Agenda item

Events and Festivals Plan 2020-21

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure which reviews the City Events Programme and delivery model for 2019, and sets out the recommended delivery model and programme for 2020.

Minutes:

9.1       The Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure, Councillor Morgan, introduced the new Head of Cultural Services. He then introduced the Festivals and Events Report, and highlighted key elements. Firstly, he referred to paragraph 3.5 which he believed was one of the most important changes. In relation to paragraph 3.6, he explained that city-wide coordination would be starting imminently, and stressed the importance of having conversations with other organisations in the City. Councillor Morgan further highlighted paragraphs 4.2, 4.6, 4.8, and 5.0 and 6.1. Lastly, he drew Members’ attention to paragraph 10.1, outlining that at this stage Cabinet was behind schedule with the programme of events, however they would be making progress with this.

 

9.2      Councillor Stephens was of the view that the Culture and Leisure portfolio had traditionally underperformed in the past, and thus it was important to ensure that any changes to the Festivals and Events programme were watertight. He suggested that, as it stood, the Festivals and Events programme needed some amendments. Firstly, he was concerned with the way the budget for the Festivals and Events programme had been calculated. In particular, he questioned why there was a £50,000 increase in the budget, making the total budget £210,000 for this year. Moreover, he suggested that the breakdown of costs was inadequate, and that more clarity was needed on whether the events would be chargeable. 

 

9.3     Councillor Morgan advised that Cabinet and Officers were still in the early stages of the festivals and events programme, and thus were not able to include all costs. For example, staffing costs had not yet been included in the budget. Councillor Morgan explained that although work was underway, the report was kept deliberately vague to allow for flexibility.  For example, organisations could still approach the Council.

 

 9.4     The Head of Cultural Services explained that there would be a change in the model of delivery for events in the City. The onus would be on organisations to deliver events, and to come up with robust plans. Moreover, whilst the Council would provide some funding towards the costs of events, the total cost of events would likely exceed this. As such, organisations would be expected to leverage additional funding.

 

9.5    Councillor Stephens queried whether events would still be held in the event that no organisation would be available to deliver the event.  Councillor Morgan responded to say that given the aspirations to change, it would not necessarily be the same types of events which would be delivered, and it might be that the previous events may not be held under the new festivals and events programme.

 

 

9.6      Councillor Stephens reiterated his concerns that the report was lacking a full breakdown of the costs which would be involved in the delivery of events. For example, in situations where organisations would have to obtain private funding. He believed that a review was needed in a few months’ time.

 

9.7      The Chair agreed with the view that a review would be needed in a few months’ time. Additionally, pointing to the fact that the onus would be on organisations to deliver events, they asked whether the premise of the new delivery model was not essentially the same as MGL. The Head of Cultural Services stated that the Council would pledge a certain amount, and the organisation delivering the event would be expected to leverage additional funding, for example from the Arts Council, based on the money pledged by the Council. Overall, each event could have a different funding model.

 

9.8      Councillor Haigh referring to paragraph 3.5 questioned whether there was capacity for delivering the events in house. In addition, she queried what the legal position was in respect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) and the current staff of MGL. She was informed that the Chair of MGL would be having discussions around this.

 

9.9     Councillor Morgan explained that he was unsure of how many staff would be transferred from MGL to the City Council. The Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer explained that the City Council would honour its obligations under the TUPE regulations in respect of this issue.

 

9.10    Councillor Ryall questioned whether there was a willingness from organisations to work with the City Council given what was, in her view, recent negative publicity for the City Council around MGL. Councillor Morgan advised that it was a mixed picture. However, the key organisations had shown an interest in the idea of thematic festivals and events. He added that it was important that the City Council was well prepared with a watertight festivals and events programme.

 

9.11    Councillor Hilton believed that bringing the function of events and festivals development and delivery in-house would lead to better scrutiny. However, he also stressed the importance of ensuring that the income from events aligns with the money invested into them. Furthermore, referring to the Innovation Fund outlined in paragraph 4.8., he queried whether money could be raised towards this. Lastly, he stated that the City Council should consider holding external events, and perhaps holding an event in the summer which utilised the water at Gloucester Docks. This, he suggested, would have the added benefit of bringing people to the Docks each year.

 

9.12    Councillor Morgan agreed with Councillor Hilton that events did not need to be held in-house. The innovation fund which would seed-fund emerging ideas, festivals and events would be useful in this regard. Moreover, he agreed that making certain events a permanent feature in the annual festivals and events programme could attract a following of visitors who will travel specifically for that event. He added that the ‘Gloucester Goes Retro’ festival which attracted large numbers of visitors to the City each year was a good example of this.

 

9.13    Councillor Finnegan was keen to ensure that the moving lorries remain a feature of the Gloucester Festival. Moreover, she asked the Councillor Morgan and the Head of Cultural Services whether they would be engaging with partner organisations in relation to civic events such as the D-Day commemorations.

 

9.14    Councillor Morgan responded to Councillor Finnegan ‘s queries as follows. Firstly, he was mindful that the Gloucester Festival was a community event, and the moving lorries presented a potential hazard, particularly to children who may be running around. Secondly, he stated that Cabinet and Officers would be engaging with partner organisations such as the Royal British Legion and the Imjin Barracks in respect of civic events.

 

9.15     Councillor Lewis asked whether Cabinet could provide an example to the Committee of how an event would be run and funded. He added that it would help to clarify any questions, and could also provide a point of reference to other businesses. The Head of Cultural Services explained that the total costs involved are typically only clear after an event. However, each event would be scrutinised properly. Both he and the Councillor Morgan agreed that an example with the breakdown of the funding would be prepared for the Committee.

           

9.16    Councillor Tracey echoed Councillor Tracey ‘s view that the moving lorries should be kept as a feature of the Gloucester Festival. The Head of Cultural Services informed her that it is an aspect which would need to be assessed within safeguarding considerations. He added that the events management plan for any proposed event is scrutinised by officers, and is included within the budget with event organisers.

 

9.17    Councillor Tracey commented that the City Centre would, in her opinion, benefit from having a statue of George Whitfield. Councillor Morgan responded to say that, realistically, it would not be feasible for the Council to fund this. Thus, it would be down to any third parties to erect the statue should they wish.

 

 9.18  The Chair concluded the debate stating that they appreciated that the programme would require a lot of work, and that it was still in its infancy.

 

 

9.19    RESOLVED; - that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee NOTE the report

Supporting documents: