Mia Scott of Highland Building Preservation Trust (BPT) has recently completed a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) looking at how the BPT movement can adapt to changes in funding regimes and maintain an entrepreneurial outlook to help projects work on the ground.
The UK Association of Preservation trusts (UKAPT) writes:
Mia Scott recently completed an MBA dissertation on how BPTs have approached recent changes in the funders criteria. The research shows how the sector must adapt to these changes and become more resilient if the track record of success is to continue. This article, written by Mia, is a summary of her key findings.
The first indication that something had changed in funding for BPT projects came in 2008, when both Historic Scotland and the Heritage Lottery Fund refused Highland Building Preservation Trust’s applications for funding for the category A listed Townlands Barn in Cromarty. It proved to be the death knell for residential revolving fund projects in the Highlands and Islands, and undoubtedly contributed to the demise of Argyll BPT and Lewis and Harris BPT.
At the time I was the Project Director of Highland BPT and these decisions led to a significant restructuring of HBPT’s activities and ultimately the organisation itself. Whilst there was a steady stream of consultancy work for HBPT, working on behalf of community groups, it was the end of an era after a string of successful residential projects, including Forss Mill in Caithness, and the Sail Loft in Stornoway. I was curious as to how other BPTs in Scotland had adapted to the new funding climate, and having returned to university in 2010 to study for an MBA, I had the opportunity to research this further for my final year project.
I interviewed the twelve revolving fund BPTs in Scotland and six key stakeholders including Historic Scotland, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Architectural Heritage Fund and the Association of Preservation Trusts. What was particularly striking about the results of the data analysis was that the principal emergent theme was power: the power of the funders and the powerlessness of BPTs. Comments such as this were typical of the sense of duress BPTs were feeling: ‘We’ve now been forced into Full Cost Recovery, we’re now forced into a position where we can only claim what we spend…and when you have to do Full Cost Recovery there’s not enough money in the budget to cover the time you need to spend, so we’re being penalised on cash flow, we’re now being penalised because we’re not able to cover our costs because there’s no money in the project for it…we’re in a catch 22.’
There was also a strong sense of resignation that BPTs must continue to meet the demands of the funders as they were powerless to change anything: ‘Whether consciously or unconsciously they want us to do more wonderful things but they don’t pay 100% of what it costs. I’m not knocking it because I don’t believe we can win arguments about this sort of thing, but what worries me about it is that if you try to start a conversation with them about it, they say, well if you want our money you have to do it.’
The AHF articulated the essential conflict between BPTs and their funders: ‘Groups focus on saving buildings, not what a funder wants to see, we want to see deliverable outcomes.’ The AHF also acknowledged the impact of the increasingly complex outcomes expected from BPT projects: ‘I think also, some of the requirements of the Lottery, that they ask of applicants, you will end up with a project costing more’
Interestingly the HLF recognises the unique skillset of BPTs, that equips them well in to diversify into consultancy work in the future: ‘I see BPTs having an expanding role in helping other organisations. We prefer communities to use a BPT rather than build the capacity of their organisation.’
Historic Scotland was more critical of BPTs, although they also saw opportunities for them: ‘I don’t think the BPT movement has been savvy enough to change, to actually see how things have moved with funders and to take advantage of some of the opportunities that might be out there, and in particular CARS and THIs.’
Despite the high levels of stress observed, most BPTs retained a commitment to the built heritage, an intensely loyal commitment to the BPT and a driving vision, which perhaps makes the extreme levels of stress more bearable?
There was also evidence of extraordinary entrepreneurialism amongst BPTs and an ability to adapt to a much more commercial culture: ‘I think the future for the Trust is selling it services, both largely for the Council but we do some work for community groups. Whenever a director asks us whether we can help we say yes but we’ll have to charge a fee.’
It is clear from this research that life has changed considerably for the revolving fund BPT in Scotland, and that the 21st century BPT would be virtually unrecognisable to its forebears of the 1930s. It also reveals that despite the challenges of the current financial climate, there is evidence of extraordinary tenacity, vibrancy and entrepreneurialism in the sector. I conclude that there is hope for BPTs, and scope to learn from the innovative responses of their colleagues. Outlined below are some of the key drivers of viability emerging from my research:
- Critical to success of the 21st century BPT are multiple income streams.
- Fee paying consultancy work is a natural development for BPTs in terms of leveraging their skillset and expertise.
- Development of a portfolio of property can provide regular letting income to help offset BPT overheads.
- Partnership with local authorities offers project management opportunities and can complement the current conservation skills gap in local authorities, of mutual benefit to both partners.
- ‘Unlocking the potential’ of a project can be a more cost efficient way of saving historic buildings, by developing them to a stage where they have planning permission and selling them on the open market as a development opportunity, rather than taking them through to completion.
- Focussing on a discrete geographic area is important to create a visible track record of projects and build brand awareness.
- Re-branding may be desirable as the name ‘building preservation trust’ no longer adequately reflects the activities of the 21st century BPT.
- BPTs should seek to build influence by increasing BPT representation on the boards of key stakeholder organisations, and by collaborating with other organisations in the built environment sector.
- Finally, BPTs and their stakeholders should reflect on their interdependence, and change the tendency for a ‘them and us’ culture to build relationships to their mutual advantage.
