Agenda item

To receive an update on the progress made by the City Council on the implementation of the recommendations of the Gloucester City Monuments Review. 

106.1  Councillor Cook introduced the report and explained that it sought to provide an update on progress made by the City Council on implementing the recommendations of the Gloucester City Monuments Review. He stated that the report had been produced in response to the recommendation made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when the report was initially submitted back in January 2022, that an update on progress be provided to the Committee in 12 months’ time.

106.2  Councillor Cook advised Members that a summary of the recommendations made in the main Monuments Review report was provided in section 2 of the report and that an update on progress to date was included in section 4. He further informed Members that section 5 of the report set out the latest conclusions, suggestions and project risks.

106.3  The City Archaeologist advised the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of some additional updates which had taken place since the report was written in January 2023. He confirmed that a temporary exhibition exploring the life of George Whitefield was due to open at the Museum of Gloucester on 7^th March 2023. The City Archaeologist further noted that the City Council was holding an exhibition in partnership with the University of Gloucestershire around June or July 2023. He also referenced the Blue Plaque on St Mary De Crypt School Room which he confirmed had now been edited in line with the recommendation of the Monuments Review.

106.4  Councillor Wilson referred to the narrative in the report at 5.1 stating that ‘the first year of the implementation has seen mixed results.’ He expressed the view that the initial results were very positive and reflected on the challenges of implementing changes where the monuments were not in the ownership of the City Council, such as the United Reformed Church. Councillor Wilson noted that he was impressed with the progress to date and thanked the City Archaeologist for his work in attempting to implement the recommendations.

106.5  Councillor Wilson queried whether the Monuments Review implementation was putting pressure on the City Archaeologist’s workload. The City Archaeologist advised Members that the City Council had recently succeeded in obtaining some additional funding and it was hoped that this funding would be used to fund additional support from the Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology team.

106.6 In response to an additional question from Councillor Wilson regarding the artefacts pertaining to George Whitefield, the City Archaeologist explained that the creation of the permanent display at the Museum of Gloucester had been delayed as a result of the cyber incident however Museum of Gloucester staff had obtained the relevant artefacts. He noted that he was grateful to colleagues at the Museum of Gloucester for their assistance.

106.7  In response to a further query from Councillor Wilson, the City Archaeologist explained that the University of Gloucestershire had already funded some research and that he was cautiously optimistic that they would agree to funding the consultation exercise for education or interpretation projects.

106.8  The Chair referred to Councillor Wilson’s comments around the City Archaeologist’s workload and time, and expressed the view that it was very important to make sure that sufficient funding and resources were put in place to carry the implementation of the recommendations forward. The City Archaeologist expressed that in his view, National Lottery funding would be key to producing the education or interpretation resource but reiterated that the University of Gloucestershire might be in a position to fund the consultation element.

106.9  In response to a query from the Chair regarding the recommendation from the initial Monuments Review report for the City Council to engage with the owners of Baker’s Quay to discuss options for the repurposing of the public space, the City Archaeologist confirmed that the City Council had held discussions with the site owners and their preference was to gradually distance the development from the Baker’s Quay name.

106.10          In response to a follow up question from the Chair regarding plans to repurpose the public space, the City Archaeologist noted that the square itself was privately owned, however the City Council was considering options around the nearby footpaths.

106.11          Councillor Wilson referred to the recommendation to consult with residents on each of the two identified Whitefield Street names. The City Archaeologist confirmed that one consultation with residents was complete, however the preferred approach to one of the Whitefield Streets was to develop an educational resource.

106.12          Councillor Hilton queried whether the City Archaeologist was certain that the streets in question were named after George Whitefield. The City Archaeologist confirmed that he was happy to check again but was confident that both streets were named after George Whitefield as ‘Whitefield’ was historically spelt in two different ways.

106.13          In response to an additional query from Councillor Hilton regarding Russell Street, the City Archaeologist noted that although it was always possible that the Monuments Review might have missed a site, he was not aware of any link with Transatlantic Slave Trade.

          RESOLVED – That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee NOTE the update.