At its 15 September
meeting the Croydon Council Cabinet approved the designation of part of the
Town Centre as a Cultural Quarter from opposite East Croydon Station
encompassing Croydon College and Fairfield Halls, Queens Gdns, the Town Hall
and Clocktower round to Exchange Square to the Minister.
Many reservations
have been expressed. It is important for the Labour administration, which
claims to be committed to openness and transparency and wanting people to engage
in policy development, that it listens to these reservations, engages with
those that express them and fine tunes what it has already agreed to take
account of good ideas that will emerge. As a top-down initiative is it a pipe
dream unless the Council engages in an open and transparent way on how it is to
be developed in practice?
This blog discusses
the reservations expressed by the Croydon TUC Working Party on the Council’s
Growth Plan (CTUCWPCGP) in commenting on the Cultural Quarter paper.
·
Tinkering
While welcoming the development
of a more positive strategy to supporting cultural activity in the Borough CTUCWPCGP suggested to Councillors that the proposed Cultural Quarter
appears to be just a re-packaging of an approach based on tinkering with the
existing business not community model of planning driven by property developers
not the needs of Croydonians. The
Working Party fully supports the need for investment in Fairfield Halls to
ensure it is repaired and modernised. It is more than just investment in the
building’s structure that is needed. It is also needs to develop programmes
which attract bigger audiences at affordable prices especially among those
Croydonians experiencing inequalities and social deprivation, and create a
venue that people wish to visit, meet friends and family and socialise in.
·
Pedestrian
Access
CTUCWPCGP indicated
that it is not clear how there will be improved safe pedestrian access between
Fairfield Halls and Queens Gardens across the main road so that people will
want to go into the section of the Cultural Quarter on the western side. Further
thought will be needed to how to make the route past the Clocktower round into
Surrey St and into Exchange Square more attractive, and ways to ensure that the
empty units are let to make the Square an attractive place to want to visit.
There do not appear
to be any proposals for what to do to either improve or replace the underground
and multi-storey car parks on the Fairfield/College Green side of the main
road.
·
Lack
of Consultation
Apart from the
company in charge of Fairfield Halls, Fairfield Croydon Ltd, the Cultural
Quarter Cabinet paper does not state which are the key cultural stakeholders
already consulted.
Para 7.3 of the
report states that the ‘Cultural Quarter is part of a wider conversation with
residents and cultural groups’ and refers to the 8 July culture seminar. While
some of the proposed improvements in the Halls were explained, no mention was
made of the idea of developing the Cultural Quarter so those attending could
express their views on it. Further the credibility of this seminar and proposed
future ones declined as every week passed without the completion of the full
report on it – finally circulated with a letter dated 29 September signed by the
Cabinet member for Couture, Timothy Godfrey.
The Working Party recommended
that the officers inform the Cabinet at the meeting which key cultural
stakeholders had been consulted so far on the vision of the Cultural Quarter; of
the date that the full report of the 8 July culture seminar would be published,
emailed to participants, and put on the website, and of the dates for the
proposed engagement of communities on the development of the project. These
suggestions were completely ignored.
Elizabeth Ash
submitted the following question to the 6 October Council meeting: ‘Which key
cultural stakeholders were consulted on the vision of the Cultural Quarter, and
what are the dates for the proposed engagement of communities on the
development of the Cultural Quarter project?’ Godfrey replied ‘The vision for
the “Cultural Quarter” has been discussed with key cultural stakeholders at a
high level, at our ‘Ambitious for Culture’ seminar on 8 July.’ The notes of the
seminar submitted as an Appendix to The
Cultural Landscape of Croydon report to the Scrutiny Committee for its meeting on 11
November does not mention the idea of a Quarter. (See previous blog)
Josi Kiss submitted
the following question: ‘Why was the idea of the Cultural Quarter not consulted
on through organising a second seminar prior to the submission of the paper to
the Cabinet meeting on 15 September, and why does it not include Park Hill
Park?’ Godfrey replied: ‘The
concept of the Cultural Quarter is at an early stage in development and further
consultation will take place as part of its development and the borough’s
Growth Plan, with consultation and engagement being undertaken to ensure the
area is meeting the needs of communities in Croydon. As soon as dates are in
place for any engagement they will be announced by the Council. We have and
will continue to work with users and groups around Park Hill on their
aspirations for Park Hill Park and we are looking at ways to improve not only
this park but parks around the borough. …. I am very encouraged by the ideas
that the friends group has for the development and support of the park, and I
am sure that we will be able to work together to make many of the improvements
that have so far been suggested.’ His lack of explanation as to why Park Hill
Park is not included in the Quarter should be noted. His answer to a Councillor question on the
Park helps to build up an eye of his thinking on it.
