Agm Minutes 2014

DRAFT

AGM MINUTES 2014

Minutes of the National Trust’s

120th Annual General Meeting

Held at Steam Museum, Swindon

On Saturday 8 November 2014

______

National Chairman: Simon Jenkins Trust Present: Members of the Board of Trustees, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB (Director-General), other staff and some 430 members of the National Trust

DRAFT

1. Welcome

Simon Jenkins, the Chairman, welcomed members to Swindon and reflected on his six years as Chairman. During this time the Trust had maintained financial stability, increased its membership to over 4 million and increased visits to properties by 30% to over 20 million. He was particularly proud that visits to the Trust’s wider estate, uplands and coast were now approaching 200 million a year, demonstrating the range and depth of the Trust’s appeal. Operating surplus had risen by a third which had enabled the Trust to spend more on its prime obligation – conservation.

During the Chairman’s tenure, the Trust had acquired a range of different properties: Seaton Delaval in the North East, Tredegar House and Dyffryn House and Gardens in Wales, the delightful Asalache house in Wandsworth and Lord Nuffield’s eccentric lodge outside Henley with its collection of Morris Minors. The Trust had acquired the last white cliff of Dover and the exquisite Llyn Dinas under the flanks of Snowdon in North Wales. The beautiful Arts and Crafts Stoneywell Cottage was about to be opened in Leicestershire too. These were all fine examples of the special places now in the Trust’s care for everyone to enjoy.

The Chairman paid tribute to his colleagues on the Board. He paid particular thanks to his two deputies, to Laurie Magnus who had moved on to lead English Heritage, and to Charles Gurassa, who had become the Trust’s longest-serving Trustee since the Board was established in 2005. He also thanked Helen Ghosh, Director-General, who had brought fresh ideas and innovations to the Trust since her appointment two years ago, and the staff.

Visitors had begun to experience changes over the last few years – changes which found different ways of telling the stories of the properties and the families and their staff who lived and worked in them. The Trust had brought properties to life, making them more welcoming and helping visitors feel they were in someone’s home instead of an ancestral museum. Ropes and teasels had been removed, fires had been lit in grates, billiards was being played, and visitors encouraged to play a piano or a game of croquet on the lawn.

The Trust had also made some controversial decisions about presentation, such as the restoration of Avebury Manor and the display of Elton John’s furniture at The Vyne near Basingstoke. The opening of the Big Brother house in London, which the Trust did not own but was undertaken as a partnership event, contributed to debate about modern taste. Not everything within the Trust’s offer was to everyone’s liking, and some of the new ideas did not work, but it was right to continue to push the boundaries of aesthetic taste and presentation. Many visitors had commented on the new warmth of the Trust’s welcome and the sense of engagement they were offered, and for this all thanks went to the property staff and volunteers, on whom most of the burden of change had fallen, for the work they had put into making this happen.

These changes had been paralleled by internal changes at the Trust. More discretion had been delegated to property managers, and specialist expertise had been concentrated into a central consultancy. Improvements were constantly being made to cafés and shops and other visitor facilities, all within a very competitive market.

DRAFT

The Trust was also looking at the way it was run to see if any refinements were needed, a decade on from the constitutional changes that were introduced in 2005.

While the Trust was in a financially stable situation, and there was a proper framework for conservation as far as the built heritage in its care was concerned, this was not now true of the countryside which had never been so threatened. Britain was among the most crowded countries in Europe, yet it had succeeded in safeguarding rural areas and maintaining their condition, including greenbelts around the cities. As a major landowner the Trust had a responsibility to protect these places, through its campaigning to save the forests, restore peat bogs, re-wild the uplands and co-operate with the government to fight Ash die-back. The Trust pursued a vigorous renewable energy policy but had had to defend its land and boundaries against inappropriate wind turbine developments such as those near Lyveden New Bield and the Bristol Channel. Then in 2010 the government attempted to simplify planning regulations by introducing the National Planning Policy Framework which attempted to circumvent half a century’s town and country planning regimes, opening the door to development potential on greenbelt land in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In alliance with others, the Trust fought these proposals with some success, yet the government’s relaxation of control was unprecedented in planning history. The countryside that the Trust was charged with defending topped every list of what people most valued about Britain.

Octavia Hill founded the National Trust to preserve places of beauty and to help city dwellers find somewhere green and open in which to find refreshment. The Trust would not have been doing its duty to its founders, or to the public, if it had ignored this responsibility. The Chairman urged the staff and volunteers to continue to uphold this legacy.

2. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held in Cardiff on 26 October 2013 were approved by the meeting and signed by the Chairman.

3. Director-General’s review of the year

Dame Helen Ghosh, the Director-General, thanked Simon Jenkins for his support as Chairman during her first two years in post, during which time she had visited over 170 properties. The Trust continued to be a successful organisation, thanks to the work of its staff and more than 60,000 volunteers as well as the support of its members, donors and supporters.

The Trust was committed to looking after the places in its care for ever, and this is where most of its funds were spent. In 2013/14 £62.6 million was spent on property conservation projects alone. Some of these were on a grand scale, such as £3.5 million on roof repairs at Dyrham Park, of which it was hoped £0.5 million would be raised through a fundraising appeal. Just as important, a major investment programme had begun on the residential let estate which included over 5,000 tenanted properties.

DRAFT

Looking after so many places had an impact on energy. The Trust was exploring how to harness the power generated by nature to help reduce its energy consumption by 20% by 2020. A new hydroelectric turbine had been installed at Hafod y Llan in Snowdonia; carefully crafted into the landscape, it generated enough energy to light up all of the places the Trust looked after in Wales, including eight mansions, three castles and 45 holiday cottages. Power from this hydro scheme was sold to the Trust’s partner, Good Energy, the funds from which went straight back into conservation.

Many properties had been affected by flooding and coastal erosion during the year, such as Birling Gap in Sussex which saw seven years of erosion in just two months. Learning how to adapt to these environmental extremes was increasingly important – 60% of the 742 miles of coastline in the Trust’s care was at risk as sea levels rose. The Trust had been working with partners on a catchment-scale flood management project at the Holnicote Estate in Somerset using natural processes to retain and slow upstream water. As a result, the villages of Allerford and Bossington had avoided flooding this year, despite suffering badly in the 2007 floods. This was one example of findings that could be shared with other organisations at a national level. Members could expect to hear more about the coastline in 2015 when the 50th anniversary of the Neptune Coastline Campaign would be celebrated.

The Director-General expressed concern last year about the decline in biodiversity and the gap in the quality of the natural environment. There was abundant evidence to demonstrate that land and biodiversity should be major conservation priorities in future. As custodians of over 247,000 hectares of land, the Trust wanted to help find solutions to better land management that worked for nature and helped people connect with the outdoors. This needed to be done in partnership with tenants, local communities and other organisations to make a difference on a landscape scale. Fingle Woods in Devon was a good example of how this could work well – this had been a joint acquisition with the Woodland Trust and there were plans to restore the woodland, re-establish habitats and improve public access to this part of Dartmoor.

