The NTS Research Panel – Future of the Trust Survey
(September 2014)
Selection of Verbatim Comments
REDUCING NUMBER OF PROPERTIES:
Why do you think the Trust should reduce the number of sites it cares for?
•
Too expensive to keep current number
•
To retain high standards in fewer properties is preferable to having a larger number
of poorly maintained and less attractive sites.
•
When resources are hard to come by it's more important to see that our major
national assets are looked after than to try to preserve all desirable but less essential
sites.
Why do you think the Trust should not reduce the number of sites it cares for?
•
Because the choice of retention will be an arbitrary one based on the prejudices of
those empowered to make the decision. House left in trust should remain in trust and
it is the responsibility of the trustees to find ways of making them pay or ensuring
sufficient endowment before accepting them.
•
I feel that having already accepted the responsibility for a property; and made a
commitment to the previous owner; the trust had the duty of care to preserve and
protect that property. If a property is no longer viable; not necessarily simply as an
income generator; but as a safe structure; then a well reasoned decision should be
made as to the best way forward for that site.
•
I like the variety of properties to visit.
ACQUIRING PROPERTIES AND ADDING TO PORTFOLIO OR PASSING ON TO
OTHERS:
Can you please explain why you think that the Trust should not acquire any more
properties?
•
They have many properties that they already struggle to support and maintain. It
makes no sense to take more on in the present financial climate.
•
I think they need to work out how best to fund and manage the ones they've got first.
•
As time goes by; it becomes more and more expensive to maintain properties even
with the wonderful support of volunteers. Also; many people have limited incomes
and cannot afford to make monetary donations to the Trust.
Can you please explain why you think that the Trust should add properties they acquire to
their portfolio? [Partial data]
•
I think it would be wrong to say that the Trust should never again take on a property.
Maybe the criteria around which properties should be taken on need to be tightened
but a blanket ban cannot be right.
•
I think that people trust the Trust to look after properties. Not sure of the commitment
etc of partners who could manage and/or own
•
The NTS is capable of maintaining the high standards required for these properties.
Handing them over to other owners after restoration would not guarantee this.
Can you please explain why you think that the Trust should pass on properties to others
after undertaking conservation work?
•
I suspect that if passed to others (with lots of stipulations and specials clauses) the
property would be in the care of someone who really loves it and will be there long
term. Managed by the Trust it would be looked after along with many others and the
'personal' bit can be missing. People change jobs; including NT property managers
and someone might be appointed because it was a job rather than because they
loved the place. I could give an illustration locally (not NT) where someone was
seconded for a couple of years and the temporary person was totally brilliant in
comparison and devastated to be losing the job she'd worked at so hard at the end of
her contract. I have to admit that the local community (including me) kicked every
shin they could find and she's still here!
•
Although I don't think the portfolio should be reduced to a 'rump'; the Trust cannot
look after everything.
•
I assume that NTS doesn't have enough money to retain every property saved.
Even if NTS does have enough money to retain freehold; outside parties may be able
to manage properties better than the Trust.
PARTNERING WITH OTHER ORGANISATIONS:
You've indicated that you think the Trust should not work with other organisations to
conserve Scotland's heritage. Why is this?
•
Any other organisation would need to be scrutinised me carefully to ensure that its
aims are the same as the Trust. The Trust has shown the right sort of care and
leadership on the issue of preserving Scotland's heritage; but other organisations are
frequently more interested financial aspects and profit.
•
The Trust should not put the security of its sites at risk by losing control of them.
•
The term 'partnership' in this context is often taken to mean partnership with private
sector; profit-making organisations; and I would be strongly against this. I would
however be in favour of stronger links with other Scottish organisations with similar
aims to NTS; e.g. Historic Scotland.
What do you see as being the main benefits of the Trust working with other organisations to
conserve Scotland's heritage?
•
A broader input of expertise and experience without duplicating.
•
Economies of scale in certain areas and greater marketing reach. Depending on the
other organisation; there may be access to additional skill sets.
•
It is all about efficiency but whereas I am for combining with other organisations; only
if those other organisations can maintain the quality of standard that the Trust
attains. If it means that other treasures can be maintained for our people; then I
guess the only way because of economic restrictions; will be by bringing others in to
the party - but those other parties MUST be quality.
COMMUNITY PROJECTS:
What in your view are the key benefits to the Trust of providing more services to local
communities?
•
A greater sense of ownership; responsibility and involvement by local people would
be wonderful for keeping the properties vibrant and relevant.
•
By providing more services to local communities; the Trust would possibly tap into a
new and younger market for membership rather than depending on the older retired
market which I suspect forms the current mainstay of membership.
•
Participation of locals vital to preservation of locations and areas as their ability to
access them increases their interest; willingness to look after the properties/areas
and enthuse about them to visitors which will help to increase footfall.
You've indicated that Trust properties should not provide more services to local
communities, why is this?
•
I am of the opinion that the properties I have seen are best left as they are.
Sometimes a change isn't always better.
•
There are plenty of council owned properties and empty properties for this type of
thing; Trust properties are special; they need to be preserved not used. Would local
communities use Buckingham Palace? No because it is special; a treasure.
•
It's not really what the Trust is for and I don't think it would work.
Please tell us why you are not prepared to support more of your membership fees and
donations being spent on community projects?
•
Because communities will change rules etc for their benefit and members will be
paying for it
•
Because that is not what I pay membership fees for. I pay it for the conservation of
places; their upkeep; or their preservation and the right to go and visit them in peace.
If I am unable to access the facilities even temporarily and certainly if it is without
warning; I shall probably stop my membership.
•
The money should be for the buying and upkeep of the buildings/land. Community
projects are a good idea and communities should be asked to help by setting aside a
sum of money for the Trust