Aimée L Felton 2012

52 FIVE 2011), as well as to an ever decreasing extent, private owners, thus promoting a double standard of what within the historic environment is managed and how it is managed (Kindred, B. 2006 as cited in Shacklock, V. 2006:p 55). Whilst it can be argued that unnecessary costs and delays during the planning process diverts spending away from maintenance,Thurley goes on to state that what is really needed is £50 million to £100 million extra devoted to heritage by local authorities (DCMS. 2008: evidence 48).This is a thoroughly idealistic hope, however, English Heritage have not escaped the brutal funding squeeze, experiencing a cut of £44million since 1999, resulting in a major impact upon purchasing power and effecting over 75% of the grants available (Kindred, B. 2006 as cited in Shacklock, V. 2006:p58).The blame in this instance is put on sport, the impending London 2012 Olympics and the spending increase of 195% to that sector (ibid) whilst heritage is once again de-prioritised. The HLF are prolific in their financial assistance and grants to many projects involving historic fabric and heritage within the UK. In the first 12 years alone of the founding of the charitable fund, £4 billion was provided to 26,000 projects, from multi-million-pound investments to small grants (HLF. 2010). However, as illustrated in their 2008 Conservation Management Planning document, supposedly a helpful resource to those considering applying for funding, it is very difficult to receive a grant for work under £50,000, which all but the biggest properties would struggle to justify for regular repair and maintenance work. The HLF have been prominent in the promotion of long term maintenance and care of historic buildings through a contractual compliance of all applicants for funding to provide conservation management plans and evidence of consideration towards long term financial provision to Chapter Five- Statutory and Policy Aime Felton