Providing access to special places was important. We ended the year with 4.1 million members and over 20 million paying visits to properties. We also had an estimated 200 million visits to outdoor places and ran another successful season of ‘50 things to do before you’re 11¾’, from rolling down a big hill to pond dipping. About 50% of children never visited the countryside, so the Trust’s partnership with the Wild Network was helping the next generation engage with nature to ensure that the countryside remained protected and enjoyed.

The Trust continued to work hard to present and explain outdoor sites and historic buildings in ways which engaged visitors. At Dunham Massey, for example, the property had been re-presented as a military hospital in the First World War, and Buckland Abbey in Devon had hosted a special exhibition to display the self-portrait of Rembrandt which had been authenticated this summer. People’s perceptions of cultural heritage were still being challenged too, such as at the flat of architect Ernö Goldfinger in Balfron Tower in East London and its recreated 1960s interior, part of a concrete tower block intended to free people from slum housing.

DRAFT

Having the funds and the right skills and systems to look after places for ever was vital. Net Gain, which was the measure of operating surplus, was at 10.1% this year, just exceeding target. This surplus was fed straight back into conservation work and improving visitors’ experiences.

With a backlog of maintenance at built and outdoor properties, it was important to continue to focus on building up unrestricted reserves which could be spent freely where needed. Fundraising played a very important role here, and the Board had recently signed off a new and ambitious fundraising strategy. The Trust was extremely grateful for all the support from members, legators and donors, without which the Trust could not continue its work. This year saw the start of a major programme of investment in systems which would improve efficiency, simplify finance systems, improve services and save money, as well as developing and personalising membership systems and better rewarding loyalty.

The Trust had ended 2013/14 in a position of strength, but it was clear that the conservation challenges continued to grow. The Trust was rising to those challenges as it had done for almost 120 years, thanks to the help of its members and supporters.

4. Members’ questions

The Chairman invited questions from members in the audience, those watching online via the webcast, and those who had submitted them in advance of the meeting.

A member asked if it was appropriate for the Trust to charge gift-aided entry rates for children when they were non-taxpayers.

Andy Copestake, Director of Finance, explained that where the entry fee was usually paid by a parent or other adult, the gift aid element of the entry fee represented a donation from that person rather than the child being admitted.

John Evans from South Wales explained that he did not use the internet and asked why directions had been removed from the Handbook.

Sue Wilkinson, Director of Supporter Development, explained that it was difficult to include all the information in the Handbook that members asked for, given the increasing publishing costs. The next edition would include 50 more countryside places, so the content had focused on providing Sat Nav information and better maps for the 97% of visitors who travelled by car. Nevertheless, the need for directional information was acknowledged, and the Trust had produced a ‘Getting here’ information booklet which was available at the AGM and from the Supporter Services Centre on request.

Cherry Lovell via the webcast asked how many of the Trust’s tenant farms were organically certified and what help was provided to encourage tenants to become organic farmers?

DRAFT

Peter Nixon, Director of Land, Landscape and Nature, explained that this linked back to the 1992 AGM when the Board supported a members’ resolution on this topic. Since then, the Trust had invested significant funds in helping tenant farmers achieve organic status, which required particular skills of husbandry and good crop management to convert. The Trust currently had about 100 tenant farms working organically, as well as its own Wimpole Home Farm in Cambridgeshire. As well as organic farming, the Trust also supported other wildlife and environmentally friendly forms of farming where there were different types of certification, such as the LEAF marque, where the Trust offered its tenants help with the conversion processes.

Jill Crippen from the Cotswolds explained that of the 13 places she had visited with her family, only one had offered the kind of welcome she expected, and she was interested to know more about the Trust’s welcome strategy for its key supporters.

Sue Wilkinson, Director of Supporter Development, said how sorry she was to hear that the Trust hadn’t lived up to Ms Crippen’s expectations. She explained that surveys were reporting better scores for the warmth of welcome visitors received but acknowledged that the Trust didn’t get this right at every property all of the time, and undertook to follow this up with Ms Crippen.

A member raised a concern about acquisitions such as Tyntesfield, Castle Drogo and Dyrham Park which had such extensive maintenance needs that they were a burden on financial and other resources.

The Director-General explained that full surveys were conducted on all properties before they were considered for acquisition, and maintenance plans were in place for properties already in the Trust’s care. In the case of Tyntesfield, the condition of the property was known when it was taken on, and funding was secured from the Heritage Lottery Fund and built into the acquisition plan in order to make the acquisition feasible. The repairs to the roof at Castle Drogo were part of a planned pattern of maintenance repairs over many years, as was the case for the majority of conservation maintenance across the portfolio. Occasionally unexpected repairs did arise and funds were found or raised to deal with them, but it was generally the case that the vast majority of cyclical repairs were undertaken in a planned and managed way.

Sue Grove from Swindon had joined the National Trust for her love of gardens and asked why the Trust had declined Sir Roy Strong’s offer of The Laskett.

The Chairman explained that the Board and its specialist panels had considered the offer when it was first made a few years ago, and had taken the decision not to accept it because the garden was not under threat of being lost. He explained that the Trust received many offers of chattels, buildings, gardens or land by sale or gift, but the Trust was not always in a position to accept them.

Kate Fielden from Marlborough asked why, in view of the March 2006 press statement published jointly by ten conservation organisations including the Trust, it was that the Trust was reneging on the shared vision expressed in the statement which indicated support for a short tunnel for the A303 rather than a longer one?

DRAFT

Simon Murray, Senior Director of Strategy, Curatorship & External Affairs, explained that a longer 4.5km tunnel at Stonehenge that completely traversed the World Heritage Site would be the ideal solution but it was very unlikely that the government would support the funding it needed. At the time the 2006 press statement was released, there was no funding in place. The Trust now believed that there was a considerable risk that if a solution was not found now, that a wider surface road would replace the existing A303 across the World Heritage Site which would be the worst possible outcome. It was felt that a 2.9km tunnel which would dip below the main bowl in which Stonehenge sits offered the best solution for landscape improvement and visitor enjoyment. If the government were to confirm the design was going ahead, care would be taken to protect the beautiful landscape, similar to the work done with the A3 that passed Hindhead, where the new tunnel has completely freed the Devil’s Punch Bowl from the intrusion of a very busy road, restoring the natural landscape. It was hoped a similar outcome could be achieved for Stonehenge.

A member asked about opportunities to promote the National Trust to particular groups, such as U3A, in order to attract more group visits to properties and potential new members.

Jackie Jordan, Director of Brand & Marketing, explained that Trust enjoyed partnerships such as this with many organisations, and was keen to explore new ideas for marketing the Trust’s offer to members and supporters. She undertook to follow this up with the speaker.

Michael Anstey and Reverend Michael Davies via the webcast asked about the car-parking charges which had been introduced at Wakehurst Place which was run by Kew Gardens under a lease arrangement. This contravened the Trust’s policy of free entry for its members to properties and was having a detrimental impact on this property which hitherto was among those with the highest visitor numbers. Why was the Trust refusing to lend financial support to Kew when the government’s funding had reduced from 100% to 11% of its current income?

