logo
English Heritage plans up to 200 redundancies and winter closures of some sites

English Heritage plans up to 200 redundancies and winter closures of some sites

The Guardian30-01-2025

Staff at English Heritage have been shocked to discover that the cash-strapped organisation is planning up to 200 redundancies and the winter closure of various castles, abbeys and other historic sites in its care.
At least 7% of the workforce could be affected, with curators being particularly targeted, it is believed.
Under the cuts, 22 sites will become 'hidden gems', opening only on specific and limited days. They include properties as significant as Ranger's House in Greenwich, London, a Georgian villa with an important art collection, where part of Netflix's popular television series Bridgerton was filmed.
A further 21 sites will be closed for winter. They include Lullingstone Roman Villa in Kent, begun in about AD100 and among the most outstanding examples in Britain; Totnes Castle in Devon, built 900 years ago during the Norman conquest, almost certainly by one of William the Conqueror's commanders; and Furness Abbey in Cumbria, once the largest monastery in north-west England, founded in the 12th century.
'This is seriously worrying,' one insider said.
There are also fears for the demise of irreplaceable experience as experts could be made redundant or have some of their responsibilities handed over to a new layer of managers.
One insider said staff were dismayed and that a colleague was in tears after last week's meeting about the organisation's 'reshaping'. 'All of our jobs are basically at risk. They won't tell us an exact number, but it's affecting virtually every department. Sacking so many people is unbelievable.'
Another source said: 'We think we are talking 150 full-time equivalent redundancies – potentially up to 200 actual people.'
English Heritage cares for more than 400 historic monuments, buildings and places. Since it is a charity, it does not receive a government grant, relying instead on membership, tickets and sales in its shops and cafes. It has 2,535 employees and more than 5,000 volunteers.
Staff understand that the new structure will be in place in April.
A source said among those invited to the meeting were three London curators who are on maternity leave: ' Basically, the whole thing has just been handled so badly.'
Curators fear that responsibilities for 'collection management' and 'interpretation' – will be transferred to younger – and cheaper – 'collection managers' brought in to oversee them.
A source said: 'That means getting rid of people who are extremely skilled, but who would require more money. Adding a new team of managers is going to add to the bureaucracy, layers of managers who are not necessarily art experts. I believe in giving young people opportunities, but they'll basically just employ people with absolutely no skills to fill these gaps and pay them probably peanuts. It's not right.'
Prospect and the PCS, the unions that represent the heritage sector, are concerned.
Steve Thomas, Prospect's deputy general secretary, said: 'Staff at English Heritage will be understandably worried about their future after hearing this news and worried about the future of the historic sites they work so hard to keep open to the public.
'We have been working with the employer to minimise redundancies … We recognise that the financial situation is difficult. But it is also true that the skilled and dedicated staff who keep our history alive are the very heart of this organisation. Losing these skills and this experience would damage our heritage as much as losing the sites themselves.'
Fran Heathcote, the PCS's general secretary, said: 'We stand committed to protecting the jobs and livelihoods of our members … [who play] a key role in the vital task of preserving English history.'
An English Heritage spokesperson said: 'All organisations need to review their structure from time to time and English Heritage has not done so for several years. In that time, our world has changed dramatically. The pandemic and its aftermath led to lasting changes in visitor expectations and behaviour, both domestically and internationally, while many of our visitors and members are facing challenges with the cost of living.
'High inflation has increased the cost of conservation work at our sites, but significant and ongoing expenditure is still required if the condition of the sites in our care is not to deteriorate.
'The aim of these proposals is to ensure that English Heritage is financially resilient and can fulfil our charitable purposes . We're committed to working with our employees and our trade unions to find ways to avoid and reduce redundancies where we can … Under these proposals, we will continue to have a team of more than 75 expert curators, historians and conservators.'
He added that to exclude those on maternity leave from consultation would be unlawful.
He argued that a reduction in opening hours would affect 'a relatively small number' of sites, some of which attract few visitors during the winter months: 'For instance over one weekend in November, a number of these sites only welcomed 11 visitors.'
He added that 22 of the other smaller sites would have special guided tours and temporary exhibitions to 'provide a richer experience than what we currently offer'.
Nothing will be confirmed until after a formal consultation period.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Meghan and Harry's eye-watering bills laid bare in new show as 'income dries up'
Meghan and Harry's eye-watering bills laid bare in new show as 'income dries up'