·
Equalities
Impact
Welcoming the
proposed full Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) of the Cultural Quarter
initiative, CTUCWPCGP recommended that given the complexity of needs and
aspirations of such a diverse Borough as Croydon that the draft EqIA be made
available for public consultation especially with those involved in providing
and developing cultural activities and those organisations whose services are
targeted at meeting the needs of different diverse communities. While not
mentioned at the Cabinet meeting the importance of the issue does seem to be reflected
in The Cultural Landscape of Croydon
report submitted to the Scrutiny Committee meeting being held on 11 November.
·
Options
CTUCWPCGP welcomed
the inclusion of the section in the Cultural Quarter paper about options that
had been considered and rejected.
Option
1.
‘Cease the Fairfield Halls project and the College Green development and
continue maintenance regime for the Halls to keep business going – This was
rejected as it would lead to business closing through the high number of
failures within the building and no refurbishment of modernisation to enable
the business to continue.’ CTUCWPCGP considered that this has wide spread
support following the initiative of the South Croydon Community Association to
start a public debate about the future of the Halls which led to the
establishment of the Croydon Arts Network.
Option
2.
‘Standalone Fairfield Halls and College
Green developments – The approach outlined in the November 2013
cabinet report to progress the modernised Fairfield Halls and the College Green
development separately. This has been rejected to enable the Fairfield Halls to
be better integrated into the College Green area and act as a focal point in a
wider Cultural Quarter.’
CTUCWPCGP considered
that this made sense in order to maximise the potential for the public use of
the Green and enable Fairfield Halls to have an entrance directly onto it.
Option
3.
‘Include the Fairfield Halls project
within the College Green development through the London Development Panel (LDP)
– A second approach outlined in the November 2013 cabinet report to progress
the Fairfield Halls project within the LDP tender for the College Green
development. This has been rejected as the panel does not suit the new vision
for the area as a Cultural Quarter.’ CTUCWPCGP would have preferred to have
seen more detail about this and the reasons for the officers rejection of it.
Option 4 was the
Cultural Quarter. CTUCWPCGP expressed
concern that options were rejected at officer stage rather than being presented
in full to Councillors to make the decisions.
·
SEGAS
House
At the time of the
Cabinet meeting on 15 September the Council was locked into having to buy SEGAS
House for the proposed Oasis Academy School. This has now been abandoned. Those
who have been arguing for the building to be purchased and turned into a Museum
and Cultural Centre see this as an important extra part of improving the
cultural mix in the Quarter. So far the Council has been quiet about its view
on the matter, but the Scrutiny Committee has the opportunity to raise this
with Cllr Godfrey on 11 November.
·
Exchange
Square
At the moment
Matthews Yard is isolated down a steep slope into Exchange Square that act as a
deterrent to some people because of age and mobility problems. The Yard is
caught in a Catch 22 dilemma. Its service of food and drink is slow, but it is
difficult to speed this up without either improved kitchen equipment and or
staff, the money which can only be generated by extra customers who come
because there are other attractions in the Square. The shop units in the
buildings around Exchange Square are empty and boarded up. Perhaps it is
possible that the Cultural Quarter idea may help to stimulate their letting.
·
Signage
and Trail
An important first
step towards beginning to publicise the Cultural Quarter will be street
publicity, including:
·
Cultural Quarter signs to each venue
and space.
·
A heritage trail map and phone app.
·
The identification of more plaques.
·
Information boards, inc. on bus stops about
the Quarter.
Could these be funded
out of Section 106/Community Infrastructure Levy monies allocated to culture?
·
Continuing
Debate
Creative dialogue must
be a continuing part of the process. It would make sense for Godfrey to convene
a Culture Seminar on a quarterly basis, and invite Friends of Parks and the
local history/heritage groups to take part as well. The dialogue among
activists needs to continue without waiting on what the Council may or may not
do.
Dialogue
Opportunities
Croydon Arts Network:
Thursday 13 November. 7pm. Matthews Yard, off Surrey St. Share your ideas with
John Bownas, the Council’s newly appointed Festival Officer, about Council plans
for music and arts.
Croydon TUC Croydon
Assembly: Saturday 15 November, Ruskin House, 23 Coombe Rd; includes workshop on cultural concerns. See http://seancreighton1947.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/promoting-croydon-assembly-15-november
Public Questions at 6
October Council meeting: http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/meetings/548170/691212/691218/1355632/6-oct-14-written-questions.pdf
Councillor Questions
at 6 October Council meeting
The Cultural Quarter
paper to 15 September
Cabinet can be accessed at
For more on proposed Council Festival see:
Find out more about
John Bownas at:
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Croydon-new-summer-festival-2015/story-24196724-detail/story.html
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Croydon-new-summer-festival-2015/story-24196724-detail/story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment