Agenda item

REPORT OF THE CULTURE AND FACILITIES SERVICE MANAGER & PRINCIPAL ESTATES SURVEYOR

This report presents an appraisal of the options available to the Cabinet to address the museum collection storage pressures.

RESOLVED:  That Cabinet:

(1)   Noted the current projected costs, advantages and disadvantages of each option.

(2)   Approved use of £30k of the allocated £4m budget in the current capital programme for this project to develop more detail on the costs of Option D and to acquire the necessary details for a planning application to be made.

(3)   Approved use of £20k of the allocated £4m budget in the current capital programme for this project to develop more detail on the costs of Option E, should a suitable property become available.

(4)   Considered and gave approval for officers to apply for grant funding towards the investigations mentioned in 2.2 and 2.3 and recognise the need to align investigations with grant funding timetables in this instance.

(5)   Resolved to discount options A, B and G and recommend that they are no longer developed or explored further.

(6)   Indicated that Options C, F and H outlined within the report should be pursued further.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS:

(1)   Officers do not have the capacity or financial budget to progress all 8 options to an advanced stage and some early decisions are required in order to focus time and budget on pursuing the most advantageous options based on the best information available to officers and members at the present time.

(2)   In addition, the pursuit of greater detail on a number of the options will require expenditure on external reports and consultants which officers are seeking Cabinets approval to progress. Estimated figures are included in the main body of the report which can be found in Appendix 1 and are summarised in the Executive Summary Grid in Appendix 2.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 36 seconds

The Chair invited Councillor Matt Barnes, as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to present the referral on this item. Councillor Barnes advised that:

·       The committee wished to thank Councillor Tamsin Thomas and all the Officers involved for the very well presented report.

·       There was discussion around all the options available which resulted in the proposed amendments to the original recommendations. 

·       The committee endorsed the proposal to apply for grant funding towards the costs of any of the proposals to reduce capital spend.

·       The committee wished to thank Councillor Tamsin Thomas and all the Officers for the knowledge and expertise they demonstrated at the meeting which was great assistance to Members.

Councillor Daniel Allen, as Interim Executive Member for Planning and Transport, presented the report entitled ‘Museum Storage Options Appraisal’ and advised that:

·       The primary purpose of the report was to provide an appraisal of the full range of options available.

·       The majority of the collection was in storage and not on display in the main museum.

·       The museum curators had an active approach to the museum collection and the collection continued to grow.

·       The site at Bury Mead was not supposed to be used as a long-term solution and it was not fit for this purpose any longer.

·       Accreditation was important as it not only enabled the Council to host travelling exhibitions, but also to access capital and project-based grants and to bid for grants.

·       Officers identified eight possible options, three of which were short term options and five were longer term options.

·       It was preferable to find a viable long-term proposal for the storage as costs would rise over time and a long-term solution was most needed.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

In response to questions, the Principal Estates Surveyor advised that a six-month timeframe should be enough time to allow costings to be presented back to Cabinet.

In response to questions the Culture and Facilities Survey Manager advised that:

·       The Council would have to work alongside any grant funding timeframes which may result in a delay to the six-month timeframe for costings to be available.

·       An overview of the damage and deterioration to the collection that had occurred to date was detailed in Appendix 5.

·       Although urgent issues had been mitigated, deterioration was a gradual process and if objects were stored in poor conditions they would deteriorate over time.

The following Members took part in a debate:

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

Points raised in a debate included:

·       Cabinet was happy to accept the recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

·       Careful judgement would be needed in reaching a decision as there was a limit to what funds could be allocated to projects.

·       The Council was a custodian of the heritage of North Hertfordshire and the collection contained important artifacts which needed to be preserved for future generations.

·       The current museum was not a suitable working space for its staff as well as the artifacts.

In response to a question, the Service Director – Resources advised that although funds were allocated from the capital programme as detailed in section 11.4 of the report, some of the costs would become revenue costs as the project proceeded.

The Leader of the Council, as Chair, advised that Cabinet accepted the recommendations (as amended) by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the meeting held on 12 November 2024.

Councillor Mick Debenham proposed and Councillor Amy Allen seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED:  That Cabinet:

(1)   Noted the current projected costs, advantages and disadvantages of each option.

(2)   Approved use of £30k of the allocated £4m budget in the current capital programme for this project to develop more detail on the costs of Option D (Warehouse Proposal) and to acquire the necessary details for a planning application to be made.

(3)   Approved use of £20k of the allocated £4m budget in the current capital programme for this project to develop more detail on the costs of Option E (purchase of a freehold/long leasehold building (new or existing)), should a suitable property become available.

(4)   Considered and gave approval for officers to apply for grant funding towards the investigations mentioned in 2.2 and 2.3 and recognise the need to align investigations with grant funding timetables in this instance.

(5)   Resolved to discount options A, B and G and recommend that they are no longer developed or explored further.

(6)   Indicated that Options C, F and H outlined within the report should be pursued further.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS:

(1)   Officers do not have the capacity or financial budget to progress all 8 options to an advanced stage and some early decisions are required in order to focus time and budget on pursuing the most advantageous options based on the best information available to officers and members at the present time.

(2)   In addition, the pursuit of greater detail on a number of the options will require expenditure on external reports and consultants which officers are seeking Cabinets approval to progress. Estimated figures are included in the main body of the report which can be found in Appendix 1 and are summarised in the Executive Summary Grid in Appendix 2.