Daily Record

time4 hours ago

  • Daily Record

Meghan and Harry's eye-watering bills laid bare in new show as 'income dries up'

Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? is set to delve into the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's finances since quitting The Firm. Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle are set to see their incomes dwindle and costs soar as their multi-million pound deals dry up, experts have said. After they decided to quit the Royal Family back in 2020, Harry's father, King Charles removed all financial support from them as they relocated to America. After this, Harry told Oprah Winfrey during that explosive interview that his dad "literally cut me off financially" . ‌ Now a new Channel 5 programme called Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? is set to shine a light on their finances revealing Harry's surprising inheritances, Meghan's millions and their staggering Montecito mortgage. ‌ The documentary also delves into the multi-million pound deals the couple have cut to sell their story since leaving The Firm - but it also details their huge outgoings, according to The Mirror. Royal expert Norman Baker tells the show: 'There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and Harry's income is going to decline in the future. It's declining now. They've done the big hits that they could do. They've done the big Spotify event, they've done the big book, there is nothing else to come, nothing else to sell apart from themselves.' After they moved their lives over to the US, the couple bought a lavish family home costing $14.65 million (£11m). However, they also took out a mortgage of $9.5m (£7m), with repayments in the region of $50,000-100,000 (£73,000 - £37,000) a month. Until now, it's been unheard of for a senior Royal to require a mortgage. Prince Harry has also been forced to fund his own security, and he rarely travels anywhere public without a four-car convoy. Former royal protection officer Simon Morgan explains the costs of specialist protection, saying: 'It's always very difficult to identify the cost in relation to specialist protection, purely because there's a lot of other factors that go into it. You are looking at somewhere in the region of about £3 million a year to protect somebody who stays at home. As soon as they leave the residence, even if they go down to the shops, that could see that cost double or triple and go from £3m to £6m or £9m or £10m, conservatively. Security is not a fashion accessory, it's a need. You've got to address your needs versus your wants.' ‌ In order to fund it, Harry and Meghan famously signed a £100 million five year deal with Netflix in 2020 and a £15 million deal with Spotify. The Spotify deal has since come to an end with a top exec at the firm dubbing the pair 'grifters', while the Netflix deal is due to end this year, with no renewal planned. Before they left their royal roles, which was famously branded 'Megxit', the Sussexes were earning £2.3m a year as working Royals, receiving money from the then Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall. ‌ But when they departed The Firm that all stopped, leaving Harry forced to live on the inheritance his mum Diana, Princess of Wales left him in her will. When she sadly passed away in a car accident in 1997, Diana left £6.5m to each of her two sons, which had grown to around £10m when Harry received it upon turning 30. ‌ In his interview with Oprah, Harry said 'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this," referring to the family's move to California. Meghan, meanwhile, was thought to be worth around £5million when she met Harry - money built up from her time as an actress on Suits and from her lifestyle brand. His tell all book Spare earned Harry a $20m (£15m) advance and sold an incredible 3.2 million copies in its first week. He's expected to have received a further £7m from the hardback sales. Now PR expert Nick Ede is backing Meghan to become the family's breadwinner. He says, 'Meghan is the best way of making money for the two of them. She is the breadwinner.' ‌ Nick believes that having to build her own fortune before she met Harry means she's more savvy with deals than her Royal husband. Nick continues: 'Megan from an early age knew it was very important to be secure. If you're a jobbing actress that means you don't know literally where the next pay cheque will come from and I think that will have added to her drive.' ‌ Indeed, Meghan might be more savvy with money but Harry has just come into another inheritance - this time from his great-grandmother, Elizabeth, Queen Mother. In 1994 the Queen Mother set up a Trust Fund to benefit her great-grand children and this is expected to have paid out £8m to Harry. It's a tidy sum but royal journalist Emily Andrews reckons Harry doesn't contribute much else to his household. She tells the documentary: 'Meghan gets up at half six, half an hour before the children, then the children gets up and she gets them dressed, gets their breakfast, and then she makes their packed lunch and takes them to kindy (nursery), then at 9 o'clock she sits down and is a girl boss… Where is Harry in all of this? He's not making money, he's not looking after the kids, what is Harry doing?' Meghan & Harry: Where Did The Money Go? Airs on Saturday 14th June at 8.30pm on Channel 5.

