No further Landscape Partnership applications?

8 replies [Jump to last post]

It feels slightly wrong posting on here but having looked on the HLF funding page today it appears that the hints about the future of landscape partnerships are true.

According to the HLF website: “We are no longer accepting applications under this programmes.  Please apply under open programmes for grants up to £5m”…

It seems a real shame if it is the case.






View Dearne Valley Landscape Partnership's profile Dearne Valley L... Dec 4 2017 - 4:29pm
  1. Sad news indeed.  It remains to be seen how much of what LPS can achieve can continue under the Heritage Grant stream - I think LPS offer something special and different.

    With less money coming in, demand likely to grow even more as EU money disappears, and the public sector now competing for cash rather than contributing to heritage funding, I suspect that HLF just felt they had no option but to make changes.

    Hopefully we'll find out more about what the future holds over the coming weeks and months.


  2. View Bill Jenman's profile Bill Jenman
    Offline | Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
  3. There is more information if you dig through the HLF website here:

    The changes are part of the move to the new Strategic Funding Framework so all the targeted programmes (landscape partnerships, parks for people and townscape heritage) are closed (well the TH will be after Friday).

    The consultation period of future approaches to funding seems to run from January to March 2018 so there seem to be opportunities during this time to reiterate the benefits of the LP approach. Having worked on a number of HLF and other regeneration programmes the LP model is one of the best I've been involved in. It offers the opportunity to take a long term approach to an area, working with the local community to have a sustained period to have a sustainable impact on the environment and heritage of that area.



  4. View Dearne Valley Landscape Partnership's profile Dearne Valley L...
    Offline | Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
  5. in reply to

    The AONB Family are very concerned about these changes and hope to meet with HLF in January to discuss. Issues around working on private land, securing match funds and a 'competitive' round 2 are all being raised as concerns: any others to add?

  6. View Cathy Hopley's profile Cathy Hopley
    Offline | Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
  7. Yes I can confirm that we at HLF are meeting with the National Association Landscapes for Life in Jan.  If you were planning to submit a Landscape Partnership in 2018 you still can, but you need to use the Heritage Grants first round application form accompanied with the LP guidance. If you have any queries please talk to your local HLF office.  If you are in the Development or Delivery phases you should carry on as normal using LP 

    I should also add that between Jan and March next year HLF will be undertaking a UK-wide consultation on our next strategic funding framework.  It will be really important to make sure that anyone who has views on what and how we fund from 2019 takes part in that consultation.  


  8. View Drew Bennellick's profile Drew Bennellick
    Offline | Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
  9. in reply to

    We look forward to working with the HLF during the consultation period next year and hope that together we can ensure that the natural environment, which is so important to us all, is not left at a disadvantage, at a time when HLF funding is likely to even more important in a post Brexit future.

    Whilst we understand the pressure on National Lottery income, we are very concerned that these changes (or amalgamation of programmes) will have a much bigger impact on funding for the natural heritage sector.

    These changes come at a time when the importance of the natural environment to people is very clear. We know, from HLF's comments, that the public feel strongly that landscapes are almost the top priority for funding, with wildlife and parks coming very close behind.



  10. View Kim Gutteridge's profile Kim Gutteridge
    Offline | Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
  11. One concern I have is that locally administered micro-grant / community initiative schemes (a feature of some of the best LP schemes to date) aren't presently possible under generic Heritage Grant rules.  

    In my experience small grant schemes have generally been really successful in securing 'bottom up' community engagement and in delivering heritage benefits way beyond the relatively small sums of money involved.  Small grants (of £50 upwards) to local community groups have often achieved a great deal more than more contrived 'people' schemes contracted out to external delivery organisations costing ten or thirty times as much.  It'll be a shame if they're to be lost.

  12. View Richard Clarke's profile Richard Clarke
    Offline | Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
  13. in reply to

    Good point and one we have been working on.

    The research we published last year demonstrated the benefit of community grants in engaging broader community groups, allowing flexibility to respond to oppotunities as they arise in a scheme and developing stronger links between the work of the LP and organisations with common priorities.

    In the move to support landscape scale conservation projects through the Heritage Grants stream we have made some policy changes to ensure the best learning from LP is retained and extended to more projects applying through HG.

    In particular:

    - Third party and community grants can now be supported through HG

    - For landscpae scale conservation projects, HG can now support work on private land where the conservation benefits are clear and outweigh any private gain


  14. View Chris Falconer's profile Chris Falconer
    Offline | Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
  15. Chris and/or Drew, please can you clarify the way the new competitive Stage 2 will work?

    It's potentially a major change affecting commitment, partnership funding, and indeed the decision on whether to commit the resources needed for a Stage 1 bid in the first place.

    The key issue is, I think,  just what the competitive Stage 2 assessment criteria will be: 

    Will it simply be a higher bar of cost effectiveness?

    Will HLF, as a matter of policy,  award more Stage 1s than they intend to fund at Stage 2 - which implies a significant Stage 2 failure rate by design? (and if so what's the target pass/fail rate likely to be?) 

    Or will the Stage 2 bids simply go back into a big pot along with every other bid of whatever Stage is being assessed at that moment (which seems very random and potentially very unfair eg if a Stage 2 landscape bid bumps up against an urgent need to “save” some big high profile cultural heritage item that just happens to be on the agenda at the same meeting) ?

    Clarity also needed on whether this is retrospective on LPS (etc) now in Stage 1 or only for bids submitted in the future under the new rules. Retrospective would seem very unfair but from what I've seen so far that is the intention, albeit with informal verbal local reassurances about not be judged much more harshly than before.

    If it is possible to get definite answers to these questions (even if they are answers we don't like!) it would be helpful to have them…  or at least to have an idea of when we might have them, if the decisions have not yet been taken. 

    Thank you. 

  16. View Bill Jenman's profile Bill Jenman
    Offline | Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Back to top of page