Is this a Stitch Up ?
The officers of the Recreation and Heritage department published their report on the future of the Tower Arts on Friday. As we all feared and I guess expected, this confirms the original recommendation that they made back in July to transfer the Tower to the school. The report can be found at http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/071207-execpr-R1130104417.html.
The report also recommends that £25,000 per year for a minimum of three years is provided to work with the University of Winchester to deliver a programme of arts development in Winchester. This is on the condition that the City Council commits the same. There is no role in the future for the Tower User Group or the friends of the evening programme.
I am very disappointed with the proposal – it will mark the end of the Tower as an Arts Centre. In my view, the report has been written in a biased way to justify a decision already taken. There are numerous examples where they are selective with the facts – some of these are summarised below.
We now have confirmation in the report that 70% of the people in Winchester District want the Tower to stay as an Arts Centre. Only 17% prefer the option that includes the transfer to the school. The largest public meeting in Winchester for nearly 30 years said the same thing. I hope that Councillor Thornber sees through the flawed report and makes the right decision.
We plan to hold a protest outside of the council offices (by the Hampshire Hog) starting at 2pm on Friday 7th December. We will be making our final deputation to Councillor Thornber at around 2.30pm. The public are welcome to attend this. We really need to have as many protestors as possible at the meeting. This is the final push.
Councillor Thornber originally requested that the County present a business case from Kings’ School. A business case is a structured document that clearly defines the costs and benefits of the proposal. The case put forward in the report falls way short of what a well run business would require before making such a significant decision.
If this goes through the people of Winchester will have been sold down the river.
The campaign group has stayed away from party politics throughout the campaign in the belief that the Conservatives would listen to the overwhelming view of the public.
Phryn Dickens, Martin Tod and others from the Lib Dems have been very supportive but ultimately the Lib Dems are not in power. The only additional funding from the City came from the Lib Dem controlled town forum.
George Beckett and Steve Brine, whilst supportive, appear to have made very little difference and in the end as Conservatives must take responsibility for any decision that is taken.
The proposal that has been made with regard to the programme for art development has been put together in a rush and does not add up. It leaves many unanswered questions including such basic things as how the box office will operate. The school plan is to slash the staffing levels from a headcount of 6 to 2 - any reasonable person can see that there is no real intention to save the Tower as an Arts Centre.
It seems clear that the Tower will now be fragmented between educational establishments and will have little if any community arts provision.
We want the people of Winchester to be listened to and the Tower to be treated equitably with the more expensive Art Centres within Aldershot and the New Forest. It should be given the same three year breathing space that their local Conservatives have managed to negotiate. The Tower supporters have already found £16,000 in pledges to save the Tower - more than any of the other Art Centres.
If you have not done so already - please write to George Beckett at
Examples of Bias within the Report
· It tries to rebut the campaigners claim that the Tower is being unfairly treated relative to the other HCC owned Art Centres. It states that the point that we make about the lowest subsidy from HCC to the Tower is insignificant (despite being £35k less than the West End in Aldershot!). It also states that the higher support from the local authority is not markedly different for the Tower compared to the others (despite it being £21k more than the Ashcroft!). These are very significant amounts in the context of the total public subsidy of around £120k.
· It states that the socio-economic considerations are more important in making the judgement – so it refers to the economic deprivation within Aldershot and the New Forest. Amazingly it does not refer at any stage in the report to Stanmore and the excellent connections that the Tower has to this community. The statistics that I have seen suggest that St. Lukes in Winchester is a more deprived area than the wards that the other Art Centres are located in (see http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk).
· It tries to rebut the campaigners claim that the Tower provides a service to Hampshire outside of the District by presenting the relative statistics in a misleading way (see 6.8 in the report). It states that the % of people booking tickets for events at the Tower from the local district councils area are higher than those in two out of three of the other Art Centres. What it conveniently fails to mention is that in both these cases – most of these attendees come from outside of Hampshire i.e. Hampshire ratepayers are subsidising Dorset and Surrey residents! Surely HCC should be looking for some subsidy from these Counties before it closes the Tower. Here are the unadulterated statistics:
Achcroft has 93% attendance from Hampshire (44% attendance from own district, 49% from Hampshire outside own district) and 7% from non hampshire.
New Forest has 67% attendance from Hampshire (65% from own district, 2% from Hampshire outside own district) and a 33% from outside Hampshire - manily Dorset.
West End has 54% attendance from Hampshire (33% from own district, 21% from Hampshire outside own district) and a 46% from outside Hampshire - mainly Surrey.
This compares to the Tower which has 92% attendance from Hampshire (50% from own district, 42% from Hampshire outside own district) and 8% from Non Hampshire.
. It also conveniently fails to mention that the Winchester District population is growing rapidly, whilst the Aldershot District is static and the New Forest is declining.
· In the phone survey, 70% of the people in Winchester District want the Tower to stay as an Arts Centre. However, this is dismissed within the report as not providing a clear pointer in a particular direction.
· The report highlights that the Tower currently operates efficiently within a headcount of 3 full-time and 4 part-time staff plus casual and contract staff to cover cleaning, technical and the bar. It says that there are no opportunities for savings. The School will operate the Tower with one full time and one part time staff plus casual and contract staff to cover cleaning, technical and the bar. Surprisingly, this goes unchallenged.
· The report states that the “Discover Centre is only suitable for some elements of the Tower’s evening programme”. This is misleading – the consultant report states that “In my opinion it cannot be a replacement for the Tower performance space.” This is because it has very limited changing facilities, it has no real back stage or back of house facilities and it is neither decorated, nor acoustically appropriate for live music gigs
These are just some of the glaring issues with the report. We will present more at the deputation on Friday.
No comments:
Post a Comment