Meghan and Harry timebomb with eye-watering bills laid bare as 'income dries up'
Meghan and Harry timebomb with eye-watering bills laid bare as 'income dries up'

Daily Mirror

time6 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Meghan and Harry timebomb with eye-watering bills laid bare as 'income dries up'

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made a fortune since leaving The Royal Family. However, a new Channel 5 documentary reveals the money could run out Prince Harry and his wife Meghan will see their income dwindle and costs soar as their multi-million pound deals dry up, according to experts. After striking their 'Megxit' deal in 2020, King Charles removed all financial support from the couple, with Harry moaning to Oprah that his dad "literally cut me off financially". Now a new Channel 5 show called Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? shines a light on their finances revealing Harry's surprising inheritances, Meghan's millions and their staggering Montecito mortgage. The documentary counts the multi-million pound deals the pair have cut to sell their story since leaving The Firm - but it also details their astronomical outgoings. ‌ Royal expert Norman Baker tells the show: 'There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and Harry's income is going to decline in the future. It's declining now. They've done the big hits that they could do. They've done the big Spotify event, they've done the big book, there is nothing else to come, nothing else to sell apart from themselves.' ‌ Upon moving to America the pair splashed out on a family home costing $14.65 million (£11m). However, they also took out a mortgage of $9.5m (£7m), with repayments in the region of $50,000-100,000 (£73,000 - £37,000) a month. Until now, it's been unheard of for a senior Royal to require a mortgage. On top of that, Prince Harry has been forced to fund his own security, and he rarely travels anywhere public without a four-car convoy. Former royal protection officer Simon Morgan explains the costs of specialist protection, saying: 'It's always very difficult to identify the cost in relation to specialist protection, purely because there's a lot of other factors that go into it. You are looking at somewhere in the region of about £3 million a year to protect somebody who stays at home. As soon as they leave the residence, even if they go down to the shops, that could see that cost double or triple and go from £3m to £6m or £9m or £10m, conservatively. Security is not a fashion accessory, it's a need. You've got to address your needs versus your wants.' To pay for it, the pair famously signed a £100 million five year deal with Netflix in 2020 and a £15 million deal with Spotify. The Spotify deal has already ended with a top exec at the firm dubbing the pair 'grifters', while the Netflix deal is due to end this year, with no renewal in sight. ‌ Before Megxit, the Sussexes were earning £2.3m a year as working Royals, receiving money from the then Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall. But when the pair left The Firm that all stopped, leaving Harry forced to live on the inheritance his mum Diana, Princess of Wales left him in her will. When she died in 1997 Diana left £6.5m to the boys each, which had grown to around £10m when Harry received it upon turning 30. Talking to Oprah, Harry said 'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this," referring to the family's move to California. Meghan, meanwhile, was thought to be worth around £5million when she met Harry - money built up from her time as an actress on Suits and from her lifestyle brand. His tell all book Spare earned Harry a $20m (£15m) advance and sold an incredible 3.2 million copies in its first week. He's expected to have received a further £7m from the hardback sales. Now PR expert Nick Ede is backing Meghan to become the family's breadwinner. He says, 'Meghan is the best way of making money for the two of them. She is the breadwinner.' ‌ Nick believes that having to build her own fortune before she met Harry means she's more savvy with deals than her Royal husband. Nick continues: 'Megan from an early age knew it was very important to be secure. If you're a jobbing actress that means you don't know literally where the next pay cheque will come from and I think that will have added to her drive.' ‌ Broadcaster and critic Bidisha Mamat agrees with Nick and admits she fears that Harry has a lot to prove. She says: They are going to run out of ideas before they run out of money. Meghan is going to do fine, Meghan is going to make her money, Harry has the bigger financial, personal and emotional challenge. Harry has to prove he really can have a career.' Following the collapse of the Spotify deal, Meghan did indeed land another podcast deal. This time, however, her deal was with smaller company Lemonada and expected to be worth just $40,000 (£30,000). Meghan is also still coining it in from Suits, from which repeats are thought to have recently added another $200,000 to the Sussex bottom line. ‌ Indeed, Meghan might be more savvy with money but Harry has just come into another inheritance - this time from his great-grandmother, Elizabeth, Queen Mother. In 1994 the Queen Mother set up a Trust Fund to benefit her great-grand children and this is expected to have paid out £8m to Harry. It's a tidy sum but royal journalist Emily Andrews reckons Harry doesn't contribute much else to his household. She tells the documentary: 'Meghan gets up at half six, half an hour before the children, then the children gets up and she gets them dressed, gets their breakfast, and then she makes their packed lunch and takes them to kindy (nursery), then at 9 o'clock she sits down and is a girl boss… Where is Harry in all of this? He's not making money, he's not looking after the kids, what is Harry doing?' ‌ Emily accompanied Harry and Meghan on their tour of Australia in 2018. She recalls how Meghan moaned to Harry that they weren't being paid for their work. Emily says, 'It has just been announced that Meghan was pregnant. I'm inside the Sydney Royal Opera House with Harry and Meghan and they come out. Meghan turns to Harry and looks at the screaming crowds who are waiting for them and says, 'I can't believe I'm not getting paid for this.' I think that speaks to how she viewed her role in the Royal Family.' Since they left the Royal family, the pair have become more famous than ever and commentator Afua Hagan believes the pair will go on to achieve more and more. She says: 'What is clear about Harry and Meghan is that they are very savvy with their money. America is a good spot for them at the moment because it definitely fits in with their idea of entrepreneurship. Harry and Meghan have proven time and time again that they can stand on their own two feet that they can provide for themselves and their family. Definitely we can never count them out.' The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been contacted for comment.