Hilary McGrady, Director of Operations & Consultancy, gave some contextual background to the situation at Wakehurst Place. The property had come to the Trust in the 1960s and was immediately transferred over to Royal Botanic Gardens on the basis that National Trust members enjoyed free entry to the gardens (the right to introduce car-parking charges existing at that time but was not taken up). At the time, membership and visitor numbers were much lower, but the principle of free entry for the now thousands of visitors had remained in place. With visitor growth, the financial challenges of running a property of this scale had risen and the Trust wanted to work with Kew to establish a more financially sustainable future for Wakehurst Place, investing in a feasibility study to establish the options available. One option related to giving financial support equivalent to that of membership credit (relating to the number of visitors) but as a charity the Trust is unable to do this. Kew’s decision to introduce car-parking charges was thought to be the best alternative of the other options that were researched, even though it was expected to be difficult for members to accept. The amount charged is Kew’s decision, although they are now reviewing whether the charging level is appropriate. The Trust felt that

DRAFT although the charges would be unpalatable for its members, it was the best option for giving Kew some of the financial support it needed.

Denis Bovey from Slough explained that he was a former paint chemist, and used the detailed investigation of original paints and their pigments as an example of a way that the Trust could avoid spending money unnecessarily. Authenticity was important, but could the Trust instead use colour-matching techniques to buy modern surface coating products and save money?

Simon Murray, Senior Director of Strategy, Curatorship & External Affairs, explained that the Trust tried to restore all its buildings and conserve them authentically using original materials where possible. The advantage with the original water-based and lime-based paints was that they were breathable and had a patina and hue that reflected the light in a way that modern paints did not. Achieving this subtle feeling of age in old buildings was felt to be important, but the Trust was open to modern improvements where they were appropriate.

Peter Bate from Somerset welcomed the Director-General’s earlier comments about investment in the let estate. The Trust currently owned about 9,000 redundant barns – could some of these be converted to provide extra housing?

Peter Nixon, Director of Land, Landscape and Nature, felt that some of the barns could be converted for different use, but the majority of them were held inalienably and of such historic significance that great care was needed to ensure that significance was maintained.

Anne Jones from Northampton asked if the Trust would consider selling postcard albums so that visitors could collect postcards of all the places they visited.

Jackie Jordan, Director of Brand & Marketing, thanked Ms Jones for the idea which she would discuss with the retail team.

Raymond Crozier via the webcast asked what proportion of National Staff were paid the national minimum wage and what proportion were on a zero-hour contract.

Tina Lewis, Director of People & Legal Services, explained that in early 2014 the Trust invested in the national minimum wage, prior to which the Trust had an age differentiated approach. An investment of £600,000 enabled everybody who worked at the Trust to be paid at least the adult rate of pay. This meant that 90% of permanent staff were paid above the national minimum wage, and 10% were paid at the national minimum wage level. The majority of seasonal staff, predominantly those who worked over the summer, were also paid at the national minimum wage level. Zero-hour contracts were not used for permanent staff but they were used for seasonal staff, enabling properties to respond to staffing needs quickly. Zero-hour contracts were used responsibly – staff accrued the same benefits and service as permanent staff and were not prohibited from working for other employers.

Jill Castle from Bristol asked about the use of properties for filming and the impact this had on members who visited properties and found they were closed.

DRAFT

Daniel Dodd, Communications & Content Director, explained that since properties started being used as locations for filming in the mid-2000s it had grown to deliver an income of about £1.3 million a year in location fees. These funds directly benefited the properties concerned. The Trust’s film unit worked closely with the conservation teams who worked with film crews to ensure no damage is done during filming, and every effort was made by properties to give advance notice on the Trust’s website of any impact filming might have on opening times. Feedback suggested visitors enjoy seeing properties that had appeared in films, and any inconvenience caused to visitors while the filming was ongoing was regretted.

Sarah Flood from Oxford asked about the extent to which the Trust’s money was invested ethically, such as with organisations or in other funds connected to climate change and the use of fossil fuels. How could the Trust be certain that its funds were invested in a way that had a positive impact on issues like these?

Andy Copestake, Director of Finance, explained that the Trust’s return target on its £1 billion portfolio was robust in order to ensure the best possible return for investing in conservation at properties. A proportion of those funds were invested in a UK tracker across a range of companies, and the fund managers who looked after these investments on the Trust’s behalf were signatories to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, which is how the Trust exercised its influence in this area.

Michael Waters via the webcast asked if the Trust had any plans to reward member loyalty. Discounts were given to attract new joiners, and he felt that people who renewed their membership should also enjoy a discount, perhaps proportionate to the number of years that they had been a member.

Sue Wilkinson, Director of Supporter Development, explained that attracting new members was important to ensure future income, and this was why, like many organisations, the Trust offered incentives. However, she agreed with Mr Waters and the Trust wanted to do more to recognise member loyalty, notwithstanding the limitations involved in doing this as a charity and because of the Gift Aid rules. Last year’s trial of inviting members to download free guest passes for their family had proved popular and this offer was being expanded in future. The Trust was also looking at other member benefits, such as priority bookings for events and holidays.

Robert Clarke from London asked if the review of the Trust’s governance arrangements would impact the Council and whether the membership would be involved in any form of consultation.

The Chairman explained that a working group had been established involving members of the Board of Trustees and the Council which was discussing possible proposals. While significant changes to the Trust’s governance arrangements were not anticipated, any changes would be reviewed by the Council and shared with members before being brought to an AGM.

Ann Johnson from Oxford complimented the Trust on its excellent magazine and asked if an edition could be published for children.

DRAFT

Sue Wilkinson, Director of Supporter Development, explained that the magazine was currently published in two editions, one for individual or joint members, and another for families. The Trust was investing more in making its website as relevant as possible for children, and ‘50 things to do before you’re 11¾’ had been accompanied by a booklet which had been popular. Jackie Jordan, Director of Brand & Marketing, added that the Trust had recently entered into a new partnership with a leading children’s publisher to create an enhanced range of publications.

Flavio Lucchesi was Professor of Human Geography at the Department of Cultural Heritage and Environment at the University of Milan. He asked if there were relationships between the Trust and English universities, and twinnings with universities abroad, to promote research and share learning.

Peter Nixon, Director of Land, Landscape & Nature, explained that the Trust had connections with many universities, and that he held a position on the governing body of Harper Adams University, for example. The Trust understood the importance of sharing technical knowledge and research because its properties were an ideal test bed for addressing critical environmental problems. The Trust’s relationship with the French organisation Conservatoire du Littoral was an example of how it shared knowledge and research internationally on coastline management issues. Simon Murray, Senior Director of Strategy, Curatorship & External Affairs, added that the Trust was looking to grow the strength of its research base and international links and perhaps act as sponsor for PhDs.

Belinda Loftus from Northern Ireland expressed concern about climate change and investment in fossil fuels. Would the Trust go beyond promoting its own work at properties and move to campaign more widely on the need to address climate change?

