PE1083/I
CORPORATE SERVICES
Date: 1 May 2008 Mr Fergus D Cochrane Senior Clerk Your ref: Public Petitions Committee Scottish Parliament Our ref: JI/Leith Museum [email protected]
Dear Mr Cochrane
PETITION PE1083 - THE CAMPAIGN FOR A LEITH MUSEUM
I refer to your letter to Tom Aitchison of 8 November 2007 requesting a further response from The City of Edinburgh Council to the above Petition on “what practical and financial support it can and will give to progress the establishment of a Leith Museum.”
Following my letter to Mr Franck David of 12 December 2007 on this subject, the Council’s Culture and Leisure Committee approved a range of recommendations on proposals for the future of the city’s museums and galleries at its meeting on 5 February 2008. (The report can be found at http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=107517) The Committee noted the intention to pursue negotiations for a Leith Museum. There has been strong local interest in a possible Leith Museum for a number of years and there is now an opportunity to work with a range of partners to progress this significant development. The regeneration of the Waterfront could provide an appropriate context for the establishment of a Leith Museum.
The Council could provide practical help in the form of staff expertise. Staff within the Museums Team could offer regular support and advice to the Leith Museum Group, a body set up by interested parties to campaign for the creation of a Leith Museum. Council officials could also work with potential partners to pursue negotiations to explore the establishment of such a Museum. However, the Council could not offer any financial support at this stage to the project.
I will report further to the Council’s Culture and Leisure Committee in September 2008 to outline interim measures that could be taken to support the aim of developing a Leith Museum, and will provide you with a copy of that report to keep the Public Petitions Committee up-to-date on this work.
JIM INCH DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES
Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel 0131 469 3067 Fax 0131469 3010
PE1083/I
CORPORATE SERVICES
As I noted in my earlier letter, the City of Edinburgh Council supports the establishment of a Leith Museum.
Yours sincerely
JIM INCH Director of Corporate Services
JIM INCH DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES
Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel 0131 469 3067 Fax 0131469 3010
PE1083/I
Item no 5
Report no +
ED1N BVRGH + THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
A New Future for the City’s Museums and Galleries
Culture and Leisure Committee 5 February 2008
1 Purpose of report
1.I To present proposals for the future of the City’s Museums and Galleries to create a service fit for the capital of Scotland in the 2IstCentury.
2 Summary
2.1 The report “Council Review 2007: Culture and Sport, Priorities for Edinburgh”, approved by the Council at its meeting on 23 November 2006, called for “a management review of the museums and galleries service and to consider alternative models of provision, including trust and other partnership models”.
2.2 Following the reporting of the Project Initiation Document (PID) to the City Council on 8 March, a cross-departmental project team (Appendix 1) has been working under the aegis of the Chief Executive to research, benchmark and develop options for the future management of the City’s Museums and Galleries.
2.3 Following this programme of work, a series of options for the future were developed.These were appraised by the Project Team and a way forward emerged.
2.4 It is proposed to create two major cultural “hubs”, to form the focus of a service of European quality - appropriate for Edinburgh.
2.5 The “Museums Hub” in the Canongate would include the extended and renewed Museum of Edinburgh alongside the re-located and revitalised Museum of Childhood.
2.6 In Market Street the City Art Centre will form the core of the “Arts Hub”, extending on to the site to the west, 6-8 Market Street, and incorporating a number of the city’s publicly supported, independent contemporary art galleries. Initial discussions with gallery representatives and the Scottish Arts Council indicate a considerable degree of interest in this proposal.
1 PE1083/I
2.7 There will be a further review of the management arrangements for the remainder of the estate, which is made up of: the Writers’ Museum, the Museum Collections Centre, the Observatory Complex on Calton Hill, Lauriston Castle, Trinity Apse, the Travelling Gallery, the City’s monuments and Newhaven and Queensferry Community Museums. This report includes indicative proposals for the future of these important venues.
2.8 The Council and Museums officials are also aware of a long standing desire in the local community for the establishment of a museum for Leith. This has most recently seen expression in a petition to the Scottish Parliament. Informal discussions have been held with representatives of the campaign and with other local stakeholders and potential partners. With the expansion of the Waterfront and the re-development of the Dock area, there is now a clear opportunity for the Council to work in partnership with others towards making this ambition a reality. 2.9 The next step, following consideration by the Culture and Leisure Committee of the proposed direction of travel, will be to produce a detailed business case for the major changes outlined above, alongside a projected timetable for implementation.
3 Main report
Background: Why change is needed
3.1 The City’s Museums trace their origins back to the nineteenth century. The Museum Service grew slowly until the mid-I 970s. 3.2 From then until the mid-l990s, the City’s Museums and Galleries Service steadily expanded and improved, with new museums opening, older ones being refurbished and a trailblazing series of major “Blockbuster” exhibitions mounted at the City Art Centre. 3.3 The People’s Story was created in 1989, the Museum of Childhood was extended and redisplayed in 1985/6, the City Art Centre goes back to 1980, with an extension in 1992 and much of the Museum of Edinburgh has its origins in the 1970s re-display of Huntly House Museum. Acheson House was purchased in 1995 with a view to expanding Huntly House. 3.4 Over the last ten years, the financial position of the former Culture and Leisure Department, and now the Culture and Sports Division of Corporate Services has become more challenging and the opportunity for mounting major exhibitions has declined. Local competition has increased significantly - the Queen’s Gallery (2002), the Dean Gallery (1999) and the extended National Gallery (2004) have all entered the “blockbusters” field in the past few years - and the financial, spatial and environmental expectations of exhi bition lenders have increased considerably.
