Freedom of information requests

This list is every Freedom of Information request the National Lottery Heritage Fund has received between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2019. It will be updated every six months.

April 2019

  • Requester sought information on viewing The Old Grammar School project applications online. As this application was withheld under s.43 (2), commercial sensitivity, of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the amounts of awards given to or related to the Strathnaver Museum within the last three years. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the correspondences about the Cairngorms Capercaillie project. This information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the applications, supporting documents and revisions made to the application of the Cairngorms Capercaillie Project. A link was provided to access the information and the documents were withheld under s.21 information accessible elsewhere of the FOIA. The activity plan and project plan were provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the funding conditions for the Sheffield General Cemetery project. This information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the activity plan and associated documents for the Cairngorms Capercaillie project. The activity plan and project plan were provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the spend reports for March. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the decision covering the St James Church project and the notification letter. This information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information the second round grant notification letter for the Folkestone new museum project. This information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on whether the Alexander Fleming Museum had previously applied for funding. This information was provided.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the expert advice from Historic England for the St James Church project. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on applications for funding relating to Hicks Farm. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the conditions and application form for the Courtauld Connects project. The contract was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA and sections 2-4 of the application was provided.

May 2019

  • Requester sought information on the management of the outbuildings in relation to the Chiswick House Garden Trust. The Fund did not hold any relevant information and this was a nil return.
  • Requester sought information on the number of staff dismissals and reasonings between 2015-2018. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on any public consultation for the Victoria Park project. The Fund did not do any public consultation but the requester was advised to contact Tower Hamlets Borough Council for the information.
  • Requester sought information on the application form and grant request amount for the FPA application submitted by Bournemouth Parks Foundation. The grant amount was provided but the application was withheld under s.43 prejudice to commercial interests of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the publication of successful applications from March and April 2019. This information was withheld under s.22 Future Publication of the FOIA.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the full application of the rejected Courtauld connects project. Sections 2-4 were provided and the rest of the application was withheld under s.43 commercial interests of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the organisations print contracts. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the applications, supporting documents, and conditions of the grant for two projects for the Royal Air Force Museum. This information was provided with some personal information and commercial interests redacted under s.40 and 43 of the FOIA.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the applications, progress reports, and final completion reports for the Industrial Wildlife on the Kingfisher Trail project. This information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the Manchester Museum’s South Asia Gallery project and the proposals and conditions of engaging the South Asian community within the process. Sections 2-4 of the application and parts of the Activity Plan were provided.

June 2019

  • Requester sought information on the organisations contact register. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the grant application for The New Museum School project. Sections 2-4 of the applications was provided.
  • Requester sought information on correspondence, business plan, and terms and conditions of the grant for the Orkney Native Wildlife Project. The Fund did not hold the business plan but the rest of the information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the who applied for the grant, the amount, the purpose of the grant, and the date of the award in relation to the St James The Great in Hebden Bridge project. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the salary scales for investment managers. This information was provided.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on investment managers pay progression through the pay scales. This information was provided.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the full application for The New Museum School project. This information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the proposal, The Fund’s discussions on that, and the date of the award for the Runnymede Explored project. This information was provided along with the minutes from the committee and Board meetings and the proposal for the project.

July 2019

  • Requester sought information on the application for the Indian Independence project. Sections 2-3 of the application was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the application for the Lesnes Abbey Wood project. Sections 2-4 of the application was provided.
  • Requester sought information on letters from Jeremy Hunt dating from 5 Dec 2006 and 22 Dec 2009. This was a nil return.
  • Requester sought information on the staff figures employed by the organisation from 2016-2019 and off site storage solutions for documents and the costs of this from 2016-2019. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the funding and how much has been spent for the Aberdeen Art Gallery renovation project as well as emails mentioning the project between 11 June 2019 and 11 July 2019. This information was provided with some personal information and information intended for future publication redacted under s.40 and 22 of the FOIA.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on all other documentation, including a budget breakdown, actual amounts spent, and HLF’s opinion of the finished product for the Lenses Abbey Wood project. The second round application form, second round case paper, minutes of the London committee, minutes of the board decision, notification of grant letter and cost plan breakdown were provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the application form for the Pollinating the Peak application. Sections 2-4 of the application was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the number of lost IT equipment within the organisation over the last three years. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on how much money had been allocated to the restoration of the church organ for the Canny Space project. This was a nil return as no money from the National Lottery Heritage Fund grant was used to restore the organ.
  • Requester sought information on the spend/transparency data for June 2019 and November 2017. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the D-Day landing craft LCT7074 – Landfall project and the spending of the grant. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the applications and associated documents relating to the SeaMore project. The formal application, Board minutes and case paper was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the case notes relating to Beckenham Place Park prior to the grant confirmation and the case notes subsequent to the grant being made relating to the lake. This information was provided with some personal information environmental information regulations redacted under s.40 and r.12 of the FOIA.

