Written evidence submitted by Partnership
for Urban South Hampshire Quality Place Delivery Panel (arts 58)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Local Government is the principal public
sector investor in Culture and Heritage in South Hampshire.
1.2 A strong Culture and Heritage sector
provides a cost effective way to secure economic development,
health, learning, community cohesion and place shaping outcomes.
1.3 Loss of funding will both directly damage
local cultural infrastructure and the local cultural ecology.
Additionally significant risks exist that the impact of small
cuts could be magnified by the unwinding of leveraged funding
packages, reduced capacity to evidence the contribution of culture
to local policy priorities, and lack of the necessary resilience
in the sector to allow it to respond to new policy agenda.
1.4 Funding of Culture and Heritage should
be regarded as an investment which delivers clear policy outcomes
which reflect local priorities.
1.5 National funding should be cognisant
of the localism agenda, and sufficiently flexible to be pooled
with other funding streams so as to facilitate the use of culture
to achieve local policy outcomes.
1.6 A new relationship between lottery funders
and Local Government should be established which recognises the
leadership role of Local Government. Funding streams could be
developed to facilitate transition to a more self reliant cultural
sector and consideration should also be given to the use of loans,
as well as grant funding.
1.7 At a local level arms length bodies
should learn to work together more closely, share resources and
provide single points of contact.
1.8 Philanthropists and private sponsorship
can play an important role, but care must be taken to ensure that
benefits flow to local organisations, as well as the well known
national institutions.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire
(PUSH) is made up of 11 Local Authorities: Hampshire County Council,
the Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, the four urban Districts
of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant (whose boundaries totally
fall within the PUSH area), and four further districts (New Forest,
Test Valley, Winchester City and East Hampshire) through which
the PUSH boundary cuts.
2.2 The drivers for collaboration are economic
development and the management of housing growth. In 2006, PUSH
was selected by the Department for Communities and Local Government
(CLG) to become one of 29 growth points. PUSH was also identified
in the regional economic strategy as a Diamond for Growth. In
2008 PUSH became the first sub region in the South East to sign
a Multi Area Agreement.
2.3 PUSH has, from inception, recognised
the importance of quality of place (including culture, sport,
and stewardship of the historic environment), as a means of securing
future prosperity. In 2008 PUSH was adopted by the Living Places
partnership of cultural agencies (http://www.living-places.org.uk/)
as a priority place and has since developed a reputation for developing
innovative approaches to place shaping.
2.4 In 2008 the Quality Place Delivery Panel
was established as part of the formal PUSH governance structure.
The Panel is chaired by Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson (Leader
of Portsmouth City Council), and reports directly into the Joint
Committee which steers the work of the Partnership.
2.5 The priorities of the Quality Place
Delivery Panel are identified in their business plan and include:
2.5.1 Promoting the identity of South Hampshire,
and building the reputation of the area as an excellent place
to live, work, and invest.
2.5.2 Promoting cultural and sporting engagement
and participation.
2.5.3 Supporting the development of the cultural
and creative economy.
2.5.4 Promoting tourism and the visitor economy.
2.5.5 Ensuring South Hampshire is a world class
place to live in terms of Design in the Built Environment, and
Stewardship of the Historic Environment.
The PUSH Quality Place Delivery Panel welcomed
the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee's Call for
Evidence. Our responses to the questions are as follows:
3. What impact recent, and future spending
cuts, from central and Local Government, will have on the Arts
and Heritage at a national and local level?
3.1 Local Government is the main public
sector investor in cultural provision in South Hampshire. This
investment has resulted in the development and sustenance of a
physical infrastructure of arts centres and venues, as well as
libraries and museums, which ensures that all South Hampshire
residents have access to a diverse range of cultural provision.
Local Government has also taken the lead in investing in arts
and cultural development work which has incubated and facilitated
the growth of a diverse range of artists festivals events and
cultural organisations, all of which have contributed the rich
cultural ecology in the area.
3.2 In the past decade Local Government
has played a crucial role by either funding, or facilitating the
delivery of a range of capital projects. These projects include:
3.2.1 Library modernisations, such as the development
of the Discovery Centres in Winchester and Gosport, which have
demonstrably increased library usage.
3.2.2 Cultural infrastructure developments, such
as the development of the Point Arts Centre and Creation centre
in Eastleigh, and the regeneration of the Historic Dockyard and
Gunwharf in Portsmouth.