3.5 This situation has been made all the more challenging by the nature of the Service in the city centre, which operates out of six separate buildings, all of which are of historic significance. This puts a considerable strain on the staffing and property maintenance budgets as well as providing specific challenges regarding access and the provision of modern facilities to meet the expectations of today’s visitors.
2 PE1083/I
3.6 Collections are the heart of a museum service. Edinburgh, to date, has two collections which are now recognised as being of National Significance -the Fine Art and Childhood collections. Curators are working hard to prepare submissions which demonstrate additional aspects of Edinburgh’s Civic Museum Collections which ought to be considered under the National Recognition Scheme. The opportunity will be taken, through this review, to make the most of these collections and provide them with both the public access and the high quality care that they merit.
3.7 This review affords the first opportunity for at least thirty years to take a look at the totality of the council’s museum provision and identify a way forward that will meet the expectations of today’s visitors, in terms of access, public facilities and interpretation and ensure the long term care of the collections, to standards that live up to Edinburgh’s status as a major European City, highly regarded for its heritage and cultural excellence.
3.8 It is clear from the above - supported by further data analysed below and in the various appendices - that change is both necessary and desirable.
How does Edinburgh’s Museums and Gallery Service measure up?
3.9 Appendix 2 contains a fuller synopsis of three qualitative measures: the VisitScotland Attraction Star Grading Scheme, the Accreditation Scheme, administered by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLAC) and the results of visitor surveys conducted for the Service by The Audience Business (TAB). 3.10 Between them, these three measures indicate that Edinburgh’s Museums offer a professional service, with excellent staff, but in venues that fail to meet modern standards. 3.1 1 All the Civic Museums and Galleries currently meet the standards of the Accreditation Scheme, which “recognises the importance of collections and effective collections management as the foundation for everything that museums strive to do. Without adequate collections care and documentation, the potential of museums to extend access to new audiences, encourage learning and inspire people’s creativity would, eventually, be lost. Accreditation also addresses the needs of museum visitors.” It is far from certain that this would continue to be the case without major investment in the museum service. Loss of Accreditation would close the door on major funding streams from, for example, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Scottish Museums Council.
3.12 Under the VisitScofland grading scheme, however, the Service comes out quite poorly. VisitScotland uses a five-level star grading system to indicate the standard of customer care and range of facilities on offer at assessed establishments (5 is world class, 1 is adequate). The awards focus on the standard of the welcome, hospitality and service they provide, as well as presentation and the standard of toilets, shop or cafe if they have them.
3 PE1083/I
3.13 The service has one four star venue, seven with three and three with two stars. A number of visitor attractions in Edinburgh have been awarded five stars including Edinburgh Castle, Our Dynamic Earth, Royal Yacht Britannia, Mary King’s Close, Edinburgh Zoo and the National Museum of Scotland. Four star attractions include the Scottish Parliament, Holyrood Palace, Royal Botanic Gardens, and the Camera Obscura. Of the 62 venues listed within Edinburgh only five are two star, three of which are our venues.
3.14 In 2006 the City’s Museums and Galleries commissioned TAB to carry out audience research across nine venues in its museums and galleries portfolio, updating extensive research carried out by TAB in 2003. The main aims were to: 0 Identify the demographic profile, satisfaction levels, motivations and attendance patterns of current visitors at City of Edinburgh Council museums and galleries; 0 Assess awareness and perceptions of the museums and galleries, as well as barriers to attendance for non-attenders;
0 Assess cross-over within all the museums and galleries and set in a wider Edinburgh context; and
0 Compare 2003 and 2006 research.
3.15 The findings from the 2006 survey were broadly in line with those of 2003. This was expected as no significant investment in buildings or programming has taken place. The greatest barrier to participation identified in 2003 was lack of Sunday opening. This was implemented at the Museum of Childhood and City Art Centre which resulted in a significant improvement in visitors’ perception of accessibility. This had to be withdrawn in October 2007 for financial reasons. The Review has, however, also identified the potential to review opening hours, to reflect European patterns, which would enable re-opening on Sundays. Any adjustment will be introduced from 1 April 2008.
How does Edinburgh’s Museums and Gallery Service compare with others? 3.16 Edinburgh is a member of the Group for Larger Local Authority Museums (GLLAM), a UK wide body which collates a range of Benchmarking information. In addition, services in comparable northern European capital cities were reviewed and Helsinki selected as a comparator. Full information is provided in Appendix 3.
3.17 These figures illustrate that Edinburgh “punches above its weight” in terms of visits per 1,000 population, visits per member of staff and income pro rafa. Edinburgh also scores highly in terms of the lowest cost per head of population and per visitor.
3.18 In terms of capital expenditure, however, what is clear is that Edinburgh has not been keeping pace with the investment levels achieved in other Cities across the UK as they have succeeded in securing lottery funds.
4 PE1083/I
Options Appraisal
3.19 Consideration was given to a range of options for the future of the service. These are described in more detail in Appendix 4. One of the factors influencing the appraisal of the options was the status of the buildings housing the Museums. Appendix 5 lists them with their status, in terms of Listed Building Category, ownership and Common Good.
3.20 The Project Team undertook a scoring exercise, scoring each option against defined criteria as described in Appendix 4a, the two most favoured options were: . the creation of an Arts Hub at the Old Royal High School, with a Museums Hub in the Canongate; and retain the Museums Hub, and site an expanded Arts Hub at the City Art Centre.
