Great Art Centre, Great School, Bad Decision
Councillor Thornber today confirmed the recommendation from the Art and Heritage department
a) That the management of the Tower Arts Centre be transferred from the Recreation & Heritage Department to Kings' School on 21 April 2008.
b) That the property be appropriated from Recreation & Heritage purposes to Children's Services purposes, staying within the County Council.
c) That Hampshire County Council provides £25,000 per year for a minimum of three years, starting in 2008/09, to develop cultural provision and programming at the Tower Arts Centre and other venues in Winchester, including hiring the Tower from Kings' School for evening performances. This is subject to Winchester City Council matching this commitment.
I am very saddened by the decision and my thoughts go out to John Tellet and his great team that have done so much to build up such a successful community art centre. It is testimony to them that they received the greatest support for any public meeting in Winchester for 30 years.
I am very angry about the way that Conservative County Council ignored the people of Winchester and went ahead with this decision.
Ultimately it was also a vindictive decision. Councillor Thornber retreated from an earlier offer made to use the reduced funding to support the evening programme exclusively at the Tower.
The reduced funding will now be used in a programme that the County's own Art Officer referred to as "not having a huge amount of detail". She defended this by saying there was not anough time to flesh out the detail.
Councillor Thornber today confirmed the recommendation from the Art and Heritage department
a) That the management of the Tower Arts Centre be transferred from the Recreation & Heritage Department to Kings' School on 21 April 2008.
b) That the property be appropriated from Recreation & Heritage purposes to Children's Services purposes, staying within the County Council.
c) That Hampshire County Council provides £25,000 per year for a minimum of three years, starting in 2008/09, to develop cultural provision and programming at the Tower Arts Centre and other venues in Winchester, including hiring the Tower from Kings' School for evening performances. This is subject to Winchester City Council matching this commitment.
I am very saddened by the decision and my thoughts go out to John Tellet and his great team that have done so much to build up such a successful community art centre. It is testimony to them that they received the greatest support for any public meeting in Winchester for 30 years.
I am very angry about the way that Conservative County Council ignored the people of Winchester and went ahead with this decision.
Ultimately it was also a vindictive decision. Councillor Thornber retreated from an earlier offer made to use the reduced funding to support the evening programme exclusively at the Tower.
The reduced funding will now be used in a programme that the County's own Art Officer referred to as "not having a huge amount of detail". She defended this by saying there was not anough time to flesh out the detail.
Well, I say that's exactly the point. The Art and Recreation department should have been recommending a deferral of the decision to allow for this to be clarified. Yet again they have displayed a wanton disregard for community art. This is also evidenced by their abject failure to obtain any commitments from Kings School in exchange for the Tower (thats a bit like me giving you my house for no money and letting you do what you like with it).
The points raised within the deputation by Jan Moring and Alex Hoare were almost totally ignored by Councillor Thornber in his summing up. This has been the pattern throughout the consultation. The points have been ignored because the Council has no anwer to them. I have attached the full text below from Jans deputation below. I have also attached in the links on the left the letter from Alex Hoare and over 30 representatives of the Creative Arts industries to Councillor Thornber.
Councillor Thornber also commented that Winchester is rich in places to see performing arts. As well as the Theatre Royal, he referred to those well frequented performing arts venues of the Great Halll, The Cathederal, St. Swithuns, Peter Symonds College and Winchester College! What chance have we got for reasoned debate when we hear such total hogwash as this!
The points raised within the deputation by Jan Moring and Alex Hoare were almost totally ignored by Councillor Thornber in his summing up. This has been the pattern throughout the consultation. The points have been ignored because the Council has no anwer to them. I have attached the full text below from Jans deputation below. I have also attached in the links on the left the letter from Alex Hoare and over 30 representatives of the Creative Arts industries to Councillor Thornber.
Councillor Thornber also commented that Winchester is rich in places to see performing arts. As well as the Theatre Royal, he referred to those well frequented performing arts venues of the Great Halll, The Cathederal, St. Swithuns, Peter Symonds College and Winchester College! What chance have we got for reasoned debate when we hear such total hogwash as this!
These paroachial views lack the vision that I would expect from our leader. Winchester should be competing with the likes of nearby Salisbury and Chichester where performing arts is really taken seriously. It has exactly the right foundations, with the two Universities that specialise in Art, to create an artistic centre of excellence that could drive the creative industries and generate significant wealth in the area. After all, in the new knowledge economies, the creative industries employ 15% of the workforce and represent the fastest growing sector.
Councillor Thornber concluded by taking issue with my view that this is the end of the Tower as an Arts Centre.
My view is based on the fact that it will be managed by a school. It will not have any professional art management staff, the staffing will be cut from 6 to 2, it will not have a curated programme, it will not have any marketing and it will not have a box office.
