SCACT Paddock Gardens STC

SCACT – Paddock Gardens – STC Friday 12 May 2017

Present: STC: Cllrs J Hogben, J Carey, D Elliott, A Hall and K Pike. Trevor Savage Town Clerk and Sue Woodford Civic Administrator SCACT: Sir Robert Fry, John Baulch, Chris Mitchell, Annette Ratuszniak and Triff Skepelhorn

Notes of Meeting

1.0 Notes/Minutes

1.1 SCACT responded to the brief they were given at the last meeting:

 To consider means by which to avoid the breach of the west wall by loading and unloading at the southern end of the site.  To advise on progress with the traffic and parking management.  To give a detailed justification for their wish to have total control of the management of the Paddock Garden.

1.2 Sir Robert Fry said they had re-looked at the Gallery proposal and the adjacent spaces, realising how fortunate it could be to have the gallery building adjacent to a lovely space and by utilising the Paddock Garden it makes the best of an inherent advantage. He likened it to the Holburne in Bath which is a beautiful interesting building in a well maintained public open space. The two being mutually beneficial and making a stronger ‘whole’. Chris Mitchell explained the vision of ‘inside to outside’ as the two become one integrated unit.

2.0 Traffic

2.1 Sir Robert Fry explained that SCACT had taken on board the Balfour Beatty report, and it had not changed their assessment, which indicated that there is sufficient capacity for the anticipated increase in vehicle numbers except at peak times, when additional parking would be sought. SCACT has contacted the various schools, the public schools in the town centre were keen to discuss making their facilities available during the holiday period, as it could be an additional revenue source for them. It is likely that the peak periods will occur during school holidays and it was noted that the Boys school is a short walk away, the Girls school a little further. The Gryphon school have also been approached and SCACT maintain an interest in using the Terrace Playing Field, as an overspill and for coaches.

2.2 Trevor Savage asked if the SCACT traffic/parking assessment had been fed into the Balfour Beatty findings. John Baulch stated that the County Council Highway department will receive a copy of the report as part of the pre-application process. It was noted that a Parking Consultation Event for Sherborne will be held on 25 May 2017 at the Digby Hall, Hound Street and it would be helpful if the ARUP report could be received by DCC before then. Agreed that SCACT will send Trevor Savage a copy of its draft transport report.

2.3 Cllr A Hall noted that Balfour Beatty had averaged their statistics throughout the day, not at specific times, noting that certain times were far busier than others. SCACT confirmed the draft ARUP report assesses the impact of the Gallery on the public car parks at hourly intervals over the days surveyed. It also takes into account the loss of the 14 spaces in the Market Car Park. 3.0 West Wall – to breach or not to breach

3.1 Robert Fry invited John Baulch to explain that SCACT had looked at alternative designs and listened to the proposals put forward at the last meeting, seeking alternative delivery arrangements that would avoid the need to breach the west wall of the Paddock Garden to make an entrance for delivery vehicles.

3.2 As a result they have quite radically redesigned the interior of the building by moving the gallery space so the building can incorporate both an internal goods lift and an external scissor lift platform to the upper gallery space. This new configuration should make it possible to unload 95% of the pieces for display within the curtilage of the gallery site at the southern end. However, the remaining 5% of heavier/taller exhibits could not be delivered using these facilities simply because of their weight and dimensions. So the taller objects would still need to be delivered via the Paddock Gardens.

3.3 The redesign includes the incorporation of a recessed area on the west side of the front of the building, in which a lorry could be parked whilst it un-loads, this avoids any obstruction in the gardens. The footway from the Paddock to the rear of the gallery should only need to be closed off for a maximum of 5 minutes whilst the exhibits are loaded or unloaded. The redesign also involves the provision of a single storey frontage to the gallery, providing a better visual aspect from the Paddock Gardens. There could be a planted roof garden and possibly stone loggia. John Baulch agreed to forward to Trevor Savage an artist’s impression of these proposed changes to the original design concept.

3.4 The Working Group then asked if therefore there was still a need to breach the west wall of the Paddock Garden and if there was, was it financially justifiable to go to the expense of structural change to the gardens and adjacent wall just to accommodate that extra 5%. Sir Robert reiterated his statement that SCACT did not wish to build in any limitations to the Gallery, and to exclude that 5% would instantly create a limitation, which in turn would make it impossible to have certain pieces or exhibitions, therefore reducing footfall and thus revenue.

3.5 Cllr Hogben supported this arrangement and agreed that including that extra 5% was a must and she asked Cllr Carey for his views; Cllr Carey agreed that he could see the justification for the breach in the wall as it would be a shame not to be able to show those larger exhibits. Cllr Elliott also expressed his support.

3.6 Cllr A Hall asked if the breach in the wall would avoid the removal of the Monkey Puzzle Tree, John Baulch gave assurance that the proposed new gate would be to the south of that tree.