3.21 Consideration was given to mantaining the status quo. As described in paragraphs 3.2 - 3.7, this would mean that the city centre service would continue to operate from a number of different buildings, all requiring varying degrees of modernisation and upgrading. The current problems relating to staffing levels, access and scale would remain. The service would continue its slow decline. For this and other related reasons this Option came ninth out of ten in the formal appraisal. It will, however, feature in the development of a business case for the approved way forward, in order to provide a context for the significant changes proposed in this report.
3.22 Following the outcome of this exercise, further work has been undertaken to evaluate the two options, including consultation with potential partners, a comparison of indicative costings based on previous proposals for each site, an accommodation review and the clarification of the potential availability of the “gap site”, adjacent to the City Art Centre at 6-8 Market Street, which has strengthened the case to pursue the Arts Hub at the City Art Centre. While the Old Royal High School now appears less attractive, it will continue to be considered, pending the outcome of the Hill Adamson Project’s bid for funding to be considered by the Scottish Government imminently.
3.23 In terms of Management Arrangements, the three options considered were to: 0 transfer them to another body, such as the National Museums or the National Trust for Scotland; put the museums into a trust; and 0 retain management within the Council.
Transfer 3.24 National Museums Scotland is the country’s national museum service. It also provides advice, expertise and support to the museums’ community across Scotland. It does not offer local museum services. Both the National Museums and the National Galleries have embarked on major investment programmes on their own estates, but have both indicated that they would welcome closer working on creative programming, storage and a Museum of Leith initiative. In the Options Appraisal the idea of Transfer came 8‘h out of 10 proposals.
5 PE1083/I
Trust
3.25 The principal advantages of creating a Trust include greater financial and management autonomy and one of the main drivers is the opportunity for financial savings. An analysis of the potential impact of transferring to a Trust suggests that this would produce a relatively small financial benefit - the relief from Non-Domestic Rates (f11 3,168 in 2007/8) - which may not be considered sufficient to justify the loss of democratic control and accountability, nor, indeed, to fund the additional management costs this would entail. As the Non- Domestic rates apply to the current estate, it may be considered appropriate to re-consider the trust option once the two “hubs” have been established and the rates position has changed.
3.26 The issue of additional management costs is complex, relating to those services currently provided “in house”, such as Finance, HR, Property Management, Legal Services etc. The Museums and Galleries share of central support costs for 2006/07 was f550,936. This is an internal re-charge, and only an indicative figure. Were the Trust not to use Council resources for these support services the relevant sections would require identifying savings to cover the reduction in cost recovery, while the Trust would require additional resources to provide them for itself.
Retain: The Way Forward
3.27 The two key concepts proposed for taking the review forward are the development of a Museums Hub and an Arts Hub. These are described in more detail below, with proposals for future direction and development of the remainder of the Museums Service being described subsequently.
The Museums Hub
3.28 Situated in the World Heritage Site, based around a unique complex of Category A Listed Buildings in the heart of the former Burgh of the Canongate, the proposed Museums Hub provides a strong focus for the service that will offer a museum service unique to Edinburgh. The buildings - 142/146 Canongate, Acheson House and Canongate Tolbooth - all date from the 16th and 17‘h centuries and are recognised as the most important surviving group in the Old Town.
3.29 The Museums Hub will encompass the Museum of Edinburgh, the People’s Story, and the Museum of Childhood. The building currently housing the Museum of Childhood is largely domestic in character and is sited in the centre of a housing complex, making it an attractive property to dispose of to support the funding of the Museums Hub.
6 PE1083/I
3.30 The special character of the constituent museums will be retained in the new Hub and the opportunity taken to create outstanding contemporary museum displays, with a range of supporting facilities and commercial activities. The style of the Hub will build on the innovative work already carried out on the design concept for the Museum of Edinburgh. The ambition is to create a “must see” visitor experience which tells the story of Edinburgh through our unique collections and historic building gems, which will build audiences locally and attract visitors to the city.
The Arts Hub
3.31 Extending the City Art Centre to the west, on to the “gap site” and former police pound at 4/6 Market Street, will provide an exciting new arts space for Edinburgh, building on the strengths of the City Art Centre, overcoming its weaknesses, particularly in regard to environmental conditions, access for larger exhibits and the limitations of the current gallery spaces, while providing another unique facility for Edinburgh. It will also enable the Travelling Gallery to be more effectively supported.
3.32 Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations with potential partner organisations, the New City Centre Arts Hub will provide homes for a group of publicly supported independent arts organisations under one roof, all with access to up to date, state of the art exhibition, studio and workshop spaces. This partnership venue will require a new management structure, to give each of the partners a stake in the operation of the Centre.
3.33 All the potential partners occupy Council owned venues and there will be scope through capital receipts or revenue savings to support an element of the capital cost of the project. Earlier plans for a Science Centre on the site included commercial elements, such as flats and shops. This may represent a useful way ahead as the Arts Hub is developed.
A Business case
3.34 It must be emphasised that, should the Committee support the development of the Museums and/or Arts Hubs, it will be necessary to undertake a detailed business case to assess the affordability of the proposal before the scheme can be approved by Committee.
7 PE1083/I
The City’s Museums Service
3.35 The two hubs are only part of the story. In the city centre, there is scope for re- thinking the Writers’ Museum, in partnership with the Central Library and other partners. Potentially, the actual collections could form part of the Museum of Edinburgh, while the Writers’ Museum, sitting in Makars’ Court could become a more active player in the World City of Literature as a Writers’ Centre and base for relevant organisations. More discussions with possible partners will be undertaken and firmer proposals developed early in 2008.
