their architectural treasures?

Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower, yes, but over there all churches are owned by the state (in some form or other) and attitudes to them vary (as in these photos of the local council dealing with a problem last year)View attachment 1

What problem could they possibly have had that required the JCBs to cut out entire midsection of building ?? - did a motorway need to go through ??

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I don't know,but would imagine our cousins across the Channel take a different approach to securing their architectural treasures?

Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower, yes, but over there all churches are owned by the state (in some form or other) and attitudes to them vary (as in these photos of the local council dealing with a problem last year)View attachment 1

What problem could they possibly have had that required the JCBs to cut out entire midsection of building ?? - did a motorway need to go through ??

The problem that if they didn't demolish the middle bit first, there wouldn't be an open space to demolish each end into, I'm afraid.

 

[Flyfisher]

Taxpayers do, however, have a vote on how the money is spent, just as they do on every other aspect of public and quango spending – it’s called a General Election. There has never been a tradition of public-spending referenda on subjects as trivial as what would inevitably become a beauty contest like the BBC’s “Restoration” programme.

I entirely agree that referenda on minor issues is not practical and general elections are hardly likely to be fought on the basis of heritage policies so, in practice, the public doesn't really have much say in how the Government spends its tax on heritage matters. But a donations-only structure would, at least, mean that the public could cease to contribute if it felt the job wasn't being done well enough - which seems to be the concern of the Donhead quotes posted above.

Of course, there will always be a need for a legal and regulatory foundation and that can only really be a Governmental function, but even then you have to wonder about some of the decisions made, such as VAT relief on listed building alterations but not on repairs. Surely it's not necessary to be a conservation expert to understand that this encourages alteration rather than repair?

 

[skier-hughes]

and the sky is blue.

 

[Nemesis]

I don't feel successive governments do many jobs very well - but I don't have the option of opting out of paying tax to support them.

 

[shelli]

I don't feel successive governments do many jobs very well - but I don't have the option of opting out of paying tax to support them.

We could always leave the country - that'll learn em !

 

[Nemesis]

I suspect we'd still have to pay taxes...