Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Barnsley: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Barnsley. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids. Summary Report on Barnsley’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid provides an upbeat and forward facing strategy for Barnsley, in which culture will play a much more important role in the future of the borough. The programme sets out an interesting and fairly diverse set of events and activities, set in a sensible framework that seeks to connect the area’s industrial past to a cultural and creative future. There is evidence of commitment to this vision from the local authority and key partners, and good links have clearly been made with local artists with national profiles in the area. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: The borough starts from a relatively low base in terms of cultural infrastructure, artistic strengths and levels of participation which means that, compared with many other bidders, it is weaker in terms of assets, opportunities and track record for delivering the impacts and legacy that might be expected for a UK City of Culture. The outlined impacts do not provide a clear and realistic focus for the programme and there are concerns about the scale and breadth of the cultural programme as well as the anticipated role for, and potential to attract, artists of national and international artistic excellence. The anticipated programme funding also appears to be over-ambitious given the Borough’s current position and would carry a significant risk of not being achievable. Overall Assessment: An area that displays a need and desire to deliver economic and social change through a culture-led approach, but ultimately does not currently have the cultural infrastructure, artistic strengths and levels of participation to deliver a successful City of Culture that would have the scale of impact envisaged by DCMS . It is difficult to see the bid delivering an ambitious or strong enough programme in 2013 or delivering a sustainable legacy for the town beyond 2013. The efforts that have been devoted to the bid and to bringing partners together to consider the future role of cultural for the Borough is recognised and applauded, however this was a relatively weak bid, compared with the other bids submitted.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below: Overview Technical Assessment of Barnsley’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The Barnsley bid pragmatically recognises that it is not the obvious geographical area for the UK City of Culture. While a number of strengths are highlighted, there are key weaknesses in the town’s identity as a cultural and visitor destination and the cultural and visitor infrastructure. These weaknesses raise significant questions about the suitability of the area to deliver a year long programme of cultural activity, to the scale required for the UK City of Culture. Overall Vision  The vision sets out a number of important step changes; however there is not a strong overall for UK City of coherence or justification for this. While several of the targets are appropriate, the ambition to Culture 2013 move Barnsley from the lowest to the highest performing authority with respect to engagement in

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Barnsley’s Initial Bid the arts is unrealistic given its current position. The programme is rooted in the history of the area, and while the five themes provide a useful framework for the programme, the industrial legacy theme may present challenges in promoting the overall programme to the wider world. Cultural and  The bid team have compiled a diverse and interesting cultural programme, appropriate to Artistic Barnsley, however there are significant weaknesses in this element, compared with other bids. Strengths of the The town is limited in key venues and particular areas of cultural expertise; given a relatively low Bid starting point, the cultural networks are similarly somewhat limited; and the proposed programme does not demonstrate a strong offer of national and international artistic excellence. Social Impacts  The bid outlines areas of social impact that the programme would seek to deliver against, from the UK City however there is little substantive detail provided of how projects will generate these anticipated of Culture social impacts. Economic and  The visitor economy targets for 2013 appear to be reasonable, although there is limited evidence Tourism Impacts to support this. There remains a fundamental question over what the visitor legacy would be from the UK City after the programme ends and how the increased visitor economy could be sustained. The plans of Culture discussed around boosting the tourism and creative economy provide little detail on how these elements would practically be delivered. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  Barnsley MBC would lead the bid and there has been initial thinking on the structure to manage & proposed the bid, including a lead artist role in charge of each of the five programme strands. Overall management however, this section is limited in detail on delivery structures and respective roles and and governance responsibilities. arrangements Track record  The Borough Council has a track record in delivering events, including the annual Christmas Lights Switch On attracting over 25,000 people at the last event. The area however lacks track record in delivering either larger events that would be expected during the City of Culture year, or of delivering a sustained programme of significant cultural events. This represents a significant risk in delivering a year long programme of activity of the quality expected by the first UK City of Culture. Partnerships and  The full programme costs are estimated at £25m which is judged extremely ambitious for Barnsley Funding given their current baseline position. £10m of this would come from Barnsley MBC, with £7m of that being existing and realigned funds, and £3m being additional funding. Securing the remaining £15m for the programme is likely to be very difficult and the bid does not give strong reassurance that this is actually achievable. Risk Assessment  The risk assessment highlights what we would consider to be the main risk, which is of not being able to secure the planned funding for the programme. The proposed mitigation does not give great confidence that this major risk can be addressed. There is limited consideration of other areas of risk beyond this. Legacy  The bid seeks to use the programme to create a legacy of higher skills, aspirations, participation and area image, all of which are demonstrated as important needs for the town. Given a relatively low cultural infrastructure and participation baseline however, there are not sufficient practical plans discussed in the bid to make a convincing case that a) the ambitions for 2013 would be realised (especially given the highly ambitious participation targets), and b) that any progress made in 2013 could be significantly sustained going forward. Learning and  The bid outlines useful initial thinking on learning and evaluation, key indicators, key stakeholders, evaluation and the outline processes for evaluating and disseminating learning.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Birmingham: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Birmingham. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out in the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

Summary Report on Birmingham ’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bi d: Birmingham’s scale, track record and quality and range of its current cultural assets, make this bid a strong proposition. The city already has much of the infrastructure and partnership mechanisms to make UK CoC a real success. Accessibility and excellent transport links represent a clear strength for Birmingham and provide excellent links nationally and internationally. The programme links to a high impact capital programme which should ensure that that UK CoC is a tangible proposition. The bid utilises the city’s track record not only in delivering similar events and its excellent cultural partnerships, but also in broader service delivery to show how the programme will achieve real engagement at a local level. The city’s track record in engagement with different ethnic groups and young people is both impressive and imperative to the bid’s success, although more could have been in the bid about this. Links to existing industries and sector strengths (e.g. manufacturing) within the city are interesting, particularly in the context of the current recession. Activities are already under way in relation to the role of culture in shared services and digital technologies. This increases the propensity of UK CoC to really innovate. Use of local consultation in the bid process (Big Blank Canvas website) was successful with a significant level of local participation. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid : The bid is, at present, quite “safe” and, in some respects, could better bring out the opportunities for more ‘edgy’ and alternative culture (although this is not a fundamental issue to the bid’s success). It does not fully excite or really sell the opportunities presented in the city and for the UK as a whole. Indeed, it undersells the city. Key issues include: (1) The bid comes across focused on a ‘hub and spoke’ model of culture delivery. This means that much of the focus is on bringing people into the city centre. It would have been helpful to understand more about cultural assets and opportunities across the city and within ‘priority neighbourhoods’ and the role different communities living in the city would play – especially but not exclusively in relation to the ethnic diversity of the city. (2) Given the scale of some of the proposed interventions, work will clearly need to be done to ensure that the Autumn festival and capital developments do not overshadow the UK CoC designation. Indeed more generally, given the scale and range of what already happens in the city, bringing out the special nature of UK CoC in 2013 will be very important. (3) The proposed Autumn festival itself is perhaps the highlight of the programme; more could be done to distinguish itself from other festivals in the UK (Manchester, Edinburgh). (4) The assessors also consider that thought needs to be given to the provision of highlights throughout the year not just around the Autumn Festival. (5) There is clearly considerable additional thought required in terms of the funding of the

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report on Birmingham ’s Initial Bid programme and on the programme activities o ver the whole course of the year, although this is underpinned by a strong commitment from the local authority to deliver all proposed activities. Overall Assessment : The bid was not as well written as some and in some areas has hidden some of the city’s strengths which perhaps were taken for granted by the bid writers (e.g. its diversity and excellent track record in engagement and use of culture in regeneration). Nevertheless, this has the potential to be a really strong bid, with a number of key tangible elements that would help UK CoC 2013 deliver a high impact visible year both nationally and internationally. The bid team has clearly thought about the wider importance of culture and the broader role it can play in the city externally and internally and has acknowledged where it needs to do more, especially in relation to cultural engagement in all communities. The existing cultural infrastructure alongside new capital developments will clearly allow Birmingham to, potentially, deliver a significant and varied programme of events. Specific Points highlighted by the IAP:

1. Need for greater clarity on leadership and on governance (two distinct issues) 2. How will the “ politics ” be resolved and decisions made? (Past examples of both Cities and Capital of Cultures have shown that local politics inevitably becomes an issue – often jeopardising the overall quality of the proposed cultural programme. Have the bidders thought about this thoroughly enough and what are the proposals to deal with it ?) 3. The need to bring out more clearly the step changes sought and how these actually link to the programme being proposed (and other wrap-around activities), particularly in relation to social impacts. 4. How will digital technology be used in art forms and in access to delivery of culture? ( How will the bidder use digital technology to go beyond the simple use of websites as information aids? How will they develop strategies and programmes that will allow people to create not just consume culture? How will they facilitate people to freely exchange ideas, knowledge and views as well as exhibit their cultural endeavours? How do they see this playing a role in developing a future skill base for the content/knowledge economy )? 5. How will UK CoC act to include all groups and act as a bridge across gaps (intergenerational, ethnicity, gender etc)? 6. How will the legacy changes mentioned actually be delivered by the proposed programmes and activities? ( How will they set up and/or focus the strategy around the “step change”. In other words – having set out a clear “step change” – how will the programme deliver that – and what is going to be in place to make sure the legacy continues. What is going to happen in Years 1-3 after 2013)?

In addition, for this bid, the IAP specifically highlighted the need for:

1. A clearer articulation of the vision and sense of why Birmingham really needs UK CoC 2. A proper risk assessment 3. Consideration on how more “edgy”, less mainstream cultural activities and art forms are encouraged – especially given the important drivers of being a very young city and great diversity 4. An explanation as to what will be distinctive about the Autumn Festival – how will it differ from MIF and Edinburgh etc? 5. More clarity on proposed social impacts and how they will be delivered 6. Greater clarity on the mechanisms to encourage diversity and full engagement of all groups across the city – there are good ideas here but how will they be developed on a scale that will have an impact? 7. Greater clarity on what will their post 2013 legacy actually be and how this links to what they propose

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1.3 The summary technical assessment of the bid is also provided below: Overview Technical Assessment of Birmingham Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area • Birmingham is a clearly defined geographical area. The sub-division of the authority area into constituencies clearly addresses issues in relation to scale. Birmingham is also easily accessible and already operates as the cultural capital of the Midlands. There is support from throughout the region and also the potential to host some activities in key cultural locations elsewhere in the region. Overall Vision • There is a reasonably clear, distinctive vision, which is linked to Birmingham’s for UK City of broader regeneration objectives. There is a full consideration of the step change Culture 2013 in terms of perception and participation and this is well referenced. Birmingham is of course already a large culturally significant city which means (in relation to perception in particular) the impact will not be as transformational as it would elsewhere. Cultural and • Birmingham already has an impressive cultural infrastructure and makes a clear Artistic case that it is ready to deliver UK CoC in 2013. It is clear that the City can deliver a Strengths of good mix of local and national/international significant events (including the Bid potentially the new Autumn festival). In addition to this, there are some innovative locally focused projects which are tied specifically to Birmingham’s characteristics and that are distinctive to the City. These interventions are well referenced under the key themes of the bid. Birmingham’s diversity as a city could have been better reflected within the bid document as a cultural strength and opportunity. That said, the clarification stage revealed more on the role this would play (and already is playing) as an important part of the city’s offer. Social • Participation is a key element of Birmingham’s bid and is the key driver of the Impacts from social impacts outlined within the document. Arguably this is more focused on the UK City of bringing people into the city centre rather than engaging them at more local Culture cultural venues (notwithstanding the ‘Culture on your doorstep’ theme). The focus on priority neighbourhoods ties in neatly with broader regeneration objectives Birmingham has set and the reference to ‘shared services’ should deliver some social impact. The track record of delivering social impacts through cultural programmes is an acceptable foundation for delivering UK CoC, although an increased focus on Birmingham’s good record in working across its multicultural population would have enhanced this area. Economic and • A detailed picture of the current creative and cultural economy is provided and is Tourism presented as a solid foundation from which to build the UK CoC programme in Impacts from Birmingham. The city clearly has the infrastructure to cope with a considerable the UK City of number of additional visitors in 2013. The city has undertaken several previous Culture economic impact exercises (for the new Library of Birmingham and the Autumn Festival) which have helped to provide an initial basis upon which the economic and tourism impacts are estimated, but clearly more work is needed to get a better fix on the likely impact.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid • Birmingham already has a well developed, well resourced cultural partnership organisation which operates effectively in the city. It is envisaged that this body would & proposed manage the process with the support of the local authority. The bid also management considers other partners who might be involved in UK CoC, but it will be and important to have more information on their roles and responsibilities. The governance assessors also consider that there is a potential danger that the management of arrangements the process from bid to delivery could be too “top down” and more thought needs to be given about how to build on the Big Blank Canvass work and more grassroots engagement. Track record • There is clear and convincing evidence that the selected area has delivered large scale cultural events of this nature in the past. Birmingham regularly hosts festivals and events that cater for large numbers of attendees and has venues and production companies of international repute. Partnerships • The bid provides reasonable initial information on the potential cost of delivering and UK CoC and this appears to have been calculated based on experience and Funding research into the cost of similar events. The cost of £20m is appropriate, but does set very ambitious targets in terms of sponsorship and ticket revenues (£10m). However, Birmingham can demonstrate a strong track record in funding major events in the past and the council has provided a clear general commitment to providing funding should the city’s bid be successful. Risk • A very limited risk assessment is provided and this is stated as something to be Assessment developed later on. Given that Birmingham clearly represents a lower risk option than other locations, more could have been done to express this here. Legacy • Arrangements for delivering the legacy are set out. These are to build the capacity for the existing Cultural Partnership which, given the track record of the Partnership, seems appropriate. The legacy itself is defined by improvement in perceptions of the city, increases in participation and the building up the capacity of local niche and culturally specific organisations. As such it is clear that the legacy is clearly linked to the delivery of the programme itself. Learning and • Evaluation and information sharing is referenced within the bid, but not all evaluation practical issues have been addressed so far. The bid team has clearly undertaken a significant amount of research for the bid and this has the makings of a solid baseline to evaluate. The City can also demonstrate experience of previous evaluation which will be useful for UK CoC. Birmingham will continue to use its innovative Neighbourhood Management to assess local impact beyond 2013.

Page 4 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Carlisle: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Carlisle. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids.

Summary Report on Carlisle Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid document is well written and presented, setting out quite clearly what is on offer. Some areas such as its current cultural and artistic strengths and track record are well set out and display evidence of reasonably detailed preparation. Carlisle makes good use of its heritage, cultural and artistic strengths and a history that makes for a strong locally based UK CoC. The bid is deliverable given its relatively modest levels of additional funding. There is a focus on collaboration when it comes to legacy and thought has been given to the importance of sharing what is learnt following evaluation of the programme. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: The bid is very Carlisle-centric, is modest in its ambitions (which is reflected in its costs) as it is building from a low base of cultural activity. It lacks breadth and depth in its proposed programme and the assessors believe it would make only a limited impact at more than a sub-regional or at most regional level. There is little evidence of involvement of national and international artists. It is also not clear how far the bid would take advantage of the cultural assets in the wider hinterland in Cumbria (which are potentially significant) or deliver in the wider area. There is a relative lack of artistic and cultural events experience in the bid team and there would be a lot of work to be done in firming up organisational arrangements. Overall Assessment: Fundamentally, in its own rights the bid is well thought through and has a programme that would be of significance locally/sub-regionally and help advance the cultural and regeneration plans of the city. The bid aims to develop culture from a relatively low base in the city and in that sense is ambitious. However, the bid therefore also offers little that would, in the assessors view, provide impact/excitement at a national or international level.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Carlisle’s Initial Bid Overall Vision  The vision is reasonably clear as to what Carlisle wants to achieve through cultural for UK City of investment and the UK CoC. However, there is a lack of evidence (on baselines) Culture 2013 and clarity around what exactly would be the step changes sought. This section refers to a ‘robust plan’ that will attract visitors nationally and internationally to Carlisle. There is also reference here and elsewhere to achieving a ‘critical mass’ for things to happen. However, the changes that are referred to are vague and aspirational. There is no reference to what a UK CoC based in Carlisle would offer the wider region or UK. Cultural and  The bid makes the best possible case for the strengths that would be built on – it is Artistic strong on outdoor events and heritage. The bid acknowledges the gaps (for Strengths of instance in relation to theatre and some other art forms). The bid does not make a the Bid convincing case that there is a large wealth of untapped potential to build on. The proposed programme is linked logically to the foundations. However, the outline programme lacks a sense of a range of art forms being included and the involvement of internationally known or “cutting edge” artists. Social  It was not clear as to how baseline activities will be enhanced through UK CoC. This Impacts from section is a set of statements that lack explanation and the references as to how the UK City of UK CoC would impact are vague. For example, statements such as ‘Carlisle has the Culture ICT infrastructure, and UK City of Culture will provide the impetus to use it in a sustained and clever way’ suggests that certain aspects of the bid are yet to be developed and need to be thought through in more detail. Economic and  The bid and clarification responses explain reasonably well how UK CoC would Tourism deliver tourism and economic impact. The assessors have some doubts as to how Impacts from far the impacts forecast would occur in Carlisle itself as opposed to the hinterland the UK City of (given the relative lack of good quality hotel accommodation in the city). The Culture assessors are also sceptical as to whether the proposed programme would really act as a magnet for new national or international visitors coming to the area. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid  Other than the strategic partners and the potential delivery partners given in organisation Appendix D, it is unclear as to who is responsible for what in terms of organisation, & proposed management and delivery of the proposed programme. The assessors have management concerns over the strength of the existing cultural base of organisations and and partnerships in the city to guide an impactful UK CoC (no cultural ambassadors or governance champions are mentioned). Much would rely on the successful appointment of an arrangements artistic/creative director. It is also difficult to see how all of the various individuals and organisations mentioned fit together strategically. Track record  This is a stronger part of the bid in terms of experience of delivering events (especially open air events) and the involvement of organisations from the wider hinterland (such as Kendal Arts International) is a plus point. Appendix E is used to its full effect and gives us a strong indication that there is a proven track record in staging a range of events and art forms in Carlisle (albeit often at a very small scale). However, the track record of the area in delivering a wider range of art forms and more challenging & contemporary cultural art forms is limited. The bid is not clear on the mechanisms for drawing on the wider experience and facilities from across Cumbria.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Carlisle’s Initial Bid Partnerships  The bid is modest in its financial ambitions and there is no intention for the City and Council to apply additional resources over and above its baseline support for Funding culture. The total proposed investment in events is only £3m. The bid therefore relies on other sources of public funding (such as the NWDA and Arts Council). The amount sought is not unrealistic from these bodies. The funding plans are still in the process of being developed and ‘firmed up’, although the clarification discussion indicates that the overall cost is built bottom up from the proposed programme and so is realistic. The lack of strong financial support from local authorities is a weakness of the bid compared to other areas. Risk  The risk assessment is relatively cursory, with no mention of the risk that the Assessment programme fails to excite or draw in visitors from outside the hinterland of Carlisle. There is no reference to mitigation surrounding funding and costs. Legacy  The various elements of a lasting legacy are discussed. However, much of what is presented is very outline and it is not clear whether it is fundable. There is a danger that the scale and nature of the programme proposed to be developed would not lead to a lasting change in the city. Learning and  The bid deals with the process of sharing what is learnt reasonably well. This evaluation section is somewhat vague with regards methodology and there is no mention of the costs associated with learning and evaluation.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Chichester: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Chichester. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids.

Summary Report on Chichester’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid is very much rooted in the local cultural and artistic assets of the bidding area (which include the well known Chichester Festival Theatre). A broad range of events and activities are referenced throughout the document and there is clearly a rich local cultural heritage from which bid leaders can draw upon. Consideration is also given to those locations that are peripheral to the main urban area but that could benefit from Chichester becoming UK CoC. Gaps and weaknesses in the area’s cultural offer are recognised and there is a genuine commitment to “intergenerational” cultural activities. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: The bid is for a small scale programme and is very underdeveloped, especially in the latter sections. There are some interesting ideas and aspirations but often this is where it ends. Much more thought would need to be given to how the programme will be delivered and specifically by whom. Governance structures are still weak and the track record given does not link up to this section. There is a lack of clear public sector support. The assessors have serious concerns over the limited scale of the programme proposed and very modest level of funds committed (and how private sponsorship will be sought). Again, much of this lack of detail stems from the fact that the bid is very much in its infancy and hence in places it is not convincing. Overall Assessment: A bid that clearly demonstrates Chichester’s cultural assets and diverse offer. However, much of what is provided lacks focus and often it is difficult to see how the various issues discussed then link forward to what is supposed to be an exciting and ‘special’ programme in 2013. Overall, even if the bidders sorted out these issues there would remain a modest set of activities in 2013 which would clearly not meet the aspirations of the UK CoC brand and would not have an impact at a national level.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Chichester’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The area the bid is to cover is clear and logical, although relatively small in terms of scale of population and existing activities. Whilst Chichester will inevitably form the natural cultural hub it is unclear as to how more remote and/or rural areas will be drawn in and incorporated into the programme. The role of culture in achieving a step change is considered, however details of how UK CoC status and a cultural programme will support this are still vague.

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Chichester’s Initial Bid Overall Vision  The overarching vision is clear as are the step changes proposed. Some progress for UK City of has been made in identifying baselines and targets for each of these. However, Culture 2013 the bid fails to explain later on how the step-changes would be achieved. Cultural and  An array of artists and events are mentioned which gives a flavour of the cultural Artistic and artistic strengths of the bidding area. Gaps are also identified along with a Strengths of suggested untapped sub-culture that could be used to draw in younger the Bid audiences. However, it is unclear to the assessors how significant is this talent and how it would be drawn together and celebrated during the programme of events in Appendix A. The programme and proposed events/activities are relatively traditional in nature. It is difficult to see how 2013 would have an impact at a UK level. Social  There are some interesting ideas proposed to deliver positive impacts on the Impacts from local community through local cultural events. However there are gaps the UK City of surrounding the specifics of outreach activity and the successful Culture engagement/involvement of all members of the community. Whilst these issues are touched upon in this and other sections, plans to address them are underdeveloped. Economic and  It is unclear as to how the title of UK CoC will be used to maximise the economic Tourism benefit to the bidding area and beyond. There is a lack of a solid detail in the bid Impacts from and hence it is hard to gauge the potential impacts of 2013. the UK City of Culture DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid  This section of the bid is weak and is very much a “work in progress”. Loose organisation governance arrangements are proposed but it is still unclear as to how these fit & proposed together strategically. It is ‘anticipated’ that individual partners/representatives management will be involved but there is still a lack of detail surrounding their roles, and responsibilities and commitment to the bid and or programme. governance arrangements Track record  The information provided in this section is limited and fails to convince us that the organisations that will be involved in leading UK CoC have a track record of collaborating to put on a major programme of events, although in their own right some of the organisations do have an excellent track record of delivery of their own art forms. The evidence is in part based on events that are not immediately relevant to a UK CoC programme. It is hard to see how exactly these track records relate specifically to the bid. Partnerships  The tone in this section is on ’value for money’ and goes some way to justify a and low additional spend of £2 million. However it is not explained how the partners Funding will deliver a full and exciting programme using limited funds and how they anticipate gaining the support of potential funders. Hence there is a real risk that additional funds will not be raised in time for 2013 other than the listed capital investments that are currently underway. There is a lack of clarity over who would be the financial guarantor. Risk  There is limited confidence in the bidder to overcome some of the risks identified Assessment and this section has not been fully thought through. Legacy  It is unclear as to how key organisations will deliver a legacy and achieve the ‘high level’ aspirations that are given. Generally this section lacks a solid foundation and clear route to achieving the listed aims and objectives.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Chichester’s Initial Bid Learning and  Limited attention has been given to this part of the process and how the evaluation experience of hosting UK CoC can be shared with other areas. In particular little thought has been given to ‘best practice’ and the potential lessons that can be passed on beyond 2013 and to those hosting UK CoC 2017.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Cornwall: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Cornwall. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids.