3.36 One implication of vacating the current Museum of Childhood building and other service changes will be the necessity to increase specialist storage - storage which provides the appropriate environmental and security conditions, combined with managed public access. Following a great deal of research, consultation and relationship building, it has been recognised that there is considerable potential to work with a range of partners moving forward - the City Archives, Central Library, National Archives and National Galleries, as well as oth’er museum services in the East of Scotland Partnership, and other public services -to develop a “hub” proposal, for which the City Council is currently a Pathfinder authority. This would also include the current Museum Co II ectio n s Cent re.
3.37 The Pathfinder hub initiative proposes a new joint venture between the public and private sectors designed to make it easier to deliver the infrastructure the city needs while providing best value for taxpayers. In essence, the hub initiative will support the delivery of accessible, seamless, quality services from single access points based in local communities and it should, therefore, underpin improved outcomes.
3.38 There are two small community museums in the current service grouping - Newhaven and South Queensferry. The way that these are provided will be reviewed in conjunction with our partners in the local communities, and Neighbourhood Management colleagues in Services for Communities. There are a number of other museums in the city that are supported by the Council in different ways (Appendix 6). This segment of the Review can address the potential for adopting a consistent approach to supporting the city’s heritage across the board with no reduction in public service provision.
3.39 The service manages buildings that sit within important landscapes managed by Services for Communities - Lauriston Castle, the City Observatory Complex and Nelson Monument on Calton Hill. The latter is to be subject to the development of a Management Plan which is reported elsewhere on this agenda. Both sites require innovative approaches to allow the Council to fulfil its obligations, within realistic funding parameters. Further work needs to be undertaken and will be the subject of future reports developed with Services for Communities to ensure a fully co-ordinated approach to the management of the buildings and their landscape settings.
8 PE1083/I
3.40 Trinity Apse, in Chalmer’s Close, off the High Street, is another significant historic building, currently housing the Brass Rubbing Centre, which could be disposed of, although would be quite challenging in terms of appropriate alternative uses and there may be Common Good restrictions on disposal. Any capital receipt would make a further contribution to the development of the Museums Hub. Long term lease arrangements with alternative interested parties may also provide an income stream to the Museums and Galleries Service should disposal be unachievable.
3.41 The one completely new project proposed would be the creation of a Museum for Leith. The local desire for such a museum has been expressed over the years and there does now seem to be an opportunity to work with a range of partners to deliver this significant development. There was a Museum in Leith early in the twentieth century, at Starbank House. The city’s museums have long aspired to see a Leith Museum re-born. The regeneration of the Waterfront, including Leith Docks provides a favourable context for the establishment of such a museum.
Timetabling and the Management of Change
3.42 The development of the Arts Hub and Museums Hub are both complex and would take time to plan, and would then need to be implemented in a co- coordinated manner, to minimise service disruption.
3.43 It is proposed to put in place an interim management structure, to create a small group of senior managers, led by the Museums Manager, to undertake this work and maximise the effective use of resources. A formal review will be conducted in accordance with Council Procedures and implemented as soon as possible. Appendix 7 is the remit for this review.
4 Financial Implications 4.1 The development of a full Business Case will be required to define the capital costs of these changes, including the potential capital receipts and revenue savings, both short and long term. This has a potential revenue cost, although external funding will be sought from the Heritage Lottery Fund and other Trust and Foundations. The Director of City Development has offered to provide assistance with this process. 5 Risk 5.1 At this stage, the main risk is the raising of false hopes. The exciting and complex nature of these initial proposals means that they will require considerable resources to develop in detail and will also rely on the support of a large number of stakeholders and partners to assemble the capital budget required.
5.2 The nature of the museum estate, detailed in Appendix 5, is such that it includes a number of properties that can be classified as “Inalienable Common Good”. This will add complexity to any proposed disposal, change of use or redevelopment and may add an element of uncertainty to, at least, initial business planning assumptions.
9 PE1083/I
6 Consultation
6.1 Consultation is referred to throughout this report - consultees vary from major organisations, such as the National Museums, National Galleries and Scottish Arts Council and a range of independent contemporary visual arts organisations, to community groups in South Queensferry, Newhaven and Leith. Feedback from all meetings to date has proved positive.
6.2 Meetings have been held with staff groups to make sure that they are fully involved in the process. The feedback from these meetings has also proved to be positive.
6.3 Following consideration by the Culture and Leisure Committee, a consultation and communications plan will be developed for each element of this Review going forward. 7 Conclusions
7.1 The outcome of the first stage of this Review has identified a clear route map towards the creation of an exciting modernised Museums and Galleries service for the whole city, based around an Arts Hub and Museum Hub in the city centre, with a range of innovative solutions for all venues.
7.2 A further tranche of work is now to assess the affordability of these proposals. This will involve the preparation of a detailed Business Case.
