Agenda item

To consider the following motion submitted by Cllrs Nick Wilkinson Councillors, June Ashworth, Dave Brookes, Susie Charles, Tim Hamilton-Cox, Caroline Jackson, and Roger Mace:

That;

1)    The Council asks the Chief Executive to write to the County Council by 12^th February 2016 to request the following:

a)     that the County Council review the option of supporting the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museum organisation of some kind (for example a charitable Trust). This review should include appropriate consultation with partner organisations (including the City Council, the Duchy of Lancaster and existing Friends Groups) and a full review of the service model for the museums

b)     to not dispose of the Judges Lodgings building or relocate its contents until this option has been fully investigated

2)  The City Council supports the principle of investigating the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museums organisation, initially to include the Judges Lodgings with the Maritime, City Museum and the Cottage Museum and to include when practicable such access to Lancaster Castle as may be negotiated with the Duchy.

Letter of support (appended to this motion):

Professor Mark E. Smith, Vice-Chancellor, Lancaster University

Professor Peter Strike, Vice-Chancellor, University of Cumbria

Ruth Connor, Chief Executive, Marketing Lancashire

John Regan, Chair, Chamber of Commerce

Paul Cusimano, Chair, Lancaster Business Improvement District

Ivan Wadeson, Executive Director, the Dukes

Jacqueline Greaves, Chair, Litfest

Di Cumming, Chief Executive, ludusdance

1.     Introduction

1.1.  The museums of Lancaster are all currently run by Lancashire County Council and comprise of the following museums:

·        The City Museum (Lancaster City Council owned) - attracts circa 50,000 visitors per annum

·        The Maritime Museum (Lancaster City Council owned)- attracts circa 12,000 visitors per annum

·        The Cottage Museum (Lancaster City Council owned) - attracts circa 7,000 visitors per annum

·        Lancaster Castle (Duchy owned but leased to Lancashire County Council)- attracts circa 50,000 visitors per annum

·        The Judges Lodgings (Lancashire County Council owned) - attracts circa 12,000 visitors per annum

1.2.  The City Council entered into an agreement with the County Council to run the City Council's museums (City, Maritime and Cottage museums) from 31^st March 2003. The contract currently has a value of around £500K per annum. Previous to this date the City Council had run its museums in house.  It is understood that the aim of moving the City owned museums to the County Council was to ensure continued professional museums services are maintained (e.g. curator and conservation services etc.) at an affordable cost.

1.3.  The County Council is having to make further budget cuts of £262m and has identified that, amongst others, the Judges Lodgings museum in Lancaster will need to close by 31^st March 2016 and large cuts are planned in the County museums service which will impact on the other Lancaster museums.Essentially the County Council are stating that they will no longer be providing a comprehensive museum service.

1.4.  These planned museum cuts will have a direct impact on the quality of the visitor experience in the District as well as impacting on the quality of service offered to the City Council's three museums under the existing management contract.

1.5.  Neither the City Council nor the County Council has assessed the potential impact on Lancaster as a tourist destination if the Judges Lodgings is closed and the central services presently available to the District's other museums are withdrawn.

1.6.  As it stands the museums of Lancaster District have the potential to be a far more exciting visitor attraction than what is currently available. Five museums with a single management structure could operate under a single purpose umbrella organisation with the aim of providing quality visitor focused museums services for Lancaster. This organisation could be operationally independent of both the County Council and the City Council and could be setup with the aim of being financially and to run the museums in a more commercial manner.

2.     The long term impacts on Lancaster District

2.1.  At this stage the key impact to the Lancaster District is the threatened closure of the Judges Lodgings museum on 31^st March 2016, which was decided upon by the County Council on 26^th November 2015.

2.2.  The Lancaster City Council Corporate Plan identifies the City Council's vision for Lancaster as a prosperous historic city noting that the City Council will work to improve the District's heritage assets to ensure the City will be a recognised visitor attraction. The loss of any of the District's museums will erode this potential for Lancaster to attract and sustain tourist visitor numbers.

2.3.  No options appraisal has been undertaken for the Lancaster District's museums as a whole, despite the opportunities for joint working that arose following the transfer of the management of the City Council's museums to the County Council in 2003. This is a key opportunity for the District which should be appraised in detail.

3.      Problems to be faced and the way forward

3.1.  As a major customer of the County Council museums service and custodian of the economic and cultural wellbeing of the District the City Council should be expressing its concerns that the County Council has not looked at the options available for the museums of Lancaster or at the impacts on Lancaster City of closing one of its major visitor attractions.