Its a bit like saying that a school is still a school after you have removed the teaching staff , transferred the building to the local art centre and torn up the curriculum.
As mentioned before - Theodore Roosevelt said
"Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says 'duck'. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he's wearing a label or not."
I hope that I am wrong and that it does remain as a community arts centre. Councillor Thornber's reputation rests on this.
Councillor Thornber concluded by taking issue with my view that this is the end of the Tower as an Arts Centre.
My view is based on the fact that it will be managed by a school. It will not have any professional art management staff, the staffing will be cut from 6 to 2, it will not have a curated programme, it will not have any marketing and it will not have a box office.
Its a bit like saying that a school is still a school after you have removed the teaching staff , transferred the building to the local art centre and torn up the curriculum.
As mentioned before - Theodore Roosevelt said
"Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says 'duck'. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he's wearing a label or not."
I hope that I am wrong and that it does remain as a community arts centre. Councillor Thornber's reputation rests on this.
I, for one, will be watching carefully how the summer programme is put together. If they are serious about it - then we should hear before the end of February what they intend to put on.
The campaign group will consider the option of pursuing maladmistration. We are also thinking of forming an Art for Winchester Action Group to promote amore structured approach to art within Winchester
I would be interested in your views on both of these issues. Please e-mail me at savetowerarts@gmail.com
REPRESENTATION TO D DAY DECEMBER 7TH 2007-12-06
Good afternoon Cllr. Thornber. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.
I will start by addressing several points from today’s report with which the User group takes issue.
The matter of the building is clearly central, although the Council’s ‘requirement to have no direct responsibility for the fabric of the building’ was only made explicit in the Options Report in October. The true costs of maintaining the building are unclear. We have requested details of the future property costs but this has not been forthcoming. Without sufficient time and a thorough examination of all the factors, supporters have been unable to make counter proposals.
We are pleased that the New Forest Arts Centre is considered to have the potential to operate as an independent organisation but as far as we know, no work has been done to corroborate this claim. The centre has three years to work up a plan but the Tower Arts Centre has been unfairly denied this opportunity.
The ‘Westie’ has also been given a three year reprieve because it is in Aldershot, specifically in Wellington, an economically deprived area. The report ignores the fact that St Luke’s ward, where the Tower is situated is significantly more deprived than Wellington. Average weekly income is £490 as against £620 and 10% of residents claim housing benefit compared with 6%.
The County subsidy to the Tower is £36k lower than the West End and the District subsidy to the Tower is £21k more than the Ashcroft. The report concludes that this is not significant. Any reasonable person would conclude that these are significant numbers relative to the overall County subsidy of £106k.
Elsewhere the report fails to grasp the significance of statistics about the geographical spread of Arts Centre attendees. 92% of the audiences for the Tower come from Hampshire. This compares to 67% for the New Forest and 54% for the West End. Hampshire ratepayers effectively provide a significant subsidy to Dorset and Surrey. The current proposal would mean that the priorities of Surrey and Dorset residents have been put ahead of the Hampshire ratepayers that attend the Tower
Today’s report has misrepresented the User Group by stating that we will only be satisfied by the status quo. This is completely untrue. We have consistently argued for time to develop a new financial model and we are prepared to form a company limited by guarantee to achieve this. We must reiterate categorically that the school option is unacceptable to us as it means the end of the Tower as an Arts Centre.
We are deeply saddened and disturbed by the Council’s lack of response to the overwhelming public support for the Tower. The Public meeting was a triumph for the campaign and has generated unprecedented levels of direct responses.
The County Council commissioned an independently run telephone survey of 500 randomly selected residents of the district. This showed that 70% of respondents want the Tower Arts Centre to remain as it is, the majority (44%) under a new funding model. Only 17% favour the transfer option. However, the report states that the results ‘do not provide a clear pointer in a particular direction.’ This is an outrageous conclusion.
The Discovery Centre is completely irrelevant to the future of the Tower but the report refuses to accept this and misrepresents a statement from the Option Appraisal report. Ms Felton says ‘In my opinion it cannot be a replacement for the Tower performance space’ but this has become ‘The discovery centre is only suitable for some elements of the Tower’s evening programme’.
The proposal to develop new programming for venues across the city needs more work before it can be properly considered. It has an obvious educational bias, an unspecified agenda and would not attempt to replicate the current evening programme which is so valued and appreciated by the public.
Cllr Thornber’s requirement for a business case from King’s school has not been delivered. The report includes an extensive review of current activities and facilities which are unrelated to professional arts provision in Winchester. The change from a predominantly adult focus to children’s educational use is transparent, it can no longer be claimed that the transfer will do anything other than close the Tower as an Arts Centre.
