Agenda item

To consider the report of the Leader of the Council outlining the findings of the project to review monuments in the City of Gloucester and identify connections with the Trans-Atlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans.

97.1    The Leader of the Council introduced the report and explained thatthe review was one of three resolutions from a Council motion passed in 2020,and tied in with the work of the Gloucester Commission to Review RaceRelations. He explained that the overall purpose of the report was to explainthe rationalebehind therecommendations ofthe monumentsreview which wereoutlined inAppendix A.  The Leaderof theCouncil confirmedthat Cabinet was being asked to agree the recommendations of the monumentsreview.

97.2    The Leader of the Council noted that the results of the monuments reviewwere set out in section 9 of the main report at Appendix B. He confirmed thatsome of the general recommendations from the review included the creationof a display in the Museum of Gloucester sharing the history of the City andobjects connected to the Transatlantic slave trade, the encouragement ofeducational projects to improve public understanding and for the Council toencourage partner organisations to identify contested heritage assets. TheLeader of the Council also referred to the specific recommendations whichwere discussed infurther detailin section 9of themain report.

97.3    It was confirmed that an estimated total budget of £30k to £40k would beneeded to implement the recommendations over a 3 year timescale, and thatchanges wouldlikely dependon thewillingness oforganisations withownership of those statues and monuments to agree to the changes. TheLeader of the Council paid tribute to the City Archaeologist for his work inundertaking thereview andfor whathe feltwas afantastic andcomprehensive report.

97.4    The Chair commented that the review was very exhaustive and that he hadlearnt a great deal from reading the report. He noted his interest in the statueof Queen Anne in Spa Fields Sports Ground and the Charles II statue in StMary’s Square, and asked for clarification on what the future plans were forthese statues. The Leader of the Council confirmed that both Queen Anneand Charles II were considered to be national figures and neither had adirect link to Gloucester. The Leader of the Council further noted that it wasmade clear in the report that moving these statues would cost the Council aconsiderable amount of money, and he therefore anticipated these statuesremaining intheir respective locations.

97.5    The Chair referred tothe narrativein thereport at9.35 and9.85, andhighlighted that Bathurst Road and Gladstone Road were in Moreland ratherthan Podsmead. It was agreed that these locations would be checked, andthe report amended accordingly.

97.6    Councillor Pullen expressed the view that the report was fascinating andwelcomed theengagement withpartner organisations,particularly theUniversity of Gloucestershireand the GloucesterCommission to ReviewRace Relations.Councillor Pullennoted hisagreement withthe recommendations and the courses of action, and expressed the view thatpublic consultation was important.

97.7    Councillor Pullen referredto the narrative at11.2 concerning therisk of public backlash and asked for further details as to how the Council intendedto engage with the public. He also referred to the financial implications at 9.2in the report and asked whether the estimated £30 -£40k had been allocatedto this effect in the Council’s budget. The Head of Culture confirmed that theestimated budgetneeded toimplement therecommendations hadnot been included  in the latest Council budget and it was his assumption that fundingbids would be submitted to cover some of the costs. This said, the Head ofCulture confirmed his expectation that the Council would need to cover someof the budget due to officer time and resources.In relation to Councillor Pullen’scomments onpublic consultation,the Headof Cultureconfirmed thatprovided therecommendations wereapproved, theCouncil woulddevelop a project planto implementthe recommendations.He confirmed that consultation wouldform partof theproject plan.

97.8    In response to a further question from Councillor Pullen regarding a reviewperiod, the Head of Culture confirmed that he would be happy to includefurther details on this in the projectplan.

97.9    Councillor Organ noted that this was a very sensitive subject and expressedthe view that consultation with thepublic was key.

97.10  Councillor Wilson expressed the view that the report was one of the mostimpressive he had seen as a Councillor. He askedwhether consideration had been given to making the document available to schools or formallypublished in some way. The Leader of the Council confirmed that he wouldbe very willing to look at ways to make the review available to schools andthe wider public.