3.2.  The County Council have not delivered on the potential to create an integrated museums service for the Lancaster District. The current museums of Lancaster are very poorly coordinated. All the museums (including the Judges Lodgings) have world class exhibits, which tie directly back to the story of Lancaster and are showcased in heritage buildings. However the overall 'Lancaster story', as told through the five museums, is disjointed at best with little or no linkage between the various museums. The museums are currently stifled by bureaucracy, making it very difficult for local museum staff to be enterprising. Apparently, they cannot advertise events or even put a "tweet" out without going through the County press team. The current museum service is very much exhibit focused which has led to a lack of story and excitement within the museums. There is therefore massive potential for improvement. An exciting visitor focused service needs to be created which focuses on sustainable long term funding, that makes use of local volunteers, promotes and tells the fascinating story of our City and adds to the overall brand of 'Lancaster Small City Big Story'.

4.     Conclusion

4.1.  It would be prudent to review the option of a Lancaster wide Museum organisation before any museum closures took place. Supporting this motion would provide the County Council with a clear steer that Lancaster City Council would like this option to be reviewed before any museums buildings or exhibits are sold or relocated.

4.2.  For the avoidance of doubt, it is not being proposed within this motion that the City Council would take on the management/ownership of the Judges Lodgings Museum or that the current financial input from the City Council to the Museum Service would be increased.

An officer briefing note is attached.

The following motion of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 was moved by Councillor Wilkinson and seconded by Councillor Mace:-

“That;

1)    The Council asks the Chief Executive to write to the County Council by 12^th February 2016 to request the following:

a)       that the County Council review the option of supporting the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museum organisation of some kind (for example a charitable Trust). This review should include appropriate consultation with partner organisations (including the City Council, the Duchy of Lancaster and existing Friends Groups) and a full review of the service model for the museums

b)       to not dispose of the Judges Lodgings building or relocate its contents until this option has been fully investigated

2)   The City Council supports the principle of investigating the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museums organisation, initially to include the Judges Lodgings with the Maritime, City Museum and the Cottage Museum and to include when practicable such access to Lancaster Castle as may be negotiated with the Duchy.

Supporting information was supplied with the motion and letters of support were appended from:-

Professor Mark E. Smith, Vice-Chancellor, Lancaster University

Professor Peter Strike, Vice-Chancellor, University of Cumbria

Ruth Connor, Chief Executive, Marketing Lancashire

John Regan, Chair, Chamber of Commerce

Paul Cusimano, Chair, Lancaster Business Improvement District

Ivan Wadeson, Executive Director, the Dukes

Jacqueline Greaves, Chair, Litfest

Di Cumming, Chief Executive, ludusdance

An officer briefing note accompanied the motion on the agenda and the Chief Executive responded to Members’ questions on the briefing note.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Clifford, seconded by Councillor Blamire:

“That

1)           Council asks the Chief Executive to write to Lancashire County Council by 12th February 2016 to request the following:

a)           That the county council support in principle the option of the creation of a financially sustainable museum organisation of some kind (for example a charitable trust) to run the Judges Lodgings.

b)           Council welcomes the stated position of Lancashire County Council to not dispose of the Judges Lodgings building or relocate its contents until this option has been fully investigated.

2)             The future of the Maritime and Cottage museums will be reviewed, alongside moves to encourage the County Council to explore community running of its museums provision, with the aim of securing the museums future in this district. Council will therefore await the findings of the Aitken, Pearce & Prince report prior to any decision.

3)                           The City Council supports in principle that future marketing strategies should include the entire museums offer for Lancaster to ensure we capitalise on our heritage.

4)                           Although any work undertaken by the county council will be valuable, the city council will be required to directly consider any proposals that may arise from a review of its own museums on its own behalf, in order to evaluate financial, legal, service delivery implications, risk and opportunities in detail. This should also normally include an appraisal of any other potential and reasonable options.”

Council debated the amendment before a vote was taken.

With 29 Members voting for the amendment, and 29 against, the vote was tied. The Mayor then used his casting vote against the amendment and declared the amendment lost.

A vote was then taken on the substantive motion, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:-

That;

1)    The Council asks the Chief Executive to write to the County Council by 12^th February 2016 to request the following:

a)         that the County Council review the option of supporting the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museum organisation of some kind (for example a charitable Trust). This review should include appropriate consultation with partner organisations (including the City Council, the Duchy of Lancaster and existing Friends Groups) and a full review of the service model for the museums

b)         to not dispose of the Judges Lodgings building or relocate its contents until this option has been fully investigated

2)  The City Council supports the principle of investigating the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museums organisation, initially to include the Judges Lodgings with the Maritime, City Museum and the Cottage Museum and to include when practicable such access to Lancaster Castle as may be negotiated with the Duchy.