Summary Report on Cornwall’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid presents a bold attempt to change both internal and external perceptions of the county and the profile of visitors who come to Cornwall. There is evidence of strong support for the bid from the new unitary County Council and the area has additional sources of public funding that would help deliver the bid. The bid involves a number of different locations (8 towns of around 25,000 residents each) and seeks to use UK CoC to develop a stronger identity for each town (but see below). There is also a desire to deliver the majority of events for free. The bid identifies a number of heritage and cultural strengths to build on such as the Tate St Ives and its planned extension. There are some very interesting ideas mentioned in the bid and excellent current projects to build on that could contribute to the programme. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: The vision is not clear and fails to articulate sufficiently the step changes sought other than an overall economic transformation which is not clearly linked back to the proposed UK CoC. In addition, the bid, surprisingly, does not draw upon some of Cornwall’s locational USPs, in particular the coast and the sea. The bid does not really set out what a UK CoC based in Cornwall will mean for the rest of the UK. Detail on the programme and specific projects is scant and the bid does not fully address the fundamental questions related to the location, in particular how UK CoC will be delivered to such a dispersed area effectively and efficiently (from the perspective of both residents and visitors). A number of the capital projects are dependent on funding which has yet to be allocated. Others are not due for completion until Summer 2013. Slippage with some of these projects could have a significant impact on the success of UK CoC. Finally, given the level of risk, the lack of a risk assessment is a significant concern for the bid. Overall Assessment: Cornwall has the potential for a really interesting and unique bid. Unfortunately, the bid fails to clearly show how it would overcome a number of fundamental issues and concerns associated with the County’s geography. Major decisions about location of activities have yet to be made and sorting these out could present a serious risk to the delivery of any 2013 programme. The programme is very under-developed and there is a significant level of risk in relation to associated capital projects. Whilst the focus on young people and involvement of deprived communities are admirable objectives, it is unclear exactly how UK CoC would impact upon these. In addition there is no consideration given to how Cornwall’s hosting of the first UK CoC would have a significant positive impact on the UK as a whole.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Cornwall Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  Whilst Cornwall is a defined and well known area with a clear identity for visitors, the bid fails to adequately explain why Cornwall is an appropriate location (compared to a more defined City). Due to this, the bid fails to capitalise on its USPs and the diversity of locations at Cornwall’s disposal. The issue of internal disconnectedness is not resolved within the bid. Overall Vision  The vision is weak and the main themes and components unclear. It is quite long for UK City of and includes a lot of additional information which, whilst interesting, is not Culture 2013 relevant to the detail of the bid. There is a limited articulation of what is distinctive about the area or how the vision connects with the area. Having introduced the coastal location and the heritage of the area, it does not explain how this will add value to the UK CoC designation. Cultural and  The range of programme content across art forms is limited and lacks significant Artistic distinctiveness and again, largely fails to capitalise upon some of Cornwall’s Strengths of unique assets. There remains a significant focus on young people and Cornwall the Bid can demonstrate some strength in this area. Whilst the Tate St Ives represents a location of international repute, it is not clear how the area will be able to involve national and international artists. The capital programme presents significant risks and it is not wholly clear how they relate to the practical delivery of the programme. Social  Cornwall has significant levels of deprivation which are exacerbated by the Impacts from dispersed nature of the population. Whilst there is reference to this, it is unclear the UK City of how objectives around deprivation and young people will be realised. The bid Culture does not demonstrate how a step change will be delivered in this area, although there are examples of some really excellent work being carried out in parts of the County. Physical accessibility remains a concern; whilst there are travel proposals in the pipeline there is limited detail on how these might be implemented. There are major gaps in achieving accessibility for all audiences. Economic and  Plans to boost the visitor economy are clear in places, but initial estimates on Tourism tourism impacts appear slightly unambitious and some areas need to be Impacts from developed further. There is a desire to re-profile the tourism and visitor base, the UK City of reducing seasonality and encouraging a more discerning and higher spending Culture visitor. It is however, unclear as to exactly how the programme will achieve this. Some thought has been given to the role existing creative businesses will play in UK CoC. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid  The management arrangements will be overseen by Cornwall County Council. It organisation is, however, not clear how this will work in practice. Some consideration of the & proposed role of partners is provided, however this could have been used to address the management issues of isolation and separation of locations within the bid. As with other and aspects of the bid, there are also concerns over how the arrangements would governance work in practice. arrangements

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Cornwall Initial Bid Track record  The Tate, a strong national cultural organisation, and the local organisation RIO (a key partner within the bid) have clear track records but the network of cultural organisations are not collectively of significant scale or nature compared to some other areas; collectively delivering UK CoC would represent a major stretch for the area’s organisations. As Cornwall’s bid is built upon eight key locations, it would have been useful to know about the track record of delivering events at each of these locations. Partnerships  There is some information on the strength of financial commitment from and partners and how this will be allocated. Cornwall does have the benefit of a Funding wider range of funding sources that many other areas and the County Council has made a significant commitment. There is a significant level of risk in the delivery of the capital programme both in terms of funding and delivery timescales. Risk  No proper risk assessment provided. Assessment Legacy  Whilst the Cornwall UK CoC programme is part of a 5 year commitment to culture, key elements of the legacy (particularly social and cultural) are missing. Discussion of the legacy is ‘high level’ without any tangible commitment and is largely dependent on the encouragement of a new type of visitor coming to Cornwall; this clearly places Cornwall’s legacy at the mercy of a number of external factors (not least competition from other locations). Learning and  There is no clear commitment to or expertise/track record in terms of delivering evaluation evaluation in the past. The methodology presented for the evaluation is slightly unclear.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Derry~Londonderry: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Derry/Londonderry. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid is focused on the city of Derry/Londonderry. This has a population of around 107,000 with a majority Catholic community, and sits in the centre of a wider region covering parts of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (especially Donegal) that has a total population of some 600,000. The bid has the full support of the Northern Ireland Executive as a bid for the whole of Northern Ireland. Derry/Londonderry sits on the banks of the Foyle River in the north west of the Island of Ireland, lying very close to the Irish Republic, about 60 miles from Belfast. Derry/ Londonderry has suffered a severe economic decline, in part because of “the Troubles”, and is the most economically disadvantaged area of Northern Ireland. It describes itself as having been, from the early 1970s, at the crucible of the Troubles. A major regeneration programme is already underway in the area. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The overall vision is described as “cracking the cultural code, by making culture accessible to all and confidently and creatively connect with the wider world”. The step changes that they are seeking link to: people (especially cultural engagement of the most deprived communities and creation of new economic opportunities); place (boosting tourism, building the capital infrastructure and improving external identity); and past to future (creative sector development and tackling community and cultural identity issues). The bid has several distinct elements: building on the 400th Anniversary of the Plantation of Ulster and the historic links to the City of London; drawing on the opportunities from the Diaspora of former residents and their descendents; using the new spaces created as part of the regeneration of the city. The programme for 2013 would be a mix of celebration and of inquiry into issues of identity etc. A total of around £10m extra revenue funding has been identified to deliver the bid in 2013, and the programme of events is expected to deliver an extra 200,000 visitor nights in 2013 and £7m of tourism spend. The bid team acknowledges that these estimates of impact are conservative. Key Strengths of the Bid: There a clear sense of the energy of the city and of those involved in the bid that comes through – there is a strong team leading the bid. The support of the Northern Ireland Executive and so the various investment, cultural and economic development bodies in Northern Ireland is very important in terms of funding and delivery. The ideas for the programme are distinctive and, if handled and developed well, have the potential to be of very wide, national and international interest. The historic links to the City of London and of course the Republic of Ireland are unique features. The involvement of the area’s cultural champions is a real strength and there are many connections to a large number of key cultural names for a relatively small place. The programme has already gone through a period of development and outline costings and assessment and so they have taken some important initial steps to delivery.

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The main weaknesses in the bid relate to the fact that it is at a relatively early stage (as are all bids). Our main areas of concerns are: (1) the proposals for the development of the bid into a programme involve a wide range of individuals (from Cultural Champions, to a new cultural animateur/co-ordinator, to independent experts to the CoC Steering Group) and therefore have the potential for considerable discussion, debate and potential slow progress in making decisions about what to do and what not to do; (2) the overall regeneration plans in terms of physical development are ambitious and not all of the key projects will come to fruition before 2013; (3) the scale of events and visitors numbers would represent a step change for the city and hinterland in terms of numbers and quality of facilities sought and transport to the city; (4) there is a danger that the programme could focus too much on what is of interest to local citizens and lack wider appeal. However, we do not regard any of these as fundamental weaknesses in the bid Overall Assessment: This is a strong bid with widespread support in Northern Ireland that would fit perfectly into the City’s ambitious regeneration plans. The programme proposals have the potential to deliver a really impactful and high profile year in 2013 for the area, for Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 82  Management, funding and delivery = 69 Conclusion: We recommend that this bid is shortlisted.

1.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  Clear description of the bid area, its wider hinterland and the linkages to this Max. Score=5 hinterland (in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland). Strong Actual score=4 exposition of why the bid is needed and how culture would contribution to regeneration. Overall Vision  There is a strong and coherent vision for the purpose and themes of UK CoC. It Max. Score=15 for UK City of is distinctive and different and has several unique elements. Considerable Actual score=13 Culture 2013 effort has gone into the development of initial programming ideas. The main area of weakness is that the step changes sought are wide-ranging and could be better articulated. Cultural and  There is a strong sense of individuality and distinctiveness about the area and Max. Score=45 Artistic its cultural strengths and opportunities that comes out of the bid. The bid Actual score=38 Strengths of the builds on the cultural assets and legacy in an interesting way. The bid draws on Bid a wide range of assets in the city and surrounding hinterland (including in Donegal). The links to City of London and to the Diaspora provide unique features of the bid. The bidding process has involved a number of key cultural players who have agreed to become “cultural champion”. Social Impacts  Considerable thought has been given to this aspect of the bid. Especially in Max. Score=20 from the UK City relation to the role of the bid in supporting physical regeneration and better Actual score=17 of Culture community cohesion – through the identity part of the programme and the sharing of cultural events. The bid identifies that those living in the 10% most derived parts of the city are very disengaged with cultural activity (at least in its traditional form). The bid sets out some ideas and possible programmes to increase engagement, especially with young people, but there will need to be more thinking through how to tackle these deep-seated issues.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid Economic and  This is one of the relatively weaker areas of the bid. The city has Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts underperformed in tourism terms historically and sees UK CoC as a key Actual score=10 from the UK City opportunity to address this underperformance. Even in the absence of the bid of Culture the local infrastructure and tourism offer was seen as improving. The bid sets out a set of targets for visitor and tourism impacts. These seem to the assessors to be relatively modest and probably unduly cautious, to the extent that the crude economic return of money spend on the UK CoC programme is higher than the expected extra tourism spend. (Liverpool had a ratio of more like £5 to £1). There are plans to improve the quality of the hotel offer in the city, which is relatively poor at present. Although there is capacity for extra visitors once the wider hinterland is included, it strikes the assessors that a really successful UK CoC and major event may create capacity issues at time during 2013. Similarly, the city’s geographical position may create some challenges in access for visitors outside the immediate hinterland (although there are direct flights to the local airport and it is relatively close to Belfast and its two airports). DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The lead body is Derry City Council, who would also act as guarantor. It is a Max. Score=15 & proposed relatively small public body (annual budget of just £35m), however a large Actual score=10 management number of other bodies have been involved in the bid, which for practical and governance purposes has been led by Ilex (the urban regeneration company for the city) arrangements with strong support form the Northern Ireland Executive. There has been strong involvement of a wide range of other stakeholders, politicians (it has cross party support) and individuals in the bid. The delivery of the bid would be via a “delegated partnership model” with separate organisations responsible for the delivery of individual events. However, it is proposed to have a dedicated delivery team, supporting a series of “cluster champions” (@ c 6 in number) and working with a “cultural animateur”. The assessors believe that quite a lot of further thought will need to go into the process by which the programme is designed and then managed and delivered, with greater clarity on future roles in due course. Track record  The city and its partners have a reasonable track record of delivery of events Max. Score=20 (jazz/big band festival and Halloween carnival for instance); although the Actual score=12 majority at present are relatively small scale. The scale and intensity of events proposed would be a significant step up for the area. Partnerships and  At present the City Council provides around £2.5m of revenue funding to Max. Score=15 Funding support cultural activity, in addition cultural organisations receive funding for a Actual score=13 variety of public funding pots via the Northern Ireland government. The bid identifies the need to provide an additional c.£10m of funding to deliver the proposed programme. It also identified an additional £150m of capital funding that partners would like to see invested on top of the c£70m already committed (£40m of the extra funding would be from private sources).  Given the strong support of a wide range of public funding bodies in Northern Ireland, there is a high likelihood in the assessors view that at least the extra £10m of revenue funding can be found (if not more). The scale of support is real strength of the bid. There could be issues around guaranteeing the whole programme falling on the relatively small Derry City Council, but the wider buy- in will mitigate this risk. There is uncertainty about the delivery of funding for some of the capital projects identified, but we are reasonably confident that progress can be made with some of the key elements which are mission critical for UK CoC 2013 (especially the creation of a public space at the Ebrington area - the first stage in a future arts and creative cultural quarter).  IAP members please note: note the clarification questions provide corrected tables for revenue and capital funding proposed and committed.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid Risk Assessment  The bid has a reasonable assessment of the key risks, although there are other Max. Score=10 important risks identified by the assessors not covered (for instance around Actual score=7 the process of agreeing the 2013 programme and overall artistic/creative direction). Legacy  The bid has made a good start in identifying the legacy opportunities1. The Max. Score=25 physical legacy is tied up in the wider Single Regeneration Plan which is being Actual score=17 developed for the city. Further work is needed in thinking through the practical and financial challenges in ensuring a continued legacy in the four legacy areas. Learning and  The bid presents a reasonable assessment of how the UK CoC would be Max. Score=15 evaluation evaluated and how lessons would be learned. Actual score=10

1 Culturally: Internationally recognised as a City delivering outstanding cultural regeneration. Socially: Local people continue to participate. Economically: Economic growth matched with the growth in entrepreneurship and jobs. Physically: Quality sustainable infrastructure in the City region

Page 4 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

2. Birmingham: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

2.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Birmingham. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Birmingham’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: Birmingham’s bid area is the whole of the City of Birmingham. The city has over 1m residents and covers a significant geographical area. To counter the challenges this presents, the city is divided into 10 constituencies each with 100,000 residents. The city is the most ethnically diverse in the country and has the youngest population of a major city in Europe. Economically, Birmingham has suffered in both the current and previous recession and has high levels of economic inactivity in certain areas of the city. The city has over 750,000 overnight visits per year. The visitor economy currently provides 10% of Birmingham’s GVA (£1.6bn) and provides 60,000 jobs. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The Birmingham bid focuses on ‘Big City Culture’; that is to say that the UK CoC is an attempt to deliver assets, events and organisations that are in keeping with Birmingham’s status as the UK’s second city. The vision is to use UK CoC to enhance the city’s national and international reputation, build upon and celebrate Birmingham’s cultural diversity and harness the youthful population to deliver a new generation of cultural leaders in the city (and UK). There are two broad components of Birmingham’s ‘step change’. Firstly, a major improvement in participation in culture within the “priority neighbourhoods” (as an end in its own right, but also to help deliver better regeneration and social cohesion); and secondly, changing (internal and external) perceptions of Birmingham as a ‘liveable’ city. Birmingham’s bid seeks to build upon the local authorities reputation for delivery and would see UK CoC dovetail with a number of significant capital investments within the city; in particular the new £193m library, a new creative campus within the city centre, the delivery of the first phase of the new New Street Station, a new performing arts and digital media academy and the practical implementation of Birmingham’s ‘Digital City’ Agenda. The bid is about delivering the maximum added value from new and existing assets.

There are 3 clear themes which underpin the proposed activity within Birmingham’s bid. These are:  Made in Birmingham: This includes a number of exhibitions, events and workshops which aim to celebrate Birmingham’s unique position as a cultural city. The most significant element of this is a major new Autumn festival which will premier in 2013. Smaller interventions include a new festival celebrating the city’s position as the European capital of contemporary Asian culture.  Culture on Your Doorstep: This seeks to engage local people in their neighbourhoods and includes elements of community art, temporary performance spaces and engagement. This has been preceded by the ‘Big Blank Canvas’ website which has been set up to give local people an opportunity to input into the bid.  Next Generation: Designed and curated by Birmingham’s young people this element of 2013 will seek to involve young people and mentor them as they deliver elements of the programme. This includes public art, and new festivals as well as a loyalty programme to keep young people involved and engaged through culture (this is part of a commitment from the council to place culture at the heart of mainstream service delivery. The bid would build on the £7m of council and £67m other public agency annual baseline spend on cultural activities. They plan to invest an additional £20m in UK CoC extra activity including the proposed Autumn Festival). They anticipate the UK CoC designation and programme delivering of the order of an extra £150m (or more) boost to the city’s economy in 2013.

Page 5 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Birmingham’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: Birmingham’s scale, track record and quality and range of its current cultural assets, make this bid a serious proposition. The city already has much of the infrastructure and partnership mechanisms to make UK CoC a real success. Accessibility and excellent transport links represent a clear strength for Birmingham and provide excellent links nationally and internationally. The programme links to high impact capital programme which should ensure that that UK CoC is a tangible proposition. The bid utilises the city’s track record not only in delivering similar events and its excellent cultural partnerships, but also in broader service delivery to show how the programme will achieve real engagement at a local level. The city’s track record in engagement with different ethnic groups and young people is both impressive and imperative to the bid’s success, although more could have been in the bid about this. Links to existing industries and sector strengths (e.g. manufacturing) within the city are interesting, particularly in the context of the current recession. Activities are already under way in relation to the role of culture in shared services and digital technologies. This increases the propensity of UK CoC to really innovate. Use of local consultation in the bid process (Big Blank Canvas website) was successful with a significant level of local participation. Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The bid is quite low risk and, in some respects, could bring out more the opportunities for more ‘edgy’ and alternative culture (although this is not a fundamental issue to the bid’s success). The bid is very focused on a ‘hub and spoke’ model of culture delivery. This means that much of the focus is on bringing people into the city centre. It would have been helpful to understand more about cultural assets and opportunities across the city and within ‘priority neighbourhoods’ and the role different communities living in the city would play. Given the scale of some proposed interventions, work will clearly need to be done to ensure that the Autumn festival and capital developments do not overshadow the UK CoC designation. Indeed more generally, given the scale and range of what already happens in the city, bringing out the special nature of UK CoC in 2013 will be very important. The proposed Autumn festival itself is perhaps the highlight of the programme; more could be done to distinguish itself from other festivals in the UK (Manchester, Edinburgh). We also consider that thought needs to be given to the provision of highlights throughout the year not just around the Autumn Festival. There is clearly considerable additional thought required in terms of the funding of the programme and on the programme activities over the whole course of the year, although this is underpinned by a strong commitment from the local authority to deliver all proposed activities. Overall Assessment: The bid was not as well written as some and in some areas has hidden some of the city’s strengths which perhaps were taken for granted by the bid writers (e.g. its diversity and excellent track record in engagement and use of culture in regeneration). Nevertheless, this has the potential to be a really strong bid, with a number of key tangible elements that would help UK CoC 2013 delivering a high impact visible year both nationally and internationally. The bid team has clearly thought about the wider importance of culture and the broader role it can play in the city externally and internally and has acknowledged where it needs to do more, especially in relation to cultural engagement in all communities. The existing cultural infrastructure alongside new capital developments will clearly allow Birmingham to deliver a significant and varied programme of events. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 74  Management, funding and delivery = 67 Conclusion: We recommend that this bid is shortlisted.

2.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Page 6 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Birmingham Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  Birmingham is a clearly defined geographical area. The sub-division of the Max. Score=5 authority area into constituencies clearly addresses issues in relation to scale. Actual score=4 Birmingham is also easily accessible and already operates as the cultural capital of the Midlands. There is support from throughout the region and also the potential to host some activities in key cultural locations elsewhere in the region. Overall Vision  There is a clear, distinctive vision, which is linked clearly to Birmingham’s Max. Score=15 for UK City of broader regeneration objectives. There is a full consideration of the step Actual score=11 Culture 2013 change in terms of perception and participation and this is well referenced. Birmingham is of course already a large culturally significant city which means (in relation to perception in particular) the impact will not be as transformational as it would elsewhere. Cultural and  Birmingham already has an impressive cultural infrastructure and makes a Max. Score=45 Artistic clear case that it is ready to delivery UK CoC in 2013. It is clear that the City Actual score= 36 Strengths of the can deliver a good mix of local and national/international significant events Bid (including the new Autumn festival). In addition to this, there are some innovative locally focused projects which are tied specifically to Birmingham’s characteristics and are distinctive to the City. These interventions are well referenced under the key themes of the bid. Birmingham’s diversity as a city could have been better reflected within the bid document as a cultural strength and opportunity. That said, the clarification stage revealed more on the role this would play (and already is playing) as an important part of the city’s offer. Social Impacts  Participation is a key element of Birmingham’s bid and is the key driver of the Max. Score=20 from the UK City social impacts outlined within the document. Arguably this is more focused Actual score=13 of Culture on bringing people into the city centre rather than engaging them at more local cultural venues (notwithstanding the ‘Culture on your doorstep’ theme). The focus on priority neighbourhoods ties in neatly with broader regeneration objectives Birmingham has set and the reference to ‘shared services’ should deliver some social impact. The track record of delivering social impacts through cultural programmes is an acceptable foundation for delivering UK CoC, although an increased focus on Birmingham’s good record in working across its multicultural population would have enhanced this area. Economic and  A detailed picture of the current creative and cultural economy is provided Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts and is presented as a solid foundation from which to build the UK CoC Actual score=10 from the UK City programme in Birmingham. The city clearly has the infrastructure to cope of Culture with a considerable number of additional visitors in 2013. The city has undertaken several previous economic impact exercises (for the new Library of Birmingham and the Autumn Festival) which have helped to provide an initial basis upon which the economic and tourism impacts are estimated, but clearly more work is needed to get a better fix on the likely impact. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  Birmingham already has a well developed, well resourced cultural Max. Score=15 & proposed partnership which operates effectively in the city. It is envisaged that this Actual score=11 management body would manage the process with the support of the local authority. The and governance bid also considers other partners who might be involved in UK CoC, but it will arrangements be important to have more information on their roles and responsibilities. We also consider that there is a potential danger that the management of the process from bid to delivery could be too “top down” and more thought needs to be given about how to build on the Big Blank Canvass work and more grassroots engagement.

Page 7 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Birmingham Initial Bid Track record  There is clear and convincing evidence that the selected area has delivered Max. Score=20 large scale cultural events of this nature in the past. Birmingham regularly Actual score=18 hosts festivals and events that cater for large numbers of attendees and has venues and production companies of international repute. Partnerships and  The bid provides good information on the potential cost of delivering UK CoC Max. Score=15 Funding and this appears to have been calculated based on experience and research Actual score=12 into the cost of similar events. The cost of £20m is appropriate, but does set very ambitious targets in terms of sponsorship and ticket revenues (£10m). However, Birmingham can demonstrate a strong track record in funding major events in the past and the council has provided a clear general commitment to providing funding should the city’s bid be successful. We would need more detail on this at a further stage. Risk Assessment  A very limited risk assessment is provided and this is stated as something to Max. Score=10 be developed later on. Given that Birmingham clearly represents a lower risk Actual score=2 option than other locations, more could have been done to express this here. Legacy  Arrangements for delivering the legacy are set out. These are to build the Max. Score=25 capacity for the existing Cultural Partnership which, given the track record of Actual score=14 the Partnership, seems appropriate. The legacy itself is defined by improvement in perceptions of the city, increases in participation and the building up the capacity of local niche and cultural specific organisations. As such it is clear that the legacy is clearly linked to the delivery of the programme itself. Learning and  Evaluation and information sharing is referenced within the bid, but not all Max. Score=15 evaluation practical issues have been addressed so far. The bid team has clearly Actual score=10 undertaken a significant amount of research for the bid and this has the makings of a solid baseline to evaluate. The City can also demonstrate experience of previous evaluation which will be useful for UK CoC. Birmingham will continue to use its innovative Neighbourhood Management to assess local impact beyond 2013.

Page 8 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

3. Durham: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

3.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Durham. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Durham’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: Durham is an historic city in the North East of England, well known for its landmark Cathedral and Castle, and is designated as a World Heritage Site. The bid focuses primarily on Durham city, but also makes connections to the surrounding hinterland across County Durham. The population of County Durham is just over 500,000 and the total economic impact of the visitor economy in Durham city was £656 million in 2008-09.

Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The bid describes Durham as a sleeping giant with respect to its visitor economy, and sets out a vision to use the City of Culture designation to raise the profile of Durham, enhance the visitor economy and make Durham the next major festival city amongst heritage cities, second only to Edinburgh, by 2017. Sitting alongside this, the bid sets out a range of further positive cultural and social impacts.

The Programme is set out under three main themes:  Festival Durham – creating new, and developing existing festivals across four seasons of activity, picking up on the city’s historic role as a major meeting place, and seeking to cement the city’s future role as a major cultural destination  Creative Durham – a series of activities over the year engaging the creative and cultural sectors in Durham and the region  Durham: Cultural City, Cultural County – projects and events connecting communities with the city and ensuring that everyone in the county can participate and experience cultural inspiration.

While the programme is set out for 2013, many of the festivals will begin over the preceding years and most will continue and grow further in the subsequent years.

The bid identifies a broad cost of £18.6m for UK CoC of which £1.5m would be existing sources. They estimate a growth of an additional £120m in their visitor economy by the end of 2013, as a result of the UK City of Culture.

Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid is one of the most well developed and structured of the Initial Bids and sets out a clear, diverse and inspiring programme of events and activities for 2013 and the run-up to it. There is a clear focus on the step change linked to growth of cultural activity and its role in and support for enhancing the image and visitor economy of the city, as well as supporting targets linked to a range of key social impacts. There is demonstration of a track record relevant to the nature of the programme outlined, which gives confidence that the city would be able to deliver a strong City of Culture year. Useful initial discussions have also taken place with funders in the region, giving reassurance that the city will be able to secure the funds to deliver it’s fairly ambitious £18.6m programme.