3.3 Further development is proposed in the
next decade which includes:
3.3.1 a new Arts Complex in Southampton;
3.3.2 The Sea City Museum in Southampton;
3.3.3 the Mary Rose Visitor Centre in the Portsmouth
Historic Dockyard; and
3.3.4 the New Theatre Royal development in Portsmouth.
Havant Borough Council and Gosport Borough Councils
are also considering proposals for investment in the cultural
infrastructure.
3.4 The outcomes from local government expenditure
include:
3.4.1 The growth of a rich and diverse cultural
offer—which is accessible and engages most residents,
frequently making use of buildings which are supported by Local
Government.
3.4.2 Enhanced life chances for young people—The
Find Your Talent, Creative Partnership, and Renaissance programmes
have had significant impact on learning opportunities in and out
of school. Park School in Havant has used specialist arts college
status and creativity in the curriculum, to become one of the
most successful schools in terms of the value added league tables
in the country.
3.4.3 The development of a strong creative
economy—Support for creative industry development ,delivered
in partnership with local universities, has contributed to the
growth of a sector which employs nearly 30 000 people in South
Hampshire, and has doubled in size in the past 10 years.
3.4.4 Strong and cohesive communities—Mela's,
events, and festivals initiated through seed corn public investment
have increased community capacity and confidence, contributed
to the building of trust between communities, and increased public
levels of confidence in Civic Society.
3.4.5 Enhanced perception of Quality of Place—The
cultural offer, stewardship of the historic and natural environment,
and the vibrant visitor economy, are increasingly recognised as
being key to factors in reinforcing South Hampshire's reputation
as a Great Place to Live Work and Invest.
3.5 National investment is channelled in
three ways:
3.5.1 Direct Funding—English Heritage and
organisations responsible for funding National Museums, including
Museums with connections to the Armed Services, directly fund,
manage, and promote access to some of the regions Heritage.
3.5.2 Arms length organisations, such as Arts
Council England and the Museums Library and Archive Council (MLA),
support regularly funded organisations and museum service enhancement.
These organisations have also historically supported local government
by providing authoritative advice and guidance. Predominantly
this funding is focused on securing high quality artistic outcomes,
and stewardship of collections. However Creativity Culture and
Education (CCE) has been core to the funding of cultural education
initiatives in the area.
3.5.3 Lottery Funders, including the Arts Council,
and Heritage Lottery Fund, have played a significant role in supporting
local government to secure cultural infrastructure development,
and provided revenue funding to some organisations serving the
area. The Olympic Legacy Trust as part funder of the Creative
Campuses initiative has also facilitated collaboration between
universities within the region on issues relating to culture and
creativity.
3.6 Real risk exists that relatively small
reductions in funding will cause significant damage for the following
reasons:
3.6.1 Loss of Support for Infrastructure—The
vibrant cultural ecology of the area has grown partly as result
of Local Government support for venues, and cultural development
work. A reduction of this support, if not mitigated by other actions,
is likely to have a direct impact on the range and diversity of
the cultural offer and levels of cultural participations.
3.6.2 The potential unwinding of leveraged
funding packages—Cultural projects frequently depend
on complex partnership funding packages. Funding channelled through
the Arms Length Agencies is frequently linked to a pyramid of
leveraged Local Authority, economic development, and education
funding. The loss of one element of funding can lead to the loss
of the entire project as other funders may struggle to fill the
gap.
3.6.3 Loss of support in making the case for
culture—Over the past decade the contribution that culture
and heritage can make in helping a locality to cost effectively
secure economic, health, education, and place shaping outcomes
has become well documented and evidenced. However reduced investment
in supporting evidence gathering might result in the loss of the
Taking Part, and Active People, surveys, or local advocacy work
undertaken by the arms length agencies and Local Government Development
and Improvement, could mean that it will become increasingly hard
to make the case for cultural investment as well as providing
evidence of outcomes at a local level.
3.6.4 Lack of readiness—Within the
sector many people welcome the challenge of a transition to a
more entrepreneurial and self reliant cultural sector. However
the speed of transition will inevitably cause some very successful
organisations to disappear. Much of the cultural Third Sector
failed to engage in the capacity building initiatives, such as
Future Builders and Change Up, which helped to equip welfare and
environmental organisations to respond to the new policy environment.