The Director-General explained that the Board of Trustees had discussed investment in fossil fuels. The Trust had a programme of replacing oil-fired heating at many of its mansion properties, but it would remain reliant on fossil fuels in some areas. Nevertheless the Trust did campaign, albeit quietly. Some staff were members of various coalition groups with other environmental NGOs, and the Director-General had written to the Prime Minister asking him to take international leadership on tight carbon limits at the various pre- and post-UN events. The Trust’s stance was to continue with its replacement programme where opportunities existed to do so across its estate and to demonstrate good practice, such as the installation of a biofuel boiler programme at Hafod y Llan in Snowdonia.

Valerie Quarterman from Birmingham had asked for suggestions at last year’s AGM for five things she could do before she reached 90. Since then she had visited many countries and sold her 3,000th raffle ticket for the Trust.

The Chairman paid tribute to Ms Quarterman who was a committed volunteer and a regular contributor at AGMs.

DRAFT

Ian Burmons asked if it was possible for the Rare Breeds Survival Trust to appoint somebody to be a member of the Council. This would help promote and protect rare breeds, and offer an appealing visitor attraction at properties.

The Chairman explained that the Council’s appointing body organisations were reviewed every few years and the members voted for the ones they wished to elect.

Tim Roberson from Croydon was concerned about the impact that increased visitor numbers would have on properties now that more of them were opened throughout the year. Was the Trust evaluating the impact of longer access and what effect had it had on costs and income?

The Director-General explained that an assessment of the impact and benefits was in hand.

Mary Fielding from Hertfordshire asked if the Trust had any concerns about English Heritage becoming a charity.

The Chairman explained that there were no concerns about the change of status. English Heritage was a good friend of the Trust and the competition was welcomed.

5. Adoption of the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2013/14

The resolution to adopt the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2013/14 was proposed by Paul Boniface, The Secretary, on behalf of the Chairman, and seconded by Caroline Goodall, Trustee. The resolution was carried on a show of hands.

6. Appointment of Auditors

The resolution to reappoint PricewaterhouseCoopers, of George Street, Bristol, as auditors was proposed by Paul Boniface, The Secretary, on behalf of the Chairman, and seconded by Caroline Goodall, Trustee. The resolution was carried on a show of hands.

7. Elections to the Council

Paul Boniface, The Secretary, announced the results of the ballot for elections to the Council and thanked those who had stood. The voting results were as follows:

Roy Gentry 3,917 David Allott 4,209 Claire Brodrick 2,545 Mike Goodfellow-Smith 3,184 Susanna Wade Martins 1,842 Hugh Waters 1,765 Tamasin Davies 10,560 Elected Barry Buckingham 982 Arabella Slator 9,828 Elected Peter Thompson 3,888

DRAFT

Peter Finch 2,750 Elizabeth Whitehouse 4,611 Steve Anderson 13,614 Elected Guy Trehane 5,134 Peter Waine 3,218 Anne Casement 4,519 Frances Williams 11,660 Re-elected David Scott 10,899 Re-elected Simon Robinson 2,874 Ian Marshall 2,849 Tina Blazquez-Lopez 2,567 Ian Rowat 12,178 Re-elected Jill May 5,368 Michael St John Parker 9,764 Re-elected

8. Introduction to members’ resolutions

The Chairman explained that nine members’ resolutions had been submitted for the AGM, eight of which had been submitted by one member. The Board of Trustees had decided to take the eight resolutions in two groups, with the single resolution taken on its own between each group, in order to make the best use of time available at the meeting.

9. Members’ resolutions on engaging with local communities

9.1 Members’ resolution on boundaries and adverse possession

To ensure the preservation of harmonious relationships with local communities where its properties are situated, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Board is requested to ensure that the National Trust will: a. not build upon or fence in the land of any third party without the express written consent of the existing owner and without having publicly disclosed all relevant facts; and b. will not seek to claim or acquire any land or other property interest of another by claiming adverse possession or make any similar claim which may result in an existing owner being excluded.

The resolution was proposed by Nicholas Gold from London. He felt that integrity and reputation were at the heart of the National Trust’s purpose and future, and any weakening of these qualities could result in membership and funding levels being at risk. Broadly speaking, the resolution asked the Trust not to encroach on other people’s land and sought to encourage behaviour more appropriate of a large landowner. The resolution was seconded by Brian Clarke from London.

9.2 Members’ resolution on listed buildings

Having regard to its national status and its statutory purpose of promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of buildings of historic

DRAFT interest, the Board is requested to ensure that before any action or decision is taken by the National Trust which may materially and adversely affect any listed building within the immediate vicinity of any National Trust property (whether or not owned or cared for by the National Trust): a. the matter is brought in a full, reasonable and timely manner to the attention of its Architectural Panel (‘the Panel’); b. the Panel is allowed a reasonable period to discuss any relevant action or decision; and c. a fair and reasonable summary of the submission and the opinion of the Panel is provided as soon as reasonably practicable to the owner(s) of the listed building and the Parish Council in which the property is situated, as representatives of the local community, who should both be permitted a reasonable time to discuss the proposal with the National Trust before any final decision is taken.

The resolution was proposed by Mary-Anne Gribbon from Maidstone. The resolution requested that where buildings with architectural merit were in or within close proximity to any National Trust property, that the Trust’s Architectural Panel should be involved in some way in the decision-making relating to the building rather than relying solely on local staff. This approach would help avoid potential conflict between historic buildings and nature conservation interests, and ensure decisions were made which balanced these priorities. This potential divergence may not arise often, but when it did, the absence of sensitive handling could damage the Trust’s local reputation. This situation had arisen at Orford Ness in Suffolk where a decommissioned Grade II listed lighthouse, sat on grounds surrounded by land owned and managed by the Trust, had been acquired by a small charity for public benefit. The resolution was seconded by Nicholas Gold.

9.3 Members’ resolution on coastal properties, climate change and community consultation

The statutory purposes of the National Trust include ‘promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as regards lands for the preservation (so far as practicable) of their natural aspect features and animal and plant life.’ In the light of the potential threats imposed by climate change and extremes of weather upon the approximately 740 miles of coastline in the care of the National Trust and having regard to how the National Trust might respond to such threats in pursuit of its ‘Shifting Shores’ and ‘Life is Local’ policies, there is a significant risk that the interests of local communities may not be properly and fully taken into account as the National Trust develops and implements its ‘adaptation strategies’. The Board is, therefore, requested to produce and make publicly available as a matter of urgency: a. a list of those sections of the coastline (i) cared for by the National Trust which it believes to be under threat or vulnerable to material change and/or (ii) which, as a result of such change, may potentially result in damage to property held by others within the surrounding neighbourhood during the foreseeable future; and

DRAFT

b. a draft Memorandum of Understanding for public comment and discussion setting out in reasonable detail:

i. how the local communities potentially affected by such change and the pursuit of the ‘Shifting Shores’ policy are to be consulted in arriving at the ‘adaptation strategy’ which are being developed by the National Trust for each of its properties; ii. how the interests of local property owners, occupiers and businesses are to be taken into account at every stage, particularly when local management may either live outside the affected community or have management responsibilities which relate primarily to animal and plant life, rather than buildings or farm land; iii. the proposed forum for local community consultation; iv. the time scales for doing so; v. the level of management who will be responsible for engaging with (a) local communities and (b) other property owners, occupiers and businesses potentially affected; vi. who will practically be taking decisions regarding the National Trust’s response (if any) to such threats following the period of public consultation; and vii. having regard to the magnitude of the potential material and adverse impact on certain local communities, how the Board proposes to reassure such communities that decisions proposed by any local ‘adaptation strategy’ will have been developed and discussed at a sufficiently high level within the National Trust.