97.11  Councillor Wilson referred to the challenges where monuments were ownedby third parties and asked whether contact had been made with UnitedReformed Church or Whitefield House. The Leader of the Council noted thatthe Councilhad notyet madecontact withthe organisationsbut confirmedhis expectation that some would take the recommendations on board andother ownersmay not.The Leaderof theCouncil confirmedthat itwould bea priority to extend the knowledge in the city and internationally. He alsoexpressed theview thatthe Councilshould focuson explainingand contextualisingrather than censoring history.

97.12  Councillor Wilson expressedthe viewthat therecommendations weresensible and that the City Archaeologist deserved thanks and recognition forhis work inundertaking the review.

97.13  Councillor Hilton referred to the narrative in the report at 9.206 concerning‘Whitefield Street’ in the city centre and noted that the correct spelling of thestreet was in fact ‘Whitfield Street’. It was agreed that follow-up enquirieswould be made to check whether there was a direct link between GeorgeWhitefield and Whitfield Street and that the report would becorrected if necessary.

97.14  Councillor  Hilton referred to the narrative in the report concerning the statueof CharlesII andexpressed theview thathe hadcaused damageto Gloucester as punishment for the city’s stance in the English Civil War.Councillor Hilton noted that Charles II had also reduced the powers of theCity Council and confirmed that he was against the Council spending moneyto remove or restore the statue.

97.15  Councillor Sawyer commendedthe reportand welcomedthe supportfrom the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum. She also noted her support of therecommendation for the Museum of Gloucester to create a display sharingthe history of the city and objects connected to the slave trade, and askedwhether consideration had been given to pop-up displays in the city centre.She also expressed the view that the findings in the report needed to beshared with other parts of the country with links to the figures, such asBathurst Estate in Lydney and Picton monuments elsewhere in the country.The Leader of the Council confirmed that it was his hope that the knowledgein the reportwould beshared widely.

97.16  Councillor Sawyer asked whether the ‘status quo’ option referred to at 6.25could be removed from the report entirely as she felt that the Council had aresponsibility to take action. The Leader of the Council explained that theCouncil was committed to engaging with other organisations however wherethe Council did not own the assets and the owner was not prepared toengage withthe recommendations,there waslittle theCouncil coulddo.

97.17  In response to a further query from Councillor Sawyer, the Leader of theCouncil confirmed that if the Council had a reasonable opportunity to takepositive action, he would consider it however cost implications would be animportant consideration.

97.18  Councillor Wilson suggestedthat theCommittee couldmake arecommendation for the Council to consider ways of making the report morewidely available to schools and other educational institutions. The Leader ofthe Councilconfirmed thatthis wasalready includedin thegeneral recommendationsin Appendix A.

97.19  Councillor Durdeycommented thatthe reporthad providedhim withan insight into the city which he did not have previously, noting that it was rightfor residentsto beproud ofthe citybut itwas alsoimportant toraise awareness of the difficult periods of history. He noted his support for therecommendation focusing on education as well as the recommendation tocreate a display in theMuseum ofGloucester.

97.20  Councillor Organ expressed the view that raising awareness of periods ofhistory such as the Holocaustor The Troubles should also be a priority forthe Council. He reiterated his view that the matter needed to be approachedsensitively and that thereneeded to bean ongoingdialogue.

97.21  Councillor Wilson noted that the Monuments Review had been actioned as aresult of a specific motion to Council and commented that the issues raisedthrough the motionwere still a runningsore in society.

97.22  Councillor Pullen noted that much of Gloucester’s history was well known toresidents, howeverthe linkswith thetransatlantic slavetrade identifiedthrough the review were not so widely known. He expressed concern that byextending the review to other historical events, there was a danger of dilutingthe issue.

97.23  The Chair paid tribute to the City Archaeologist and the volunteers whocontributed tothe report.A discussionensued abouta reasonabletime frame as to when the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could request anupdate on the implementation of the recommendations. The Leader of theCouncil referred to the general and specific recommendations outlined inAppendix A whichwould form the basisof thework going forwardand suggested that a year would leave a reasonable amount of time for some ofthose recommendationsto beunderway.

          RESOLVED thatthe Overview& Scrutiny CommitteeRECOMMENDS that:

1)    An update on any progress on the recommendations of the MonumentsReview be provided to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in 12 months’time.