Investment may therefore be needed to equip the sector to respond
to the challenge of attracting earned income, philanthropic support,
and private sponsorship.
4. What Arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and make economies of scale?
4.1 Significant opportunities exist to promote
new ways of working which will yield economies:
4.1.1 Rationalisation of Provision—Significant
evidence has emerged that, in spatial planning terms, fewer but
better venues, museums and libraries would enhance service to
residents. Several facilities have over lapping catchments and
are underutilised or are not fit for purpose. Savings in the medium
term could also be achieved by co-locating existing provision
with schools or other public services.
4.1.2 Sharing of Support Services—Where
several venues are located in the same town, or city, opportunities
exist to share backroom services, eg Box Office, Financial Management,
Human Resources, and Recruitment. Opportunities may also exist
to develop joint management and governance arrangements for networks
of facilities. For example in Basingstoke the Trusts managing
the Anvil and Haymarket Theatre have merged. Discussions are taking
place in Portsmouth regarding the development of closer working
relationships between the New Theatre Royal, The Kings Theatre,
and the Guildhall.
4.1.3 The Development of a collaborative rather
than competitive culture—Cultural organisations and
Cultural Service Departments can achieve considerable savings
by looking for opportunities to collaborate rather than compete.
Portsmouth, Southampton, Hampshire, and Winchester, are currently
discussing the benefits of working together on museum service
development. Collaborative working across arts venues could lead
to greater diversity of offer and less duplication of programme.
A collective approach by several organisations, working in partnership,
is also more likely to attract lottery, philanthropic, or private
support, than individual fragmented organisations.
5. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable?
5.1 Local Authorities increasingly view
arts funding as an investment which helps them to achieve community
strategy outcomes. In South Hampshire investment in Find Your
Talent, and Creative Partnerships, has enriched the learning experiences
of young people, increased life chances and reduced anti social
behaviour. Investment in Libraries and Discovery Centres has increased
broadband access. Mela's, and festivals, have reinforced the sense
that South Hampshire is made up of a network of strong, integrated,
cohesive communities. Investment in the Cultural Sector has also
helped reinforce a sense of place and identity. In the future
Local Government will increasingly need evidence that investment
in culture and heritage will deliver community strategy related
outcomes, and this investment will be at least as cost effective
as alternative approaches to delivering the same type of outcomes.
5.2 National funding of Culture and Heritage
appears to be increasingly focused on culture for cultures sake.
The funding of artists and regularly funded organisations is predominantly
related to the quality of artistic output. National funding of
museums is largely focused on organisations who are custodians
of nationally important collections.
5.3 The growing tension between the objectives
of local and national funders can force cultural organisations
to make choices which jeopardise their business model. In an environment
when total subsidy will inevitably have to be reduced this tug
of war between funders is as dangerous as the reduction of funding
itself. Funders therefore need to be given more flexibility in
order to agree the best way, at a local level, of using the limited
resources to deliver both local and national outcomes.
6. Which current system and structure of
funding distribution is the right one?
6.1 Much of the national debate regarding
funding for the arts appears to have been focused on national
funding channels. Outside London, Local Government is the largest
public sector investor in culture. This is very much the case
in South Hampshire. However over recent years there has been a
significant reduction in capacity within Local Authorities to
work with arts organisations. Local Authority budgets are increasingly
being pooled with those of other public agencies, in order to
deliver community strategy outcomes, through arrangements such
as Local Area Agreements, Multi Area Agreements and Total Place.
The Coalition Government's commitment to Localism suggests this
trend may continue. It is therefore imperative that national funding
for culture should be delegated to the local level and should
be flexible in order to support the delivery of clear policy outcomes.
6.2 Without incentives from national funders
it is likely that local politicians will see arts and culture
as an area where they get a poor return for investment in terms
of corporate priority outcomes. However if national bodies such
as Arts Council England, and English Heritage, can help Local
Authorities to achieve both policy outcomes and activate a multiplier
of lottery, private sector, and philanthropic funding, the returns
will be maximised.
7. What impact do recent changes to the distribution
of lottery funding have on the arts and heritage organisations,
and do the policy guidelines from the national Lottery Funding
bodies need to be reviewed?