8 Recommendations
8.1 The Culture and Leisure Committee is recommended to:
(0. welcome the outcome of the review of the city’s museum and gallery service; (ii). approve, in principle, the creation of the “Museums Hub” and “Arts Hub” as described in paragraphs 3.28 - 3.30 and 3.31 - 3.33; (iii). instruct the preparation of a detailed business case, particularly indicative capital and revenue projections, management arrangements, the outcome of negotiations with potential partner organisations and an outline timetable for the implementation of the project, reporting progress to the Culture and Leisure Committee in due course; (iv). note the intention to pursue negotiations for a museum for Leith and for alternative management arrangements for Newhaven and Queensferry Community Museums, together with the creation of a consistent approach to all such supported museums in the city, progress to be reported to the Culture and Leisure Committee as appropriate;
(VI- note also the intention to negotiate with other partners about the future management arrangements - including rationalising the property holdings to assist with the affordability of the Museums and Arts Hubs - of the Writers’ Museum, Trinity Apse, Lauriston Castle, the Observatory Complex on Calton Hill and the Museums Collection Centre and receive further reports on these negotiations as they reach outcomes;
10 PE1083/I
(vi). call for the ownership of the site known as 6-8 Market Street (the vacant lot next to the City Art Centre and the former car poundlgarage) to be retained meantime, to allow for the potential extension of the City Art Centre and creation of a contemporary visual arts hub to be considered through the preparation of a detailed business case; and (vii). instruct the development and introduction of an interim management structure, to facilitate the implementation of this complex programme of change and maintain the current service, noting that a full staffing and management review will be required as the future shape of the service becomes clear.
Director of Cyyorate ServicesfY/q%
Appendices 1 Membership of the Project Team 2 How Edinburgh Performs 3 How Edinburgh Compares 4 Options Appraisal 5 Legal Status of Venues 6 Council supported Community and Specialist Museums and Collections in Edinburgh 7 Proposed Review of Management Structure - Remit
Contactftel Lynne Halfpenny, Head of Culture and Sport 0131 529 3657 email: [email protected] Frank Little, Museums Manager 0131 529 7908 email: [email protected] Derek Janes, Quality and Performance Manager 0131 529 3951 email: [email protected]
Wards affected City Wide
Background Files held in Culture and Sport, Waverley Court Papers
11 Appendix 1 PE1083/I
MUSEUMS REVIEW: MEMBERSHIP OF PROJECT TEAM
Chair Frank Little, Museums Manager, Culture and Sport
Support Louise Williamson, Senior Project Officer, Culture and Sport
Corporate Services, Culture and Sport Derek Janes, Quality and Performance Manager Denise Brace, Acting Manager Social History Museums
Corporate Services, HR Richard Powell, Consultant
Corporate Services, PSP Euan Renton, Consultant
Corporate Services, Legal Services Eileen Threlfall, Senior Solicitor
City Development, Asset Management Anne Crawford, Property Manager Bettina Sizeland, Asset Investment Group Leader
Finance Stuart Mullen, Finance Manager Appendix 2 PE1083/I
Performance Measures
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council: Museum Accreditation Scheme
Setting the standard
The Museum Registration Scheme was established in 1988. Since then it has helped over 1800 museums across the UK to focus on standards and to identify areas for further work and development. In 2004, the Scheme was renamed Accreditation to better reflect its purpose and the achievements of those museums which meet the standards it sets out. The Scheme is regarded as one of the most innovative and effective developments in the museum sector in recent years. It has led the way in raising museum standards in the UK, and has been used as a model and source of inspiration for museums overseas. MLA administers the scheme in collaboration with the regional agencies for museums, libraries and archives in England, the Scottish Museums Council, the Northern Ireland Museum Council and CyMAL in Wales.
In novation and improvemen t
People expect more of museums today. The new standard has been developed by MLA and the museum community to keep pace with these expectations. It now gives greater emphasis to the needs and interests of those who use museums - or who might be encouraged to do so in the future. Accredited museums must adhere to published minimum standards in how they care for and document their collections, how they are governed and managed, and on the information and services they offer to their users. The Scheme encourages innovation and improvement through the use of other materials and resources produced by MLA relating to the care of collections, access, learning, inclusion and diversity. These materials provide support and guidance in meeting and exceeding the current standards.
Preserving the past for the future
Accreditation recognises the importance of collections and effective collections management as the foundation for everything that museums strive to do. Without adequate collections care and documentation, the potential of museums to extend access to new audiences, encourage learning and inspire people's creativity would, eventually, be lost. Accreditation also addresses the needs of museum visitors. It requires that all museums provide:
0 opportunities to use, enjoy and learn from the collections
0 an assurance that the collections, including donated items, are held in trust for society
0 information about the museum, its collections and its services
0 a commitment to consultation with users, to ensure that future developments and changes take account of their needs and interests Appendix 2 PE1083/I
appropriate visitor facilities or details about facilities nearby.
In this way, Accreditation helps museums to meet the needs of today's visitors, while at the same time safeguarding their collections for future generations.
The benefits of the Scheme
Accreditation enables museums and governing bodies to assess their current performance, and it supports them in planning and developing their services. The Scheme:
0 encourages museums to reach minimum levels in museum management, user services, visitor facilities and collections care 0 offers a shared ethical basis for all bodies that meet the definition of a museum 0 fosters public confidence in museums as institutions which hold collections in trust for society and which manage public resources responsibly, for both present and future generations 0 provides a benchmark for grant-making bodies, sponsors and donors wishing to support museums.
The standards embodied in the Scheme have been developed by the museum community working across a wide range of organisations, whether large or small, urban or rural, publicly-funded or run by volunteers. The development took place over three years and involved a range of extensive consultations and piloting. MLA will continue to review, update and expand the scheme over time.
VisitScofland Star Grading Scheme
VisitScotland operates a nationwide Quality Assurance Grading Scheme for visitor attractions. There are five grades which are awarded for the standard of facilities and services. These range from one star to five stars.
