It is easier to call English Heritage by that name rather than its official title, namely the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission For England. Set up under the umbrella of the National Heritage Act of 1983, it is therefore a relatively new creation, and its status is that of an executive non-departmental public body belonging to the Government.
I'm sorry if this information seems terribly dry, but it is a fundamental point in recognising the main difference between the National Trust and English Heritage. The National Trust is a charity and generally relies on fund raising and membership fees for its income, whereas as English Heritage is part funded by the government.
Yes, I'm afraid that English Heritage can be classed as a “quango”, but defying the bad publicity that such bodies normally receive, it can be seen to be one of the most worth while of these august organisations. There are equivalent bodies in both Wales and Scotland, with Cadw filling the role in Wales and Historic Scotland completing the picture north of the border.
Some of the background figures relating to the running of English Heritage make for interesting reading, and in common with many similar bodies where there is a reliance on part Government funding, times are tough in these austere times.
The year 2010 – 2011 is the most recent year for which figures are available, with about 70% of the total income of about £184 million coming from the government by way of grant-in-aid. Admissions, catering and membership accounted for a further sizeable chunk of about 27%. A budget review in October 2010 forecast a likely reduction of 32% in funding, showing how the recession bites in so many different ways.
Back to one of my earlier queries, whereby I was interested to learn about the discernible differences between the National Trust. Having established that funding is one of them, I also came across the fact that unlike the National Trust, very few of the English Heritage properties or sites as they are often referred to are furnished.
Whereas the National Trust seems to specialise in stately homes from the 16th century onwards, with emphasis on the 18th and 19th centuries with lavish furnishings, English Heritage has a greater emphasis on antiquity and conservation. English Heritage has Stonehenge and the National Trust has places such as Montacute and Tyntesfield, the difference could not be more pronounced than that. The National Trust also has substantial land holdings acting as a buffer against needless development.
Is it possible to have a favourite between the two? Now that I understand the difference a lot better, I see that it is not possible to draw a distinction between the two as they are different entities, serving different purposes. Having said that, on a couple of occasions this month, English Heritage has caught the headlines, and as a result I suspect that my heart has been drawn their way.
Firstly, I came across a news article about a fortnight ago, saying that two former missile sites, one in Northamptonshire and one in Rutland had received a Grade II listing with heavy involvement from English Heritage.
Secondly, the English Heritage Angel Awards took place recently, and amongst the winners were a World War I airfield, the Droitwich Canal, the Cockermouth Shop Front Steering Group, St. Mary's Church in West Somerton, Norfolk and work at Tynemouth Station.
These awards are far removed from the National Trust and represent a real “man in the street” attitude to repair and conservation. For that reason alone I feel that I can relate more to English Heritage.
And so we leave it, with Neil's wife Jo, and his daughter Beth wildly overacting in front of the camera in various locations around Britain, but at least rejoicing in the savings that they have made with their English Heritage Membership. We look forward to more from Neil in due course.
No comments:
Post a Comment