UK broadcasters hail rare win over Netflix in battle for streaming ads
UK broadcasters hail rare win over Netflix in battle for streaming ads

The Guardian

time13 hours ago

  • The Guardian

UK broadcasters hail rare win over Netflix in battle for streaming ads

Shows such as Netflix's TV history-making Adolescence and Disney's romp Rivals are among the latest hits to continue the subscriber juggernaut, as the US streamers continue to mount pressure on UK TV broadcasters. However, research reveals that a new breed of viewers being banked on to drive their next era of growth are watching up to 40% less content on some services, giving traditional broadcasters hope that their own streaming services will not ultimately be outmuscled in the battle over the rapidly growing £1bn-plus streaming ad market. It has been two and a half years since Netflix reversed its resistance to advertising, leading the charge to tap a new market as subscriber growth petered out and the cost of living crisis made consumers more open to paying less in return for seeing ads. The strategy has helped breathe life into stalling subscription growth. Netflix added the most customers in a quarter in its history in the final three months of 2024, with 55% choosing its ad-supported package. About a third of its 300 million-strong global subscriber base are now watching with ads. Disney+ followed suit in late 2022 and has since amassed 157 million ad-tier subscribers, including its US-only ESPN and Hulu services. And in February last year, Amazon started automatically introducing ads to the 200 million potential monthly viewers of Prime Video, requiring customers to pay if they wanted an ad-free experience. However, research into streaming households shows that homes that watch with ads are 'lighter' viewers, in the words of one media agency executive, compared with those who pay for higher-priced, ad-free packages. A snapshot of UK streaming in the fourth quarter of 2024 showed that Netflix households with advertising-supported subscriptions watched an average of 22 minutes less content a day than those with an ad-free subscription, a difference of almost 22%. Netflix is estimated to have about 17.6 million subscribers in total in the UK, of whom just over 4 million are on an ad-supported package, according to Ampere Analysis. At Amazon's Prime Video, which is estimated to have about 12 million UK users, the same trend has emerged. Viewers who accepted ads watched an average of 23 minutes less content a day than those who had opted to pay for an ad-free experience – a difference of 44%. While viewing minutes were not available for Disney+ UK subscribers, the research showed it had the narrowest gap, with those on ad-supported accounts watching just five fewer minutes of content a day on average than those paying for an ad-free subscription. Matt Ross, the chief analytics officer at the streaming research firm Digital i, says two distinct types of viewer have emerged, but adds that lower levels of viewing in ad-supported households is partly because those subscriptions also typically offer access on fewer devices. 'We've seen that more engaged viewers typically opt for ad-free tiers, valuing the uninterrupted experience they provide,' Ross says. 'More premium plans offer multiple simultaneous streams, which appeals especially to larger households and families. This combination of premium features and flexibility often results in higher daily activity for ad-free plans.' Nevertheless, the phenomenon of 'light viewers' will be grasped by UK broadcasters trying to stop the deep-pocketed US giants conquering the streaming advertising market in the same way as they have the world of paid subscriptions. 