Grading ***** Exceptional/world class **** ExcelI ent *** Very good ** Good * Fair and acceptable
Grades are allocated according to performance under the following criteria Pre-arrival - publicity, signage, external appearance Arrival - staff welcome, layout, decor Presentation Catering Retail toilets Appendix 2 PE1083/I
Museum Collections 1 Awaiting award I Centre Visitor Attractions in Edinburgh A high percentage of visitor attractions in Edinburgh have been awarded with five stars and a number of them are within close proximity to the City Centre. Five star attractions include Edinburgh Castle, Dynamic Earth, Royal Yacht Britannia, Mary Kings Close, Edinburgh Zoo and the National Museum of Scotland. Four star attractions include Scottish Parliament, Holyrood Palace, Royal Botanic Gardens, and the Camera Obscura. Of the 62 venues listed within Edinburgh only 5 are ** star, three of which are our venues.
Audience Research and Evaluation
City of Edinburgh Council Museums and Galleries commissioned The Audience Business’ (TAB) in 2006 to carry out audience research across nine venues in its museums and galleries portfolio, updating extensive research carried out by TAB in 2003. The main aims were to: . Identify the demographic profile, satisfaction levels, motivations and attendance patterns of current visitors at City of Edinburgh Council museums and galleries . Assess awareness and perceptions of the museums and galleries, as well as barriers to attendance for non-attenders . Assess cross-over within all the museums and galleries and set in a wider Edinburgh context . Compare 2003 and 2006 research
The findings from the 2006 were broadly in line with those of 2003. This was expected as no significant investment in buildings or programming has taken place. The greatest barriers to participation identified in 2003 was lack of Sunday opening. This was implemented at the Museum of Childhood and City Art Centre which resulted in a significant improvement in visitor’s perception of accessibility. Appendix 2 PE1083/I
Key facts that have a major bearing on service delivery.
73% of all respondents came from outside Edinburgh and the Lothians Total visitors last year were c.600,000, therefore, only c.162,OOO came from Edinburgh and the Lothians to all venues.
74% were first time visitors This reflects the visitors to the city profile, above. The City Art Centre first time visitor figure is only 36%, indicating that it used more extensively by the Edinburgh audience.
82% did not have children under the age of 16 We can assume that what we offer is not perceived as a child friendly experience or visitors to the city do not come with families - only 34% of respondents had children with them at the Museum of Childhood, for example. This museum is not a museum for children but about toys and the adult experience of childhood.
Impact of Marketing Majority of visitors “just passing” - Queensferry: 64%, Museum of Edinburgh and People’s story almost 50% - publications represented 16% and word of mouth 13%, yet 49% knew about the Writers’ Museum through tourist pub Ii catio ns.
Main reasons for attending 1. they seemed interesting 2. to educate themselves and 3. a specialist interest The latter was the main reason for the visiting the CAC. It would seem that there is little awareness of what is on offer at all venues except CAC and the Writers Museum. Other reasons for attending were to educate and entertain children .
Main reason for not going more often They didn’t live in the area - again this reflects the proportion of “visitors to the city”
Highest awareness levels Scott Monument, Museums of Childhood and the Museum of Edinburgh
Little or no awareness Travelling Gallery, Newhaven and Queensferry.
Little awareness of what was on offer Only half thought museums had both temporary and permanent exhibitions There was a perception that the MoC and Peoples Story had only permanent displays. Appendix 2 PE1083/I
Awareness of other attractions Cross over between the CAC and the National Galleries
Visitor satisfaction Rated 3.6 to 4.3 with 1 as poor, 5 as excellent. Highest was overall experience 4.3 and quality of exhibits and quality of information on exhibits, 4.2
Venue Strengths Weaknesses City Art Centre Overall experience and Finding sources of quality of info on information, the shop exhibits and facilities Writers Museum Quality of info of Finding sources of exhibits, overall information, the shop experience and facilities Museum of Childhood Overall experience, Venue facilities quality of exhibits Museum of Edinburgh Quality of exhibits and Opening days and customer service finding sources of info People’s Story Quality of exhibits and Gallery shop and finding overall experience (4.3) sources of info Scott Monument ming days Overall experience Queensferry ;tomer service, quality of Venue facilities (1.8) exhibits and overall finding sources of info experience (2.8) Brass Rubbing Centre ;tomer service (4,8) Venue facilities 1.8 overall experience and opening times Newhaven dity of information on Venue facilities (1.4) exhibits, overall finding info (2.5) experience opening
Room for i mp rovemen t Biggest demand at all venues was for Sunday opening, asked for by 30%, 20% would like late night opening. Almost 25% felt the service was fine as it was. This perhaps reflects the lack of expectation. There was a greater demand for improvement at CAC then anywhere else.
Interpretation Audio guides and guided tours were in highest demand (particularly at MoE and Writers Museum). Little demand for cafe; hands-on exhibits demanded at MoC and PS, Information panels at MoE and CAC Appendix 2 PE1083/I
Key lessons for service delivery.
1. Our audience is predominately made up of visitors from outwith the City. With the exception of CAC, we fail to attract a substantial Edinburgh a ud ie nce.
2. Very few visit with children - this is perhaps a reflection of the makeup of visitors to the City. Alternatively it could be that what we provide is not perceived as child friendly, or for children. Demographically there is a reduction in the number of children living in the city.
3. Marketing impact is limited - 35% of visitors were “just passing by” and as many as 64% at Queensferry. Word of mouth accounted for a further 13%
4. Reasons for visiting - ‘seems interesting’ suggests little knowledge of what’s on offer. Specialist knowledge demonstrated by visitors to CAC and Writers Museum indicate that people know what to expect and that these venues are meeting the expectations of their specialist audiences.
5. What we have to offer - most are happy with the overall experience the quality of the exhibits and the information provided on exhibits, however, the provision of venue facilities is as weakness.