7.1 Over the 16 years since launch the lottery
has changed the cultural landscape. PUSH welcomes proposals to
restore lottery funding to the original good causes which included
arts and heritage.
7.2 It would be helpful if lottery funding
criteria reinforced the use of Arts and Culture to support local
policy priorities. A new relationship between Lottery funders
and Local Government may therefore be required. Lottery streams
need to be developed which support the localism agenda, reinforcing
legitimacy of local government to lead and coordinate investment
at a local level so as to secure community strategy priorities.
Lottery programmes of this sort would rely on local government
to work strategically with stakeholders in order to broker and
deliver projects which met both national and local policy outcomes.
7.3 Lottery funders might also encourage
"Invest to Save" approaches. Noting that the new ways
of working, described in our response to question 2, which have
the potential to yield significant savings but will only be adopted
if funding is found to cover transition and set up costs.
7.4 Merit might also exist in establishing
funding streams which build the capacity of not for profit cultural
organisations. This will enable these organisations to respond
to the opportunities arising from the Big Society agenda, and
equip organisations to become more self sufficient and better
able to attract private sponsorship and philanthropic funds.
7.5 Lottery funders might also consider
the benefits of establishing loan, as well as grant, programmes.
Many new capital programmes, or business transformation projects,
are likely, if funded, to yield large savings which could be recycled
within the sector. If investment occurred, grants would not be
needed as the projects would, in the long term, have potential
to be self financing. Trustees are however unable to take out
commercial loans without facing unacceptable levels of personal
risk. A lottery funded loan scheme could mean that a trustee would
not have to put their house at risk risk in order to deliver a
worthwhile project. The funder would also have high level of control
over the project while it was being delivered.
7.6 Since the early days of the lottery
several lessons have been learnt. We would therefore not favour
a return to a purely applicant led approach, as this would lead
to over demand and wasted spend on failed applications.
8. The Impact of recent changes to DCMS arms
length bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film
Council and The Museum Library and Archive Council.
8.1 The MLA, Arts Council England, and English
Heritage are members of the Living Place Partnership and contribute
to the funding of the Quality Place work within South Hampshire.
8.2 Screen South, the regional Screen Agency,
works closely with the South East Cultural Partnership. It also
works with SEEDA and South East Media Network in supporting the
development of creative industries within the region.
8.3 The reduction in regional capacity across
the arms length organisations has made it far more difficult for
local government to have a relationship with these bodies. The
lack of a single point of contact, who can speak on behalf of
the fragmented range of bodies, means that it is hard to secure
buy-in and consensus on the way in which arts, culture, heritage
and creative industry policy can be developed in a locality.
8.4 Scope exists at a local level for the
sharing of expertise across the arms length organisations so that
they can collectively develop a closer relationship with Local
Government. The arms length bodies need to make more progress
in delivering the partnership working, and resource sharing agenda,
envisaged as an outcome of the DCMS review of regional cultural
infrastructure in 2008.
9. Can businesses and philanthropists play
a long-term role in funding arts at a national level? What is
the role of Government in encouraging private donations?
9.1 The private sector and philanthropists
have always played a significant role in funding and promoting
the arts. However well known arts organisations and cultural institutions,
with established brands often centred on London, are likely to
represent the most attractive investment propositions to the private
sector.
9.2 Significant risk exists that a focus
on philanthropists, and private sponsorship, will tend to reinforce
the existing bias towards major national companies thus further
impoverishing arts and cultural development in the regions. Furthermore
the focus of many private sector organisations on high art, and
high profile artists, could make it harder to sustain arts organisations
which are rooted in the community and working to enhance life
chances.
9.3 It should be noted that many arts foundations,
eg the Creative Foundation in Folkestone, or the Hamlyn Trust,
have a successful record in promoting innovation, in terms of
regeneration and cultural learning. They have therefore pioneered
new approaches to cultural led regeneration, creative education,
and the use of the arts to support health promotion. It is noted
that this work is often most successful when Trusts collaborate
with universities to ensure credible evaluation and dissemination
of findings.
9.4 Increased private sector sponsorship
and engagement in the arts would undoubtedly be welcome. Organisations
such as Arts & Business have historically played a very significant
role in helping arts organisations develop relationships with
the private sector and in attracting sponsorship. This work could
be further extended and some catalytic funding may well be desirable.
September 2010
|