August 2019

  • Requester sought information on the job descriptions and apprentices, briefs for consultant, cash flow, cost breakdown, income and expenditure forecast and project plan. These documents were provided except the income and expenditure forecast which was withheld under s.43 commercial interests of the FOIA. The project plan had some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the evaluation feedback the Van Dyke Self Portrait and Artemesia Gentileschi Self Portrait projects and any information on the Turners Walton Bridges project. The final evaluation report and  evaluation follow up document for the Van Dyke project and sections 2-4 of the application form for the Turners project were provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA. The Artemesia project was a nil return as it was not funded by the organisation.
  • Requester sought information on the applications, reports and conditions of approval for 2011, 2014 and 2016 projects which contributed to the restoration of Thornaby Town Hall. The 2011 project was not funded by the organisation but the rest of the information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the organisations software systems. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the application and conditions of the Stamford Park project. This information was provided.
  • Requesters sought information on the application and funding for the conservatory building. This information was provided.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the funding for the three awards for the Stamford Park project, specifically the refurbishment/maintenance of the conservatory. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the application for the FPA project. This information was provided with some personal information and commercial interests redacted under s.40 and 43 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the way the Townscape Heritage Initiative grant was paid and for details of other awards given to Whitstable in the 1990s. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the contractual documentation and certificates issued by Mosedale for the Keswick Museum and Art Gallery project. The contract and completion report for the project were provided.
  • Requester sought information on the sale of Dreamland, particularly the communications the organisation holds in regards to the sale. This information was withheld under s.43 commercial sensitivity of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the applications forms, supporting documents and conditions applied to the grants for The Story of Liverpool Black Boxers project and The Arthur Wharton Heritage Project. Sections 2-4 of the Arthur Wharton project and sections 2-3 of The Story of Liverpool Black Boxers application forms, and out standard terms of grants were provided, with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on a list of the work done with the funding for the Battersea Park project. This information was provided.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on case notes prior to the confirmation grant and development phase meeting notes for the Beckenham Place Park project. This information was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA and regulation 12 (3) of the Environmental Information Regulations.

September 2019

  • Requester sought information on for the development and delivery round applications for the St James the Great, Hebden Bridge project. Sections 2-4 of the development round application was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA. The delivery round application was withheld under s.43 of the FOIA Prejudice to Commercial interests.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the full applications forms and supporting documents for The Story of Liverpool Black Boxers Project and The Arthur Wharton Heritage Project. This was provided for the Black Boxers project with some personal information redacted under s.40 on the FOIA. The delivery round application form for the Arthur Wharton project was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the organisations CPV code and the API contact details. The organisation does not CPV codes or API contact details, however, the requester was provided with a link for CPV information and the Procurement Manager’s contact details.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on the contact details for an Investment Manager, a copy of the press release, and also a copy of the application form for the Stamford Park Heritage Project. This information was provided with some personal information redacted from the application form under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on a list of questions regarding the monitoring of the Cairngorms Capercaillie project. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on correspondences between Hastings Pier Charity, HLF, and Smith and Williamson in regards to the administration process of the sale of Hastings Pier. Nothing was held on the first aspect of the request, on the second aspect, information was already available online. Information was withheld under s.21 of the FOIA, information accessible elsewhere. The rest of the information was withheld under s.41 and 43(2), provided in confidence and commercial interest.
  • Requester sought information on the application, reports and conditions of approval for ‘The Liverpool Athenaeum Library’ project. The application form, progress reports, completion report, and award notification letter for the project were provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the terms and conditions for the grant for The Royal Ordnance Depot project. The award notification letter and a link to our standard terms grant were provided. The letter had some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the amount awarded to disability education projects and the proportion of this on The Fund’s grants. This information was provided.
  • Requester sought information on the application form for the Wimbledon and Putney Commons project. Sections 2-4 of the application was provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA.
  • Requester sought information on the application form, business plan, letters of support and award notification letter for the Restoring Alexander Pope’s Grotto project. The application form, letter of support from English Heritage, and grant notification letter were provided with some personal information redacted under s.40 of the FOIA. A business plan was not required for this grant.
  • Follow up request. Requester sought information on clarification on the grant awarded to Dreamland Amusement Park and copies of documentation on state aid implications for the sale of Dreamland. This information was provided and there was no documentation in relation to discussions on state aid.