We have put together a plan that could reduce the public subsidy by around £45k. This would be achieved by increased revenue from adult classes and members, new ventures and individual support. We are also aware that the Blue Apple Theatre group has plans to expand. Income from the University Faculty of Arts for professional services could reach as much as £20k annually. It should also be understood that the university is only interested in buying services from a professional arts venue, not an educational establishment.
Local authorities who ask their residents what they want but refuse to act upon their passionately expressed views cannot expect to retain the confidence of their communities. We urge you to reconsider your intention to make a final decision today. Instead, please allow a period of at least one year for further detailed examination of ways to avoid the irreplaceable loss of the Tower as a professional arts centre.
Good afternoon Cllr. Thornber. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.
I will start by addressing several points from today’s report with which the User group takes issue.
The matter of the building is clearly central, although the Council’s ‘requirement to have no direct responsibility for the fabric of the building’ was only made explicit in the Options Report in October. The true costs of maintaining the building are unclear. We have requested details of the future property costs but this has not been forthcoming. Without sufficient time and a thorough examination of all the factors, supporters have been unable to make counter proposals.
We are pleased that the New Forest Arts Centre is considered to have the potential to operate as an independent organisation but as far as we know, no work has been done to corroborate this claim. The centre has three years to work up a plan but the Tower Arts Centre has been unfairly denied this opportunity.
The ‘Westie’ has also been given a three year reprieve because it is in Aldershot, specifically in Wellington, an economically deprived area. The report ignores the fact that St Luke’s ward, where the Tower is situated is significantly more deprived than Wellington. Average weekly income is £490 as against £620 and 10% of residents claim housing benefit compared with 6%.
The County subsidy to the Tower is £36k lower than the West End and the District subsidy to the Tower is £21k more than the Ashcroft. The report concludes that this is not significant. Any reasonable person would conclude that these are significant numbers relative to the overall County subsidy of £106k.
Elsewhere the report fails to grasp the significance of statistics about the geographical spread of Arts Centre attendees. 92% of the audiences for the Tower come from Hampshire. This compares to 67% for the New Forest and 54% for the West End. Hampshire ratepayers effectively provide a significant subsidy to Dorset and Surrey. The current proposal would mean that the priorities of Surrey and Dorset residents have been put ahead of the Hampshire ratepayers that attend the Tower
Today’s report has misrepresented the User Group by stating that we will only be satisfied by the status quo. This is completely untrue. We have consistently argued for time to develop a new financial model and we are prepared to form a company limited by guarantee to achieve this. We must reiterate categorically that the school option is unacceptable to us as it means the end of the Tower as an Arts Centre.
We are deeply saddened and disturbed by the Council’s lack of response to the overwhelming public support for the Tower. The Public meeting was a triumph for the campaign and has generated unprecedented levels of direct responses.
The County Council commissioned an independently run telephone survey of 500 randomly selected residents of the district. This showed that 70% of respondents want the Tower Arts Centre to remain as it is, the majority (44%) under a new funding model. Only 17% favour the transfer option. However, the report states that the results ‘do not provide a clear pointer in a particular direction.’ This is an outrageous conclusion.
The Discovery Centre is completely irrelevant to the future of the Tower but the report refuses to accept this and misrepresents a statement from the Option Appraisal report. Ms Felton says ‘In my opinion it cannot be a replacement for the Tower performance space’ but this has become ‘The discovery centre is only suitable for some elements of the Tower’s evening programme’.
The proposal to develop new programming for venues across the city needs more work before it can be properly considered. It has an obvious educational bias, an unspecified agenda and would not attempt to replicate the current evening programme which is so valued and appreciated by the public.
Cllr Thornber’s requirement for a business case from King’s school has not been delivered. The report includes an extensive review of current activities and facilities which are unrelated to professional arts provision in Winchester. The change from a predominantly adult focus to children’s educational use is transparent, it can no longer be claimed that the transfer will do anything other than close the Tower as an Arts Centre.
We have put together a plan that could reduce the public subsidy by around £45k. This would be achieved by increased revenue from adult classes and members, new ventures and individual support. We are also aware that the Blue Apple Theatre group has plans to expand. Income from the University Faculty of Arts for professional services could reach as much as £20k annually. It should also be understood that the university is only interested in buying services from a professional arts venue, not an educational establishment.
Local authorities who ask their residents what they want but refuse to act upon their passionately expressed views cannot expect to retain the confidence of their communities. We urge you to reconsider your intention to make a final decision today. Instead, please allow a period of at least one year for further detailed examination of ways to avoid the irreplaceable loss of the Tower as a professional arts centre.
+003.jpg)
+099.jpg)
+068.jpg)