The resolution was proposed by Nicholas Gold. He explained that the Trust had an important role in setting an example of stewardship and leadership in looking after the 10% of the coastline around England, Wales and Northern Ireland that was in its care. Nothing was immune from the impact of coastal erosion and climate change, and the resolution called for the Trust to develop a common set of guidelines when producing adaptation strategies for coping with them, aligned with its ‘Going Local’ and ‘Shifting Shores’ policies. Local community involvement in making well-informed decisions was vital to ensuring confidence in the Trust’s strategy in these areas. Orford Ness was one of the five hotspots for erosion identified in ‘Shifting Shores’, yet the local management had opposed proposals for sea defences, explaining that the lighthouse would be allowed to fall into the sea, a process of managed decline. In fact the proposals for defences had been implemented without detriment to the rest of the shoreline. The production of an adaptation strategy was too important for the local community not to be involved in its development. The public sought reassurance of an open and transparent methodology, and that the strategy would reflect local interests. The resolution was seconded by Mary-Anne Gribbon.

9.4 Board of Trustees’ response to the grouped resolutions on engaging with local communities

Orna NiChionna, Trustee, responded on behalf of the Board of Trustees against the resolutions. She explained that while the proposers of these resolutions had made reference to Orford Ness, the resolutions themselves related to the Trust’s

DRAFT work nationally. While the Board recognised that the resolutions aimed to make the Trust better and stronger, the level of prescription and precision in the proposals to address the issues which they raised had the effect of making their implementation prohibitive; they would remove flexibility and add cost without improving decision- making.

The first resolution relating to fences and legal claims on land was a complex legal subject. The Trust did not wish to be perceived as an organisation which acted beyond its own interests, but neither did it wish others to take advantage of perceived weaknesses due to the Trust’s bureaucracy.

Involving the Architectural Panel in the manner described in the second resolution felt too limiting. Panel members supported the Trust in a voluntary capacity, and the Panel’s role had changed to reflect the expertise of full-time staff. Introducing a formal requirement into the Panel’s role which included deadlines for delivering written opinions went against the spirit of the way the Trust got the best of Panel members’ skills and experience, and their ways of working with the staff.

The third resolution addressed the important subject of coastal erosion, but the supporting statement included some misconceptions. Decisions relating to adaptation strategies were not limited to local management – they were debated across the organisation, including at Board level, and involve stakeholder consultation. This included local communities, where relationship management was important – people whose houses were threatened by the sea needed more intensive personalised involvement, from the starting principle of protection where possible. A remote and uninhabited area might require a lighter touch, perhaps from the starting principle of managed decline.

In summary, the Board understood the concerns that gave rise to the resolutions, but wished to offer reassurance that the Trust’s policies and its management’s working practices were robust. Following the particular proposals suggested in the resolutions would not be appropriate for all situations the Trust faced, and would have the effect of making the Trust less flexible in its response to change, which was why the Board was unable to support them.

9.5 Members’ discussion on the grouped resolutions on engaging with local communities

Peter Bate from Somerset asked who owned the lighthouse at Orfordness, and Nicholas Gold said that it was the Orfordness Lighthouse Trust which was a registered charity.

Richard Loye from Plymouth felt that building upon or fencing in anyone else’s land should be subject to appropriate laws. Was the Trust in the habit of breaking the land laws, and how does the law deal with adverse possession situations?

Hilary Watts, Acting Solicitor, explained that the laws relating to adverse possession were complex. It would be unlawful for the Trust or anyone else to put a fence around someone else’s land, and to do so would be considered a trespass.

DRAFT

Tim Roberson from Croydon supported the Board’s response to the resolutions. As a property volunteer, he was conscious of the level of bureaucracy in the Trust. The level of prescription set out in the resolutions was something the Trust did not need if it were to remain flexible in its decision-making.

Greg Slay from Chichester was a former working holidays leader with experience of mapping areas of the Trust’s estate in the Brecon Beacons. At the time (which was about 20 years ago) some of the upland property maps were out of date and this had led to boundary disputes with neighbours. It was important for the Trust to have confidence in the boundaries of its landscape properties and that this information was properly maintained so the Trust could protect its interests and avoid situations where people wanted to build their houses and gardens across boundaries into Trust land. Mr Slay also explained that he had been a member of the Trust’s Council at the time when local discussions were being held about how best to address the problems that had occurred at Chichester Harbour relating to landscape management and sea defences. There had been a number of significant discussions involving the local community as well as strategic discussions within the organisation. This was a good example of how a balanced input could ensure both national and local interests were represented in decision-making.

Roseanne Williams from London asked why Trinity House had put Orfordness Lighthouse up for sale. Nicholas Gold explained that the encroaching sea put the lighthouse at risk of collapse. Trinity House had offered the lighthouse for sale so he had bought it and established a charity to look after it.

Rupert Hawk from Cheshire felt that the removal of a shingle bank that would likely then lead to flooding of coastal towns and villages should be a matter for the Environment Agency to consider, and that the Trust should not shoulder blame for for such decisions.

Chris Robins from Kidlington felt that it was clear that a local dispute had given rise to these resolutions being escalated to the AGM. It should be possible with the goodwill of both parties to resolve differences of opinion locally once the matters had been given a fair hearing at this meeting.

Cristina George from Salisbury was a Council member and tenant of the Trust who was pleased that members had the opportunity to bring unresolved concerns to an AGM. While the Trust’s ‘Going Local’ strategy enabled and empowered people to manage local issues, it was sometimes the case that the same local staff did not have the breadth of knowledge or expertise needed to resolve more complex issues or disputes, perhaps due to any personal interests or conflicts that could arise.

Robert Clarke from London had been attending the Trust’s AGMs since the mid- 1970s during which there had been numerous examples of resolutions of a serious or national nature and some which related to specific local issues. With the perspective of time, it was heartening to look back and see that the Trust’s responses, and the policies they had in place to inform them, were the right ones. It sometimes took many years to see the final outcome of a decision made by the Trust, and it was hoped this insight would give confidence in the Trust’s thinking and

DRAFT decision-making processes. The Trust should not react in a knee-jerk way because one lighthouse was at risk.

Richard Heading from Worcester asked how staff development plans helped the Trust manage difficult issues.

Hilary McGrady, Director of Operations and Consultancy, explained that the Trust had a clear performance management structure whereby each member of staff had a line manager who, for property staff, ultimately reported to her. This structure and the performance process it supported did not mean that staff did not learn from their mistakes, but it did help to reduce the number of times those mistakes happened. It would not be the right approach to commit local teams to such rigid ways of working that they felt unable to do their job of looking after such special places.