Page 9 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Durham’s Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The city has certain limitations in terms of its venue capacities and other visitor infrastructure which may restrict its ability to host very large scale events, but also the scope to grow its visitor economy to the extent that is aspired to. There are remaining concerns over the limited involvement of contemporary / populist culture, which may restrict the appeal to certain audiences, and is something that we would wish to test further if the bid was shortlisted. With a strong focus on establishing the city as a festival city, and a limited focus on more populist events, there is a risk of the programme failing to be fully inclusive of all communities across County Durham. Durham presents a strong overall case, however there is a sense that the bid has developed close to its potential, whereas other bids may have significant potential for further development at full bid stage.

Overall Assessment: Durham provides a strong and relatively safe bid in terms of the area having a high quality programme that is fairly well developed, a relatively strong track record and well thought through delivery arrangements which could deliver a successful City of Culture and the potential in the city for the programme to deliver substantive impacts, particularly economically. The ability to deliver a City of Culture year which could capture the imagination of the UK will need to be investigated further though, should it be shortlisted.

Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 72  Management, funding and delivery = 68 Conclusion: It is recommended that this bid is shortlisted.

3.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Durham’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  Durham benefits from already being a well known and loved heritage Max. Score=5 destination, and with existing strengths in its events and festivals Actual score=3.5 programme, it is credible to envisage this being scaled up for the City of Culture programme. The need for a step change primarily focuses on the economic potential of the city’s visitor economy which is relatively well demonstrated. There are minor concerns remaining over the number and size of venues and other elements of visitor economy infrastructure which is reflected in a slightly lower score than it might have otherwise have gained. Overall Vision  The vision incorporates a key aim linked to raising the profile of the city and Max. Score=15 for UK City of significantly enhancing the visitor economy, however is accompanied in the Actual score=11 Culture 2013 bid by an appropriate mix of wider social and cultural impact targets. The vision and programme build well on Durham’s strengths and set out a well developed and promising programme. Cultural and  The Durham bid builds on the city’s cultural strengths, physically in terms of Max. Score=45 Artistic the buildings and landscapes, and culturally in terms of existing events and Actual score=32 Strengths of the festivals and the city area’s artistic expertise. There is good variety to the Bid programme as currently set out and elements of national and international excellence, although there is a concern about the balance of the programme with more emphasis on traditional rather than more contemporary cultural and artistic activity.

Page 10 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Durham’s Initial Bid Social Impacts  The bid demonstrates a range of experience in linking culture to achieving Max. Score=20 from the UK City wider social benefits around health, young people and participation, which Actual score=13.5 of Culture their programme would build on. There is little detail however at this stage on how the stated targets would practically be delivered and a potential risk of social impacts being viewed as secondary if there is too great an emphasis on the economic impacts which appear to be more prominent in Durham’s vision. Economic and  The bid makes a clear case for the opportunity and need for Durham to Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts realise its potential with respect to a stronger visitor economy. As an Actual score=12 from the UK City established visitor destination it has a track record in tourism management of Culture and marketing (and a strong Destination Management team in the sub- region), and this will be important in delivering a successful City of Culture programme. There are some concerns however around limitations in terms of its venue capacities and other visitor infrastructure which may restrict its ability to host very large scale events. The target for increasing the value of the visitor economy is ambitious as is the target to double the number of creative businesses by 2020. These would need to be tested further if the bid was shortlisted. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  Durham County Council will lead the bid on behalf of the wider County Max. Score=15 & proposed Durham Partnership. There has been initial thinking on governance through Actual score=10.5 management a local authority controlled delivery company, although it is not fully clear at and governance this stage how the overall governance structure would be structured and arrangements specific roles and responsibilities. The wide ranging support for the programme is impressive and demonstrates significant buy-in from local and regional stakeholders including key potential funders. Track record  The area already has a fairly strong programme of regular events and Max. Score=20 festivals, as well as having delivered larger one-off events. One of the most Actual score=14 significant events of recent years was Lumiere, a city-wide, four-night light festival, which attracted 75,000 people to the city. There has been greater focus in recent years on using these events to attract visitors from outside the county and to some extent the region. The City of Culture programme would clearly be a step-up in scale for Durham, however the track record suggests that Durham would be in a fairly strong position to successfully deliver this. Partnerships and  Durham has set out an £18.6m programme over the period 2010-2013, with Max. Score=15 Funding £10.8m of this spend in 2013 itself. Given the focus of the programme on Actual score=11 creating new events and growing a much enhanced programme of recurring events and festivals, this appears a sensible and appropriate cost plan. The County Council is planning to invest an additional £5.3m above their baseline spend for the period, reflecting their strong commitment, and discussions are relatively advanced with both One North East and the Arts Council and indicative allocations of £2.4m and £1.7m respectively have been discussed with these bodies. An outstanding £4.1m funding gap to be sourced from other regional and national partners however is still of some concern at this stage (and this is reflected in the a lower score than would otherwise have been the case). Risk Assessment  A detailed and well considered risk assessment is set out in the bid, and Max. Score=10 mitigation measures are well thought out at this stage. Risk owners are Actual score=8 identified, and an ongoing risk management process is discussed.

Page 11 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Durham’s Initial Bid Legacy  Durham is already focused on improving its cultural offer and and growing its Max. Score=25 visitor economy, which they would seek to significantly boost through the Actual score=14.5 City of Culture programme. As a result, the governance and future funding for these elements is already being put in place. This gives reassurance that these elements of the economic legacy would be delivered. The bid is less strong however on the practical measures for sustaining growth of community participation in culture, with the risk that without ongoing support post-2013, the improvement in 2013 will then gradually subside again in subsequent years. Learning and  Durham sets out initial plans for evaluation and learning, working with Max. Score=15 evaluation Durham University and building on the learning of Liverpool’s Impacts 08. Actual score=9.5 The thinking on methods of measuring impact and disseminating learning at this stage appear to be sensible and appropriate.

Page 12 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

4. Norwich: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

4.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Norwich City Council. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Norwich’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid covers Norwich, the East of England’s regional capital and its major economic driver. Greater Norwich has a population of 230,000, a figure that is projected to increase to 280,000 by 2025. Norwich attracts 5 million visitors each year and is one of the top ten shopping destinations in the country, with a medieval city centre in which over 1,500 buildings are listed as being of historic interest. Despite its attractiveness, the bidder believes the city is often misperceived as rural ‘backwards’ and cut off from the modern world and these stereotypes are reinforced on a regional and national level. The area’s accessibility could be seen as a weakness compared to other stronger bids. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The bidder proposes that UKCC could help the city to achieve five step changes which includes aspiration and exposure to world class culture for all and a change in internal and external perceptions of the city. The bid states that “as UK City of Culture 2013, Norwich will explore, interrogate and celebrate the human capacity to engage with, describe and thereby change the world for the better.” The vision is appealing and likely to generate interest nationally and internationally. Norwich’s international programme for the City of Culture year will be organised against five key principles, enabling city and county communities to take ownership of its open spaces, venues and institutions. Within each strand, the bidder proposes to commission and deliver two works or events of international significance, two works of national significance and two programmes of community engagement and creative learning work The overall budget for UKCC would be £12 million pounds, with £7.8 million additional funding. They would expect this to result in an increase in annual visitor figures by 30% for the City of Culture year bringing £300 million into the economy. They will ensure that 70% of the population are actively involved during the year and will attract and train 2,000 volunteers. Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid is intellectually very strong; there is a clear and interesting vision, and the assessors believe the planned programme would be able to generate excitement and interest from a wide range of audiences. The simple strands and clear programme will aid marketing to national and international visitors, and the strong emphasis on marketing within the bid suggests this is achievable. The bid has strong links to works and events of national and international significance and there are also a number of cultural and artistic strengths within the city itself. The bidder does have a strong track record in delivering similar activities and there are clear management arrangements for UKCC, with the bid being led by Norwich City Council with plans to develop a suitably funded and constituted ALMO or Trust to take on the delivery of the programme. Norwich plan to set aside three places on the board for CEO’s/directors of cultural organisations in the city. Again, these arrangements are seen as key strengths of the bid.

Page 13 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Norwich’s Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: Norwich’s location is a cause for concern given its accessibility, particularly when compared to some of the other stronger bids. However, the strong emphasis on marketing and an ambitious and exciting programme could help to overcome any issues. There are also concerns over the size of the city and capacity of the cultural and visitor infrastructure to accommodate large influxes in visitors, though the council themselves are confident that they have the necessary infrastructure in place. Norwich City Council has committed only £1.55m towards the bid and high levels of funding are expected from other sources (National: £1.2m; sponsorships, trusts and foundations: £2m; project partners: £4.2m). At this stage, the likelihood of obtaining this funding is a risk. However, their track record does suggest that they have successfully been able to attract funding to support cultural projects in the past. Finally, the bid has been less clear about the social and economic impacts it expects to result from the bid compared to other bidders. Overall Assessment: The strong vision and attractive programme, which has a major international and national focus makes this bid a potential forerunner for UKCC. The bidding city has a strong track record in delivering cultural and artistic projects, suggesting the potential to deliver a successful UKCC programme. There are some concerns over the size and scale of the city and the ability to accommodate significant visitors at any one time, which may need to be taken into consideration. The location and connectivity is another concern which would need to be carefully considered if it is shortlisted. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 72  Management, funding and delivery = 66 Conclusion: We recommend the bid is shortlisted

4.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Norwich Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The bid has a clear geographical focus on Norwich, however the area is less Max. Score=5 well connected in terms of national and international transport links Actual score=3.5 compared to other stronger bids.  Norwich is connected to the rest of the country via Cambridge by road (A1M) to the North and South and the A14 to the west/Midlands, and to London via the A11/M11. By rail, Norwich is 1 hour and 20 minutes from Stratford International station and the high speed Eurostar link. The presence of Norwich International airport offers links to destinations further afield and London Stansted airport is 90 minutes away by road or rail.  There are a number of venues in Norwich, including the city itself which regularly hosts outdoor events for 50,000 plus in the market square. The walkability of the city and the fact that it can be closed within its walls makes the whole city centre a venue with a capacity of 100,000.  Whilst culture is already identified as a mechanism for achieving a step change, the bidder could have made a stronger case for hosting UKCC and the impact they wish to achieve Overall Vision  The vision is excellent and well conveyed and would make for a distinctive Max. Score=15 for UK City of and varied programme. The simple strands and clear programme will aid Actual score=12 Culture 2013 marketing to national and international visitors. A commitment to commissioning works of international, national and community, creative and

Page 14 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Norwich Initial Bid learning works under each theme is also positive. The vision and programme are clear strengths of this bid.  Norwich could however have made a stronger case for a step change, particularly demonstrating the impacts which it is hoped that UKCC will achieve. Cultural and  The bid has strong links to works and events of national and international Max. Score=45 Artistic significance and there are also a number of cultural and artistic strengths Actual score=34 Strengths of the within the city itself. Strengths in street arts and festivals (Norfolk and Bid Norwich International Arts Festival), literature (with the UEA’s creative writing programme, Writers Centre Norwich and the British Centre for Literary Translation). The fact that the city can be used as a venue providing capacity for 100,000 behind closed walls is an attractive idea  The bid could have also expanded further on their current baseline position in terms of participation and how they intend to extend participation. Social Impacts  The bid does not set out how to measure the social impacts of the Max. Score=20 from the UK City programme and possible targets for measuring the impact. However, the Actual score=12 of Culture role that the culture programme will play in the regeneration of the area and community cohesion could be stronger and better articulated. Furthermore, the bid doesn’t specifically set out how different groups will be engaged (though the programme does suggest that there will be some engagement). Economic and  The bid provides a good description of the visitor markets which they wish to Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts expand upon and specifically provides an indication of a reasonable Actual score=10 from the UK City marketing budget to aid these activities. It is clear that marketing to national of Culture and international visitors is seen as being important to the success of the year long programme.  However, the bid should have given greater consideration to the tourism and transport infrastructure and capacity to deal with visitors. Discussions with the council suggest that they believe they have the capacity to deal with a large influx of visitors, both in terms of venues and wider tourism infrastructure. However, this is an area which could be a potential risk and warrants further attention.  Finally, further detail on the potential increase to the visitor economy which Norwich expect to result from UKCC would be beneficial. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The bid provides good coverage of the proposed management and Max. Score=15 & proposed governance arrangements. The bid is being led by Norwich City Council and Actual score=11 management an ALMO or Trust would take on the delivery of the programme. It is also and governance proposed that a wide range of partners will be involved and it is clear that arrangements this will include key cultural organisations, which is positive. Track record  Norwich City Council has demonstrated that they have a good track record in Max. Score=20 delivering a range of relevant projects. The Norfolk and Norwich Actual score=15 International Arts Festival is a 16 day festival which attracts 34,000 festival goers and £2.1m investment and the BA Festival of Science involves 87 separate events and 21 exhibitions.

Page 15 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Norwich Initial Bid Partnerships and  Norwich has allocated an overall budget of £12m towards UKCC but only £7.8 Max. Score=15 Funding million is additional funding which is below other bidding cities. This is a Actual score=10 concern for this bid. A high proportion of funding (£2m) is being sought from sponsorships, trusts and foundations. However, Norwich does appear to have a reasonable track record in gaining funding from these sources in the past.  It is anticipated that project partners would provide £4.2 million (e.g. Arts Council, HLF and English Heritage) and initial discussions suggest that it is reasonable to expect this level  Finally, the low level of funding from Norwich City Council is a potential risk and concern Risk Assessment  The bidder provides a brief risk assessment focusing on financial, Max. Score=10 reputational and cultural exclusion. This would need to be strengthened if Actual score=6 shortlisted. In particular, consideration of risks around accessibility, capacity to accommodate large influxes of visitors and the level of additional funding are potential risks, which warrant grater consideration. Legacy  A key part of the legacy will be through the UKCC ALMO which will be a key Max. Score=25 vehicle for cultural governance in the future. Whilst this is positive, overall Actual score=14 there is not a strong practical expression of legacy in this bid, which is partly due to the lack of targets being set. The limited information on the process and actions through which the impacts will be sustained over time is also an issue. Learning and  Discussions with the University of East Anglia already underway to cost and Max. Score=15 evaluation design a suitable evaluation framework. The bid identifies a budget of Actual score=10 around £100k for baseline, research and evaluation, which is positive. Nevertheless, this element of the bid could be strengthened if shortlisted.

Page 16 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

5. Sheffield: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

5.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Sheffield. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Sheffield’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: Sheffield is the fourth largest city in England, with a population of over 500,000 people. Sitting in South Yorkshire, Sheffield occupies a central geographical position in the UK and has good connectivity to audiences across the country. The city received over 850,000 visitor trips in 2007. In recent years Sheffield has had an increased focus on growing its knowledge based and creative economy, leading to the set up of ‘Creative Sheffield’, the city’s economic development company.

Key Features of the Vision and Programme: Sheffield builds on its industrial roots to describe a vision of a programme with a heavy emphasis on creating, making and performing, rather than just watching. The vision statement is bold - ‘Let’s create something amazing’ - which they describe as a call to action to everyone in the city and to international artists and visitors. The vision connects to the city’s aspirations to become the most creative city in the UK, increasing participation in the arts and strengthening the city’s already significant creative and cultural sectors, as well as boosting what is regarded as an under-performing visitor economy. The city has already made good progress and is looking to build upon this.

The programme is set out under ten themes:  Let’s Make Music – from popular to folk, electronic to chamber, and of course brass bands  Let’s Connect – strong digital focus to the programme, building on the Digital region initiative  Let’s Celebrate – strengthening city’s festival programme  Let’s build our legacy – encouraging, nurturing, inspiring and showcasing the talent and energy of Sheffield’s young people  Let’s tell our stories – celebrating the cultural heritage of the city’s diverse communities  Let’s invite everyone – programme focus on activity in all communities across the Sheffield area.  Let’s be different – reaching new audiences through using unexpected places and spaces  Let’s do business – developing the city’s role as a creative broker  Let’s take the lead – becoming a UK leader in learning on cultural and creative development  Let’s get out heads together – delivering 1,000 ‘great ideas’ from the people of Sheffield. The bid identifies an additional investment of £11m for UK CoC, supported by existing annual cultural spend of £15m by the City Council. They estimate an additional impact from UK CoC of a 10% growth in the day visitors and staying visitors, contributing to a growth in the annual visitor economy of £311m by 2013 (based on 2007 baseline).

Page 17 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Sheffield’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: Sheffield is a large city that demonstrates to a reasonable degree both the need and the capacity to deliver a good UK City of Culture programme. The basic foundation of the bid is strong, with a focus on increasing cultural and creative participation to both social and economic ends, that tie into the longer terms aims for the city. There is a strong and credible focus on engaging across all communities as well as delivering artistic excellence and major events and festivals. The city has a strong track record in successful delivery in all of these areas, which gives confidence in its ability to deliver a successful programme, and it has a strong identity and infrastructure to manage the greater influx of visitors generated by the programme.

Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: While the basic foundation for the bid is sound, the focus on more specific aims is lacking at present and does not give a clear idea of where or how the most important step changes will be delivered through the programme. Linked to this, there is limited discussion in the bid on the mechanisms through which the legacy could be secured. The budget for the programme appears to be a little low for the breadth of what is a very ambitious programme, and the bidders are not very advanced in discussions with potential funders, beyond the City Council.

Overall Assessment: The bid has a number of strengths and the foundations of the vision tie in closely to the city’s wider ambitions around growth of the creative and cultural economy. This is an exciting and ambitious bid and there is evidence that the city is well placed to deliver a successful programme. However the bid at this stage is not as advanced in its thinking and planning as other areas and this is reflected in a lower scoring in this regard. Whilst Sheffield still faces major challenges, the major regeneration of the past decade has built a great deal of momentum – it is possible that a successful City of Culture year could have a very significant impact in this regard.

Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 65  Management, funding and delivery = 60 Conclusion: It is recommended that the IAP give consideration to shortlisting this bid.

5.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Sheffield Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  As the 4th largest city in the UK, Sheffield is clearly a city with a strong identity Max. Score=5 for visitors. The city also has a strong cultural and visitor economy Actual score=4 infrastructure with major venues, overnight accommodation and public transport connectivity. The bid sets out key areas in which a step change is needed, although this could be clearer and better focused. Overall Vision  The bid sets out a strong foundation for the Sheffield’s bid, picking up on the Max. Score=15 for UK City of character of the city, to focus on engaging people in creating and making Actual score=10 Culture 2013 culture, not just watching it. The programme is both ambitious and perhaps too complex – it is broken down into three cornerstones and ten themes, which slightly detracts from the programme focus. On the whole the step changes discussed are appropriate, although similarly would benefit from further refinement and focusing

Page 18 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Sheffield Initial Bid Cultural and  Sheffield has a strong cultural infrastructure in terms of the wealth of Max. Score=45 Artistic venues, existing events and festivals and cultural networks. The bid also Actual score=29 Strengths of the gives some helpful consideration to opportunities for the programme to act Bid as a catalyst to further enhance this infrastructure. The range of the programme is good, although it is recognised by the bid team, that Sheffield currently lacks a strong sense of what it is really good at culturally. The bid team sees the City of Culture as an opportunity to help define this and hence to help shape the future cultural and visitor branding of the city. Social Impacts  The bid has strong grass-roots elements and shows a clear desire for wide Max. Score=20 from the UK City engagement and encouraging creativity within all communities. There is also Actual score=12 of Culture a strong track record of significant use of culture in delivering social impacts. Ensuring diversity in programme content is also a clear priority. There is however little substantive detail on how key social impacts will be delivered at this stage, and some concerns remain about the feasibility of delivering the range of engagement activity discussed within the budget set for the programme. Economic and  A range of what appear to be appropriate economic aims are set out in the Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts bid, however there is a lack of sufficient clarity on these at this stage. Actual score=10 from the UK City Sheffield clearly has the potential to deliver significant economic impacts of Culture from the proposed programme with scope for expansion in their visitor economy and creative sector. More detail is needed however to elucidate how these economic benefits can be delivered and maximised through the programme. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The programme would be delivered through a special purpose vehicle, with Max. Score=15 & proposed the city council playing a key role. The City Council have a strong track record Actual score=9 management in the set up of SPVs. The amount of detail for this organisation is fairly and governance limited at this stage. The list of stakeholders engaged in the bid process from arrangements public, private and voluntary sectors is fairly extensive, suggesting strong partner interest and support. Track record  The City Council and partners have a wealth of experience in delivering major Max. Score=20 one-off events and major annual festivals, which gives confidence in the Actual score=15 ability to deliver the breadth and quality of events proposed in the programme. There is less of a track record of a sustained and fully co- ordinated programme of events as would be delivered as part of the UK City of Culture, and thus the ability to build on a well established partnership is likely to be critical to success. The existing steering group for the bid is already bringing these major partners together, including key stakeholders from the local authority, universities, and key cultural institutions and agencies. Partnerships and  An estimated £11m additional investment is set out in the bid for delivering Max. Score=15 Funding the programme, and a provisional cost breakdown is given. Sheffield City Actual score=8 Council has committed £3.6m to the programme, and a range of potential funding partners are highlighted, however there has not been detailed discussion with these bodies at this stage on indicative allocations. The bid team are confident that securing this funding is achievable, although questions remain over whether the target amount is realistic to deliver the scale of programme set out. Risk Assessment  The bid sets out two important areas of risk around finances and strategic Max. Score=10 factors. A number of important risks are highlighted, though coverage of Actual score=2 these is limited and no mitigation measures are discussed.

Page 19 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Sheffield Initial Bid Legacy  The legacy aims largely focus on cultural participation and the creative Max. Score=25 economy, and set out credible targets against these. The legacy could have Actual score=13 been strengthened by giving a little more focus and definition to the legacy goals. There has been limited thinking at this stage in the bid on the practical mechanisms through which the legacy would be delivered. Learning and  Learning and evaluation is built in to processes throughout the Sheffield bid, Max. Score=15 evaluation and discussion of an Impacts 13 evaluation, continuing from the learning of Actual score=13 Liverpool’s Impacts 08 appears very sensible. Sheffield clearly see this as an integral part of their bid and its legacy, through taking a national leadership role in culture-led regeneration – linking to their ‘Let’s take the lead’ programme theme. Initial thought has been given to key individuals to engage at the city’s Universities, and although details of the overall approach are relatively limited at this stage, the bid demonstrates a strong commitment to evaluation, to innovative thinking in measuring impact and to disseminating knowledge.

Page 20 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

6. Hull and East Yorkshire: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

6.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Hull & East Yorkshire. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Hull and East Yorkshire’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid area covers the City of Hull (population 260,000) and also the surrounding hinterland in part of the District of East Yorkshire (population 240,000) including Beverley in the Yorkshire Wolds and coastal town of Bridlington. Hull is a city that has faced enormous economic and regeneration challenges and has seen and is seeing substantial public sector investment to try and stem its decline, yet remains one of the most deprived cities in the UK; East Yorkshire is a much more prosperous area and includes the commuter hinterland of Hull. Hull is still a maritime city that, in common with other such areas, is finding new uses for old dock areas. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The bid describes the two greatest obstacles facing the area as: sense of isolation also born out of our ‘end-of- the-line’ location; and the legacy of limited personal ambition. It describes UK CoC as a catalyst to “turn the city region around so it is facing outwards, once again, towards the rest of the country and Europe, celebrating all facets of our international links”. The bid acknowledges that the area’s cultural infrastructure is relatively limited and needs development; as well as increases in cultural participation, the development of local cultural capacity is one of the key features of the bid. The bid proposes significant investment in the development the capacity of local creative organisations in the run up to 2010 (and beyond). It is an unusual bid in that significant investment is planned in 2010 to 2012 and then in 2014 and 15. The programme has two main themes: Freedom (linked to the legacy of William Wilberforce and building on the successful Freedom Festival); and Home. The programme is presented as a 6-year programme with a different focus in each year and a deliberate focus on leaving legacy. The bidders make a virtue of the relatively undeveloped nature of the 2013 programme, arguing that 2010 “Vision and Voices” year would focus on the development of programming ideas. A total of £16.5m additional UK City of Culture investment is proposed in 2010 to 2013, with the majority (but not all) focused on 2013 itself. The bid uses a rationale from the Liverpool ’08 early impact work of £5 of economic impact for every £1 invested. It suggests substantial economic impact in 2013 resulting from around 4m extra visitors. Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid makes a clear case as to why UK CoC could make a transformational difference to the area and why a successful bid is needed. There is an impressive degree of commitment to the bid locally and to the role of culture as part of the area’s transformation, especially by the two local authorities. Hull City Council’s Cabinet has agreed in principle to invest up to £8m extra resources in the delivery of the City of Culture. Hull is an area experiencing large programme of largely publicly funded investment creating new spaces and locations which can and are being used as venues (including a £400m Building Schools for the Future programme). The desire to build up cultural capacity and leave a legacy of enhanced cultural/creative sector is clear. The area offers an interesting mix of urban, seaside and more rural experiences, festivals and venues at present to build upon. There is developing experience of dealing with larger scale events (Freedom Festival).

Page 21 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Hull and East Yorkshire’s Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The desire to create an enhanced cultural infrastructure of strong cultural organisations is commendable, but is an inherent area of weakness/risk in the bid as the cultural raw material to build upon is quite limited. There is repeated reference to just a relatively few headline cultural attractors in the bid (e.g. Phillip Larkin). The programming ideas at this stage for 2013 are extremely sketchy and there would be a significant risk that a strong programme could not be developed in time. We understand the desire to engage different communities in this process (which they would do in the rest of this year), but other areas have much more progress already in programme development. The 6-year programme and investment approach has its merits, but there is the danger of dilution of focus on 2013 itself. The extent to which the different offers in East Yorkshire and Hull can be stitched together for visitors as part of a coherent programme is another risk. Overall Assessment: An area experiencing considerable transformation that sees culture as important part of the strategy to put it on the map and has set out an ambitious 6-year strategy. However, the track record to date and relative weakness of the cultural offer would make this a risky bid. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 63  Management, funding and delivery = 61 Conclusion: This is a very well written and presented bid and is close in terms of its assessment score to being a candidate for shortlisting. However, the assessors consider that this would be a relatively high risk bid to support given the underdeveloped nature of the 2013 programme and acknowledged limitations in the current cultural infrastructure. If not shortlisted it should be given strong encouragement to bid for 2017.

6.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Hull & East Yorkshire Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The bid makes a strong case for the need for UK CoC. The geographical area Max. Score=5 has a local logic and there are strong connections between Hull and East Actual score=4 Yorkshire. However, we have some slight concerns about the connectivity and coherence of the area from a visitor perspective. Overall Vision  The vision explains why Hull & EY would benefit from UK CoC. However, it Max. Score=15 for UK City of lacks an explanation of why it would be a fitting location for UK CoC from a Actual score=11 Culture 2013 UK perspective. There are four clear step changes sought although for two of these (cultural participation and cultural infrastructure) the degree of stretch sought is not clear nor is it exactly clear how this would contribute to the longer term aspirations of the area. Cultural and  The bid is candid about the cultural and artistic strengths and weaknesses. Max. Score=45 Artistic The programme is very top level at this stage and there is relatively little Actual score=25 Strengths of the sense of what it might contain. The bid identifies the need to appoint a n Bid artistic director and then uses 2010 to generate programme ideas and buy-in. It identifies the need to invest in capacity building in the local cultural infrastructure in the run-up to the bid year to create better local delivery capacity. Social Impacts  The bidders see the £400m Building Schools for the Future as a key Max. Score=20 from the UK City opportunity for exploiting UK CoC. There is reasonable evidence on the Actual score=13 of Culture current role culture plays in regeneration, although the proposals presented for its enhanced use are generic.

Page 22 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Hull & East Yorkshire Initial Bid Economic and  This is clearly seen as a key benefit from being UK CoC. There is a dedicated Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts Tourism Marketing Organisation for the area and good joint working and a Actual score=10 from the UK City developing new tourism offer in Hull (East Yorkshire’s is more established). of Culture The large number of ferry passengers passing through Hull present a potential opportunity for international audiences. The estimates of economic impact appear on the high side and would need to be tested further. The area has the capacity to cope with extra visitors. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  Hull City Council is the lead partner and would act as financial guarantor. The Max. Score=15 & proposed bid has had widespread support from partners, although the degree of Actual score=10 management engagement at a grassroots level to date appears limited. At this stage the and governance ideas for management and governance are relatively high level but well arrangements thought through. The proposal is to set up a dedicated arms length delivery vehicle for 2013 which would deal with all related arts and cultural activity of the councils to avoid duplication. We would have some concerns about the capacity locally to take forward UK CoC given the relatively short timescale and lack of work on programming. Much would rely on appointing the artistic/creative directors in good time. Track record  The area has a range of festivals and events that are delivered, many Max. Score=20 relatively small in scale. The largest event is the Freedom Festival a 2 day Actual score=10 festival with c. 150,000 visitors, largely local or day trip visitors. It has no track record in the delivery of an extensive programme of major events in one year. The relatively under-developed state of its cultural infrastructure is acknowledged in the bid. At this stage the capacity to deliver the scale and quality required for UK CoC would be a risk. Partnerships and  The bid has very helpful detailed financial cost and income source tables on Max. Score=15 Funding an annual basis. In total the bid suggests the need for £16m extra funding up Actual score=12 to and including 2013 (of which £12m is on extra programming investment). Hull City Council have committed up to £8m of additional funding for UK CoC (Cabinet agreement), so the level of certainty on funding exceeds many other areas. The bid suggests a modest £1.2m of extra funding from private sources. A good degree of thought has gone into the costings of the bid, although the programme costs have not been built up from an outline programme and, unlike other areas, relatively more would need to be invested in activity in run up years. Risk Assessment  There is a reasonable risk assessment and the bidders have identified the Max. Score=10 main risks. These in our view are the ability to deliver a high quality year-long Actual score=5 programme in 2013 given the long way to go in terms of developing programming ideas and the modest base of activity on which to build. Legacy  The idea of a 6-year programme (pre and post 2013) and development of the Max. Score=25 cultural infrastructure are strong elements of the bid, although it is still not Actual score=12 clear which elements of the cultural infrastructure will be improved and how. It is also not clear at this stage how cultural engagement will be improved in a lasting way as suggested. Learning and  Some well considered points are included in the bid Max. Score=15 evaluation Actual score=12

Page 23 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

7. Ipswich and Haven Gateway: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

7.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Ipswich and Haven Gateway. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Ipswich and the Haven Gateway’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid is focused on Ipswich and the Haven Gateway. The Haven Gateway (population 600,000) is a government recognised sub-region and economic growth area which is based around the key ports of Felixstowe, Harwich and Ipswich. It incorporates eight different local authorities, including county, borough and district councils. The region welcomes over 17 million visitors per year and brings in more than £720m of tourism spend into the sub-region (includes local people, visiting for leisure purposes). The main urban areas within the Haven Gateway have reasonable good transport links, with Colchester accessed from London by rail in 1hr and Ipswich in 1hr20mins. London Stansted is 50 miles from Ipswich. Ipswich and the Haven Gateway can be accessed by major trunk road from London via the A12 and from the Midlands via the A14. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The bid aims to increase the reach of culture and the arts locally. Despite a steady increase in cultural activities in the region over the last 10 years, the area still struggles with a lack of recognition for its cultural and visitor offer and the UKCC bid is a strong partnership approach to address this. In line with this aspiration, the overall vision is “to bring about a step change in the cultural perception of the area through improved collaboration between key cultural partners and local authorities leading to sustainable economic growth and increased participation in a wide range of cultural activities.” This appears to be local in focus and not as distinctive as the visions of stronger bidders. The events and activities will be based around four themes, which build on the areas strengths such as ‘Inspired by’, which focuses on the great artists which have been influenced by the diverse geographical landscape and natural beauty of the region (e.g. Gainsborough). The programme contains a number of interesting ideas, one of which is to work with the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich to use containers as small scale and very local cultural ‘venues’ or meeting places. The programme is focused around three cultural hubs, each containing an important cultural asset: Aldeburgh Music Hall at Snape Maltings (Aldeburgh), the recently opened Jerwood DanceHouse, headquarters for national dance organisation, DanceEast (Ipswich) and FirstSite, a new visual arts venue due to open in May 2011 (Colchester). Following the clarification meeting, the bidder increased the value of the programme from £6.3m to £9.7m (for 2011-2014 activities) and the additional funding for 2013 now equates to £5m. Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid contains a number of interesting ideas such as the cultural containers and “spoke ‘n’ word arts-led cycling tours”. There are also good national and international links through Aldeburgh Music and Dance East, and there are plans to build on these for the 2013 programme. Britain Dancing Britten for example would be a good way of attracting widespread interest, involving three new pieces of dance and one specifically commissioned piece of music to be premiered in 2013 by three major international dance companies followed by a national and international tour. The IP Arts Festival each summer also provides a good foundation from which to build more participation based programmes locally.

Page 24 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Ipswich and the Haven Gateway’s Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: Whilst the programme is strong, the vision is less distinctive, particularly since it appears to be mainly local in its focus. There are some significant areas of concern surrounding the delivery and funding for this bid in particular. The original proposal suggested £6.3 million investment between 2010 and 2014, however this has since been increased to £9.7 million following concerns over whether the initial figure could deliver the scale and quality of events required for the first UKCC. But the additional level of funding (£5m) is still lower than many other bidding cities. It is proposed that the Haven Gateway Partnership (HGP) would act as a financial guarantor for the UKCC. They are supportive of the bid in principle but have asked for further information should the bid progress. The uncertainty around the governance arrangements is a significant risk for this bid. The proposed partnership structures could be over-complex. There are a number of boards and sub-groups and the large number of local authorities involved could present difficulties in agreeing on delivery of the programme. There is a potential risk in delivering the bid over such a widespread area (eight local authorities) but at the same time, this does enable the area to encompass a number of strong cultural assets (such as Aldeburgh Music). Ipswich and Colchester are relatively well connected to London and some parts of the south east; however the midlands and north are less accessible. In this regard, those parts of the Haven Gateway which are more rural in nature such as Aldeburgh will be even more difficult to access. Overall Assessment: The proposed programme - which builds on the areas strengths such as Aldeburgh Music and Dance House, and which has strong international links - is a particular strength for this bid. There are a number of interesting and unique ideas for additional events. However, the significant concerns over funding, delivery arrangements and the potential scale of impact which make this both a high risk bid and a less attractive proposition for UKCC 2013 than some other bids. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 62  Management, funding and delivery = 54 Conclusion: Whilst the bid is worthy of commendation, we recommend that it is not shortlisted.

7.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Ipswich and Haven Gateway Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The bid covers a large area, encompassing eight local authorities. The bid Max. Score=5 does however have a clear focus on three main cultural hubs (Ipswich, Actual score=3 Colchester and Aldeburgh) which would aid the delivery of the programme. The Haven Gateway area itself is not a recognised visitor destination, however the key cultural hubs are and the bidder proposes to focus on marketing these hubs rather than the whole of the Haven Gateway area. Overall Vision  The vision, whilst appropriate for the Haven Gateway is mainly local in its Max. Score=15 for UK City of focus and could be more distinctive. However, the proposed programme is Actual score=9.5 Culture 2013 interesting and is a real strength of the bid. There are some unique ideas such as the use of containers, and Britain Dancing Britten is an excellent proposal which would generate interest nationally and internationally.  As with some other bids, Ipswich and the Haven Gateway could have more clearly and thoroughly set out the proposed step change and estimated impact, which they expect to result from UKCC.

Page 25 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Ipswich and Haven Gateway Initial Bid Cultural and  There are some good cultural assets to build upon. The programme is Max. Score=45 Artistic focused around three cultural hubs each containing an important cultural Actual score=30 Strengths of the asset: Aldeburgh Music Hall at Snape Maltings (Aldeburgh), the recently Bid opened Jerwood DanceHosue, headquarters for national dance organisation, Dance East (Ipswich) and FirstSite, a new visual arts venue due to open in May 2011 (Colchester).  The bid would incorporate a large number of national and international artists, which would ensure cultural excellence and could attract widespread interest. Britain Dancing Britten, which would involve premiers by three major international dance companies, followed by a national and international tour is a good example of this. Social Impacts  The bid presents a good consideration of the social impacts. However, Max. Score=20 from the UK City greater clarity on the forecast impacts the bidder expects to achieve through Actual score=11 of Culture being UKCC would be beneficial. Economic and  The two main towns of Ipswich and Colchester are easily accessible to Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts London and parts of the South East, however less accessible to the north of Actual score=8 from the UK City the country and the Midlands. In this regard, some of the smaller locations of Culture which form part of the bid i.e. Aldeburgh are less accessible.  A 25% increase in the value of tourism as a result of UKCC appears ambitious and the rationale and evidence to support this ambition is relatively weak. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The bid is being led by Ipswich Borough Council, working closely with the Max. Score=15 & proposed Haven Gateway Partnership. It is proposed that the Haven Gateway Actual score=8 management Partnership (HGP) would act as a financial guarantor for the UKCC. However, and governance they have no legal status and Essex County Council is the Accountable Body arrangements for the Partnership managed through a memorandum of understanding. They are supportive of the bid in principle but have asked for further information should the bid progress. If successful, they would need to consider the potential for a company limited by guarantee or other appropriate vehicle to deliver the bid. This uncertainty around the governance arrangements is a significant risk for this bid.  There were some initial concerns over the proposed partnership structure which appears unnecessarily complex. In addition, the large number of local authorities involved could present difficulties in agreeing on the programme and delivery. Track record  There is a reasonably good track record across the art forms and both larger Max. Score=20 and more modest events and festivals. Of particular note are the Ip-arts Actual score=12 Festival which attracts over 150,000 visitors and the Jiangsu Festival which attracted 355,000 people over 9 months. Partnerships and  There are some significant areas of concern surrounding the funding for this Max. Score=15 Funding bid in particular. The original proposal suggested £6.3 million in investment Actual score=6 for UKCC between 2010 and 2014, however this has since been increased to £9.7 million following out initial concerns over whether the initial figure could deliver the scale and quality of events required for the first UKCC. The bidding city feel that the proposed programme and world class facilities which exist in the area would enable the area to attract sufficient attention within the constraints of this funding. However, the proposed level is still below the additional funding (£5m) than that for many other bidding cities and causes some concern over the scale and quality of events which could be delivered and the level of commitment. This remains a concern and this is reflected in the low score. Risk Assessment  A very good risk assessment has been provided. However, the potential risks Max. Score=10 over funding and management arrangements warranted more detailed Actual score=6 assessment by the bid team.

Page 26 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Ipswich and Haven Gateway Initial Bid Legacy  The bid has started to consider what the legacy might be, for example this Max. Score=25 includes increased participation and raised aspirations as well as better Actual score=14 awareness of their offer nationally and internationally. As with other bids, there is insufficient information provided on how the legacy for Ipswich and the Haven Gateway may be sustained. Learning and  As with some other bids, this section would have benefited from additional Max. Score=15 evaluation information on the approach to learning and evaluation in practical terms. Actual score=8

Page 27 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

8. Portsmouth and Southampton: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

8.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Portsmouth and Southampton. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Portsmouth and Southampton’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid is led by Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils but comprises the broader ‘city regions’ that together make up Urban South Hampshire. Urban South Hampshire is a coherent sub-region, recognised as a single ‘functional economic area’. South Hampshire stretches from Southampton across Portsmouth along the M27/A27 and along to Havant, and is framed by the South Downs, the Solent and New Forest. Portsmouth and Southampton cities combined have a population of over 430,000 people. A key feature of the area is water - both Portsmouth and Southampton are situated along the Solent coastline and both are port cities, home to the Royal and Merchant Navies. Portsmouth is the UK’s only island city. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The bid sees UKCC delivering a step change in levels of engagement and participation in culture (this is currently underdeveloped) and is seeking to make greater use of culture in its regeneration. The bid, entitled PS I Love You, is all about sharing, with the programme aiming to benefit others. As well as the local community this includes other towns and villages across South Hampshire and nationally. The overall vision builds on this theme placing “culture centre stage in Portsmouth, Southampton and across South Hampshire, through an exploration of local identity – raising our shared profile and encouraging the maximum possible number of people to be inspired by and to participate in our culture”. The programme comprises four cross-cutting components and a number of themes, which are accessible and fun. Even Saints Get the Blues for example, builds on the historic rivalry of the two cities to create a programme of events based on collaboration and competition. One theme focuses on maximising participation amongst all groups and ensuring cultural diversity and another is a volunteering programme with a range of opportunities leading up to and during 2013. There is a strong long focus within the programme. The estimated cost for the programme is £10 million, and they expect that 60% of the cost would come from existing levels of support (so £4m would be additional). Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid document is visually attractive and clearly sets out (though some information, such as management and delivery mechanisms, is currently under-developed). There are some positive elements in terms of the strong branding of the bid (PS I Love You) and the focus on Portsmouth and Southampton (rivals in many respects) working together collectively to achieve the UKCC vision (although this could also be a significant practical and marketing challenge). There is existing evidence of these partners working together on cultural initiatives, however it is recognised that there is still some way to go to extend and embed this relationship. The programme themes are accessible and fun, and will present significant opportunities for local people through volunteering, and specific activities focused on inclusion and collaboration between the two cities. ‘Find Your Talent’ is an existing initiative aimed at increasing access to cultural activities by young people and families (e.g. creative placement schemes) and appears to be a successful collaborative initiative to build on for UKCC 2013. Given the emphasis of the bid and a number of the proposed activities, it would be well placed to tackle local issues around regeneration and inclusion more effectively than many other bids.

Page 28 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Portsmouth and Southampton’s Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: Portsmouth and Southampton are vague on how they would work with national and international artists (some are referred to e.g. Banksy and Sheila Hancock, though they do not appear to have been involved in the bid to date). We have a concern that the national and international elements of the bid would not be strong and this could hinder the levels of interest received from areas outside of South Hampshire and the economic impact of the bid. The proposals for big headline events are also not clear at this stage. The management and delivery arrangements appear less well developed and more complex compared to other bids. Whilst the bid is being led by Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, it is proposed that PUSH (the sub-regional economic development agency) would act as a financial guarantor for the programme and they would also lead on governance (through a new special purpose organisation). A significant number of partners are mentioned (including the nine local authorities) and it may be difficult to manage all of these interests effectively. The involvement of creative and cultural organisations appears less strong. The bidding cities have organised events of national and regional stature including SeaBritian (a festival which commemorates the 200th anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar and celebrates Britain’s maritime tradition), which attracted over 250,000 visitors. However, their track record in organising major arts and cultural events is less well developed and broad compared to other stronger bids. There are concerns over the proposed level of investment (which appears relatively low and vague in how it has been determined) and the proportion coming from existing levels of support for culture (which appears high). Overall Assessment: There are some interesting and popularist elements of the programme and the community engagement dimension is very strong. However, the national and international elements of the outline programme are less strong, which raises concerns about the potential wider appeal and profile of the programme. We have significant concerns over the delivery and funding of the proposal, which is less well developed than other bids and raises a number of major risks. There are also some concerns over the track record. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 61  Management, funding and delivery = 52 Conclusion: We recommend that the bid is not shortlisted.

8.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Portsmouth and Southampton’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Total Maximum Score out of 100= Your Area  The bid is led by Portsmouth and Southampton councils but focused on the Max. Score=5 wider Urban South Hampshire region, which is a large geographical area of 9 Actual score=3 local authorities. The rationale for the collaboration and particularly how this would support innovation and cultural excellence is not well developed and is a weakness of the bid. They could also have considered more fully the challenges in the delivery, marketing and management of the bid and how these would be overcome.  It is clear that culture is seen as a mechanism for a step change in Urban South Hampshire and the bid effectively explores why UKCC is required. Overall Vision  There is a clear vision focusing on maximising participation. This could be Max. Score=15 for UK City of made more distinctive and creative to generate more widespread appeal. Actual score=9 Culture 2013  The bid is visually attractive and clearly set out. There are some positive aspects in the branding of the bid (PS I Love You) and the idea of Portsmouth and Southampton (rivals in many respects) working together collectively to

Page 29 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Portsmouth and Southampton’s Initial Bid achieve the UKCC vision.  The programme themes are accessible and fun, and will present significant opportunities for local people through volunteering, and specific activities focused on inclusion and collaboration between the two cities.  Whilst the programme is wide ranging, the main headline events are not clear at this stage.  The bid sets out clearly what step changes they anticipate achieving through UKCC as well as the measures they will use to judge their success. These look reasonable (but potentially not sufficiently challenging). Cultural and  A significant weakness of this bid is how Portsmouth and Southampton will Max. Score=45 Artistic deliver cultural excellence. In particular, the bid appears to have a strong Actual score=28 Strengths of the local focus and more detail and certainty could have been provided around Bid the key national and international artists, partnerships and networks which will support the bid. High profile names such as Banksy and Sheila Hancock have been named, however their level of commitment and how they may be involved is not clear at this stage. Social Impacts  The bid has a strong focus on regeneration but it was not sufficiently clear Max. Score=20 from the UK City about how it intends to use culture to enhance their regeneration effort. Actual score=12 of Culture (though its local focus would clearly benefit the area in this regard)  There is a good consideration given to engaging with different communities and maximising participation, particularly through ‘culture without borders’ Economic and  The bid sets out the range of economic and tourism impacts which they hope Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts to achieve, setting out initial views on the uplift which they hope to achieve. Actual score=9 from the UK City There is insufficient clarity however on how these uplifts have been of Culture formulated and consequently the extent to which they may be achieved.  The bid does not adequately address the proposed approach to marketing. In particular, further consideration could be give to the target groups it currently attracts and how the target markets could be developed and broadened through being UKCC. The challenges and opportunities in collectively marketing Portsmouth and Southampton and the rest of Urban South Hampshire is not adequately addressed, which is a weakness of the bid. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Maximum Score out of 100 Bid organisation  The bid is led by Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils with support Max. Score=15 & proposed from the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (who would act as a Actual score=8.5 management financial guarantor). and governance  The management and delivery arrangements are less well developed and arrangements more complex compared to other bids. Whilst the bid is being led by Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, it is proposed that PUSH would act as a financial guarantor for the programme and they would also lead the governance/delivery vehicle. The rationale for this is that PUSH has an existing track record in working with the local authorities across the South Hampshire area.  The bid identifies a large number of partners with whom they propose working and effective consideration of how these may be managed does not appear from the bid document to have occurred. Strong involvement from the public sector in programming and delivering the bid is proposed. However, the involvement of creative and cultural organisations does appear less strong relative to other bids and stronger involvement would be encouraged to deliver cultural excellence.  The bidders expect to set up a Company Limited by Guarantee to oversee the delivery of the bid.

Page 30 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Portsmouth and Southampton’s Initial Bid Track record  Key events which demonstrate their track record includes SeaBritian 2005, Max. Score=20 the Southampton Boat Show and the International Festival of the Sea. The Actual score=10.5 track record could be more relevant to UKCC 2013, with the bidders being able to demonstrate a stronger track record in delivering cultural events and programmes. Partnerships and  The cost of the bid is expected to be around £10 million. A high proportion Max. Score=15 Funding (60%) would be from existing sources, which is a significant weakness of the Actual score=6 bid. At this stage, the bidder has not provided sufficient information on the overall cost to indicate that these are based on well thought out estimates. There is therefore a large risk that this level of investment is not realistic for the proposed programme.  The bidder identifies a number of sources for the additional funding which is expected, however it would have been helpful for them to estimate the split between these funders as others have done. Again, this is a significant weakness of the bid which does not provide sufficient confidence that the issue of funding has been adequately considered.  Overall, the issue of funding is a major area of weakness within the bid and this is reflected in the low score. Risk Assessment  A brief risk assessment is provided. This could be strengthened should they Max. Score=10 be shortlisted. In particular, the bid would benefit from greater detail on the Actual score=6 risk of funding and management/delivery arrangements. Legacy  There is a high level discussion of the proposed legacy, however there is Max. Score=25 limited information on how the legacy will be delivered, funded and Actual score=13 sustained. This is a weakness which is reflected in the score for this criteria. Learning and  The bid presents a very brief assessment of how the UK CoC would be Max. Score=15 evaluation evaluated and how lessons would be learned and this is a weakness of the Actual score=8 bid.

Page 31 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

9. Southend: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

9.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Southend. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Southend’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid covers the seaside Borough of Southend‐on‐Sea, serving the immediate hinterlands of Rochford, Hadleigh and Castle Point, representing a population of 325,000. Southend-on-Sea provides the central focal point. It is the largest town in Essex and one of the biggest urban areas in the East of England. The Borough includes: the historic fishing port of Old Leigh and a cultural quarter in Leigh-on‐ Sea. There are seven miles of beaches, five large and parks and sites of historical importance such as Prittlewell and Hadleigh. Southend also has an airport and is around 40 minutes from London by train. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: Southend’s vision is closely aligned with its position as a traditional ‘seaside’ town and is summarised as ‘The Modern Seaside Experience’. This attempts to challenge perceptions of the traditional seaside cultural offer, whilst still making the most of the characteristics that define the area. The broad aspiration of the bid is to deliver a mix of international and local artists and disciplines. The desire is to attract audiences from across the UK and also capitalise upon Southend’s international links (to Poland and China in particular) to stimulate international participation. Finally, the vision also acknowledges the need to embed culture within the services that Southend Borough Council delivers to its residents.

The main themes of activity are: The Modern Seaside Experience; New Experiences to Challenge Perceptions; The Best of Traditional with a Bold Contemporary Approach; Breaking Down Barriers to Culture; The Spirit of Welcoming; Bringing All Spaces to Life; The Learning Town; Children and Young People; and Ensuring a Creative Future. Specific components of the programme include the Literature Festival of the Sea; a new Biennial; a Film Festival; the Reinventing of the End of the Pier Show; a festival that explores the Science of the Sea and expansion of the existing ‘Village Green’ festival.

The programme has a strong focus on the engagement and participation of key groups and individuals in the creative process (described as its key curatorial approach). Southend will involve key cultural figures (Jude Kelly, who will act as a figurehead for the programme, Paul Morley and Lem Sissay amongst others) to design the specific programme and engage with the local population. Local people will also be involved in the design and delivery of the programme, building upon existing cultural engagement work (primarily from Metal and Tap), this will also seek to better engage with the town’s local artistic community. Southend’s bid also recognises the need to increase the capacity of the town to host a wider range of events. Unused empty spaces will host events and temporary pavilions will be used during the year.