'The appeal of the global streamers' ad tiers to advertisers doesn't stack up against the streaming services offered by British broadcasters,' says one senior TV industry executive. Certainly in the UK, at least, the drive into advertising by the big US streamers has had a mixed reception from the media agencies that buy commercial space for brands. Netflix started with a gung-ho attitude, buoyed up by the success it had had building a huge paid subscriber base and the belief advertisers would leap at the chance to be able to place commercials in its mega-hits for the first time. However, it demanded almost 50% more than ITV or Channel 4's services charge for advertising, alongside a hefty commitment to a minimum spend, despite initially only having a small audience and extremely limited ability to target ads. 'The rollout was a disaster,' says the chief executive of one media agency. 'Take-up was underwhelming, to say the least. They had to try again six months later and lost their lead over rivals and are now behind the curve in terms of pricing, data and reach versus, say, Amazon.' Amazon charges about the same as the public service broadcasters' streaming services, while Disney+ charges more, despite having the smallest base of the big three US streamers, a situation the media executive describes as a 'mad outlier, given their volume'. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Last month Netflix rung the changes, announcing that Warren Dias, the head of UK's ad sales, was to leave after two years in the post. The world's biggest and most profitable streaming service has acknowledged it is still a newbie when it comes to the ad market. 'I think you can say that 2025 is the year that we transition from crawl to walk,' Greg Peters, the co-chief executive of Netflix, said in a recent call with analysts. Peters said overall viewing hours per subscriber on its ads plans internationally was similar to those on its standard non-ad plans, and that it expected to double advertising income this year as it focuses on improving ad targeting for brands. The company launched its in-house ad-tech platform in the US in April and intends to start rolling it out to other markets in the coming months. While UK broadcasters feel the tentative start by the US giants has given them the upper hand in the British streaming advertising, which is putting further pressure on the shrinking £3.58bn traditional TV ad market, there is a sense of foreboding that history may ultimately repeat itself. 'We were successful and revolutionised TV viewing,' says Damien Bernet, the vice-president of ad sales for the EMEA region at Netflix. 'We believe we are going to be able to do the same for ads.' More people visit and watch Netflix than any other streaming service in the UK, and in March it made TV history with Adolescence becoming the first programme on a streaming platform to top the weekly audience charts of all shows aired in Britain. In February, 65% of 18- to 64-year-old internet users accessed Netflix, compared with 59% for the BBC's iPlayer, 48% for Prime Video, 46% for ITVX and 34% for Channel 4's streaming service, according to survey data from Ampere Analysis. The US streamers' ad tier strategies have reignited overall growth, are rapidly increasing the scale and attractiveness of the offering for advertisers, and the cheaper pricing has made users more 'sticky' and less likely to think about cancelling. 'Fundamentally, advertising is a scale game, and in that regard many of the streamers are only just getting started,' says Richard Broughton, a director at Ampere. 'UK and European broadcasters will be far from complacent, given the competition they have faced for viewers over the past decade, but they have only a narrow window to batten down the hatches before they start to feel more pressure across their advertiser base too.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store