National Trust choosing to ignore creative, community-based answers to problems

The National Trust for Scotland has indicated that it is undertaking major strategic investment in its estates to encourage more visitors in order to increase revenue that can be invested in conservation. It is also evaluating a number of properties across the country which require special attention due to particular long-standing issues.

The trust has stated that in consulting stakeholders it aims to be “open, honest and upfront”. These are laudable aims but how does the review impact on the individual properties and how are the consul- tations to be conducted? A case in point is Geilston House and Garden at Cardross, near Helensburgh, which was gifted to the trust by Miss E C Hendry along with a substantial financial legacy.

The garden was opened to the public in 1998 and a management plan prepared with a stated aspiration also to open the house and collection. Subsequently, the NTS experienced considerable difficulties in maintaining the building and conserving its contents, problems largely of its own making. To overcome these problems, the trust is considering selling the property and is investigating the possibility of enabling development on parts of the garden.

The trust has now indicated, at the beginning of its consultation process, that the house will never be opened to the public and that it can give no guarantees that the garden will re-open in spring 2018.

The trust also claims that it had always intended to dispose of the property and use the proceeds for its conservation work. This is contrary to all the of evidence regarding the trust’s stated intentions after accepting the property and its subsequent actions. Further, the trust, prior to opening the consultation process, closed the E C Hendry Fund (valued at £2.7 million) for the maintenance of Geilston and moved the capital sum to the general income fund. Thus, it appears that all the key decisions have already been taken

As if to justify these decisions, the trust now claims, incorrectly, Geilston is at the lowest end of visitor numbers to all of its properties, when in 2016 it ranked 46rd out of 73 for visitors to trust properties.

Also, the trust argues that the finances of the garden are unsustainable, while at the same time removing the E C Hendry fund, the very means of supporting and developing the garden. The problem here is that NTS members, who are the great majority of visitors to Geilston, get free admission and instead their annual subscriptions (that vary between £43 and £100) are paid to the central organisation with no proportion whatsoever being directed back to the garden.

The problems at Geilston have arisen because of the failure to look after a building and the contents in its care and to establish a viable financial plan. While a solution has to be found to preserve the Grade B listed building, which may involve disposal, this should not result in the demise of a much-loved garden.

There is huge potential for creative, community-based solutions to its problems which the National Trust for Scotland, on the evidence of its consultation process at Geilston, is choosing to ignore. One can only fear for the future of other NTS properties under review.

ALLISON HILLIS Rowmore Quays, Rhu