TH v's THI

2 replies [Jump to last post]

Does anyone know the main differences between these 2 funds. I read the TH guidance and just seems the same.

Thanks

Andy.

 

View Andrew Golightly's profile Andrew Golightly Nov 30 2017 - 2:48pm
  1. Hi Andrew,

    They're pretty similar, but there are differences. For example, third-party grants have changed a bit with TH's, including removing the 'critical' designation and how the funding pots works. The clawback clauses are also different. I'm not sure if you've got a project underway, but if you're thinking of applying you might want to read this: https://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us/our-strategy/changes-our-grant-making

  2. View Tania Weston's profile Tania Weston
    Offline | Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
  3. Hi Andy,

    Apologies it's taken a couple of days to respond to your question. We had to overcome some  technical difficulties.

    Before I comment further, please note that as a legacy programme under a previous and now concluded strategy, HLF is no longer making new awards under the THI programme.

    Townscape Heritage (TH), is part of HLF's current and 4th Strategic Framework which was launched in 2012. It is the successor to our Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI). The  primary objective of the TH programme is unchanged from its THI predecessor, which is to regenerate conservation areas in need of investment by supporting partnerships of local, regional and national interests to repair, improve and enhance the historic environment of conservation areas.

    HLF's 4th strategy introduced a new outcomes framework to help better articulate the difference projects seek to make. Projects under the TH programme need to achieve a set of 8 outcomes. To learn more about the outcomes for the TH programme please see the programme guidance using the following link to our website: https://www.hlf.org.uk/looking-funding/our-grant-programmes/townscape-he….

    As well as an outcomes framework changes were introduced to simplify and allow greater flexibility:

    • HLF does not require schemes to be within the 25% most deprived areas, although the need for investment and wider deprivation is taken into account.
    • HLF does not require applicants to establish the rate of third-party grants using specific calculations, such as the conservation deficit calculation, but allows reasonable judgement to be used to establish the most suitable intervention rate.
    • HLF does not specify eligible or ineligible categories of works. Instead HLF looks for a balanced portfolio of appropriate projects with appropriate costs.
    • HLF do not use a ‘common fund table’ to set out the categories of proposed work and there are no set limits for certain elements as existed previously (e.g. 25% public realm or gap sites or 5% for complementary initiatives).

    It is also worth noting that the outcomes framework inherently places more emphasis on engaging the local population with the heritage of the conservation area through activities that deliver opportunities for learning and skills development.

    I hope you find the above comments useful.

    Many thanks,

    Oluwaseun Soyemi

    Policy Advisor and Programme Manager, Regeneration

  4. View oluwaseuns@hlf.org.uk's profile oluwaseuns@hlf....
    Offline | Last seen: 48 years 6 months ago
Back to top of page