(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration & Planning which provided details on the decision required concerning a centrepiece for Market Square as part of the next phase of work to implement Lancaster Square Routes.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
Both options presented fit to the concept design previously consulted on and approved. Both would add much seating capacity to the square, effectively doubling that planned elsewhere on the new benches. The options offered a similar capacity of seating, giving people opportunities to sit in a variety of arrangements. Both options for a centrepiece were designed to fit to an improved layout of the Charter Market in the square and both took up much less space than did the arrangement of the former fountain in association with the benches around. As regards the potentials for using the centrepiece as a stage for performance both options offered this but there were differences. These and all other relative differences between the two options were considered further in the table below.
|
Option 1 |
The centrepiece to Market Square comprising a single elevated structure (as per the Option 1 drawings in Appendix 1).
|
|
|
Advantages |
Option is wholly consistent with the agreed concept design for Market Square, with the first phase completed last year. This option is consistent with the concept designs which went through extensive public and stakeholder consultation at the inception of Lancaster Square Routes. Centrepiece is multi-purpose as it can be used as seating and as staging for performances and fits well with other uses of the square including the Charter Market. Builds in the ability to use the structure for a wide range of performances and is readily useable without additional interventions. The dimensions are proportional to the setting and the potential size of the audience. Builds in steps to meet building regulation requirements for staged performances. From a practical perspective it is much easier (eg no need for setting up, storage, transportation) |
|
|
Disadvantages |
It is more obstructive to pedestrian movement through the very centre of the square than option 2.
Will not offer a sufficient depth of stage for certain larger bands.
|
|
|
Risks |
That the centrepiece does not find favour with people. This is a risk with any public design installation and no more so here in the very centre of the city. The agreed concept design follows extensive consultation, which elicited a generally positive response. The extensive design and community engagement work informing the proposal suggests the square does need a fitting and multi-purpose centrepiece. |
|
|
Option 2 |
The centrepiece to Market Square comprising twin elevated structures (as per the Option 2 drawings in Appendix 1) and also including for the council investing in demountable units that inserted between the two permanent structures would make it possible to provide for a full stage area equivalent to that offered in the option 1 proposal.
|
|
|
Advantages |
Is broadly consistent with the agreed concept design for Market Square. Centrepiece is multi-purpose, as seating and as a space for performance and fits well to other uses to be made of the square including for the Charter Market. In the linear length of seating made available is comparable with that proposed in option 1.
Gives better permeability for pedestrians through the very centre of the square than option 1.
A stage area the same as that provided in the option 1 proposal is achievable via use of demountable units.
Even without such units the structures will be an elevated facility that could be utilised for impromptu performances and street theatre.
|
|
|
Disadvantages |
Is a variant on and to some extent does depart on the agreed concept design for Market Square and which went through extensive public and stakeholder consultation at the inception of Lancaster Square Routes. This option will require officers to seek a discrete variation from DCLG in the ERDF investment concerning the form of the centrepiece – see risks below. Surface treatments for the 3.7m by 6.4 metre ‘gap’ between the two structures will need to be designed to readily accommodate the insertion of demountable units whilst not permitting vehicles to access this area. The option is requiring of additional officer time involved in designing the demountable units – compared to option 1. The fact that to make available a full stage area will require the demountable units to be installed when needed for performances. Therefore, this option would require the council to plan and manage a system for making these available and this means additional officer time and ongoing costs compared to option 1. There would be many practical aspects to consider in devising such a management system including storage arrangements and methods for transportation, placement, training of staff for placement and dismantling. Insurance. There would be a promotional and marketing aspect to communicate the availability of thefacility. There would also be several financial considerations for the council to consider including whether the council would want management of such a system to be at no revenue cost to it i.e. requiring it to be self financing through charging or whether the council is prepared to meet some or all of the revenue costs. Any charging system and the levels of charging would need to be devised in the context of the council’s Fees and Charging policy. Further information on all these considerations for option 2 will be provided prior to the meeting. |
|
|
Risks |
The risk of not securing the specific variation required in the ERDF investment offer is considered very low. The risk that the centrepiece does not find favour with many people is as per option1. A risk additional to option 1 is that the investment in demountable staging units proves not to give best value if either the city council and its partners fail to drive and market use of the square for performance and / or demand to utilise staging in ways requiring this proves limited. In this latter regard a particular risk of this option is that should the council decide to charge for making available the demountable units then it is inevitable that such charging will impact on take up of the facility by third parties - albeit the extent to which such take up would be impacted cannot at this stage be quantified. |
|
Both options delivered improvements consistent with corporate policy and made full and best use of available finance including European funding.
Option 1 was the better for making more use of the square for performances and events as the structure was readily useable without recourse to using demountable units as per option 2 and the risk that any charging system would deter take up. Option 1 was much more practical from a logistical and ongoing perspective as it did not require storage, transport, staff to set up etc.
Option 2 was the better in terms of facilitating pedestrian movement through the very centre of the square. However, it did present practical problems and increased ongoing costs when events were planned.
In the May 2013 report officers considered that both options presented for the centrepiece would prove fitting and beneficial and accordingly a preferred option was not suggested.
To try to give a little further guidance on this officers consider that any balance of advantage between the options really came down to how committed the council was to growing use of Market Square as a venue for performances and events. Should the council be strongly committed to this then officers advised that option 1 should be preferred as this was much the more straightforward option in this regard as it involved providing a structure readily useable for most types of performance and thereby the more likely to facilitate use for performance.
Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry:-
“(1) That option 1, the centrepiece to Market Square, Lancaster to comprise a single elevated structure, finished in a mix of granite and natural stone, be approved.
(2) That the Head of Regeneration & Planning be authorised to take actions to procure and install the centrepiece and artwork, details of which would be agreed by a Cabinet Committee.
(3) That a Cabinet Committee consisting of Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Hanson and Leytham be established with terms of reference to consider and decide on the artwork.“
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) That option 1, the centrepiece to Market Square, Lancaster to comprise a single elevated structure, finished in a mix of granite and natural stone, be approved.
(2) That the Head of Regeneration & Planning be authorised to take actions to procure and install the centrepiece and artwork, details of which would be agreed by a Cabinet Committee.
(3) That a Cabinet Committee consisting of Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Hanson and Leytham be established with terms of reference to consider and decide on the artwork.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Regeneration & Planning
Head of Governance
Reasons for making the decision:
Whilst both options would deliver improvements consistent with corporate policy and would make full and best use of available finance including European funding, option 1 was more practical from a logistical and ongoing perspective and was indicative of the City Council’s commitment to Market Square as a venue for performances and events. Establishing a Cabinet Committee would provide a member sounding board thereby ensuring officers were fully conversant with, and the resulting artwork fully reflected, members’ views.