The availability of grants and support funding for the built heritage is not always easy to recognise and identify. There is a plethora of sources offering financial assistance: the expertise of the conservation practitioner, you, is in matching available funds for intervention proposals and outcomes without compromising the significance of the asset nor the client’s purpose. It is essential to cross match funding to project. An imbalance of condition attaching to funding set against client need and conservation philosophy may create an unacceptable situation of conflict.
The acceptability of funding sources may be at odds with some client bodies’ philosophy and ethics, for example some religious organisations may find gambling anathema and therefore would consider moneys available from the Heritage Lottery Fund unacceptable because of the gambling connotation. There is, by this demonstration a need for you to understand that although funds might be available there might also be conflicts of philosophy that would alienate some potential sources.
Some sources may impose certain constraints on use, access and purpose and you will need to be able to offer advice to your client as to most suitable sources of funding assistance. You will need to detach from your own comprehension and attach to client need and purpose when seeking suitable funding sources. You will need to balance the requirements of support funding against the needs of the asset, particularly in the protection of significance.
What is ‘enabling development’ and how does it fit into the jigsaw of fund sourcing. How should such development be used to assist funding for an asset and what are it drawbacks
You may wish to refer to Enabling Development and the Conservation of Heritage Assets. EH and RICS 2001
There is no doubt that, in the past few years there has been an explosion of moneys available for conservation project assistance, not all are suitable for funding when set against client purpose. Nor are they necessarily suitable to ensure best outcome for protection of significance.
Some grant sources may limit future use to additional community involvement. This might create issue of conflict with increased wear and tear, resulting in potential damage to the fabric of an asset through intensification of use.
Grant assistance and funding may be available from sources other than those with a conservation focus and may be able to be tapped on a contributory basis.
Identify as many, alternative funding sources, without a conservation focus, that you can and consider how these might be integrated with those that are specifically conservation lead; but without significance conflict!
Identify how Building Preservation Trusts fit into the jigsaw of conservation finance and how they might engender community involvement.
You may wish to visit Building Conservation articles: Heritage Lottery Fund Application (1999), Financial Aid for Historic Buildings. (2003) Grieve, N. Grants and loans for the Conservation and Repair of Historic Buildings. (1995) Taylor, J. See also, English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund area based schemes via their websites.
You should also refer to Historic Scotland publication Memorandum of Guidance: on listed buildings and conservation areas (1998) section 6.
Conservation Law and Finance is also a useful source in respect of Scottish Heritage and Preservation Trusts.''
See also IHBC
Identification of ‘appropriate’ and compatible funding sources is a constant problem. Some funding agencies insist on a non-contributory basis where one source might counteract another, or, contribution may be reduced if other sources are also being identified and used.
Identify examples, based on your own experience, where this might be the case.
See also the Heritage Lottery Fund website in respect of grants applications.
Identify where, in the UK, there is an identifiable contradiction, by popular perception, between the interests of conservation and tax liability
To respond to this question you may wish to visit Building Conservation articles Value Added Tax, Implications for Historic Buildings. Wood, R., together with VAT and the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. Griffin, N.