The bid aims to provide £15m of additional funding to deliver UK CoC; the bid states that this could deliver 1m additional visitors and a £35m boost to the local economy.

Page 32 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Southend’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The vision clearly draws upon Southend’s location and its unique proposition as a seaside town. There is a track record of some interesting cultural engagement work which forms a foundation for the proposed programme. The programme itself is varied with some very interesting elements (although there could perhaps be more larger scale interventions.); organisations like TAP and Metal have proposed interesting interventions and the use of pavilions and unused/empty spaces in the town in a unique way of boosting capacity of venues. The creative figures (Jude Kelly, Mark Wallinger, Lem Sissay, Paul Morley etc) are already engaged, have been active in developing the bid and we believe are committed to playing a full role should Southend be successful. The town already receives significant numbers of visitors and has the infrastructure to deal with the increase associated with UK CoC. Ambitious targets are also set to increase both overnight stays and visitor spend during and after 2013. The bid is one of the strongest in term of the role it would play the development of the local creative economy. Transport links are good and provide access to a significant target population in London and Essex. Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The bid has a strong focus on the Modern Seaside Town and what this means. This is interesting as a theme, however the assessors have some concerns as to whether the interesting debates the bid talks about would be of wider interests and help attract visitors. The bid could have focused more on the social impacts in terms of disengaged groups. There is some interesting comment early on in relation to Black and Minority Ethnic groups (such as the Bengali community), but this is not followed up with any clear proposed action. The scale of interventions proposed still is relatively small in scale and the track record does not provide full confidence on how existing activity could be ‘scaled up’ to deliver the impact becoming of such a significant designation. Whilst the proximity to London is quite rightly identified as an opportunity for Southend, the bid fails to address the negative aspects of proximity to such a significant cultural node (i.e. why would a visitor carry on to Southend from London). In terms of funding the programme, whilst ambitious private sector and sponsorship targets are outlined in the bid, there is clearly a risk associated with this which is not adequately addressed. Finally, given the ambition in the vision to change perceptions of how people view Southend and ‘The seaside’ it would have been helpful to see more in the legacy section about what this means post 2013. Overall Assessment: This bid deserves credit for innovation and an interesting vision which links well to national debates on UK coastal towns. That said, at times the programme is a little incoherent and way it would deliver the transformation sought is unclear. There is a lot of innovative and interesting detail within the bid and plenty of interesting ideas; however the ability of the area to scale-up and deliver an impactful year-long programme is doubtful. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 56  Management, funding and delivery = 52 Conclusion: It is not recommended that Southend is shortlisted. That said, credit is due to the level and ambition and innovation outlined within areas of the bid. A possible candidate for 2017?

9.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Page 33 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Southend Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area o The geographical area is clear and has a brand/identity as location (but of Max. Score=5 course the bid is intended to change this perceived identity). The step Actual score=3 changes sought are relatively well set out and build upon national policy debates. There are some reservations about the relationship of Southend with London and the competition which this may place on potential visitors to the town in 2013. Overall Vision o The ‘Modern Seaside Experience’ makes sense as a headline vision and a Max. Score=15 for UK City of social economic transformation is considered (with a solid baseline). That Actual score=9 Culture 2013 said, throughout the remainder of the bid the narrative associated with the vision is somewhat lost. Themes such as ‘internationalism’ are prominent in the early stages of the bid but do not come through as strongly later on. Strategically, more could have been made about Southend’s desire to reinforce its role as the cultural capital of the east of England, whilst the positive elements of the relationship with London also could have been expressed more clearly here. Cultural and o Southend has variety of cultural organisations already operating in the area, Max. Score=45 Artistic which have clearly contributed interesting ideas to the bid. There is also a Actual score= 25 Strengths of the mix of cultural infrastructure which is typical of a large seaside town; this will Bid potentially increase (subject to funding) with some more contemporary arts and performance space by 2013. The programme is not as coherent as it perhaps could be which ultimately detracts from the ideas contained in the bid. The assessors also have some concerns about the ability of Southend to scale up its cultural offer in time for 2013 as well as concerns about the wider interest and attractiveness of some of the policy-linked creative ideas. The programme ideas are quite specific to Southend and have clearly benefitted from the substantial local consultation which took place in the bid development phase. Social Impacts o Given the reference to Southend’s relationship with London and especially Max. Score=20 from the UK City the East End (migration and day trips) alongside a broader focus on the issues Actual score= 9 of Culture associated with coastal towns (in the UK as a whole) the bid could have been clearer in terms of the potential social impacts. There are limited targets around the social effects of the programme and the bid could have done more to illustrate how culture can integrate Chinese, Polish and Bangladeshi communities into the local population. Economic and o This is a strong element of the bid which was built upon at the clarification Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts stage. A clear commitment is given as to how UK CoC can be used to lever Actual score=10 from the UK City increased visitor numbers and increased spend per visitor. In addition to of Culture visitor impact, clear thought is also given as to how UK CoC could support the development of Southend’s growing creative and artistic sector. There is clear reference to the strategic desire to grow Southend as a location for new jobs and homes. UK CoC is identified as a key tool in achieving the former. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The unitary authority is clearly the bid’s lead organisation. The councils Max. Score=15 & proposed cultural service department already has a 4* rating (awarded by the Audit Actual score= 9 management Commission) and a good relationship with local partners. A broad range of and governance future partners are mentioned within the bid who were also involved at the arrangements consultation phase (suggesting a reasonable level commitment). It would however, be useful to have more information about how the programme would be managed, as the proposals to create an new cultural company at are at an early stage.

Page 34 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Southend Initial Bid Track record  As a seaside town, Southend clearly has a track record in delivering a variety Max. Score=20 of cultural events. In addition to this there are also a number of smaller Actual score=12 cultural organisations who have experience in delivering the type of interventions included within the bid. Despite this, there is limited information on the scale of these interventions and it is not clear how this experience would be ‘scaled up’ for 2013. Partnerships and  The figure of £15m addition funding is reasonable given the scale of the Max. Score=15 Funding programme. However, there is need for more clarity about the exact source Actual score=8 of the funding. In particular it is not clear what Southend’s track record is in securing funding from other sources. We consider the £5m of funding from sponsorship and admissions as potentially difficult to deliver. Risk Assessment  A number of clear risks are identified. Whilst there is a good level of detail in Max. Score=10 the mitigating responses, these tend to illustrate the commitment of the Actual score=6 local authority to overcoming the risk, rather than how a practical solution would be achieved. Legacy  Although strategic and economic legacy elements are referenced within the Max. Score=25 bid, there is limited detail as to what this would look like and, importantly, Actual score=10 how ‘The Modern Seaside Experience’ would continue beyond 2013. Learning and o There is limited information on how the programme will be evaluated. Max. Score=15 evaluation Where this is referenced, it draws heavily on Liverpool’s approach to Actual score= 7 evaluation. Whilst the process of evaluation of impact may go on until 2021, the practicalities of this are not really outlined.

Page 35 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

10. Swansea Bay: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

10.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Swansea. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Swansea’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The geographical area of the bid covers Swansea Bay, comprising Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and Carmarthenshire – an area with a total population of 550,000 (c1.5 million within a one hour drive time). Swansea would be the focus for events. The area is sensible in terms of its coherence and connectivity. The city of Swansea in particular, but also the industrial hinterland, has been the focus of extensive and sustained regeneration over the past decade, achieving significant change.

Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The underpinning theme of the vision is that culture is both ordinary and extraordinary, with the programme designed to enable everyone to experience, enjoy and shape a wide range of cultural and artistic activities. The Welsh tradition of Eisteddfod would be used as a means of embracing and communicating this vision and promoting the message to the wider world beyond Swansea. Establishing the city and its hinterland as the main cultural centre in Wales, as well as growing the visitor economy, are key objectives. The programme, which is relatively underdeveloped at this stage compared to the stronger bids, covers four themes: ‘Culture is Ordinary – Arts as a Right’ - focused on young people; ‘Swansea ...is still the best place – Celebrating Excellence’ – focused on bringing high profile artists to the city to promote cultural excellence; ‘The Great Outdoors’ - drawing on the area’s environmental assets to inspire creative endeavour; and ‘A Cultural Economy’ - promoting the development of this broad sector. The programme has a strong focus on community engagement, building on its existing strength in this particular regard. An indicative cost breakdown is provided for the £10m programme, although it is not clear what proportion of this is over and above the current baseline. The estimated economic impact is an increase of one million visitors and £80m of expenditure. The expected increase in participation in the arts is modest (+2%) reflecting already very high levels. Key Strengths of the Bid: A clear strength of the bid is the existing track record in community engagement programme, bringing the arts to local community and young people. The bid will also be able to build on a good foundation and track record of existing events and festivals (including the interesting but relatively small scale Dylan Thomas Festival) and a reasonable range of venues. The area has an established visitor economy which provides much of the visitor infrastructure which could support the bid. The proposed delivery arrangements are relatively clear.

Page 36 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Swansea’s Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The bid lacks a full explanation of why it would be a fitting location for UKCC from a UK perspective. Whilst the vision is interesting, this is not translated well into the proposed design and delivery mechanisms for the programme. The programme is also relatively poorly developed compared to the better bids. Whilst the broad areas in which a step change is sought are identified, the scale of this change is not always clear and consequently it is difficult to gain a rounded view of how the designation will enable change to be realised. The aspiration to be the main cultural centre in Wales appears unrealistic given their current position. Whilst Swansea does have a number of artistic and cultural strengths upon which a year long programme can be built it, on balance, currently lacks the necessary breadth and depth of cultural infrastructure and track record to achieve this. There is a lack of clarity of the likely scale of the programme, the additional activity which would be funded over and above the anticipated baseline in 2013 and the likely funding sources. This is therefore a major risk. Overall Assessment: This is an area experiencing considerable transformation that increasingly sees culture and tourism as an important part of the strategy to put it on the map. This aspect of the bid is laudable and will hopefully continue to feature in the future development strategy for Swansea Bay. The weaknesses in the rationale for seeking City of Culture and the nature and scale of the impacts are concerns. More critically, the insufficient development of the proposed programme at this stage and lack of clarity around aspects of delivery, funding and legacy make this a risky bid. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 51  Management, funding and delivery = 53 Conclusion: It is recommended that the bid is not shortlisted.

10.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of the Swansea Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The geographical area of the bid covers Swansea Bay, comprising Neath Port Max. Score=5 Talbot, Swansea and Carmarthenshire – an area with a total population of Actual score=3 550,000 (c1.5 million within a one hour drive time). Swansea would be the focus for events. The area is reasonably well connected nationally and internationally (in particular via Cardiff International Airport). The area is sensible in terms of its coherence and connectivity. The economic, social and cultural need and anticipated step change are vague, with the arguments not well developed or convincing. Overall Vision  The underpinning theme of the vision is that culture is both ordinary and Max. Score=15 for UK City of extraordinary, although the implications of this for their bid are not spelt out Actual score=8.5 Culture 2013 clearly. The bid lacks a full explanation of why it would be a fitting location for UK CC from a UK perspective. There are three clear step changes sought, although a number of additional measures which we would not consider to be step changes in this instance (increase in participation, creation of workshop). The degree of stretch or uplift sought is not clear in a number of instances. The desire for Swansea to be recognised as the cultural capital of Wales may not be realistically achievable through UK CC, given its current position compared to Cardiff.  The cultural themes – of which there are four strands – are clearly stated, though not well developed at this stage and the coherence between these and the vision is not particularly clear.

Page 37 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of the Swansea Initial Bid Cultural and  The bid is candid about the cultural and artistic weaknesses (with little on its Max. Score=45 Artistic strengths), though provides little explanation of how these might be Actual score=23 Strengths of the overcome. The programme is set out at a fairly high level, with little sense of Bid how the named artists would be involved. The bid identifies the need to appoint an artistic director and then uses 2010 onwards to generate programme ideas and buy-in. The bid will build on a good foundation of existing events and festivals (including the Dylan Thomas Festival), a range of venues and a successful participation programme for young people. The manner in which the towns and communities in the wider Swansea Bay area will be involved in the programme is clearly set out. Social Impacts  There is reasonable evidence on the current role culture plays in Max. Score=20 from the UK City regeneration. There is a good foundation on which to build in working with Actual score=9 of Culture young people and this would be linked to the proposed programme. Proposals for community engagement during the year are well set out in some instances, with a number of interesting mechanisms for doing this, although overall the plans are vague. Economic and  This is clearly seen as a key benefit from being UK CC. There is reasonable Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts tourism infrastructure and a dedicated tourism partnership for the area with Actual score=7.5 from the UK City good working relations with Visit Wales. The scale of economic impact is of Culture estimated, although the approach to estimation is not clear. There is a strong focus on the creative sector, though there is limited information on the current scale and change expected for the sector. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The lead organisation would be Swansea Bay Futures, an independent Max. Score=15 & proposed company set up by partners to raise the profile of the area. The role of the Actual score=10 management three local authorities in SBF is not sufficiently clear nor governance and and governance control of the organisation (though board membership is stated). There arrangements appears to be broad support for the bid from the public and cultural sectors locally.  A delivery arm of SBF would be established to manage the programme, and the strategic and operational structures are outlined.  There is a central role identified for an overall artistic director and associate directors drawn from high profile local artists.  Overall, whilst the bid team recognise that this aspect of their bid needs much more detailed consideration, it is a relative strength of the bid. Track record  The area has a range of festivals and events of various sizes that are Max. Score=20 delivered, with many of the larger events being more popular arts, cultural Actual score=12 and sporting events. As a consequence there is a reasonably strong track record, although this is weak for a number of art forms.  The bidder has a particularly strong track record in community engagement, especially with young people.  Despite this helpful experience, running and sustaining a year-long cultural and arts programme would be a significant challenge for the bidder and we would consider this to be a significant risk for this bid. Partnerships and  An indicative cost breakdown is provided for the £10m programme, although Max. Score=15 Funding it is not fully clear what proportion of this is over and above the current Actual score=6 baseline. The bid also states that the expected cost of the programme would probably be higher than this but does not clearly state why this might be the case.  Whilst the potential funders are identified, the level of the potential funding from these sources is unclear at this stage.  The bid has received a low score on this criteria due to the lack of clarity and uncertainty, which is a significant risk at this stage.

Page 38 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of the Swansea Initial Bid Risk Assessment  The bid identifies the main risk as being around the ability to deliver the Max. Score=10 anticipated impact. Whilst this is a risk, there is little consideration given to Actual score=5 the funding and delivery risks which we believe will be the more significant risks for the bidders, DCMS and the potential funders. Legacy  The bid sets out the main areas of legacy and brings these to life through Max. Score=25 imagined quotes from the various interest groups. The discussion of the Actual score=11 legacy is not however clearly related to the proposed scale of the step change. Also there is no discussion of the process, actions and funding that would ensure that the impacts are secured and a lasting legacy delivered. The bid consequently scores poorly on this criteria. Learning and  The bid provides a reasonable statement of how the partners propose to Max. Score=15 evaluation evaluate the programme and share learning with others. The bid proposes a Actual score=9 budget of £50,000 for this activity, which we would consider to be insufficient.

Page 39 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

11. Carlisle: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

11.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Carlisle. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Carlisle Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid area is centred much on the historic Carlisle urban area (population 70,000) the administrative and main business centre of Cumbria. The bid also draws on the wider city catchment area of an estimated 400,000 people (in other parts of Cumbria and parts of Southern Scotland). The bid to become UK CoC is very much about putting Carlisle ‘back on the map’ for more positive reasons than the recent floods in 2005. There is a significant amount of regeneration activity underway and planned in Carlisle, including the development of a new University Campus. Whilst the bid focuses on events and activities in Carlisle, the programme would also take place in the large hinterland (mainly rural) which includes Hadrian’s Wall and parts of the Lake District. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: ‘Carlisle: The Once and Future City’ is a vision that is builds upon the area’s (at times tumultuous) history and past. The programme is based upon three themes: “Environment: a city rich in heritage, in a beautiful landscape; Belonging: a sense of identity, community, aspiration; and Enterprise: a growing, thriving university city and cultural hub”. The year long programme is very much based in Carlisle and is linked into these three themes. Key events link to the roman past, Hadrian’s Wall and using the Castle as an open air venue. The programme utilises cultural assets such as the Tullie House and Gallery. The programme is costed at £5.5m of which £4m would be additional funding. It is expected to bring in 350,000 extra visitors and a £10m tourism boost to the area. Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid document itself is well written and presented, setting quite clearly what is on offer. Some areas such as its current cultural and artistic strengths and track record are well developed and display evidence of reasonably detailed preparation. Carlisle makes the best of its heritage, cultural and artistic strengths and a history that makes for a strong locally based UK CoC. The bid is highly deliverable given its relatively modest levels of funding; indeed the team admitted the bid could be delivered even without UK CoC. There is a focus on collaboration when it comes to legacy and thought has been given to the importance of sharing what is learnt following evaluation of the programme. Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The bid is very Carlisle-centric, is very modest in its ambitions (which is reflected in its costs) as it is building from a low base of cultural activity, lacks breadth and depth in its proposed programme and the assessors fail to see how it could make an impact at more than a sub-regional or at most regional level. There is little evidence of artistic excellence and involvement of national and international artists. It is also not clear how far the bid would take advantage of the cultural assets in the wider hinterland (which are potentially significant) or deliver in the wider area. There is a relative lack of artistic and cultural events experience in the bid team and there is still a lot of work to be done in firming up organisational arrangements. Overall Assessment: Fundamentally, in its own rights the bid is a well thought through bid that presents a programme that would be of significance locally and help advance the cultural and regeneration plans of the city. The bid aims to develop culture from a relatively low base in the city and in that sense is ambitious in a local sense. However, the bid therefore offers precious little that would, in the assessors view, provide impact/excitement at a national or international level. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 46  Management, funding and delivery = 41 Conclusion: The bid does not merit being shortlisted.

11.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Page 40 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Carlisle’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The bid describes Carlisle city well and the regeneration activity taking place. Max. Score=5 The city is described as a hub that can draw in 400,000 people as a place to Actual score= 2.5 work and play from its wider catchment. However, the bid does not really clarify the role that the wider catchment area could play in the delivery of the bid, which is important as parts of the area have strong cultural and artistic facilities (especially in the Lake District). Overall Vision  The vision is reasonably clear as to what Carlisle wants to achieve through Max. Score=15 for UK City of cultural investment and the UK CoC. However, there is a lack of evidence (on Actual score=7 Culture 2013 baselines) and clarity around what exactly would be the step changes sought. This section refers to a ‘robust plan’ that will attract visitors nationally and internationally to Carlisle. There is also reference here and elsewhere to achieving a ‘critical mass’ for things to happen. However, the changes that are referred to are vague and aspirational. There is no reference to what a UK CoC based in Carlisle would offer the wider region or UK. Cultural and  The bid makes the best possible case for the strengths that would be built on Max. Score=45 Artistic – it is strong on outdoor events and heritage. The bid acknowledges the gaps Actual score=22 Strengths of the (for instance in relation to theatre and some other art forms). The bid does Bid not make a convincing case that there is a large wealth of untapped potential to build on. The proposed programme is linked logically to the foundations. However, the outline programme lacks at present a sense of a range of art forms being included and advanced and the involvement of internationally known or “cutting edge” artists. Social Impacts  There needs to be more of a discussion as to how baseline activities will be Max. Score=20 from the UK City enhanced through UK CoC. Currently this section is a set of statements that Actual score=6 of Culture lack explanation and references as to how UK CoC would impact are vague. For example, statements such as ‘Carlisle has the ICT infrastructure, and UK City of Culture will provide the impetus to use it in a sustained and clever way’ suggests that certain aspects of the bid are yet to be developed and need to be thought through in more detail. Economic and  The bid and clarification responses explain reasonably well how UK CoC Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts would deliver tourism and economic impact. Although the assessors have Actual score=8 from the UK City some doubts as to how far the impacts forecast would occur in Carlisle itself of Culture as opposed to the hinterland given the relative lack of good quality hotel accommodation in the city; we are also sceptical as to whether the proposed programme would really act as a magnet for new national or international visitors coming to the area. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  Other than the strategic partners and the potential delivery partners given in Max. Score=15 & proposed Appendix D, it is still unclear as to who is responsible for what in terms of Actual score=7 management organisation, management and delivery of the proposed programme. The and governance assessors have some concerns over the strength of the existing cultural base arrangements of organisations and partnerships in the city to guide an impactful UK CoC (no cultural ambassadors or champions are mentioned). Much would rely on the successful appointment of an artistic/creative director. It is also difficult to see how all of the various individuals and organisations mentioned fit together strategically.

Page 41 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Carlisle’s Initial Bid Track record  This is a stronger part of the bid in terms of experience of delivering events Max. Score=20 (especially open air events) and the involvement of organisations from the Actual score=9 wider hinterland (such as Kendal Arts International) is a plus point. Appendix E is used to its full effect and gives us a strong indication that there is a proven track record in staging a range of events and art forms in Carlisle (albeit often at a very small scale). However, the track record of the area in delivering a wider range of art forms and more challenging & contemporary cultural art forms is limited. The bid is not clear on the mechanisms for drawing on the wider experience and facilities from across Cumbria. Partnerships and  The bid is modest in its financial ambitions and there is no intention for the Max. Score=15 Funding City Council to apply additional resources over and above its baseline support Actual score=6 for culture. The total proposed investment in events is only £3m. The bid therefore relies on other sources of public funding (such as the NDA and Arts Council). The amount sought is not unrealistic. The funding plans are still in the process of being developed and ‘firmed up’, although the clarification discussion indicates that the overall cost is built bottom up from the proposed programme and so is realistic. The lack of strong financial support from local authorities is a cause of concern. Risk Assessment  The risk assessment is relatively cursory, with no mention of the risk that the Max. Score=10 programme fails to excite or draw in visitors from outside the hinterland of Actual score=4 Carlisle. There is no reference to mitigation surrounding funding and costs and in light of the previous comments this is somewhat worrying. Legacy  The various elements of a lasting legacy are discussed. However, much of Max. Score=25 what is presented is vague and it is not clear whether it is fundable. There is a Actual score=9 danger that the scale and nature of the programme developed would not lead to a lasting change in the city. Learning and  The bid deals with the process of sharing what is learnt reasonably well. This Max. Score=15 evaluation section is somewhat vague with regards methodology and there is no Actual score=6 mention of the costs associated with learning and evaluation.

Page 42 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

12. Barnsley: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

12.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Barnsley. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Barnsley’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: Barnsley is a medium sized town in South Yorkshire with an industrial heritage dominated by coal mining. The bid covers the town and its mainly rural hinterland across the borough of Barnsley, which has a population of 224,000. The borough received 307,000 visitor trips in 2007, and the overall value of tourism was estimated as £199 million per year.

Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The Barnsley vision focuses on the concept of ‘Coal to Culture’ – a reinvention of the image of Barnsley that would help to reposition the town as a thriving hub of creativity, talent, and innovation. Barnsley see UKCC as an opportunity to regain confidence, to foster aspiration, and enhance skills and employment.

The Programme is made up of five themes, the titles and content of which connect with the ‘Coal to Culture’ concept (the titles refer to geological features or coal mining equipment) :

 Breakline – Dance Theatre and Performing Arts

 Crossbar – Poetry and the Spoken Word

 Portal – Museums and Historic Collections

 Strata – Visual Arts and Architecture

 Fault – Fashion and Live Music.

The bid identifies a broad cost of £25m for UK CoC of which £7m would be existing sources. They estimate that the impact of the UK City of Culture would be to increase the visitor economy by 10% during 2013. Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid provides an upbeat and forward facing strategy for Barnsley, in which culture will play a much more important role in the future of the borough. The programme sets out an interesting and fairly diverse set of events and activities, set in a sensible framework that seeks to connect the area’s industrial past to a cultural and creative future. There is evidence of commitment to this vision from the local authority and key partners, and good links have clearly been made with local artists with national profiles in the area.

Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The borough starts from a relatively low base in terms of cultural infrastructure, artistic strengths and levels of participation, which ultimately means it lacks the assets, opportunities and track record to deliver the impacts and legacy that might be expected for a UK City of Culture. The outlined impacts do not provide a clear and realistic focus for the programme and there are concerns about the scale and breadth of the cultural programme as well as the anticipated role for and potential to attract artists of national and international artistic excellence. The anticipated programme funding also appears to be over-ambitious given the Borough’s current position and would carry a significant risk of not being achievable.

Page 43 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Barnsley’s Initial Bid Overall Assessment: An area that displays a need and desire to deliver economic and social change through a culture-led approach, but ultimately doesn’t currently have the cultural infrastructure, artistic strengths and levels of participation to deliver a successful City of Culture with the scale of impact envisaged by DCMS . It is difficult to see the bid delivering an ambitious or strong enough programme in 2013 or delivering a sustainable legacy for the town beyond 2013. Whilst Barnsley should be applauded for the effort they have devoted to their bid and bringing partners together to consider the future role of cultural for the Borough, this is considered to be a weak bid.

Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 45  Management, funding and delivery = 38 Conclusion: It is recommended that this bid is not shortlisted.

12.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Barnsley’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The Barnsley bid pragmatically recognises that it is not the obvious Max. Score=5 geographical area for the UK City of Culture. While a number of strengths Actual score=2 are highlighted, there are key weaknesses in the town’s identity as a cultural and visitor destination and the cultural and visitor infrastructure. These weaknesses raise significant questions about the suitability of the area to deliver a year long programme of cultural activity. This is reflected in the low score. Overall Vision  The vision sets out a number of important step changes, however there is Max. Score=15 for UK City of not a strong overall coherence or justification for this. While several of the Actual score=7 Culture 2013 targets are appropriate, the ambition to move Barnsley from the lowest to the highest performing authority with respect to engagement in the arts is unrealistic given its current position. The programme is rooted in the history of the area, and while the five themes provide a useful framework for the programme, the industrial legacy theme may present challenges in promoting the overall programme to the wider world. Cultural and  The bid team have compiled a diverse and interesting cultural programme, Max. Score=45 Artistic appropriate to Barnsley, however there are significant weaknesses in this Actual score=20 Strengths of the element. The town is limited in key venues and particular areas of cultural Bid expertise; given a relatively low starting point, the cultural networks are similarly somewhat limited; and the proposed programme does not demonstrate a strong offer of national and international artistic excellence. This is reflected in a particularly low score. Social Impacts  The bid outlines areas of social impact that the programme would seek to Max. Score=20 from the UK City deliver against, however there is little substantive detail provided at this Actual score=8.5 of Culture stage of how projects will generate these anticipated social impacts . Economic and  The visitor economy targets for 2013 appear to be reasonable, although Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts there is limited evidence to support this. There remains a fundamental Actual score=7 from the UK City question over what the visitor legacy would be after the programme ends of Culture and how the increased visitor economy could be sustained. The plans discussed around boosting the tourism and creative economy, provide little detail at this stage on how these elements would practically be delivered. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY

Page 44 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Barnsley’s Initial Bid Bid organisation  Barnsley MBC would lead the bid and there has been initial thinking on the Max. Score=15 & proposed structure to manage the bid, including a lead artist role in charge of each of Actual score=7 management the five programme strands. Overall however, this section is limited in detail and governance on delivery structures and respective roles and responsibilities. arrangements Track record  The Borough Council has a track record in delivering a number of mostly Max. Score=20 smaller scale one off events, including the annual Christmas Lights Switch On Actual score=7.5 attracting over 25,000 people at the last event. The area however lacks track record in delivering either larger events that would be expected during the City of Culture year, or of delivering a sustained programme of significant cultural events. This represents a significant risk in delivering a year long programme of activity of the quality expected by the first UK City of Culture. Partnerships and  The full programme costs are estimated at £25m which is judged extremely Max. Score=15 Funding ambitious and undeliverable for Barnsley given their current baseline Actual score=5 position. £10m of this would come from Barnsley MBC, with £7m of that being existing and realigned funds, and £3m being additional funding. Securing the remaining £15m for the programme is likely to be very difficult and the bid does not give strong reassurance that this is actually achievable. Given the combination of this uncertainty and questions over the realism, this aspect if the bid has been scored low. Risk Assessment  The risk assessment highlights what we would consider to be the main risk, Max. Score=10 which is of not being able to secure the planned funding for the programme. Actual score=1 The proposed mitigation does not give great confidence that this major risk can be addressed. There is limited consideration of other areas of risk beyond this. Legacy  The bid seeks to use the programme to create a legacy of higher skills, Max. Score=25 aspirations, participation and area image, all of which are demonstrated as Actual score=10 important needs for the town. Given a relatively low cultural infrastructure and participation baseline however, there are not sufficient practical plans discussed in the bid to make a convincing case that a) the ambitions for 2013 would be realised (especially given the highly ambitious participation targets), and b) that any progress made in 2013 could be significantly sustained going forward. Learning and  The bid outlines useful initial thinking on learning and evaluation, key Max. Score=15 evaluation indicators, key stakeholders, and the outline processes for evaluating and Actual score=7 disseminating learning.

Page 45 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

13. Cornwall: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

13.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Cornwall. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Cornwall’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid focuses on the whole of the county of Cornwall (which became a unitary authority in 2007). Given that this is predominantly a rural location with a dispersed population, it is suggested that activity would be focused on the eight largest settlements in the county (none of these have a population over 25,000). Cornwall has a population of 520,000 although this rises to over 800,000 in the summer months. Cornwall attracts 5m visitors per year; the tourism industry generates around £1.6bn for the local economy and employs 37,000 people. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The vision for Cornwall’s bid is to change the popular perceptions of Cornwall and the way people engage (either as participants or producers) in culture within the county. It is fundamentally about trying to boost the county’s economy. The bid seeks to achieve a balance between an international programme and grass roots ‘audience development’. Much of the ambition underpinning the bid is about changing perceptions of Cornwall, in particular this means increasing the number of year round cultural visitors visiting the area, leading to less of a reliance on the more traditional (and lower spending) summer tourists. Issues of dislocation, deprivation and disengagement are also referenced in the bid as areas where UK CoC could contribute to an improvement in the area.

The programme is built around ideas of Place, Internationalism, Identity, Ideas and Connections. More specifically, the programme includes a significant amount of visual arts building upon existing activity at the Tate in St Ives, this is also linked to the potential MANIFESTA2 festival in 2014 (which Cornwall is currently bidding to host). There is a significant focus on young people, with a four-pronged youth programme, this is also linked to a broader engagement programme which seeks to address issues associated with the dispersed population, together with the possibility of transport projects and outreach. There is an associated capital programme which includes new facilities as well as investment in existing cultural nodes (most significantly the Tate). Also included in the capital programme is some form of mobile arts provision which will increase the proportion of the local population who can participate.

The bid identifies a broad cost of £15m for UK CoC of which £5m would be existing sources, leaving an extra £10m to fund. They estimate an additional impact from UK CoC of around £100m in 2013 over and above that from other growing cultural and creative activities. Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid represents a bold attempt to change both internal and external perceptions of the county and the profile of visitors who come to Cornwall. Perhaps most interestingly the bid involves a number of different locations (8 towns of around 25,000 residents each) and seeks to use UK CoC to develop a stronger identity for each town. There is also a desire to deliver the majority of events for free.

2 International contemporary visual arts programme which rotates location every two years in Europe, with whom Cornwall has been in discussions for some time www.manifesta.org

Page 46 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Cornwall’s Initial Bid Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The vision is not clear and fails to articulate sufficiently the step changes sought other than an overall economic transformation which is not clearly linked back to the proposed UK CoC. In addition, the bid fails to draw upon Cornwall’s locational USPs, in particular the coast and the sea. The bid does not really show what a UK CoC in Cornwall will mean for the rest of the UK and critically it does not adequately cover issues of accessibility and location. Detail on the programme and specific projects is scant and the bid does not fully address the fundamental questions related to the location, in particular how UK CoC will be delivered to such a dispersed area effectively and efficiently (from the perspective of both residents and visitors). A number of the capital projects are dependent on funding which has yet to be allocated. Others are not due for completion until Summer 2013. Any slippage with these could have a significant impact on the success of UK CoC. Finally, given the level of risk, the lack of a risk assessment is a significant concern for the bid. Overall Assessment: Cornwall has the potential for a really interesting and unique bid. Unfortunately, the bid fails to overcome a number of fundamental issues and concerns associated with the County’s geography. It appears that major decisions about location of activities have yet to be made and sorting these out could present a serious risk to the delivery of any 2013 programme. The programme is very under-developed and there is a high level of risk in relation to associated capital projects. Whilst the focus on young people and involvement of deprived communities are admiral objectives, it is unclear exactly how UK CoC would impact upon these. In addition there is no consideration given as to how Cornwall’s hosting of the first UK CoC would have a significant positive impact on the UK as a whole. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 34  Management, funding and delivery = 35 Conclusion: It is recommended that this bid is not shortlisted.

13.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Cornwall Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  Whilst Cornwall is a defined and well known area with a clear identity for Max. Score=5 visitors, the bid fails to adequately explain why Cornwall is an appropriate Actual score=1 location (compared to a more defined City). Due to this, the bid fails to capitalise on its USPs and the diversity of locations at Cornwall’s disposal. The issue of internal disconnectedness is not resolved within the bid. Overall Vision  The vision is weak and the main themes and components unclear. It is quite Max. Score=15 for UK City of long and includes a lot of additional information which, whilst interesting, is Actual score=4 Culture 2013 not relevant to the detail of the bid. There is a limited articulation of what is distinctive about the area or how the vision connects with the area. Having introduced the coastal location and the heritage of the area, it does not explain how this will add value to the UK CoC designation. Cultural and  The range of programme content across art forms is limited and lacks Max. Score=45 Artistic significant distinctiveness and again, largely fails to capitalise upon Actual score=14 Strengths of the some of Cornwall’s unique assets. There remains a significant focus on Bid young people and Cornwall can demonstrate some strength in this area. Whilst the Tate at St Ives represents a location of international repute, it is not clear how the area will be able to involve national and international artists. The capital programme presents significant risks and it is not wholly clear how they relate to the practical delivery of

Page 47 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Cornwall Initial Bid the programme. Social Impacts  Cornwall has significant levels of deprivation which are exacerbated by the Max. Score=20 from the UK City dispersed nature of the population. Whilst there is reference, it is unclear Actual score=7 of Culture how objectives around deprivation and young people will be realised. The bid does not demonstrate how a step change will be delivered in this area, although there are examples of some really excellent work being carried out in parts of the County. Physical accessibility remains a concern; whilst there are travel proposals in the pipeline there is limited detail on how these might be implemented. There are major gaps in achieving accessibility for all audiences. Economic and  Plans to boost the visitor economy are clear in places, but initial estimates on Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts tourism impacts appear slightly unambitious, some areas need to be Actual score=8 from the UK City developed further. There is a desire to re-profile the tourism and visitor base, of Culture reducing seasonality and encouraging a more discerning and higher spending visitor. It is however, unclear as to exactly how the programme will achieve this. Some thought has been given to the role existing creative businesses will play in UK CoC. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The management arrangements will be overseen by Cornwall County Council. Max. Score=15 & proposed It is, however, not clear how this will work in practice. Some consideration of Actual score=7 management the role of partners is provided, however this could have been used to and governance address the issues of isolation and separation of locations within the bid. As arrangements with other aspects of the bid, there are also concerns over how the arrangements would work in practice. Track record  The Tate, a strong national cultural organisation, and the local organisation Max. Score=20 RIO (a key partner within the bid) have clear track records, the network of Actual score=9 cultural organisations are not collectively of significant scale or nature compared to some other areas; collectively delivering UK CoC would represent a major stretch for the area’s organisations. As Cornwall’s bid is built upon eight key locations, it would be useful to know about the track record of delivering events at each of these locations. Partnerships and  There is some information on the strength of financial commitment from Max. Score=15 Funding partners and how this will be allocated. However, Cornwall does have the Actual score=8 benefit of a wider range of funding sources that many other areas and the County Council has made a significant commitment. There is a significant level of risk in the delivery of the capital programme both in terms of funding and delivery timescales. Risk Assessment  No proper risk assessment provided. Max. Score=10 Actual score=1 Legacy  Whilst the Cornwall UK CoC programme is part of a 5 year commitment to Max. Score=25 culture, key elements of the legacy (particularly social and cultural) are Actual score= 6 missing. Discussion of the legacy is ‘high level’ without any tangible commitment and is largely dependent on the encouragement of a new type of visitor coming to Cornwall; this clearly places Cornwall’s legacy at the mercy of a number of external factors (not least competition from other locations). Learning and  There is no clear commitment to or expertise/track record in terms of Max. Score=15 evaluation delivering evaluation in the past. The methodology presented for the Actual score= 4 evaluation is slightly unclear.

Page 48 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

14. Chichester: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

14.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Chichester. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. Summary Report for the Independent Advisory Panel on Chichester’s Initial Bid Summary of the Bid Area: The bid area includes the City of Chichester and its rural and coastal hinterland including the three smaller towns of Selsey, Petworth and Midhurst. The area is located on the south coast 18 miles or 25 minutes drive from Portsmouth. The bid also considers the benefits that can spill over to West Sussex more widely, especially to the more deprived areas along the coastline stretching from Bognor Regis to Littlehampton and to rural areas outside of the bid area. The walled city of Chichester is surrounded by city, coast and countryside including a plain, wetlands and harbour areas which has given rise to a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The bid states there are pockets of deprivation within and beyond the bid area that need to be addressed. However the area is one of the least deprived local authority areas in England3. Key Features of the Vision and Programme: The strap line Chichester has chosen is ‘A Very Special Place, Inspired by the Past, Inspiring the Future’ ‘Sense the Culture – Lend a Hand’. The overarching theme is ‘Sensory Exploration’. The programme will be designed to allow people to use their five senses to appreciate what is around them. Artistic disciplines are intended to range from singing, dancing, acting, painting and writing etc. There is also a set of sub themes: International activity; Intergenerational activity; the juxtaposition of the old and new; exploration of the urban and the rural; diversity; specific focus on youth and innovative use of New Technologies. It is proposed that £2 million of additional spend will be raised to support the planned activities in 2013. Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid is very much rooted in the local cultural and artistic assets of the bidding area (which include the well known Chichester Festival Theatre). A broad range of events and activities are referenced throughout the document and there is clearly a rich local cultural heritage from which bid leaders can draw upon, should their bid be successful. Consideration is also given to those areas that are peripheral to the bid area but that could benefit from Chichester becoming UK CoC. Gaps and weaknesses in the area’s cultural offer are recognised and there is a genuine commitment to “intergenerational” cultural activities. Weaknesses or areas of concern in the Bid: The bid is for a small scale programme and is very underdeveloped, especially in the latter sections. There are some interesting ideas and aspirations but often this is where it ends. Much more thought would need to be given to how the programme will be delivered and specifically by whom. Governance structures are still weak and the track record given does not link up to this section. The assessors have serious concerns over the limited scale of the programme proposed and very modest level of funds committed (and how private sponsorship will be sought). Again, much of this lack of detail stems from the fact that the bid is very much in its infancy and hence in places it is not convincing. Overall Assessment: A bid that clearly demonstrates Chichester’s cultural assets and diverse offer. However, much of what is provided lacks focus and often it is difficult to see how the various issues discussed then link forward to what is supposed to be an exciting and ‘special’ programme in 2013. Overall, even if the bidders sorted out these issues there would remain a modest set of activities in 2013 which would clearly not meet the aspirations of the UK CoC brand to be impactful at a national level. Overall Technical Assessment Score (out of 100 in each case):  Vision, programme and impact = 40  Management, funding and delivery = 25 Conclusion: There is no case for shortlisting this bid

14.2 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

3 254th least deprived out of 354 local authorities (or in 72nd percentile) based on average rank in 2007.

Page 49 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Chichester’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The area the bid is to cover is clear and logical, although relatively small in Max. Score=5 terms of scale of population and existing activities. Whilst Chichester will Actual score=2.5 inevitably form the natural cultural hub it is unclear as to how more remote and/or rural areas will be drawn in and incorporated into the programme. The role of culture in achieving a step change is considered however details of how UK CoC status and a cultural programme will support this are still vague. Overall Vision  The overarching vision is clear as are the step changes proposed. Some Max. Score=15 for UK City of progress has been made in identifying baselines and targets for each of Actual score=9 Culture 2013 these. However, the bid fails to explain later on how the step-changes would be achieved. Cultural and  An array of artists and events are mentioned which goes some way to giving Max. Score=45 Artistic a flavour of the cultural and artistic strengths of the bidding area. Gaps are Actual score=18 Strengths of the also identified along with an untapped sub-culture that could be used to Bid draw in younger audiences. However, again, it is unclear how this talent will be drawn together and celebrated during the programme of events in Appendix A. The programme and proposed events/activities are relatively traditional in nature. It is difficult to see how 2013 would stand out as a special year for Chichester and its surrounds and be impactful at a UK level. Social Impacts  There are some interesting ideas proposed to initiate positive impacts on the Max. Score=20 from the UK City local community through local cultural events. However there are gaps Actual score=7 of Culture surrounding the specifics of outreach activity and the successful engagement/involvement of all members of the community. Whilst these issues are touched upon in this and other sections, plans to address them are underdeveloped. Economic and  It is unclear as to how the title of UK CoC will be used to maximise the Max. Score=15 Tourism Impacts economic benefit to the bidding area and beyond. There is a lack of a solid Actual score=3 from the UK City detailed plan and hence it is hard to gauge the potential impacts of 2013. of Culture DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  This section of the bid is weak and is very much ‘in progress’. Loose Max. Score=15 & proposed governance arrangements are proposed but it is still unclear as to how this Actual score=4 management fits together strategically. It is ‘anticipated’ that individual and governance partners/representatives will be involved but there is still a lack of detail arrangements surrounding their roles, responsibilities and commitment to the bid and or programme. Track record  The information provided in this section is limited and fails to convince us Max. Score=20 that the organisations that will be involved in leading UK CoC have a track Actual score=6 record of collaborating to put on a programme of events, although in their own right some of the organisations do have an excellent track record of delivery of their own art forms. The evidence is in part based on events that are not immediately relevant to a UK CoC programme. It is hard to see how exactly these track records relate specifically to the bid. Partnerships and  The tone in this section is on ’value for money’ and goes some way to justify Max. Score=15 Funding a low additional spend of £2 million. However it is not explained how the Actual score=3 partners will deliver a full and exciting programme using limited funds and how they anticipate gaining the support of potential funders. Hence there is a real risk that additional funds will not be raised in time for 2013 other than the listed capital investments that are currently underway. There is a lack of clarity over who would be the financial guarantor.

Page 50 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Chichester’s Initial Bid Risk Assessment  There is limited confidence in the bidder to overcome some of the risks Max. Score=10 identified and this section has not been fully thought through. Actual score=3 Legacy  It is unclear as to how key organisations will deliver a legacy and achieve the Max. Score=25 ‘high level’ aspirations that are given. Generally this section lacks a solid Actual score= 4 foundation and clear route to achieving the listed aims and objectives. Learning and  Limited attention has been given to this part of the process and how the Max. Score=15 evaluation experience of hosting UK CoC can be shared with other areas. In particular Actual score= 5 little thought has been given to ‘best practice’ and the potential lessons that can be passed on beyond 2013 and to those hosting UK CoC 2017.

Page 51 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Derry~Londonderry: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Derry/Londonderry. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

Summary Report on Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid : There is a clear sense of the energy of the city and of those involved in the bid that comes through what is an exciting bid. The assessors have been impressed by the strength of the team leading the bid. The support of the Northern Ireland Executive and so the various investment, cultural and economic development bodies in Northern Ireland is also very important in terms of funding and delivery. The ideas for the programme are often distinctive and, if handled and developed well, have the potential to be of very wide, national and international interest. The historic links to the City of London and of course the Republic of Ireland are unique features, as is the intention to engage with the area’s Diaspora. The involvement of the area’s cultural champions is a real strength and there are many connections to a large number of key cultural “names” for a relatively small place. The programme has already gone through a period of development and outline costings and assessment and so they have taken some important initial steps to delivery. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid : Our main areas of concerns are: (1) the proposals for the development of the bid into a programme involve a wide range of individuals (from Cultural Champions, to a new cultural animateur/co- ordinator, to independent experts to the CoC Steering Group) and therefore have the potential for considerable discussion, debate and potential slow progress in making decisions about what to do and what not to do; (2) the overall regeneration plans in terms of physical development are ambitious and not all of the key projects will come to fruition before 2013, there needs to be a really careful assessment of the interaction between these projects and the programme suggested by the bid; (3) the scale of events and visitor numbers would represent a step change for the city and hinterland in terms of numbers and quality of facilities sought and transport to the city; (4) there is a danger that the programme could focus too much on what is of interest to local citizens and lack wider appeal. Overall Assessment : This is a strong bid with widespread support in Northern Ireland that would fit perfectly into the City’s ambitious regeneration plans. The programme proposals have the potential to deliver a really impactful and high profile year in 2013 for the area, for Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report on Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid Spe cific Points highlighted by the IAP:

The IAP had a number of general concerns for all shortlisted bids which were:

In addition, for this bid, the IAP specifically highlighted the need to:

1. Prove that the area can actually deliver. 2. Focus on the practicalities of how accommodation and venue issues and needs will be addressed. 3. Show how the area will address location and access issues for visitors from beyond the immediate hinterland. 4. Show what continuity there would be from the current proposal/bid team to the delivery team. 5. Show how the current and likely future cuts in the arts budget in Northern Ireland will impact on the proposals. 6. Show what they will offer by way of wider appeal beyond the city and its hinterland (into the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the UK). 7. Show how they will actually make (difficult) decisions on funding and artistic direction.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below: Overview Technical Assessment of Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area • Clear description of the bid area, its wider hinterland and the linkages to this hinterland (in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland). Strong exposition of why the bid is needed and how culture would contribute to regeneration. Overall Vision • There is a strong and coherent vision for the purpose and themes of UK CoC. It is for UK City of distinctive and different and has several unique elements. Considerable effort Culture 2013 has gone into the development of initial programming ideas. The main area of weakness is that the step changes sought are wide-ranging and could be better

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid articulated.

Cultural and • There is a strong sense of individuality and distinctiveness about the area and its Artistic cultural strengths and opportunities that comes out of the bid. The bid builds on Strengths of the cultural assets and legacy in an interesting way. The bid draws on a wide the Bid range of assets in the city and surrounding hinterland (including in Donegal). The links to the City of London and to the Diaspora provide unique features of the bid. The bidding process has involved a number of key cultural players who have agreed to become “cultural champions”. Social Impacts • Considerable thought has been given to this aspect of the bid. Especially in from the UK relation to the role of the bid in supporting physical regeneration and better City of community cohesion – through the identity part of the programme and the Culture sharing of cultural events. The bid identifies that those living in the 10% most deprived parts of the city are very disengaged with cultural activity (at least in its traditional form). The bid sets out some ideas and possible programmes to increase engagement, especially with young people, but there will need to be more thinking through how to tackle these deep-seated issues. Economic and • This is one of the relatively weaker areas of the bid. The city has underperformed Tourism in tourism terms historically and sees UK CoC as a key opportunity to address this Impacts from underperformance. Even in the absence of the bid, the local infrastructure and the UK City of tourism offer was articulated as improving. The bid sets out a set of targets for Culture visitor and tourism impacts. These seem to the assessors to be relatively modest and probably unduly cautious, to the extent that the crude economic return of money spend on the UK CoC programme is higher than the expected extra tourism spend (Liverpool had a ratio of more like £5 to £1). • There are plans to improve the quality of the hotel offer in the city, which is relatively poor at present. Although there is capacity for extra visitors once the wider hinterland is included, it strikes the assessors that a really successful UK CoC and major event may create capacity issues at times during 2013. Similarly, the city’s geographical position may create challenges in access for visitors outside the immediate hinterland (although there are direct flights to the local airport and it is relatively close to Belfast and its two airports). DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid • The lead body is Derry City Council, which would also act as guarantor. It is a organisation relatively small public body (annual budget of just £35m), however a large & proposed number of other bodies have been involved in the bid, which for practical management purposes has been led by Ilex (the urban regeneration company for the city) with and strong support form the Northern Ireland Executive. There has been strong governance involvement of a wide range of other stakeholders, politicians (it has cross party arrangements support) and individuals in the bid. The delivery of the bid would be via a “delegated partnership model” with separate organisations responsible for the delivery of individual events. However, it is proposed to have a dedicated delivery team, supporting a series of “cluster champions” (c. 6 in number) and working with a “cultural animateur”. The assessors believe that a lot of further thought will need to go into the process by which the programme is designed and then managed and delivered, with greater clarity on future roles in due course.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Derry/Londonderry Initial Bid Track record • The city and its partners have a reasonable track record of delivery of events (jazz/big band festival and Halloween carnival for instance); although the majority at present are relatively small scale. The scale and intensity of events proposed would be a significant step up for the area. Partnerships • At present the City Council provides around £2.5m of revenue funding to support and cultural activity, in addition cultural organisations receive funding for a variety of Funding public funding pots via the Northern Ireland government. The bid identifies the need to provide an additional c. £10m of funding to deliver the proposed programme. It also identified an additional £150m of capital funding that partners would like to see invested on top of the c. £70m already committed (£40m of the extra funding would be from private sources). • Given the strong support of a wide range of public funding bodies in Northern Ireland, there is a high likelihood in the assessors view that at least the extra £10m of revenue funding can be found (if not more). The scale of support is a real strength of the bid. There could be issues around that guaranteeing the whole programme falls on the relatively small Derry City Council, but the wider buy-in will mitigate this risk. There is uncertainty about the delivery of funding for some of the capital projects identified, but the assessors are reasonably confident that progress can be made with some of the key elements which are mission critical for UK CoC 2013 (especially the creation of a public space at the Ebrington area - the first stage in a future arts and creative cultural quarter). Risk • The bid has a reasonable assessment of the key risks, although there are other Assessment important risks identified by the assessors not covered (for instance around the process of agreeing the 2013 programme and overall artistic/creative direction). Legacy • The bid has made a good start in identifying the legacy opportunities 1. The physical legacy is tied up in the wider Single Regeneration Plan which is being developed for the city. Further work is needed in thinking through the practical and financial challenges in ensuring a continued legacy in the four legacy areas. Learning and • The bid presents a reasonable assessment of how the UK CoC would be evaluation evaluated and how lessons would be learned.

