Agenda item

This ‘Cultural Quarter’ Interim Report asks the Committee to approve the revised timetable for the review, decide how they want to analyse the data from the public drop in session and whether they wish to invite a representative from Sheffield City Council to address them.

Members considered the “Cultural Quarter” – Interim Report and discussed issues arising from the report:

(i)                 City Centre Area Action Plan and the Boundary of the Cultural Quarter

Information was circulated updating Members on the Local Development Framework (LDF) – City Centre Area Action Plan (attached at Annex 1 to these minutes).  Copies of the “LDF City Centre Area Action Plan Issues and Options Report” dated July 2008 and “LDF City Centre Area Action Plan Sustainability Statement” dated July 2008 were also tabled. 

Officers gave details of how the proposed Cultural Quarter sat within the LDF City Centre Area Action Plan.  Extensive consultation had taken place regarding the Action Plan and 1700 comments had been received.  A full report would be presented to the Local Development Framework Working Group in January.  A summary of the comments relevant to the Cultural Quarter had been included in the information tabled. Officers went through the suggestions that had been put forward. Members noted that the comments largely mirrored those that had been received as part of their own consultation process.

Officers emphasised that for the Area Action Plan to include the Cultural Quarter as an Action Area, it would be necessary for a robust evidence base to be produced for the Cultural Quarter, setting out the proposed projects, delivery partners and funding sources.  For this to be incorporated into the next stage of the Plan and subject to public consultation, the evidence would need to be produced by Summer 2009.

Members agreed on the importance of the objectives for the Cultural Quarter being embedded in both the City Centre Area Action Plan and the York Northwest Area Action Plan.  This would ensure that the proposals were co-ordinated with the plans for the wider area. It was also noted that, although the boundary of the Cultural Quarter could cover an area of more than one Area Action Plan, the Government Office had advised that Action Plan boundaries could not themselves overlap.  Discussion took place regarding the need to define specific areas of the city for the purposes of economic development, whilst in terms of cultural provision, there was a need to be as inclusive as possible.

Consideration was given to a diagram, prepared by Sir Ron Cooke, which offered a model as to how both the cultural and the economic development elements could be encompassed (attached at Annex 2 to these minutes).

Members agreed on the importance of a model that was inclusive and non-competitive and one in which all organisations were encouraged to offer cultural contributions.  There must be benefits to citizens in all parts of the city as well as to visitors to the area.

Findings:That, whilst it was acknowledged that for the purposes of obtaining investment it was necessary for there to be a border designating the buildings and space within the Cultural Quarter, the Committee did not envisage the Cultural Quarter as being exclusive.  The institutions and organisations that were based outside of the border would be part of the wider cultural agenda and would contribute to activities and events within the Quarter and benefit from its success.  For this reason the Committee did not propose any amendments to the proposed border.

(ii)               Naming and Branding

Members expressed their regret that the term “Cultural Quarter” had been seen by some residents to be elitist and divisive and this had resulted in some negative comments being made about the proposals.  Suggestions were put forward regarding possible names for the area, including the use of established historical names.  It was noted that “Cultural Quarter” was a term recognised by Government and hence it could act as a trigger in accessing funding streams.  As the proposals evolved it was likely that a more appropriate name would be adopted.

Findings:That, whilst it was acknowledged that “Cultural Quarter” was a nationally recognised term and may support organisations in accessing funding streams, the Committee recommended that a more appropriate name be given to the area for the purposes of attracting and engaging visitors with the facilities on offer.

(iii)             Role of City of York Council in the Process of Developing a Cultural Quarter

Discussion took place as to the role that the Council should play in the development of a Cultural Quarter. The views put forward included:

·        Providing leadership and encouragement

·        Supporting organisations seeking to access funding by removing barriers to investment

·        Ensuring that a pedestrian link was in place

·        Ensuring that those buildings within the area that were owned by the Council, for example the library, contributed to the success of the Cultural Quarter.

