Comments on: Sissinghurst Garden Design and Management

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:50:43 +0000

As a compromise, they could limit the period of occupation by ‘donor’ families eg ‘the lifetime of the donor’ or ‘the lifetime of the donor and the donor’s children’ or ’30 years’ or ‘3 years’.

By: Julian Dodd

Julian Dodd — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:12:20 +0000

Re donor families. i have been appalled by the attitudes of donor families in recent programmes – sissinghurst and the bodnant garden in snowdonia. these families ‘give’ their gardens and/or houses to the national trust because cannot afford to maintain them and wish to live rent free at the expense of ordinary members of the public who buy their membership every year. it is clear to me that the national trust should not enter into any more of these arrangements, it should be a case of donate if you want to but move out and leave the running to the trust. sarah raven and her pompous husband should not have any involvement in the running of the house or estate and the donor of bodnant should be prevented from arrogantly strolling around ‘her’ garden cutting flowers and telling visitors that they are not allowed to do so as they do not live there, if i were a member i would certainly take some secateurs with me to collect a few of my flowers!! as for her son generously giving up his time for free to manage the garden it was evident that he is controlling what happens in order to keep the garden how he and his mother want it, the times gardening correspondent was refreshingly honest in his appraisal of the role of the donor family.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:18:42 +0000

Re the donors, the National Trust has often been described (as has the Empire, by John Bright and the army, by Bernard Shaw) as ‘a system of outdoor relief for the aristocracy’ and it is a system which needs to be kept under review. I see it as being like the old idea of paying a hermit to occupy a hermitage in a rich man’s park – and so the donor families ought to be on public view from time to time.
But the points re Sissinghurst are (1) it should not be continuously promoted to attract ever more visitors, as was done with the 2009 TV series (2) its quality and atmosphere are seriously degraded by excessive visitor numbers.
One possibility would be to have a Coach Party Day. It would be the only day on which coach parties were allowed and they would have to follow a prescribed route through the gardens, as is done at the President’s Garden in New Delhi.

By: Mary Anne Morel

Mary Anne Morel — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:56:16 +0000

Re the March 27th comments by Tom Turner, he makes a reasonable case for truncating the numbers of visitors to Sissinghurst (and, presumably, other over-used tourist venues). Such a decision would be fraught with complications, though, as the world’s garden lovers come to blows while fighting over scarce seasonal entry tickets. Perhaps a lottery? But sites like Katsura and the Chauvet Cave do not equate to the gardens at Sissinghurst, which are neither immensely old, archaeologically important (at least, not yet) nor environmentally degraded: they are a renewable living space and as such meant to be seen and admired, even by those who are not garden designers or historians. If the National Trust is merely to perpetuate its properties not showcase them, why are the families of some of these houses given free permanent accommodation and the NT (and its donors) left to foot the bill for preserving and maintaining them? It would seem there really is a free lunch! I for one would be happy to join the National Trust and contribute to the continuance of British heritage, but not necessarily to help former owners regain their long-lost glory.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:36:28 +0000

But conservation is conservation! Here are some examples (1) Watercolours have to be kept from the light, whatever the public wants (2) Katsura has strictly limited numbers (3) Chauvet Cave could be one of the world’s foremost tourist attractions but only research workers are allowed to enter and ‘The fieldwork is conducted during two, 15 day, campaigns per year, plus two additional week-long campaigns for the geologists and floor specialists…In the field, usually only half of the team works in the cave each day, in addition to a few specialists who participate only intermittently. This equals around 8 or 9 persons per day for approximately 6 to 7 hours. Analyses of micro-climates have shown that to respect the equilibrium of the cave, human presence should be limited to 12 persons per day, during 8 hours, for 15 days.’ Contrast this with crowds who are allowed into the tombs in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings. Clearly there is a range of possibilities and I think the present Sissinghurst policy of increasing footfall is mistaken. It is not what Harold and Vita would be doing if they were still in residence – and nor do I think it is what they would have wanted to happen. Amongst other things, they were snobs.

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:11:07 +0000

A double edged sword I think Tom. I’m sure the conservaton of Sissinghurst would benefit fom less visitors, however, it is not that simple as the revenue required to keep it as it is, is clearly better served by a higher footfall. It would be pointless for the NT to conserve and preserve for the nation and then not allow people to see such wonderful places.
As for the amount of gardeners at Sissinghurst I am not certain but would hazard a guess that there a far more gardeners, both staff and volunteers, than in the day of Vita and Harold. The public are very unforgiving and what would have been acceptable in previous years, overgrown paths, hanging branches etc, cannot be so now as we have to contend with health and safety issues as well as making properties accessible for disables visitors.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:23:25 +0000

I much appreciate the work done by volunteers – and prefer low wages to high wages – but please can I have your opinion on the following question: would the conservation of Sissinghurst be best served by more visitors or by fewer visitors? And does it now have more or fewer gardeners than in the days of Vita and Harold? – I think it should be the same.

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:24:45 +0000

Well, Tom Turner, I am laughing at the suggestion that NT staff get praise from the public and are interested in getting paid more money. As in any service industry front facing staff come in for a lot of abuse from visitors .. however, they are outweighed by the lovely ones so on that i’ll give you half a point BUT as for the money, well, we are very poorly paid and most people who work for the Trust do so because they love the property they work at or have a general love of historic buildings, countryside etc. Also many NT workers are voluntary.
Without such ‘property developers’ much of our heritage would simply disappear.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:27:38 +0000

As Alan Watts (a famous writer, author and podcaster on Eastern philosophy) remarks ALL organizations tend to give priority to the interests of their own staff. We have recently seen this in bankers as we once saw it in the monasteries. Classification of the National Trust as a charity has no consequences for this fact. So we need to ask: ‘What are the interests of National Trust staff?’ Of course they want to conserve their properties, but Trust staff have the same concerns as other people: having something interesting to do, making changes to the world, getting praise from the public and their bosses, getting promoted, earning more for their organization, getting paid more themselves. All these things tempt staff into what I regard as PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:18:39 +0000

The NT is not a “money making organisation” .. It is a charity which relies upon membership, donations etc to continue the fantastic work it does of preserving out heritage. The programme appears to be extremely one sided.
As a member of NT staff who works at a property in which the doner family throw their weight around, I can assure anyone watching this programme that the National Trust ALWAYS puts the property first. Decisions are made very carefully on the basis of them being for the benifit of a property.
Many of the doner families would not be at the properties at all were it not for the trust as many were handed over due to heavy debts and the families live there rent free.