9.6 Summing up on the grouped resolutions on engaging with local communities and voting results

Orna NiChionna summed up on behalf of the Board of Trustees, thanking members for their questions and comments. The Board was concerned about the circumstances which had caused these resolutions to be brought to the AGM, but was unable to support such a specific set of proposals for managing the Trust’s interests. The Trust was a complex organisation; the Board felt that introducing additional bureaucracy was not in the Trust’s best interests, and that it should find alternative ways of improving how it worked.

Nicholas Gold summed up for the resolutions. On the matter of boundaries, he described an occasion when an elderly gentleman had tried to visit part of Orford Ness but a Trust warden had inappropriately asked him to leave because the particular area in question belonged to the local parish council and not the Trust. On the matter of listed buildings, Mr Gold explained that the Orfordness Lighthouse was an iconic feature of the East Anglia coastline which he felt should be protected from ruination. On the matter of coastal erosion, Mr Gold felt there should be a common system and methodology for ensuring local community involvement in managing this element of climate change. He thanked members for their contributions.

The Chairman thanked the speakers for their final comments. A ballot was held to take in the votes of members at the meeting and the wider membership who had voted in advance.

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on boundaries and adverse possession was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 9,134 9,770 Specified 9,134 4,659 Discretionaryi 0 5,111 Abstentions 1,084

The resolution was not carried.

DRAFT

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on listed buildings was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 9,189 9,690 Specified 9,189 4,584 Discretionaryi 0 5,106 Abstentions 1,111

The resolution was not carried.

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on coastal properties, climate change and community consultation was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 8,543 10,200 Specified 8,543 5,064 Discretionaryi 0 5,136 Abstentions 1,246

The resolution was not carried.

With the agreement of the members present, the Chairman adjourned the meeting for a short period while members heard from Tim Parker who was succeeding Mr Jenkins as Chairman on 10 November. The meeting reconvened after lunch.

10. Members’ resolution on donation boxes for Memorial 2007 at National Trust properties

We commend to the National Trust membership that Memorial 2007 donation boxes supported by illustrative posters are located in National Trust properties where the said establishments were founded and built on the proceeds from the Transatlantic Slave Trade. These voluntary donations made by the public are to be used in supporting the Enslaved Africans Memorial Garden Project to be located in London’s Hyde Park where a 1,116 square metres site has been allocated by the Royal Parks for this specific purpose.

The resolution was proposed by Stephen Bendle from Bath who explained that the Trust and its members should be rightly proud of the work the Trust did to look after the many magnificent historic houses in its care. Visitors to these houses enjoyed contemplating not just the lifestyles of their original owners but also the artistic inspiration, craftsmanship and architectural skills that went into building them. An interesting element of this history is that up to 28 of them were constructed with wealth derived from the ownership of slaves or the compensation payments which were made to slave-owners by the state when slavery was made illegal.

Slavery had been a recurrent theme in 2014 with many examples of the trade appearing through news and film media. Unlike the families who lived in grand houses, the enslaved had no memorial, even though those who fought for an end to slavery were remembered. It seemed essential that a memorial should be erected to

DRAFT remember those taken from Africa for Britain’s enrichment, just as memorials had been erected, such as that of the Unknown Soldier, to remember the contribution of ordinary individuals to freedom. What was taken from the enslaved for many generations was their lifetime of labour. The Trust had supported a recent project ‘Slavery and the British Country House’ which traced the role that wealth and slavery had in enabling such magnificent properties to be built.

Memorial 2007 recognised the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. It was an organisation that had developed a design for a memorial to remember enslaved Africans and their descendants and secured a site in Hyde Park, but not the funds to build it. The site was at risk of loss if the money was not raised quickly to build the memorial, which is why the resolution sought help from the Trust to raise funds in collection boxes from visitors to its properties which had connections to the slave trade.

The resolution was seconded by Martin Pring from Bath.

Christopher Rodrigues, Trustee, responded on behalf of the Board of Trustees against the resolution. The Trust commended the proposers for their commitment to telling the story of the slave trade and the impact it had on present-day lives. It was an important reminder that some of the most beautiful estates in the Trust’s care were funded in part by slave-trade money and labour, and by telling this story at relevant properties visitors would learn about the reality that lay behind the grandeur of the houses.

Memorial 2007’s objective was admirable, but a commitment to placing collection boxes to raise funds for it did not align with the Trust’s core purpose of conserving the places in its care for ever, for everyone. The Trust was often approached by charities wishing to use its properties for fundraising purposes, and while many had strong reasons for doing so, the Trust believed its primary objective was to raise funds for its own central causes. Nevertheless, the Trust believed it was appropriate to remind its members and visitors of the connections some of its properties had to slavery and the slave trade. These links could be explained to help develop people’s understanding in a future edition of the Trust’s magazine, the publicity from which could help to raise awareness and support of Memorial 2007’s cause.

Peter Bate from Somerset felt Memorial 2007 was a worthwhile cause and any article in the magazine that was sent to the Trust’s 4 million members should invite contributions directly to the cause.

John Farley from Ludlow felt that the slavery story was one aspect of the historical context of some of the Trust’s properties. Another aspect was the National Land Fund, which was set up by Beveridge in 1946, selling surplus war materials to help fund the acquisition of properties as memorials to those who fell in conflicts. It would be better to avoid setting a precedent with this resolution, and instead help tell the story of these properties which have come into the Trust’s care.

Christopher Rodrigues summed up on behalf of the Board of Trustees. He explained the challenges that a large organisation like the Trust can face when approached by many others seeking support for their causes. The Trust understood

DRAFT that Memorial 2007’s cause was an admirable one, and he reiterated the opportunity to connect the story behind some of the Trust’s properties with slavery through an article in the Trust’s magazine.

Stephen Bendle summed up for the resolution. He understood the Trust’s position, but felt that the cause behind Memorial 2007’s ambition was an exceptional one, given it had connections with a good number of the Trust’s historic properties. The offer of an article in the members’ magazine was a welcome offer.

The Chairman thanked Mr Bendle for his final comments. A ballot was held to take in the votes of members at the meeting and the wider membership who had voted in advance. The results of the ballot were as follows:

For Against TOTAL 4,173 14,115 Specified 4,173 8,996 Discretionaryi 0 5,119 Abstentions 1,688

The resolution was not carried.

11. Members’ resolutions on access and transparency

11.1 Members’ resolution on free entry to properties

The National Trust proclaims on its promotional material and membership cards that all Members are entitled to free entry to its properties. In fact, certain properties charge Members for entry. To avoid antagonising Members and accusations of making misleading statements, the Board is requested to ensure that, without exception, it fulfils its public commitment to provide ‘free entry’ to Members to all its ‘special place’ properties, except where (a) a property is hosting a special event where Members may be charged or (b) if a National Trust vehicle or craft has to be used to access a property, when a reasonable amount may be charged for such transport, so long as such charge is not used as a disguised entry fee.

The resolution was proposed by Brian Clarke from London. He explained that the Trust’s invitation for people to become members was supported by an entitlement to visit its properties free of charge, and that meant free of charge for entry and for car parking. All of the Trust’s promotional literature and the website promoted this offer. Nevertheless there were a number of properties which were not free for an ordinary visit, which was contrary to the benefits of membership and was unfair.