6. Greatest demand made was for Sunday opening (and late opening)
Non-attenders - locals
Those who did not attend were aware of: Scott Monument, MoC and CAC, were not aware of: Travelling Gallery, Lauriston Castle (33%) and People’s story (37%)
Reason for not attending: 24% not interested in museums and 18% said they were not relevant to them
Things likely to make them visit: Family events Sunday opening (16%) Late opening (15%)
27% said nothing would make them come
31% of non-attenders had visited a museum at least once in the last year Only 9% had never visited a museum (60% had not been in the last year) Appendix 2 PE1083/I
Main sources of information newspapers - 46% Word of mouth 30% Internet 16% Leaflets 13%
Key lessons for service delivery Only 27% of non-attenders would never visit, therefore nearly % could be encouraged to visit if we promoted family events, and extended opening hours.
Categories
Age Museums attract evenly across age groups - more 15-34 year olds visit the Scott Monument and the Writers Museums
Social Class Predominately higher social classes - Newhaven and Queensferry are the exceptions
Working Background 2/3rdin employment - more retired people at the CAC, PS and Queensferry. The MoE and Scott had more students
Place of Residence Ove ralI 73% came from outside Edinburgh and the Lothians, of whom: 38% from abroad 22% from the rest of Britain 13% from the rest of Scotland
By venue CAC: 56% came from Edinburgh and the Lothians, only 11% from abroad Writers' Museum: 70% came from abroad and 24% from Scotland and the rest of Britain BRC: 64% from abroad and 18% from the rest of Britain
Number of adults 53% were with one other 31 % on their own Groups tended to visit the Scott Monument
Families 82% did not have children under the age of 16. However, at the MOC 34% had children
Disability 97% did not consider themselves to have a disability Appendix 2 PE1083/I
Ethnic background 93% considered themselves to be white. This is lower than most other art forms - the figure normally is between 94 and 97% Majority of ethnic visitors are to the PS with 13% and 10% at MoE and MoC
Frequency The vast majority were first time visitors (74%) except the CAC, with only 36%
Marketing isn’t working This evidenced by the way people found out about the museums
Satisfaction Good: quality of exhi bits, information on exhi bits, overall experience. Poor: facilities and information.
Comparisons with the National Museums and Galleries.
The National Museums and Galleries have provided some basic information about their audiences for indicative comparisons. We can use this information in a very general way to assess some areas where our visitors may look different / similar to the Nationals’ visitors and to get a broad feel for trends at these other venues. However it should be noted that the results provided are not directly comparable, as their research was carried out using different methodologies, the results were not always presented in a comparable way and the complete picture of their results was not available. (The Galleries provided more information than the Museums.)
Looking at demographics, there was a similar trend towards higher female attendances with the Nationals. In terms of a visitor age profile, there were no striking differences when compared to the Galleries. However, the National Galleries did appear to have a more up market visitorship, with a higher proportion of A and Bs and a lower proportion in the C, D and E categories. It appears that the CEC venues are attracting a higher proportion of ethnic minority audiences than the Museums which only had a 2% non-white attenders in their survey compared with 8% at CEC venues.
General comparisons with the National Galleries and Museums suggest that the majority of their audiences are in full or part time employment. Also the National Galleries have a higher proportion of retired visitors and a slightly lower numbers of students, compared with CEC venues.
Interestingly, a large proportion of the audiences for both the National Galleries and Museums come from Edinburgh - 42% for the Museums and 40% for the Galleries, which is broadly in line with the City Art Centre. In terms of overseas visitors the Galleries get an average of 19% across all its venues, though there are sizable variations across the sites, with the Mound having 26% foreign visitors compared with the Dean Gallery’s 14%. The National Museums in Chambers Street have 22% foreign visitors. Appendix 3 PE1083/I
COMPARATIVE DATA
Benchmarking has been carried out with 25 other large local authority museums since 1998 as part of ‘The Group for Large Local Authority Museums’ (GLLAM).
Its 25 members represent some of the UK’s biggest cities or conurbations that operate museum services: they are Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bolton, Bradford, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Coventry, Derby, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, North Lanarkshire, Nottingham, Plymouth, Sheffield, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Swansea, Tyne and Wear, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The figures below are based on an average from 1998- 2003. The figures for 2004-6 have been compiled but no comparative analysis has been carried out.
The four cities below best meet comparison with Edinburgh.
WHAT THE FIGURES SHOW US
Briefly, these tables illustrate that Edinburgh “punches above its weight” in terms of visits per 1,000 population, visits per member of staff and income pro rata. Edinburgh also scores highly in terms of the lowest cost per head of population and per visitor
In terms of capital expenditure, however, what is clear is that Edinburgh has not been keeping pace with the investment levels achieved in other Cities as they have succeeded in securing lottery funds
Edinburgh actually runs 11 venues and over 200 monuments. 8 venues are reported because these are the ones that are registered under the MLA Museum Accreditation Scheme. Venues such as the Scott Monument, Nelson Monument are incorporated within the Museum of Edinburgh Accreditation return. Appendix 3 PE1083/I
Edinburgh's figures are based on 'A Collective Insight' The National Audit of Collections for Scotland. Over 50% of which are ofnational or UK importance.
Total Number of Visits G lasgow 2,847,833 Upper 1st Tvne and Wear 1.233.970 Utmer 2 nd Birmingham 764 ,74 1 Upper 3rd Ed i nbura h 656.31 1 Utmer Elth I Manchester 1287,533 I Median I 11th Edinburgh compares well with other authorities attracting in excess of 600,000 visitors and is the !jthmost visited service.