1 Culturally : Internationally recognised as a City delivering outstanding cultural regeneration. Socially : Local people continue to participate. Economically : Economic growth matched with the growth in entrepreneurship and jobs. Physically : Quality sustainable infrastructure in the City region

Page 4 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Durham: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Durham. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids. Summary Report on Durham ’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid : The bid is extremely well presented, well developed and structured and sets out a clear programme of events and activities for 2013 and the run-up to it. There is a clear focus on the step change linked to growth of cultural activity and its role in and support for enhancing the image and visitor economy of the city, as well as supporting targets linked to a range of key social impacts. There is some demonstration of a track record relevant to the nature of the programme outlined, and useful initial discussions have also taken place with funders in the region, giving reassurance that the city is likely to be able to secure the funds to deliver its fairly ambitious £18.6m programme. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid : There are a number of relative weaknesses to the bid including: 1) The city has certain limitations in terms of its venue capacities and other visitor infrastructure which may restrict its ability to host very large scale events, but also the scope to grow its visitor economy to the extent that is aspired to (however it is recognised that the bid was creative in its approach to addressing these issues); 2) The bid demonstrates less breadth in its proposed cultural programme, in particular limited involvement of contemporary / populist culture, which may restrict the appeal to certain audiences; 3) Although on an upward trajectory, the city has a weaker track record of delivering major events than the larger bidding cities. Overall Assessment : Durham provides a strong bid in terms of the area having a robust programme that is well developed, a growing track record relevant to the nature of the programme, and well thought through delivery arrangements, which could deliver a successful programme with significant impacts. Compared to the strongest bids, there is a concern that weaknesses or gaps in Durham’s cultural and visitor infrastructure might constrain its ability to sustain a high quality cultural programme over twelve months and to generate the economic impacts sought for 2013.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Durham’s Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area • Durham benefits from already being a well known heritage destination, and with existing strengths in its events and festivals programme, it is credible to envisage this being scaled up for the City of Culture programme. The need for a step change primarily focuses on the economic potential of the city’s visitor economy which is relatively well demonstrated. There are some concerns however over the number and size of venues and other elements of visitor economy infrastructure.

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Durham’s Initial Bid Overall Vision • The vision incorporates a key aim linked to raising the profile of the city and for UK City of significantly enhancing the visitor economy, however is accompanied in the bid by Culture 2013 an appropriate mix of wider social and cultural impact targets. The vision and programme build well on Durham’s strengths and set out a well developed and promising programme. Cultural and • The Durham bid builds on the city’s cultural strengths, physically in terms of the Artistic buildings and landscapes, and culturally in terms of existing events and festivals Strengths of and the city area’s artistic expertise. There is good variety to the programme as the Bid currently set out and elements of national and international excellence, although there is a concern about the balance of the programme with more emphasis on traditional rather than more contemporary cultural and artistic activity. Social • The bid demonstrates a range of experience in linking culture to achieving wider Impacts from social benefits around health, young people and participation, which their the UK City of programme would build on. There is little detail however at this stage on how the Culture stated targets would practically be delivered and a potential risk of social impacts being viewed as secondary if there is too great an emphasis on the economic impacts which appear to be more prominent in Durham’s vision. Economic and • The bid makes a clear case for the opportunity and need for Durham to realise its Tourism potential with respect to a stronger visitor economy. As an established visitor Impacts from destination it has a track record in tourism management and marketing (and a the UK City of strong Destination Management team in the sub-region), and this will be Culture important in delivering a successful City of Culture programme. There are some concerns however around constraints in terms of its venue capacities and other visitor infrastructure which may restrict its ability to host very large scale events (though a range of solutions have been explored in the bid). The target for increasing the value of the visitor economy is ambitious as is the target to double the number of creative businesses by 2020. DEL IVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid • Durham County Council will lead the bid on behalf of the wider County Durham organisation Partnership. There has been initial thinking on governance through a local & proposed authority controlled delivery company, although it is not fully clear at this stage management how the overall governance structure would be structured and specific roles and and responsibilities. The wide ranging support for the programme is impressive and governance demonstrates significant buy-in from local and regional stakeholders including key arrangements potential funders. Track record • The area already has a fairly strong programme of regular events and festivals, as well as having delivered larger one-off events. One of the most significant events of recent years was Lumiere, a city-wide, four-night light festival, which attracted 75,000 people to the city. There has been greater focus in recent years on using these events to attract visitors from outside the county and to some extent the region. The City of Culture programme would clearly be a step-up in scale for Durham. Whilst the track record demonstrated gives some confidence that Durham could make the step to delivering a major cultural programme, sustaining a high quality cultural programme over twelve months would be a major challenge.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Durham’s Initial Bid Partnerships • Durham has set out an £18.6m programme over the period 2010-2013; with and £10.8m of this spend in 2013 itself. Given the focus of the programme on creating Funding new events and growing a much enhanced programme of recurring events and festivals, this appears a sensible and appropriate cost plan. The County Council is planning to invest an additional £5.3m above their baseline spend for the period, reflecting their strong commitment, and discussions are relatively advanced with both One North East and the Arts Council and indicative allocations of £2.4m and £1.7m respectively have been discussed with these bodies. An outstanding £4.1m funding gap to be sourced from other regional and national partners however is still of some concern at this stage. Risk • A detailed and well considered risk assessment is set out in the bid, and mitigation Assessment measures are well thought out at this stage. Risk owners are identified, and an ongoing risk management process is discussed. Legacy • Durham is already focused on improving its cultural offer and growing its visitor economy, which they would seek to significantly boost through the City of Culture programme. As a result, the governance and future funding for these elements is already being put in place. This gives reassurance that these elements of the economic legacy would be delivered. The bid is less strong however on the practical measures for sustaining growth of community participation in culture, with the risk that without ongoing support post-2013, the improvement in 2013 will then gradually subside again in subsequent years. Learning and • Durham sets out initial plans for evaluation and learning, working with Durham evaluation University and building on the learning of Liverpool’s Impacts 08. The thinking on methods of measuring impact and disseminating learning at this stage appear to be sensible and appropriate.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Hull and East Yorkshire: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Hull & East Yorkshire. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out in the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids.

Summary Report on Hull and East Yorkshire ’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid : This is a very well written and presented bid. It makes a clear case as to why UK CoC could make a transformational difference to the area and why a successful bid is needed. There is an impressive degree of commitment to the bid locally and to the role of culture as part of the area’s transformation, especially by the two local authorities. There is a clear financial plan for spend and funding. There is strong commitment as shown by Hull City Council’s Cabinet agreement in principle to invest up to £8m extra resources in the delivery of the City of Culture. Hull is an area experiencing a large programme of mainly publicly funded investment creating new spaces and locations which can and are being used as venues (including a £400m Building Schools for the Future programme). The desire to build up cultural capacity and leave a legacy of enhanced cultural/creative sector is clear. The area offers an interesting mix of urban, seaside and more rural experiences, festivals and venues at present to build upon. There is a developing body of experience of dealing with larger scale events (e.g. Freedom Festival). Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid : The desire to create an enhanced cultural infrastructure of strong cultural organisations is commendable, but is an inherent area of weakness/risk in the bid as the cultural raw material to build upon is still, as acknowledged, limited. There is repeated reference to just a relatively few headline cultural attractors in the bid (e.g. Phillip Larkin). A key concern is that the programming ideas at this stage for 2013 are very sketchy and there would be a significant risk that a strong programme could not be developed in time. The assessors understand the desire to engage different communities in this process (which the bidders would do in the rest of 2010), but other areas have much more progress already in programme development. The 6-year programme and investment approach has important merits, but there is the danger of dilution of focus on 2013 itself. The extent to which the different offers in East Yorkshire and Hull can be stitched together for visitors and residents as part of a coherent programme is another risk. Overall Assessment : This is a very well written and presented bid. It provides an honest assessment of the area’s strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. The area, especially Hull, is experiencing considerable transformation and sees culture as an important part of the strategy to put it on the map. The bid has set out an ambitious 6-year strategy. However, the track record to date, limited development of programme thinking and relative weakness of the current cultural offer are significant risk factors.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Hull & East Yorkshire Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area • The bid makes a strong case for the need for UK CoC. The geographical area has a local logic and there are strong connections between Hull and East Yorkshire. However, the assessors would have some slight concerns about the connectivity and coherence of the area from a visitor perspective. Overall Vision • The vision explains why Hull & EY would benefit from UK CoC. However, it lacks an for UK City of explanation of why it would be a fitting location for UK CoC from a UK perspective. There Culture 2013 are four clear step changes sought; although for two of these (cultural participation and cultural infrastructure) the degree of stretch sought is not clear nor is it exactly clear how this would contribute to the longer term aspirations of the area. Cultural and • The bid is candid about the cultural and artistic strengths and weaknesses. The Artistic programme is very top level at this stage and there is relatively little sense of what it Strengths of might contain. The bid identifies the need to appoint an artistic director and then uses the Bid 2010 to generate programme ideas and buy-in. It identifies the need to invest in capacity building in the local cultural infrastructure in the run-up to the bid year to create better local delivery capacity. It is difficult therefore to assess the likely impact of the programme in 2013. Social Impacts • The bidders see the £400m Building Schools for the Future as a key opportunity for from the UK exploiting UK CoC. There is reasonable evidence on the current role culture plays in City of Culture regeneration, although the proposals presented for its enhanced use are generic. Economic and • This is clearly seen as a key benefit from being UK CoC. There is a dedicated Tourism Tourism Marketing Organisation for the area and good joint working and a developing new Impacts from tourism offer in Hull (East Yorkshire’s is more established). The large number of ferry the UK City of passengers passing through Hull presents a potential opportunity for international Culture audiences. The estimates of economic impact appear on the high side and would need to be tested further. The area has the capacity to cope with extra visitors. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid • Hull City Council is the lead partner and would act as financial guarantor. The bid has had organisation & widespread support from partners, although the degree of engagement at a grassroots proposed level to date appears limited. At this stage the ideas for management and governance are management relatively high level but well thought through. The proposal is to set up a dedicated arms and length delivery vehicle for 2013 which would deal with all related arts and cultural governance activity of the councils to avoid duplication. The assessors would have some concerns arrangements about the capacity locally to take forward UK CoC given the relatively short timescale and lack of work on programming. Much would rely on appointing the artistic/creative directors in good time and their immediate success in working with local partners. Track record • The area has a range of festivals and events that are delivered, many relatively small in scale. The largest event is the Freedom Festival - a 2 day festival with c. 150,000 visitors, largely local or day trip visitors. It has no track record in the delivery of an extensive programme of major events in one year. The relatively under-developed state of its cultural infrastructure is acknowledged in the bid. At this stage the capacity to deliver the scale and quality required for UK CoC would be a risk.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Hull & East Yorkshire Initial Bid Partnerships • The bid is very helpful in providing detailed financial cost and income source tables on an and annual basis. In total the bid suggests the need for £16m extra funding up to and Funding including 2013 (of which £12m is on extra programming investment). Hull City Council have committed up to £8m of additional funding for UK CoC (Cabinet agreement), so the level of certainty on funding exceeds many other areas. The bid suggests a modest £1.2m of extra funding from private sources. A good degree of thought has gone into the costings of the bid, although the programme costs have not been built up from an outline programme and, unlike other areas, relatively more would need to be invested in activity in run up years. Risk • There is a reasonable risk assessment and the bidders have identified the main risks. Assessment These in our view are the ability to deliver a high quality year-long programme in 2013 given the long way to go in terms of developing programming ideas and the modest base of activity on which to build. Legacy • The idea of a 6-year programme (pre and post 2013) and development of the cultural infrastructure are strong elements of the bid, although it is still not clear which elements of the cultural infrastructure will be improved and how. It is also not clear at this stage how cultural engagement will be improved in a lasting way as suggested. Learning and • Some well considered points are included in the bid which addresses these issues well. evaluation

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Ipswich and Haven Gateway: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Ipswich and Haven Gateway. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids.

Summary Report on Ipswich and Haven Gateway’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The Ipswich and Haven Gateway bid contains a number of interesting ideas, which are a real strength of the bid and provide a strong foundation on which to build. The proposal to work with the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich to establish cultural containers for use as new cultural community ‘venues’ is one of these and the “spoke ‘n’ word arts-led cycling tours” is another. There are also good international links through Aldeburgh Music and Dance East, and there are plans to build on these for the 2013 programme, which is commendable. Britain Dancing Britten for example would be a good way of attracting widespread interest. The IP Arts Festival each summer also provides a good foundation from which to build more participation based programmes locally. The focus of the programme around three cultural hubs (Aldeburgh, Ipswich and Colchester), each containing an important cultural asset is also seen as a strength of the bid. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: Whilst the programme is strong, the vision is less distinctive. There are some significant areas of concern surrounding the delivery and funding for this bid in particular. The original proposal suggested £6.3 million investment between 2010 and 2014, however this has since been increased to £9.7 million following concerns over whether the initial figure could deliver the scale and quality of events required for the first UKCC. This is still lower than many other bidding cities. It is proposed that the Haven Gateway Partnership (HGP) would act as a financial guarantor for the UKCC. They are supportive of the bid in principle but have asked for further information should the bid progress. This uncertainty around the financial governance arrangements is considered a significant risk for this bid. There is a potential risk in delivering the bid over such a widespread area (eight local authorities) and the constraints which may arise from the location and accessibility of the Haven Gateway. The issue of accessibility to other parts of the UK may be a greater issue for those areas which are more rural such as Aldeburgh. Overall Assessment: In many respect this is an interesting and exciting bid. The proposed programme - which builds on the areas strengths such as Aldeburgh Music and Dance House, and which has strong international links - is a particular strength for this bid. There are also a number of interesting and unique ideas for additional events. However, there are a number of significant concerns over funding and delivery arrangements which, at the initial bid stage, make this both a high risk bid and a less attractive proposition for UKCC 2013 than some other bids.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below: Overview Technical Assessment of Ipswich and Haven Gateway Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The bid covers a large area, encompassing eight local authorities. The bid does however have a clear focus on three main cultural hubs (Ipswich, Colchester and Aldeburgh) which would aid the delivery of the programme. The Haven Gateway area itself is not a recognised visitor destination, however the key cultural hubs are and the proposal to focus

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Ipswich and Haven Gateway Initial Bid on marketing these rather than the whole of the Haven Gateway area is sensible. Overall Vision  The proposed programme is interesting and is a real strength of the bid. As with some for UK City of other bids, Ipswich and the Haven Gateway could have more clearly and thoroughly set Culture 2013 out the proposed step change and estimated impact, which they expect to result from UKCC. Cultural and  There are some good cultural assets to build upon, with the programme focused around Artistic three cultural hubs containing an important cultural asset. The bid would incorporate a Strengths of large number of national and international artists, which would ensure cultural excellence the Bid and could attract widespread interest. Britain Dancing Britten, which would involve premiers by three major international dance companies, followed by a national and international tour is a good example of this. Social  The bid carries out a good consideration of the social impacts. However, greater clarity on Impacts from the forecast impacts the bidder expects to achieve through being UKCC would be the UK City of beneficial. Culture Economic and  The two main towns of Ipswich and Colchester are easily accessible to London and parts of Tourism the South East, however less accessible to the north of the country and the Midlands. Impacts from Some of the smaller locations which form part of the bid (eg Aldeburgh) are less accessible, the UK City of which raises a slight concern in terms of realising the full impact of UKCC. Culture DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid  The bid is being led by Ipswich Borough Council, working closely with the Haven Gateway organisation Partnership. It is proposed that the Haven Gateway Partnership (HGP) would act as a & proposed financial guarantor for the UKCC. However, they have no legal status and Essex County management Council is the Accountable Body managed through a memorandum of understanding. and They are supportive of the bid in principle but have asked for further information should governance the bid progress. This uncertainty around the financial governance arrangements is a arrangements significant risk for this bid. Furthermore, the large number of local authorities involved could present difficulties in developing and delivering the programme. Track record  There is a reasonably good track record particularly with the Ip-arts Festival which attracts over 150,000 visitors and the Jiangsu Festival which attracted 355,000 people over 9 months. Partnerships  There are some significant areas of concern surrounding the funding for this bid. The and original proposal suggested £6.3 million in investment for UKCC between 2010 and 2014, Funding however this has since sought to increase the budget tov£9.7 million following concerns over whether the initial figure could deliver the scale and quality of events required for the first UKCC. Ipswich and the Haven Gateway feel that the proposed programme and world class facilities which exist in the area would enable the area to attract sufficient attention within the constraints of this funding. However, the proposed level is still below that for many other bidding cities and causes some concern over the scale and quality of events which could be delivered and the level of commitment. Risk  A very good risk assessment has been provided. However, the potential risks over funding Assessment and management arrangements warranted further attention. Legacy  The bid has started to consider what the legacy might be, for example this includes increased participation and raised aspirations as well as better awareness of their offer nationally and internationally. As with other bids, there is insufficient information provided on how the legacy for Ipswich and the Haven Gateway may be sustained. Learning and  As with some other bids, this section would have benefited from additional information on evaluation the approach to learning and evaluation in practical terms.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Norwich: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Norwich City Council. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out in the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids. Summary Report on Norwich ’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid : The bid is intellectually very strong; there is a clear and interesting vision, which makes this proposal stand out above many other bids. The simple strands and clear programme will aid marketing to national and international visitors, which will ensure that there is widespread interest. Norwich’s bid has strong links to works and events of national and international significance and the commitment to commission two works or events of international and national significance, and two programmes of community engagement and creative learning work within the bid is appealing. There are also a number of cultural and artistic strengths within the city itself to build upon. Norwich City Council does have a strong track record in delivering similar activities and there are clear management arrangements for UKCC, which provides confidence that a successful UKCC 2013 programme could be delivered. The proposal to set aside three places on the board for CEOs/directors of cultural organisations in the city is also seen as a strength of the bid. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid : Whilst the bid is strong overall, there are still some areas for concern which include the following: 1. The bid needs to make a stronger case on the potential step change which could result from being UKCC 2013, given that the area is already successful in delivering cultural activities. The bid needs to be clear about the social and economic impacts it expects to result from the bid compared to other bidders. 2. Norwich’s location is an area of concern given its accessibility, particularly when compared to some of the other stronger bids. The bid should continue to consider how these issues might be addressed. 3. There are also concerns over the size of the city and capacity of the cultural and visitor infrastructure to accommodate large influxes in visitors, which again could warrant further attention. 4. Norwich City Council has committed only £1.55m towards the bid and high levels of funding are expected from other sources (National: £1.2m; sponsorships, trusts and foundations: £2m; project partners: £4.2m). At this stage, the likelihood of obtaining this funding is a risk, which requires greater consideration Overall Assessment : The strong vision and attractive programme, which has a major international and national focus makes this a strong bid. The bidding city has a good track record in delivering cultural and artistic projects, suggesting the potential to deliver a successful UKCC programme. The greatest concerns which requires consideration is the additional benefit which could result from Norwich being UKCC, given the areas strength in delivering cultural activities currently. The size and scale of the city and the ability to accommodate significant visitors at any one time should be taken into consideration, and the location and connectivity is another concern which warrants attention.

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report on Norwich ’s Initial Bid Specific Points highlighted by the IAP: The IAP had a number of general concerns for all shortlisted bids which were:

In addition, for this bid, the IAP specifically highlighted the need to: 1. Strengthen and clarify the proposed step changes it expects to realise from the proposals – why does the area really need UK CoC? 2. Consider how the bid can demonstrate that all parts of the UK will be able to access and benefit from UKCC 2013. 3. Develop a thorough risk assessment – particularly in relation to the ability to deliver a successful UKCC 2013 within the proposed budget and potential funding constraints.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below: Overview Technical Assessment of Norwich Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area • The bid has a clear geographical focus on Norwich, however the area is less well connected in terms of national and international transport links compared to other stronger bids. Whilst culture is already identified as a mechanism for achieving a step change, a stronger case could be made for hosting UKCC with greater attention given to the additional impact and step change which could be realised. Overall Vision • The vision is excellent and well conveyed and would make for a distinctive and for UK City of varied programme. The simple strands and clear programme will aid marketing to Culture 2013 national and international visitors. A commitment to commissioning works of international, national and community, creative and learning works under each theme is also positive. The vision and programme are clear strengths of this bid. Norwich could however have made a stronger case for a step change, particularly demonstrating the impacts which it is hoped that UKCC will achieve.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Norwich Initial Bid Cultural and • The bid has strong links to works and events of national and international Artistic significance and there are also a number of cultural and artistic strengths within Strengths of the city itself. Strengths in street arts and festivals (Norfolk and Norwich the Bid International Arts Festival), literature (with the UEA’s creative writing programme, Writers Centre Norwich and the British Centre for Literary Translation). The fact that the city can be used as a venue providing capacity for 100,000 behind closed walls is an attractive idea. The bid could have also expanded further on their current baseline position in terms of participation and how it is intended that participation will be increased. Social • The bid does not set out how to measure the social impacts of the programme and Impacts from possible targets for measuring the impact. However, the role that the culture the UK City of programme will play in the regeneration of the area and community cohesion Culture could be stronger and better articulated. Furthermore, the bid could specifically set out how different groups will be engaged. Economic and • The bid provides a good description of the visitor markets which could be Tourism expanded upon and specifically provides an indication of a reasonable marketing Impacts from budget to aid these activities. It is clear that marketing to national and the UK City of international visitors is seen as being important to the success of the year long Culture programme. However, the bid should have given greater consideration to the tourism and transport infrastructure and capacity to deal with visitors. Finally, further detail on the potential increase to the visitor economy which Norwich expects to result from UKCC would be beneficial. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid • The bid provides good coverage of the proposed management and governance organisation arrangements. The bid is being led by Norwich City Council and an ALMO or Trust & proposed would take on the delivery of the programme. It is also proposed that a wide management range of partners will be involved and it is clear that this will include key cultural and organisations, which is positive. governance arrangements Track record • Norwich City Council has demonstrated that they have a good track record in delivering a range of relevant projects. The Norfolk and Norwich International Arts Festival is a 16 day festival which attracts 34,000 festival goers and £2.1m investment and the BA Festival of Science involves 87 separate events and 21 exhibitions. Partnerships • Norwich has allocated an overall budget of £12m towards UKCC but only £7.8 and million is additional funding which is below other bidding cities. This is a concern Funding for this bid. Finally, the low level of funding from Norwich City Council and the subsequent additional funding required is a potential risk and concern. Risk • The bidder provides a brief risk assessment focusing on financial, reputational and Assessment cultural exclusion. This could be strengthened. In particular, consideration of risks around accessibility, capacity to accommodate large influxes of visitors and the level of additional funding are potential risks, which warrant grater consideration. Legacy • A key part of the legacy will be through the UKCC ALMO which will be a key vehicle for cultural governance in the future. Whilst this is positive, overall there is not a strong practical expression of legacy in this bid, which is partly due to the lack of targets being set. The limited information on the process and actions through which the impacts will be sustained over time is also an issue.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Norwich Initial Bid Learning and • Discussions with the University of East Anglia already underway to cost and design evaluation a suitable evaluation framework, which is positive. Nevertheless, this element of the bid could be strengthened, particularly in terms of the approach to learning and evaluation in practical terms.