The Board’s response to the resolution was not clear, in that it implied these matters were for the local managers to determine. This response was inconsistent with the proposition a new member was offered when joining. If the offer of free entry was not honoured, there was a risk that the Trust’s reputation could be adversely affected. Furthermore, if more local managers had the authority to determine their own entry charges, potential future members could be tempted to pay as they go and forego

DRAFT the annual membership fees, which could impact the Trust’s financial position. Free entry should mean free at all properties.

The resolution was seconded by Mr Gold from London.

11.2 Members’ resolution on pre-booking system for properties that restrict visitor numbers

Where visitor entry numbers to any property are materially restricted by the National Trust, the Board is requested to put in place a pre-booking system as a matter of urgency to avoid the ill will created by Members and others travelling to the property and being disappointed upon being refused entry, particularly at weekends when the Board are requested to be as flexible as possible regarding visitor numbers.

The resolution was proposed by Mary-Anne Gribbon from Maidstone. She explained that there were very few Trust properties which restricted visitor numbers, such as 575 Wandsworth Road, Heigham Holmes and Orford Ness. For these and others which disallowed free-flow entry, a pre-booking system would be in the interests of both efficiency and courtesy to visitors. For those visitors who simply turned up only to find their journey had been in vain, the visitor experience would be a bad one. This was not an acceptable situation and it could easily be resolved by having a pre-booking system in place, such as the one at 575 Wandsworth Road which was managed locally and not through a centralised system. Introducing similar arrangements at other entry-restricted properties would be in the interests of improving customer satisfaction.

The resolution was seconded by Brian Clarke from London.

11.3 Members’ resolution on access to countryside properties

In pursuit of its ‘for ever, for everyone’ policy and so as not to discriminate against ordinary working people, the Board is requested to ensure that all of its countryside properties are open at least every weekend during the summer months and at every Bank holiday during such period.

The resolution was proposed by Nicholas Gold who explained that sites which were open during the week should not be subject to limited opening at weekends and bank holidays, but remain open throughout these times. By way of example, Orford Ness was only open for a short period each year but this did not include Sundays or bank holidays. The result was that it was generally the case that only retired people were able to visit, as ordinary working people were excluded for half of their leisure time, or more if they worked at weekends. The Trust should not have policies which actively discriminated against certain sections of society in this way. Furthermore, if closures were intended to balance access with conservation, the arrangements could be changed so that closed days were moved away from weekends. If places were opened up to a broader group of visitors, this could also increase memberships.

The resolution was seconded by David Goldin from Suffolk.

DRAFT

11.4 Members’ resolution on disclosure of public funding for properties

The National Trust is a substantial national institution and charitable concern which receives significant amounts of public taxpayer’s money yet is not subject to the same level of disclosure as other public bodies and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. As it is ‘for everyone’, the Board is requested, in the interest of good governance, sound financial management and open accountability to its Members, to make available within six months after the end of each financial year a statement showing in respect of such financial year the following information: a. the total amounts received or receivable, both directly and indirectly, in respect of each of its individual properties (shown separately) from i. any national, local public or quasi-public body; ii. any EU or other foreign public or quasi-public body; and iii. the Heritage Lottery and/or similar funds; and b. the total amount received or receivable from any of the bodies referred to above in respect of any capital grant, subsidy, loan or other funding which is not of an annual nature. Where amounts are received or receivable by the National Trust for use at a number of properties (whether or not individually designated), then a reasonable estimate should be made of any amounts spent or likely to be allocated to any particular property.

Such information to be made available for viewing by the Members at each of its regional offices during normal office hours and via the main National Trust website at all times. Members and others in the local communities near to any National Trust property will then be able to consider for themselves whether such public money (if any) is appropriate and is being used wisely.

The resolution was proposed by Brian Clarke from London who explained that having considered the Board’s response, and without wishing to propose anything which acted to the detriment of the Trust, he was happy to let the resolution stand without further introduction. The resolution was seconded by Mary-Anne Gribbon from Maidstone.

11.5 Members’ resolution on delegation and Parish Council monitoring

The National Trust has vowed to put all its properties at the centre of their respective communities, to help grow a sense of belonging and to encourage local pride and identity. To achieve this and in the interest of preserving and enhancing good relations between the National Trust and the communities in which its properties are situated, local managers were given greatly increased authority to manage their properties and to foster better cooperation with neighbours in the locality. In the light of the National Trust’s ‘Life is Local’ and ‘Going Local’ policies and to ensure that senior management and the Board actually know whether such greater autonomy is beneficial or adverse to the

DRAFT

National Trust’s standing within the community, the Board is requested to ensure that: a. within three months of the end of its financial year, a written request is sent annually to each parish council in which its properties are situated asking them to evaluate how well the local management team have performed during the past year on the criteria stated in the ‘Going Local’ and ‘Life is Local’ policy document and the extent to which local management is perceived to be connected to and supported by the local community; b. such local responses are to be sent on a confidential basis directly to the Chief Executive (or another senior designated person in the head office); and c. a true and fair summary of the responses overall, without referring to any specific property or parish, is to be given annually to Members via the main National Trust website at least one month prior to the Annual General Meeting.

The resolution was proposed by David Goldin. He explained that Trust properties should feel relevant to local communities. Parish councils served as representatives of their local communities, so this resolution proposed a means through which greater transparency of the Trust’s property management arrangements could be made available and evaluated.

The resolution was seconded by Nicholas Gold.

11.6 Board of Trustees’ response to the resolutions on access and transparency

Orna NiChionna, Trustee, responded on behalf of the Board of Trustees against the resolutions. She explained that the specific concerns raised in respect of Orford Ness were being looked into. However, as with the earlier set of resolutions, the proposals put forward were too prescriptive, too much of a blanket approach, and too limiting for the Trust to implement them across all of its interests. Their effect would be to remove flexibility, show down decision-making and add costs in different ways without necessarily addressing the underlying concerns that gave rise to the resolutions being submitted.

On the matter of free entry to properties, there were situations where the Trust did not own the car park which served a particular property, or where additional transport such as boats were required to access a site. In these cases an extra cost was charged for those facilities, and the Trust ensured the charges were kept as low as possible.

On the matter of the pre-booking system, the Trust was trialling them at various properties. Not all of them worked as well as they could; for example, online bookings could not be refunded so this meant that a ticket once sold could not later be offered to someone else who wanted one. Low ticket prices were an attractive offer, but it also meant that there were a higher number of visitors who did not turn up, which meant a loss of the preciously few opportunities for keen visitors. A pre-

DRAFT booking system would likely benefit a property with more visitors than it could accommodate, but it would not work for others, so the rigidity that the resolution proposed was not appropriate for all properties.

On the matter of weekend opening, this was already available at the vast majority of the Trust’s countryside properties. There were some which were important nature reserves, Orford Ness being an example of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, where bird breeding and migration sites needed protection. There were also some places where opening times reflected the views of the local communities who lived there. These were just a few examples of why the opening arrangements of some places did not follow the norm of regular and full weekend opening.