4. General Questions

4.1 Cllr Elliott asked if an ultrasound had been done of the Chestnut Tree in the lower garden to establish if the tree was a healthy specimen and how long it should continue to thrive. Sir Robert observed that the tree is part of the character of the site and a useful buffer for the neighbouring properties. It was agreed that the arboricultural report would be sent to Trevor Savage.

4.2 Cllr Hogben asked what provision had been made for the disability parking and drop off points? John Baulch explained that groups of disabled could be serviced by a special minibus space alongside the lower gallery. Specifically allocated parking for the disabled could be provided in the adjacent car parks. The ‘Transport Assessment’ is work in progress and already amounts to 63 pages and within that an accessibility policy is essential, as for all public buildings. 5.0 Management of Paddock Garden

5.1 Sir Robert emphasised that SCACT will have a duty of care and control over any gallery built and the reason why they wish to have control over the garden is to ensure it is a simple and unified integrated space, with a unitary method of control.

5.2 Annette explained that the gallery would not be covered by a normal commercial insurance cover, but would require national government indemnity administered by the Arts Council which required approval from the Secretary of State and HM Revenue. The requirement of this indemnity includes the security of the peripheral areas, ie Paddock Garden. It also includes the insurance of works of art from venue to venue, both inside and out, requiring the Gallery to prove its competency and capability to exercise standards of security and risk evaluation that support that. The specification includes emergency and disaster plans, management of the security of the building when open or closed with either night guards or a comprehensive alarm system with immediate emergency/security service response, tested on a monthly basis. This cover includes damage from water, theft and robbery, vandalism, aircraft and has implications on the routes into the building, hence Annette implied that there are risks associated with Paddock Garden.

5.3 Trevor Savage pointed out that it is not just the Paddock Garden, but the adjacent car parks and the gardens of the houses in Hound Street that are equally short of surveillance and subject to vandalism or theft. He noted that a lower level of security is required for the properties that are presently the responsibility of the Town Council and queried with some surprise if this was the main reason SCACT was seeking the management of Paddock Garden.

5.4 Sir Robert stressed that indemnity is fundamental and if STC were to keep control of the gardens and endeavour to meet all the provisions, in the event of any intervention STC may be liable.

5.5 Chris Mitchell returned to the more fundamental reason why SCACT wish to have control of the management of the gardens – he again stated ‘one space’, managed as one and looked after as one, as the ‘front door’ to the gallery. If SCACT are to invest in the gallery, it needs to work properly and all aspects need to satisfy the high standards to which they aspire. The Paddock Gardens will be an actively used integral space with the success of the gallery being measured as much by the way people use the outdoor space and its outdoor activities, as by what goes on in the Gallery itself.

5.6 Cllr A Hall was still concerned that at present the garden is a place to chill and it will significantly change the character and enquired as to will the planting scheme be changed as it is presently a plantsman’s garden.

5.7 Sir Robert stressed that there will be no structural changes without agreement of the proposed Board of Governance which will include STC representation, they are not thinking of radical changes.

5.8 Cllr Hogben suggested that the Town Council staff are efficient and have a good level of expertise and suggested that should the project go ahead, a trial period of Town Council management should be considered.

5.9 It was generally agreed that custodianship and management of the garden is an emotive matter and a compromise agreement may not be satisfactory to either party. Agreed there is need to look at the technical elements of the required indemnity and perhaps take legal advice. 6.0 Conclusion

6.1 Sir Robert rounded the meeting up stating that they were making progress with the Traffic proposals, the new design and proposals for access were greeted favourably, but with regards to management of the gardens, there were two sets of perceptions which needed to be brought together.

6.2 SCACT listed their actions as:  Issue Traffic Report – Draft  Look at Artists Impression of the gardens and gallery and forward to STC  Forward the Arboricultural survey.  Continue to think about the arrangements for management of the garden.  Pre –application, supply copy of the pre-application document and notify STC of the date so that it can be represented at the talks.

6.3 Cllr Pike asked if the Business Plan was available? Chris Mitchell said they are still working on it and it will be circulated when the numbers are ready. Trevor Savage acknowledged it will not be possible to completely finalise the Business Plan until there is greater clarity as to the outcome of the planning process with WDDC.

6.4 Cllr Pike also asked what will happen to the project should, for instance, the benefactor was no longer around to support it or if the project were to fail ? Sir Robert stated that it would be up to the Trustees of SCACT to ensure the Business Plan for the Gallery is robust and that satisfactory arrangements for funding of the construction of the Gallery building are in place before SCACT committed to the construction contract.

6.5 Trevor Savage asked if SCACT had been able to answer the questions raised by a resident as detailed in the previous meeting notes. SCACT said it was in hand and they are taking advice.

6.6 There was concern as to whether these talks will have progressed sufficiently for the matter to be taken to Town Council on 17 July 2017.

6.0 Date of Next Working Group Meeting

The date of Friday 26 May, 2017 at 9.30 pm. was agreed for STC Working Group to meet but no other date was suggest at this point for a joint meeting between the Working Group and SCACT.