Page 4 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Portsmouth & Southampton: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Portsmouth and Southampton. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids. Summary Report on Portsmouth and Southampton’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid document is visually attractive and clearly set out. There are some strong elements in terms of the branding of the bid (PS I Love You) and the focus on Portsmouth and Southampton (rivals in many respects) working together collectively to achieve the UKCC vision (although this could also be a significant practical and marketing challenge). There is existing evidence of these partners working together on cultural initiatives, however it is recognised that there is still some way to go to extend and embed this relationship. The programme themes are accessible and fun, and would present significant opportunities for local people through volunteering, and specific activities focused on inclusion and collaboration between the two cities. Given the local focus of the bid, it would be well placed to tackle local issues around regeneration and inclusion more effectively than many other bids. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: The national and international links (including working with national and international artists, in particular) do not appear to be as significant as other stronger bids, and this could hinder the levels of interest received from areas outside of South Hampshire and thus the economic impact of the bid. The proposals for big headline events are also not as clear as they could be at this stage. The bidding cities have organised events of national and regional stature, however this is less well developed and broadly based compared to other stronger bids. In addition, the management and delivery arrangements are less well developed and more complex compared to other bids. Whilst the bid is being led by Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, it is proposed that PUSH (the sub-regional economic development agency) would act as a financial guarantor for the programme and they would also lead on governance (through a new special purpose organisation). A significant number of partners are mentioned (including the nine local authorities) and it may be difficult to manage all of these interests effectively. The proposed involvement of creative and cultural organisations in the management arrangements is not as strong as for some bids (though it is suggested there is scope to strengthen this element). There are concerns over the proposed level of investment (which appears relatively low and not well thought out) and the high proportion of funding coming from existing levels of support for culture. Overall Assessment: There are some interesting and popularist elements of the programme and the community engagement dimension is very strong. However, the stated national and international elements of the outline programme are less strong, which raises concerns about the potential wider appeal and profile of the programme. We have significant concerns over the delivery and funding of the proposal, which is less well developed than other bids and raises a number of significant risks. There are also some concerns over the track record.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Portsmouth and Southampton Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The bid is led by Portsmouth and Southampton councils but focused on the wider Urban South Hampshire region, which is a large geographical area of 9 local authorities. This the nature of the proposed area, greater consideration could have been given to the challenges in the delivery, marketing and management of the bid and how these would be overcome.  It is clear that culture is seen as a mechanism for a step change in Urban South Hampshire and the bid effectively explores why UKCC is required, which is positive. Overall Vision  There is a clear vision focusing on maximising participation and the bid is visually attractive for UK City of and clearly set out. There are some positive aspects in the branding of the bid and the Culture 2013 idea of Portsmouth and Southampton (rivals in many respects) working together collectively to achieve the UKCC vision. The programme themes are accessible and fun, and will present significant opportunities for local people. Whilst the programme is wide ranging, the main headline events are not clear at this stage.  The bid sets out clearly what step changes they anticipate achieving through UKCC as well as the measures they will use to judge their success. These look reasonable (but potentially not sufficiently challenging). Cultural and  A significant weakness of this bid is how Portsmouth and Southampton will deliver cultural Artistic excellence. In particular, the bid appears to have a strong local focus and more detail and Strengths of clarity could have been provided around the key national and international artists, the Bid partnerships and networks which will support the bid. High profile names such as Banksy and Sheila Hancock have been named, however their level of commitment and how they may be involved is not clear at this stage. Social  The bid has a strong focus on regeneration. There is a good consideration given to Impacts from engaging with different communities and maximising participation, particularly through the UK City of the ‘culture without borders’. Theme. Culture Economic and  The bid sets out the range of economic and tourism impacts which they hope to achieve Tourism setting out initial views on the uplift which they hope to achieve. There is insufficient Impacts from clarity however on how these uplifts have been formulated and consequently the extent to the UK City of which they may be achieved. The bid could also more adequately address the proposed Culture approach to marketing (e.g. target markets currently attracted and how this could be broadened through UKCC). DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid  The bid is led by Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils with support from the organisation Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (who would act as a financial guarantor). The & proposed management and delivery arrangements are less well developed and more complex management compared to most other bids. Whilst the bid is being led by Portsmouth and Southampton and City Councils, it is proposed that PUSH would act as a financial guarantor for the governance programme. The bid identifies a large number of partners involved in the bid, however arrangements effective consideration of how these may be managed could have been given greater consideration.  Strong involvement from the public sector in programming and delivering the bid is proposed. However, the involvement of creative and cultural organisations does appear less strong relative to other bids and stronger involvement would be encouraged to deliver cultural excellence. Track record  Key events which demonstrate their track record includes SeaBritian 2005, the Southampton Boat Show and the International Festival of the Sea. The track record is however not as well developed and broad as some of the stronger bids.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Portsmouth and Southampton Initial Bid Partnerships  The cost of the bid is expected to be around £10 million. A high proportion (60%) would and be from existing sources, which is a significant weakness of the bid. Compared to other Funding stronger bids, it appears that insufficient thought has at this stage been given to the overall costs of the programme and individual elements. There is therefore a risk that this level of investment is not sufficient to fund the proposed programme.  A number of sources for the additional funding have been identified, however it would have been helpful to estimate the split between these funders as other bidders have done. Again, this is a significant weakness of the bid which does not provide sufficient confidence that the issue of funding has been adequately considered. Risk  A brief risk assessment is provided. The bid would benefit from greater detail on the risk Assessment of funding and management/delivery arrangements. Legacy  There is a high level discussion of the proposed legacy, however as with other bids there is limited information on how the legacy will be delivered, funded and sustained. Learning and  The bid presents a very brief assessment of how the UKCC would be evaluated and how evaluation lessons would be learned. In a similar way to other bids, this could have been further developed and is a weakness of the bid.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Sheffield: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Sheffield. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out in the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids. Summary Report on Sheffield ’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid : Sheffield is a large city that demonstrates to a reasonable degree both the need and the capacity to deliver a good UK City of Culture programme. The basic foundation of the bid is strong, with a focus on increasing cultural and creative participation to both social and economic ends, that tie into the longer terms aims for the city. There is a strong and credible focus on engaging across all communities as well as delivering artistic excellence and major events and festivals. The city has a strong track record in successful delivery in all of these areas, which gives confidence in its ability to deliver a successful programme, and it has a strong identity and infrastructure to manage the greater influx of visitors generated by the programme. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid : While the basic foundation for the bid is sound, the focus on more specific aims is lacking at present and does not give a clear idea of where or how the most important step changes will be delivered through the programme. Linked to this, there is limited discussion in the bid on the mechanisms through which the legacy could be secured. The budget for the programme appears to be a little low for the breadth of what is a very ambitious programme, and the bidders are not very advanced in discussions with potential funders, beyond the City Council. Overall Assessment : The bid has a number of strengths and the foundations of the vision tie in closely to the city’s wider ambitions around growth of the creative and cultural economy. This is an exciting and ambitious bid and there is evidence that the city is well placed to deliver a successful programme. The bid however, is not as advanced in its thinking and planning as other areas at this stage. Whilst Sheffield still faces major challenges, the major regeneration of the past decade has built a great deal of momentum – it is possible that a successful City of Culture year could have a very significant impact in this regard. Specific Points highlighted by the IAP:

The IAP had a number of general concerns for all shortlisted bids which were:

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report on Sheffield ’s Initial Bid 4. How will digital technology be used in art forms an d in access to delivery of culture? ( How will the bidder use digital technology to go beyond the simple use of websites as information aids? How will they develop strategies and programmes that will allow people to create not just consume culture? How will they facilitate people to freely exchange ideas, knowledge and views as well as exhibit their cultural endeavours? How do they see this playing a role in developing a future skill base for the content/knowledge economy )? 5. How will UK CoC act to include all groups and act as a bridge across gaps (intergenerational, ethnicity, gender etc)? 6. How will the legacy changes mentioned actually be delivered by the proposed programmes and activities? ( How will they set up and/or focus the strategy around the “step change”. In other words – having set out a clear “step change” – how will the programme deliver that – and what is going to be in place to make sure the legacy continues. What is going to happen in Years 1-3 after 2013 )?

In addition, for this bid, the IAP specifically highlighted the need to: 1. Review the programme with a sharper focus on delivery – the IAP felt that the bid showed a huge amount potentially on offer, but were not convinced that everything that the bid sets out is deliverable 2. Strengthen and clarify the links between the proposed step changes and the proposals 3. Develop the wider UK and international connections – the IAP felt that the bid still feels a bit inward looking 4. Develop a thorough risk assessment 5. Prove that the area will be able to deliver. There were concerns about the ambitious nature of the programme – given the timescale – and the issue is really could Sheffield do it all – or would it be best to review and focus on the things that matched the “step change” being sought? 6. Strengthen the bid’s approach to diversity issues.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below: Overview Technical Assessment of Sheffield Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area • As one of the largest cities in the UK, Sheffield is clearly a city with a strong identity for visitors. The city also has a strong cultural and visitor economy infrastructure with major venues, overnight accommodation and public transport connectivity. The bid sets out key areas in which a step change is needed, although this could be clearer and better focused. Overall Vision • The vision sets out a strong foundation for Sheffield’s bid, picking up on the for UK City of character of the city, to focus on engaging people in creating and making Culture 2013 culture, not just watching it. The programme is ambitious and perhaps too complex – it is broken down into three cornerstones and ten themes, which slightly detracts from the programme focus. On the whole the step changes discussed are appropriate, although similarly would benefit from further refinement and focusing. Cultural and • Sheffield has a strong cultural infrastructure in terms of the wealth of venues, Artistic existing events, and festivals and cultural networks. The bid also gives some Strengths of helpful consideration to opportunities for the programme to act as a catalyst to the Bid further enhance this infrastructure. The range of the programme is good, although it is recognised by the bid team, that Sheffield currently lacks a strong sense of what it is really good at culturally. The bid team sees the City of Culture as an opportunity to help define this and hence to help shape the

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Sheffield Initial Bid future cultural and visitor branding of the city. Social • The bid has strong grass-roots elements and shows a clear desire for wide Impacts from engagement and encouraging creativity within all communities. There is also a the UK City of strong track record of significant use of culture in delivering social impacts. Culture Ensuring diversity in programme content is also a clear priority. There is however limited substantive detail on how key social impacts will be delivered, at this stage, and the assessors have some concerns about the feasibility of delivering the range of engagement activity discussed within the budget set for the programme. Economic and • A range of what appear to be appropriate economic aims are set out in the bid, Tourism however there is a lack of sufficient clarity on these at this stage. Sheffield Impacts from clearly has the potential to deliver significant economic impacts from the the UK City of proposed programme with scope for expansion in their visitor economy and Culture creative sector. More detail is needed however to elucidate how these economic benefits can be delivered and maximised through the programme. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid • The programme would be delivered through a special purpose vehicle, with the organisation city council playing a key role. The City Council has a strong track record in the & proposed set up of SPVs. The amount of detail for this organisation is fairly limited at this management stage. The list of stakeholders engaged in the bid process from public, private and and voluntary sectors is fairly extensive, suggesting strong partner interest and governance support. arrangements Track record • The City Council and partners have a wealth of experience in delivering major one-off events and major annual festivals, which gives confidence in the ability to deliver the breadth and quality of events proposed in the programme. There is less of a track record of a sustained and fully co-ordinated programme of events as would be delivered as part of the UK City of Culture, and thus the ability to build on a well established partnership is likely to be critical to success. The existing steering group for the bid is already bringing these major partners together, including key stakeholders from the local authority, universities, and key cultural institutions and agencies. Partnerships • An estimated £11m additional investment is set out in the bid for delivering the and programme, and a provisional cost breakdown is given. Sheffield City Council Funding has committed £3.6m to the programme, and a range of potential funding partners are highlighted, however there has not been detailed discussion with these bodies at this stage on indicative allocations. The bid team are confident that securing this funding is achievable, although questions remain over whether the target amount is realistic to deliver the scale of programme set out. Risk • The bid sets out two important areas of risk around finances and strategic Assessment factors. A number of important risks are highlighted, though coverage of these is limited and no mitigation measures are discussed. Legacy • The legacy aims largely focus on cultural participation and the creative economy, and set out credible targets against these. The legacy could have been strengthened by giving a little more focus and definition to the legacy goals. There has been limited thinking at this stage in the bid on the practical mechanisms through which the legacy would be delivered.

Page 3 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Overview Technical Assessment of Sheffield Initial Bid Learning and • Learning and evaluation is built in to processes throughout the Sheffield bid, evaluation and discussion of an Impacts 13 evaluation, continuing from the learning of Liverpool’s Impacts 08 appears very sensible. Sheffield clearly see this as an integral part of their bid and its legacy, through taking a national leadership role in culture-led regeneration – linking to their ‘ Let’s take the lead ’ programme theme. Initial thought has been given to key individuals to engage at the city’s Universities, and although details of the overall approach are relatively limited at this stage, the bid demonstrates a strong commitment to evaluation, to innovative thinking in measuring impact and to disseminating knowledge.

Page 4 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

1. Southend: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Southend. It is based on the bid submitted and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment. We are happy to clarify any of the points if needed.

1.2 Overall, there was an excellent and enthusiastic response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids.

Summary Report on Southend’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The vision draws strongly upon Southend’s location and its unique proposition as a seaside town. There is a track record of interesting cultural engagement work which forms a foundation for the proposed programme. The programme itself is varied with some very interesting individual elements (organisations like TAP and Metal have proposed interesting interventions and the use of pavilions and unused/empty spaces in the town is a unique way of boosting capacity of venues). The creative figures mentioned (Jude Kelly, Mark Wallinger, Lem Sissay, Paul Morley etc) are already engaged, have been active in developing the bid and the assessors believe could play a strong role should Southend be successful. A number of interesting international links are set out, with opportunities for cultural development. The town already receives significant numbers of visitors and has the infrastructure to deal with the increase associated with UK CoC. Ambitious targets are also set to increase both overnight stays and visitor spend during and after 2013. The bid is particularly strong in terms of the role it would play in the development of the local creative economy. Transport links are good and provide access to a significant target population in London and Essex. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: The bid has a strong focus on the Modern Seaside Town and what this means. This is interesting as a theme, however the assessors have some concerns as to whether the debates the bid talks about would be of wider interest and help to attract visitors. The programme comes across as a collection of interesting ideas at various stages of development, with a lack of “headlines” at key points during 2013. The bid could have focused more on the social impacts in terms of disengaged groups. There is some interesting comment early on in relation to Black and Minority Ethnic groups (such as the Bengali community), but this is not followed up with any clear proposed action. The scale of interventions proposed is relatively small in scale and the track record does not provide full confidence on how existing activity could be ‘scaled up’ to deliver the impact becoming of such a significant cultural designation. Whilst the proximity to London is quite rightly identified as an opportunity for Southend, the bid does not address the challenges of proximity to such a significant cultural node (i.e. why would a visitor carry on to Southend from London). In terms of funding the programme, whilst ambitious private sector and sponsorship targets are outlined in the bid, there is clearly a risk associated with this which is not adequately addressed. Finally, given the ambition in the vision to change perceptions of how people view Southend and ‘the seaside’ it would have been helpful to see more in the legacy section about what this means post 2013.

Page 1 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

Summary Report on Southend’s Initial Bid Overall Assessment: This bid deserves credit for innovation and an interesting vision which links well to national debates on UK coastal towns. That said, at times, the programme is a little incoherent and the way it would deliver the transformations sought is unclear. There is a lot of innovative and interesting detail within the bid and plenty of interesting ideas which the assessors hope can still come to fruition; however the ability of the area to deliver an impactful year-long programme at a scale to act as the UK City of Culture would be a risk factor.

1.3 The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below:

Overview Technical Assessment of Southend Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area The geographical area is clear and has a brand/identity as location (but of course the bid is intended to change this perceived identity). The step changes sought are relatively well set out and build upon national policy debates. The assessors have some reservations about the relationship of Southend with London and the competition which this could place on potential visitors to the town in 2013. Overall Vision The ‘Modern Seaside Experience’ makes sense as a headline vision and a social for UK City of economic transformation is considered (with a solid baseline). That said, throughout Culture 2013 the remainder of the bid the narrative associated with the vision is somewhat lost. Themes such as ‘internationalism’ are prominent in the early stages of the bid but do not come through as strongly later on. Strategically, more could have been made about Southend’s desire to reinforce its role as the cultural capital of the east of England, whilst the positive elements of the relationship with London also could have been expressed more clearly here. Cultural and Southend has variety of cultural organisations already operating in the area, which Artistic have clearly contributed interesting ideas to the bid. There is also a mix of cultural Strengths of infrastructure which is typical of a large seaside town; this will potentially increase the Bid (subject to funding) with some more contemporary arts and performance space by 2013. The programme ideas are quite specific to Southend and have clearly benefitted from the substantial local consultation which took place in the bid development phase. The programme is not as coherent as it could be which ultimately detracts from the ideas contained in the bid. The assessors also have some concerns about the ability of Southend to scale up its cultural offer in time for 2013 as well as concerns about the wider interest and attractiveness of some of the policy-linked creative ideas. Social Given the reference to Southend’s relationship with London and especially the East Impacts from End (migration and day trips) alongside a broader focus on the issues associated with the UK City of coastal towns (in the UK as a whole) the bid could have been clearer in terms of the Culture potential social impacts. There are limited targets around the social effects of the programme and the bid could have done more to illustrate how culture can integrate Chinese, Polish and Bangladeshi communities into the local population. Economic and This is a strong element of the bid which was built upon at the clarification stage. A Tourism clear commitment is given as to how UK CoC can be used to lever increased visitor Impacts from numbers and increased spend per visitor. In addition to visitor impact, careful thought the UK City of is also given as to how UK CoC could support the development of Southend’s growing Culture creative and artistic sector. There is clear reference to the strategic desire to grow Southend as a location for new jobs and homes. UK CoC is identified as a key tool in achieving the former.

Page 2 ● UK City of Culture 2013 – Bid Assessment ●

DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid The unitary authority is clearly the bid’s lead organisation. The councils cultural service organisation department already has a 4* rating (awarded by the Audit Commission) and a good & proposed relationship with local partners. A broad range of future partners are mentioned management within the bid (who were also involved at the consultation phase - suggesting a and reasonable level of commitment). It would however, have been useful to have more governance information about how the programme would be managed, as the proposals to create arrangements a new cultural company at are at an early stage. Track record As a seaside town, Southend clearly has a track record in delivering a variety of cultural and other events. In addition to this there are also a number of smaller cultural organisations who have experience in delivering the type of interventions included within the bid. Despite this, there is limited information on the scale of these interventions and it is not clear how this experience could or would be sufficiently ‘scaled up’ for 2013. Partnerships The figure of £15m additional funding is reasonable given the scale of the programme. and However, there is need for more clarity about the exact source of the funding. In Funding particular it is not clear what Southend’s track record is in securing funding from other sources. The assessors consider the £5m of funding from sponsorship and admissions as potentially difficult to deliver. Risk A number of clear risks are identified. Whilst there is a good level of detail in the Assessment mitigating responses, these tend to illustrate the commitment of the local authority to overcoming the risk, rather than how practical solutions would be achieved. Legacy Although strategic and economic legacy elements are referenced within the bid, there is limited detail as to what this would look like and, importantly, how ‘The Modern Seaside Experience’ would continue beyond 2013. Learning and There is limited information on how the programme will be evaluated. Where this is evaluation referenced, it draws heavily on Liverpool’s approach to evaluation. Whilst the process of evaluation of impact may go on until 2021, the practicalities of this are not really outlined.

Page 3 Swansea Bay: Initial Bid for UK City of Culture

1.1 This note provides a summary of the bid assessment carried out by Regeneris Consulting on the Initial Bid submitted by Swansea Bay. It is based on the submitted bid and response to a number of clarification questions sent out the week beginning 4th January 2010.

1.2 There was an enthusiastic and excellent standard of response to the opportunity to become UK City of Culture 2013. The Independent Advisory Panel was impressed by the effort put into all the bids. This note summarises the feedback from the technical assessment and IAP. Summary Report on Swansea’s Initial Bid Key Strengths of the Bid: The bid would be able to build on a good foundation and track record of existing events and festivals (including the interesting but relatively small scale Dylan Thomas Festival) and a reasonable range of venues. The area has an established visitor economy which provides much of the visitor infrastructure which could support the bid. In general, the proposed delivery arrangements are relatively clear. A clear strength of the bid is the existing track record in community engagement programme, bringing the arts to local community and young people. Weaknesses or areas for development in the Bid: Compared to the shortlisted cities, the bid lacked a full explanation of why it would be a fitting location for UKCC from a UK perspective. Whilst the vision is interesting, this is not sufficiently translated well into the proposed design and delivery mechanisms for the programme. The programme is also relatively poorly developed compared to the better bids and less distinctive. Whilst the broad areas in which a step change is sought are identified, the scale of this change is not always clear and consequently it is difficult to gain a rounded view of how the designation will enable change to be realised. Whilst Swansea does have a number of artistic and cultural strengths around which a year long programme can be built, it was judged that on balance it currently lacks the necessary breadth and depth of cultural infrastructure and track record to deliver the scale of programme which would deliver the impacts sought for UKCC 2013. Compared to the more fully developed bids, Swansea’s bid provides less clarity on likely scale of the programme, the additional activity which would be funded over and above the anticipated baseline in 2013 and the likely funding sources. This was judged to be a major risk factor. Overall Assessment: This is an area experiencing considerable transformation that increasingly sees culture and tourism as an important part of the strategy to put it on the map. This aspect of the bid is laudable and will hopefully continue to feature in the future development strategy for Swansea Bay. The weaknesses in the rationale for seeking City of Culture and the nature and scale of the impacts were significant concerns. More crucially, the insufficient development of the proposed programme at this stage and lack of clarity around aspects of delivery, funding and legacy make this a risky bid.

The fuller technical assessment of the bid is also provided below: Overview Technical Assessment of the Swansea Initial Bid VISION, PROGRAMME & IMPACTS Your Area  The geographical area of the bid covers Swansea Bay, comprising Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and Carmarthenshire – an area with a total population of 550,000 (c1.5 million within a one hour drive time). The city of Swansea would be the focus for events. The area is reasonably well connected nationally and internationally (in particular via Cardiff International Airport). The area is sensible in terms of its coherence and connectivity. However, the economic, social and cultural need and anticipated step change are vague compared with the shortlisted bids.

Page 1 Overview Technical Assessment of the Swansea Initial Bid Overall Vision  An underpinning theme of the vision is that culture is both ordinary and extraordinary, although for UK City of the implications of this for the proposed programme are not spelt out clearly. Unlike most other Culture 2013 bids, the Swansea Bay bid lacks a full explanation of why it would be a fitting location for UKCC from a UK perspective.  There are three clear step changes sought, as well as a number of additional measures which we would not consider to be significant step changes in this instance (increase in participation, creation of workshop accommodation). The degree of stretch or uplift sought is not clear in a number of instances. The desire for Swansea to be recognised as the cultural capital of Wales may not be realistically achievable through UKCC, given its current position compared to Cardiff.  The cultural themes – of which there are four strands – are clearly stated, though not well developed at this stage compared to other bidders. The bid would have benefited from the coherence and linkages between these themes and the vision being more clearly demonstrated at this stage. Cultural and  The bid is candid about the cultural and artistic weaknesses (with little on its strengths), though Artistic the bid provides minimal explanation if or how these might be overcome. The programme is set Strengths of the out at a fairly high level, with little sense of how the named artists would be involved in a Bid curatorial or performance role. The bid identifies the need to appoint an artistic director and 2010 onwards to generate programme ideas and buy-in.  The bid would build on a good foundation of existing events and festivals (including the Dylan Thomas Festival), a range of venues and a successful community participation programme for young people. The manner in which the towns and communities in the wider Swansea Bay area will be involved in the programme is fairly clearly set out. Social Impacts  The bid presents reasonable evidence on the current role culture plays in regeneration. There is a from the UK City good foundation on which to build in working with young people and this would be well linked to of Culture the proposed programme. Proposals for community engagement during the year are well set out in some instances, with a number of interesting mechanisms for doing this. Economic and  This is clearly seen by Swansea Bay as a key benefit from being UKCC. There is reasonably well Tourism Impacts developed tourism infrastructure within and around the city of Swansea in particular and a from the UK City dedicated tourism partnership for the area with good working relations with Visit Wales. The of Culture scale of economic impact is estimated in the bid, although the approach to estimation is not as clearly stated as many other bidders. There is a strong focus on the creative sector, although there is limited information on the current scale and change expected for the sector. DELIVERY PROPOSALS & CAPACITY Bid organisation  The lead organisation would be Swansea Bay Futures, an independent company originally set up & proposed by partners to raise the profile of the area. A delivery arm of SBF would be established to management manage the programme and the strategic and operational structures for a successful bid are and governance outlined. There is a central role identified for an overall artistic director and associate directors arrangements drawn from high profile local artists.  Overall, whilst the bid team recognise that this aspect of their bid needed much more detailed consideration, it is a relative strength of the bid. There also appears to be broad support for the bid from the public and cultural sectors locally. Track record  The area has a range of festivals and events of various sizes that are delivered, with many of the larger events being more popular arts, cultural and sporting events. As a consequence there is a reasonably strong track record, although this is much weaker for a number of art forms. The bidder has a particularly strong track record in community engagement, especially with young people.  Despite this valuable experience, running and sustaining a high profile year-long cultural and arts programme would be a significant challenge for the bidder at this stage and we consider this to be a significant risk of the bid. Partnerships and  An indicative cost breakdown is provided for the £10m programme, although it is not fully clear Funding what proportion of this is over and above the current baseline. The bid also states that the expected cost of the programme would probably be higher than this but does not state why this might be the case. Whilst the potential funders are identified, the level of the potential funding from these sources is unclear at this stage. The lack of clarity and general uncertainty about funding was a clear weakness of the bid and a significant risk.

Page 2 Overview Technical Assessment of the Swansea Initial Bid Risk Assessment  The bid identifies the main risk, which we agree with, as being around the ability to deliver the anticipated impact. But there is little consideration given to the funding and delivery risks which are likely to be the more significant risks for the bidder, DCMS and the potential funders. Legacy  The bid sets out the main areas of legacy and brings these to life through imagined quotes from the various interest groups. Whilst this discussion is helpful; a major weakness is the lack of discussion of the process, actions and funding that would ensure that the impacts are secured and a lasting legacy delivered. The bid consequently scored poorly on this criterion. Learning and  The bid provides a helpful statement of how the partners propose to evaluate the programme and evaluation share learning with others. The bid proposes a budget of £50,000 for this activity, which we would judge to insufficient given the scale and importance of UKCC.

Page 3