On the matter of parish councils evaluating local management, the resolution was proposing a methodology which felt too limiting to be implemented across all properties. Not all parish councils worked to the same standard or were as effective as the one at Orford Ness clearly was. To use them in such a prescribed manner within a limited timeframe was too rigid an approach. The Trust agreed that it was important to measure the performance of local management, to find trouble spots and resolve them, but the suggestions set out in the resolution were not an appropriate way of addressing this.

11.7 Members’ discussion on the grouped resolutions on access and transparency

Graham Benjamin from Milton Keynes asked for clarification as to whether there were some Trust properties that were charging members for entry, aside from any specific limitations relating to access. Was there substance to the resolution on this topic?

Hilary McGrady, Director of Operations & Consultancy, explained that while entry to the vast majority of properties was free for members, there were a limited few where different arrangements applied. These were, by their nature, exceptional and invariably related either to special access requirements or due to historical reasons which the Trust was doing its best to overcome. In the meantime, the Trust aimed to be transparent about the exceptions to free entry and made this information available in the members’ handbook and on the website.

A member explained that a separate entrance fee was charged for access to the rare breeds farm at Wimpole Estate’s Home Farm. This was a good way of ensuring the income that entry fees generated went directly to supporting rare breeds, which were a major attraction at the farm.

Peter Nixon, Director of Land, Landscape & Nature, explained that the Trust supported rare breeds. The A catalyst for concern was about had been the impact of foot and mouth disease, and stopping a breed becoming a rare breed, as with the Herdwick sheep in the Lake District. The Trust maintained a record of rare breeds and was increasingly trying to promote them at its properties.

Rosemary Curtis from Swindon was a volunteer at Avebury which had a booking system for timed tours of the manor. This was a very small property that needed to

DRAFT restrict visitor numbers through a combination of pre-booking tickets and some available by sale in person on the day. Feedback from visitors showed that a high number of visitors did not use the internet, so a system that relied on a website for a pre-booking system would not work for everybody.

Peter Gallagher from Swindon was disappointed that the Board had decided to group most of the resolutions into two groups, unless it was simply a mechanism for handling them in the time available during the meeting. On the matter of the pre- booking system, this would not be suitable for anyone who arrived at a property without having booked a ticket, so the proposal was not appropriate for all properties.

David Hall from Watford felt that the resolution proposing a pre-booking system was unclear given it also claimed that it was possible for a property to have reached its maximum visitor capacity by 11.30am.

Robert Clarke from London explained that the National Trust was for ever, for everyone. This included the 3% of people who did not visit properties by car. The Trust should not tie the hands of management by insisting it should never charge for the use of car parks because it might on occasions need to. It would also be inappropriate for local parish councils to have a say in how local management was assessed and evaluated. The Trust did not serve parish councils and they should not be involved in the assessment of staff performance.

Hilary McGrady, Director of Operations & Consultancy, explained that in terms of visitor numbers, pre-booking systems and free entry or charging arrangements, there was not a one-size-fits-all solution. Every property was different and they could not be made to behave in the same way. It was possible to ensure every property was managed in a way that it offered a range of services and facilities that suited it and its visitors as well as it could. The good news was that the Trust was investing in a programme of improvements which would mean that for people who had internet access they could pre-book their visits, with other options available for those who did not. This was an example of the direction of travel the Trust was moving in, making it easier for people to enjoy their visits.

Claire Picton from Uxbridge commented on the wording in the supporting statement to the resolution about weekend opening which suggested that working people were different from retired or older members of the middle class. Many working people were middle class, but also worked shifts, so this would affect the days when they were available to visit properties.

John Hughes from Hertfordshire felt that some members might have been put off visiting Orford Ness from these discussions. On all the occasions he had visited Orford Ness he had been made warmly welcome by the staff and volunteers. It was a place of quiet beauty. The lighthouse that stood on the coastline was likely to disappear. The vulnerable state of the property was a reminder of how important it was to value nature and the climate, and to respect it, and that everyone should have a shared interest in addressing the issues that were causing damage to the coastline and lighthouse.

DRAFT

11.8 Summing up on the grouped resolutions on access and transparency and voting results

Orna NiChionna summed up on behalf of the Board of Trustees. She reiterated that it was the blanket nature of the proposals that the Trust could not support, not the concerns that underlay them. Without commenting further on the resolutions, it was worth recognising that Orford Ness was a wonderful place with an interesting history. It was taken over by the Ministry of Defence for 80 years and nobody was allowed to go there. It was then a free-for-all, before Natural England acted to protect the breeding and migrating birds, and the shingle that supported so much flora and fauna, by giving it to the National Trust in 1993 when the nature reserve was established. The Trust had done a terrific job in achieving this. Preserving the fragile state of the site was paramount, and to visit Orford Ness was to understand the steps necessarily taken to protect it and the nature it supported. Finding a viable balance between this and visitor access would always represent a challenge but the Trust was committed to achieving this outcome.

Nicholas Gold summed up for the resolutions, explaining that he had not anticipated they would be dominated to such an extent by the issues relating to Orford Ness, which he agreed was a magnificent place.

There were about 30 Trust properties that charged for car parking, excluding any which were jointly or independently owned. It was understandable that a change to these arrangements could not be made immediately.

A sensible solution seemed to be available for pre-booking half of any tickets for a property visit. Not everybody used the internet, but most visitors could book by telephone if they wished to. It was pleasing to hear the Trust was trialling pre- booking systems where they weren’t already in place.

On the matter of local parish councils and management evaluation, if this was not felt to be appropriate then perhaps an alternative system for providing feedback could be found in order to highlight local issues. This would help eliminate the risk of escalating problems which cause much time to resolve. He thanked members for their contributions.

The Chairman thanked the speakers for their final comments. A ballot was held to take in the votes of members at the meeting and the wider membership who had voted in advance.

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on free entry to properties was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 9,799 9,371 Specified 9,799 4,358 Discretionaryi 0 5,013 Abstentions 820

The resolution was carried.

DRAFT

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on pre-booking system for properties that restrict visitor numbers was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 8,722 10,106 Specified 8,722 5,005 Discretionaryi 0 5,101 Abstentions 1,161

The resolution was not carried.

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on access to countryside properties was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 9,126 9,802 Specified 9,126 4,661 Discretionaryi 0 5,141 Abstentions 1,062

The resolution was not carried.

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on disclosure of public funding for properties was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 8,570 10,205 Specified 8,570 5,026 Discretionaryi 0 5,179 Abstentions 1,207

The resolution was not carried.

The result of the ballot on the members’ resolution on delegation and Parish Council monitoring was as follows:

For Against TOTAL 7,159 11,349 Specified 7,159 6,158 Discretionaryi 0 5,191 Abstentions 1,476

The resolution was not carried.

12. Conclusion

The Chairman thanked all for attending and watching online, and formally closed the 2014 Annual General Meeting.

DRAFT

The members and staff paid tribute to Simon Jenkins who stood down as Chairman of the National Trust at the end of the meeting.

i This indicates the discretionary proxy votes cast by the chairman of the meeting. All discretionary votes cast by named proxies are included in specified votes.