(iv)              Transport and Highways

The notes of “City Centre Transport Masterplan” workshop held on 15 July 2008 were circulated (attached at Annex 3 to the minutes).

Officers reported that a quality audit of the City Centre public realm was to be carried out, from which a series of area specific “Public Realm Key Principles” or guidelines would be developed.  The key issue for the Area Action Plan in relation to the Cultural Quarter was the need to co-ordinate the public realm masterplanning of the wider city centre with the proposals for the public realm in the Cultural Quarter. 

Members agreed that accessibility was a key factor in the success of the Cultural Quarter.  It was noted that a review was to be carried out by the Transport Planning Unit which would consider the findings of a number of projects including the Footstreets Review, Cycling City Strategy, Coach Parking Strategy, various improvements to main routes into the city and an audit of the “Gateway Streets” to assess where road space could be reallocated to promote sustainable travel choices and improve the experience of visiting and navigating the city.  The Cultural Quarter (incorporating St Leonard’s Place, Ouse Bridge, and Leeman Road), was one of the five areas that would be investigated for accessibility.  The investigation was expected to commence in the New Year and be completed by July 2009.  Discussion took place as to the various options that could be considered in respect of Gillygate, Exhibition Square, St Leonard’s Place and Leeman Road.  It was noted that the current uncertainty regarding this issue was causing anxiety for some residents

(v)                Minster Quarter

Members had been updated under item 2 (Public Participation) on the launch of the Minster Quarter.  They agreed that whilst there was an overlap between the Minster Quarter and the Cultural Quarter they did not believe this to be in any way detrimental.  It was agreed that partnership working was crucial to the success of the project.

(vi)              St Leonard’s Hospital Site and Area Behind the Art Gallery

Discussion took place regarding possible improvements to the St Leonard’s Hospital site and the area behind the Art Gallery.  Suggestions put forward included a sculpture park and an information centre.  It was agreed that the areas were underutilised and members of the public were often deterred from visiting them because of problems in respect of anti-social behaviour.  Further consideration needed to be given as to ways of preserving the history of this area for future generations whilst encouraging visitors to benefit from what it had to offer.

Findings:That the Committee recommended that further

 consideration be given as to ways in which St Leonard’s Hospital site and the area behind the Art Gallery could be preserved for future generations and made more accessible and attractive to the public.

(vii)            Tourism

The Development and Support Officer for Visit York tabled a document “York: A Vision For Tourism”.  The document included a set of ambitions to deliver the vision for York tourism, in partnership with the community.  Members noted that the ambition to develop York’s position as a leading European cultural centre was closely linked to the vision for a Cultural Quarter within the city.

(viii)          “Cultural Quarters – Principles and Practice”

Members gave their feedback on “Cultural Quarters – Principles and Practice” by Simon Roodhouse.  Particular mention was made of the sections regarding Sheffield’s Cultural Quarter.  Members commented that many of the examples included within the book related to cities that had developed Cultural Quarters primarily to regenerate areas of a city as part of an economic redevelopment strategy.  In the case of York this was not the driving factor. 

It was noted that a representative of Sheffield City Council had been unable to attend the meeting and consideration was given as to whether it would be appropriate to invite them to attend the next meeting.

RESOLVED:            (i)            That the timetable be updated as follows:

(ii)That, in view of the information already available to the Committee and the different circumstances in which Sheffield had established its cultural quarter, a representative from the city not be invited to attend the next meeting.

(iii)             That, in analysing the feedback that had been given at the public drop in session that had taken place in York Minster on 4 November 2008 the following points be noted:

·        The event had been well-attended and a very useful exercise

·        The findings had been similar in content to those received as part of the consultation carried out by the City Strategy Department

·        Members were encouraged by the many positive comments regarding the proposals, including suggestions as to what people would wish to see within the Cultural Quarter.

·        It was agreed that the omission of the Archives in the list of establishments within the Cultural Quarter had been a regrettable error.

REASON:      To ensure the progression of the review and compliance with scrutiny procedures, protocols and work plans.