Environmental sustainability

Among the conclusions so far is that a strategy for the future needs to make the organization more environmentally sustainable and reduce carbon use, and also “focus on local connection”.

There is plenty of room for making the contents of National Trust cafes and restaurants much more sustainable. Cutting out palm oil from cakes and food will, in the long term, help to preserve the rainforests which do so much to mitigate climate change. Switching to Fairtrade tea, coffee, sugar and cocoa products will help to end exploitative working practices around the world.

In the gift shops, plastics made from fossil fuel and destined for landfill can be replaced with biodegradeable and easily recyclable materials. If a local connection is desirable, one could start by offering locally made products for sale, which would save transport miles and help those who practise crafts to become better known in their local area.

None of these points are made. Instead the focus is on preventing the public from visiting National Trust properties by car. 

All the same?

Uniformity of properties is identified as a problem, although perhaps not one that will many visitors will recognize: “One size fits all: all of our places – despite their differences in scale, nature, audience and resources - are expected to deliver the same core proposition, from opening times and admissions to presentation. And our focus on a relatively narrow proposition means that we struggle to build our audience beyond the profile of our existing membership.”

The “profile” of the “audience” is not defined, and the case is not made that any more change is needed beyond what is happening naturally. And with nearly six million members, how much bigger an “audience” does the National Trust want? 

It is not true that all properties offer, or are expected to offer, the same “proposition”. Different houses have very different characters. A homely suburban villa such as Sunnycroft is a world away from the grandeur of Lyme Park. The suggestion that Plas Newydd with its playful interiors offers the same experience as the massive and austere Penrhyn Castle nearby is strange. Opening times already vary considerably, and it is a delight to be able to wander around the gardens at Ascott until 6pm on a golden summer’s day. Some houses bloom briefly in the summer, while others are decked in their finery at Christmas. This report shows little understanding of what the houses in the care of the National Trust are, and of the people who visit them and volunteer in them.

Let’s “flex the mansion experience”

A particularly controversial part of the report concerns what it terms the “mansion experience”, and what the rest of us call “country houses”: “Outdated mansion experience: our reliance on outdoors for growth has left us with a mansion offer that is still (despite cosmetic improvements) fundamentally unchanged since the 1980s, serving a loyal but (by 2030) dwindling audience and enabled by a loyal but dwindling volunteer base.”

No evidence is offered that this “audience” will “dwindle” in the next ten years. The evidence until now has been that the so-called “mansion experience” is only becoming more and more popular. As the population ages, more people will have the time, inclination and money to visit country houses. 

As the discussion progresses, it shows considerable confusion about what the National Trust is trying to do: “Uneven distribution: we are increasingly serving local repeat audiences rather than tourists and long-distance days out. But the accident of our history has left us ill- equipped to serve local audiences where most people live – we’re hugely under- represented in urban areas, and our urban green spaces are often under-resourced.”

Or, to put it another way, people are getting to know their local properties well and forming a bond with them. Preserving good houses in urban areas would be wonderful, and it would clearly be of benefit to enable more communities to experience the National Trust’s high standards of preserving and maintaining the built environment. However, it is a mistake to think that everyone in these isles must have a National Trust property on their doorstep at all costs. Wonderful though it is, the National Trust is not Britain’s only heritage organisation.

There seems to be a concern that not enough members are making charitable gifts to the National Trust: “Disconnect between cause and experience: despite our best efforts, membership is still a cheap season ticket for many of our members (particularly in the early years), and relatively few make the connection between the experiences they have and broader forms of support and engagement.”

Development is a substantial and complex subject, and cannot be dealt with in any depth in such a brief, broad and disjointed report. Many annual members go on to be life members, to give their time and expertise as volunteers and to leave legacies to the National Trust. If that isn’t engagement, then what is? A “cheap season ticket” is a wonderful way to introduce people, especially young people, to the experience of art, architecture and horticulture. The effects of this in the longer term may not be quantifiable, but are surely significant in a population which enjoys and values heritage. Every conversation with a volunteer, or further reading about a newly discovered artist or architect leads to widening horizons. There is a risk that we are throwing away this tremendously beneficial effect simply because we cannot measure it.