THE ROYAL ARTILLERY MUSEUM

  I was grateful to you for letting us see a copy of General Farndale's letter of 30 November to you commenting on the proceedings of the Committee on 4 and 18 November in relation to the Royal Artillery Museum. I would like to offer the following comments on behalf of the Heritage Lottery Fund.
 

  Paragraph 444 of the Official Report
 

  As my Chairman tried to explain in his oral evidence, HLF has never questioned the merits of the collections. Our letter of 16 October to the applicant said:
 

``Trustees fully acknowledged the heritage merits of the collections and the appropriateness and strength of the three collections and the historic site as an entity''.

  Nor have HLF's advisers questioned the merits of the collections.
 

  Dr Anderson raised the issue of Designation in his letter of 16 November to Sir Jocelyn Stevens only in the context of Sir Jocelyn's own suggestion that the collections were ``world class''. Since the Museums and Galleries Commission's comments about Designation have been taken out of context it is perhaps worth setting out what was actually said:
 

``while these are important collections in a Registered museum, they are not Designated and in comparision to other collections may not justify expenditure on this scale''.

  Paragraph 455 of the Official Report
 

  HLF did not encourage an application on a larger scale: indeed we encouraged the applicant to examine a phased approach. It appeared to us that the rise in costs was the result of the response of the architects to the brief, which, in many instances, considerably exceeded the proposed design.

 

  HLF's more strategic approach to the distribution of its funds was highlighted in a letter to the applicant from HLF's Director of Operations on 19 February 1998. In addition, completion of the second Major Museums, Libraries and Archives Programme in October 1997 marked HLF's well known move away from a focus on major museum projects of this kind towards new priorities.
 

  HLF's grant of £5m for the storage and care of RAM's collections was a direct response to the applicant's claim that the need was urgent because some of the collections were apparently at risk of being moved without having a new home to go to. It was not an "interim grant"—no further grant was promised. Indeed, HLF Trustees felt that by saving the collections they had made a significant contribution to the RAM even if there were no further developments on the museum front. As to the buildings, Trustees were indeed concerned that greater use should be made of the important historic buildings in Woolwich, as opposed to new building.
 

  Officers here at HLF warned the applicant about the potential danger of making a rapid bid, in terms of the eventual content and quality, and advised them repeatedly to address all of HLF's criteria clearly and fully. At no time were they advised to move faster. Equally they were never criticised for being dilatory. The dialogue between the applicant, officers and monitors was a normal one and offered the applicant our fullest co-operation, including an invitation to visit HLF's offices and study sample bids of a similar nature.
 

  General Farndale talks of scaling down the bid by £7m. We have no information about the nature of this but we believe that certain works may simply have been transferred into a Phase 3, which would require further funding of £9m. This is why Jura Consultants concluded that Phase 2 would not deliver all the heritage and public benefits identified in the completed museum.
 

  The advice that HLF receives from experts is sought and given in confidence and is not normally published. The reports and advice from Jura Consultants, the South East Museums Service and the Museums and Galleries Commissions have, however, been made available to the Committee.
 

  The key issues were raised with the applicant at a meeting on 9 September with Jura present. The applicant was given the option of a fuller dialogue at that stage, although that would have delayed Trustee's consideration of the application submitted in June 1998. RAM wanted a decision as early as possible and accordingly their application was submitted to Trustees at their meeting on 15 October.
 

December 1998