School Visits Glasaow 99.706 Utmer 1st Tyne and Wear 95,983 Upper 2 nd Birmingham 63,542 Upper 3rd Edinburgh 21,659 Median 13th Manchester 8,946 Lower 19th
L^ --.. I I I I 1,000 population Glasgow 4,792 I Upper 1st
1 Edinburahv I 1.462 pper 5th I Tyne and Wear I 1,119 I Median gth I Birminaham 1 785 I Median 113'h
Edinburgh ranks very highly because of it has significantly less staff to run venues than other comparable authorities. Appendix 3 PE1083/I
School Visits per Edls t aff member Edinburgh 14,398 Upper 1st Tvne and Wear 11.880 Umer 3rd Birmingham 6,186 Median 1Ith Manchester 4,576 Lower 16'h Glasgow 2,597 Lower 1gth
local authority. Edinburgh currently has two members of staff.
Average Cost of staff members (FTE) Birmingham €22,844 Upper 4th Manchester €21.153 Median gth Tyne and Wear €21,027 Median 1Oth Glasaow" €20.50 1 Median 14th I Edinburgh I€20,375 I Median I
Edinburgh operates its museum venues on considerably fewer staff than comparable authorities. Despite having only one less venue than Glasgow, Glasgow has 5 times as many staff and Manchester almost twice as many and runs only 5 venues.
Revenue I I I expenditure % change ~ Manchester 159% increase Umer 1st Tyne and Wear 20% increase Upper 5th
Birminahamv 11% increase Median 8th Glasgow 0% no change Median 14'h Edinburgh -16% decrease Lower 17th Appendix 3 PE1083/I
Proportion of revenue on payroll Birmingham 51 Yo Upper 2 nd Manchester 51 Yo Upper 3rd Edinburgh 54% Upper 4'h Glasgow 60% Median 5'h Tvne and Wear 66% Median 1Zth
Proportion of revenue on internal recharges Tyne and Wear 3% Umer Birminaham 4 '/o Upper Median Median 10 Lower =19
Despite less staff and resources Edinburgh performs well in total earned income.
Proportion of income to
revenue spend I Tyne and Wear 45 % I Utmer Edinburgh 42% Upper Manchester 18% Median 14 Birminaham 16% I Median 18 1 Glasgow 1 15% I Lower I lgth 1 Appendix 3 PE1083/I
Income per visitor from com me rcial activities Median --I---/Median 8'" GI asgow Median 15th Median I 16t" Edinburgh performs well commercially compared with other larger authorities
Grants and donations Tvne and Wear 539.422 Umer 1st Birmingham 337,68 1 Upper 3rd Manchester 283,232 Upper 4'h Edinburgh 76,957 Median 14'h Glasaow 51 -359 Median 16'h
Net cost of service Der visit
I Birminaham I No fiaure I I I Edinburgh is the most cost effective service.
Net cost of service per head of population Edinburgh 3.71 Upper 3rd Tyne and Wear 3.95 Median 6'h Birmingham 6.92 Median 14'h Manchester 8.56 Lower 18th Glasaow 19.18 Lower 22"d
Net cost of service per visit Der 1.000 DOD I I I I Tyne and Wear I 0.28 Upper 1 u iaayuvv Upper 2 nd Edinburgh I 0.84 Upper 3rd Birmingham 1.31 Upper 5'" Manchester 1.84 Median 1Oth I Appendix 3 PE1083/I
Capital funding from all sources Manchester 28,078,000 Upper Ist Tyne and Wear 11,998,244 Upper 2"d GIasgow 9,280,330 Upper 3rd Birmingham 6,926,306 Upper !jth -1 Edinburgh 220,928 Lower 17th Edinburgh has not taken advantage of the significant capital monies available for museum projects in the last ten years
Edinburgh is the only large city service to have no major capital investment
Summary Edinburgh compares favourably with other large authorities in terms of out puts, for example, total visits per 1,000 population; visits and usage per staff member; school visits per ed/staff member; total earned income; proportion of income to revenue spend; income per visitor from commercial activities and net cost of service per visit. For example, the exhibitions budget is f49,000 per annum. The exhibitions programme consists of over 20 temporary exhibitions per year. The budget of f 49,000 levers in funding of over f 350,000.
However, other authorities have seen significant capital investment in services. In comparison, Edinburgh is the only major city not to invest in a major capital development. Furthermore, all other comparable authorities have seem an increase in revenue spend while Edinburgh has seen a reduction of 16%. Appendix 3 PE1083/I
International Benchmark: Helsinki
Helsinki Population: 565,000 (1.3m City Region; 5.26m Finland)
Ed i nb urg h Population: 457,000 (1.25m Lothian, Fife and Borders*; 5.1 m Scotland) *area covered by the East of Scotland Museum Partnership Helsinki is one of the group of North European capital cities which can be broadly compared to Edinburgh. The population of the city, its region and the country are not disproportionately different from Edinburgh, its region and Scot Iand .
In terms of the provision of museum services, Helsinki has certain similarities to Edinburgh, in that it has both National and local authority provided Museums and Art Galleries.
Helsinki City Museum is the collective name for this group of venues, none of which is called “Helsinki City Museum”. As with Edinburgh, Helsinki appears to operate what is effectively a unified service across a number of venues, rather than a large central museum with branches, like Glasgow or Dundee.
In addition, the City also runs the Helsinki City Art Museum, with three exhibition spaces, an art collection and the management of public art in the city.
There are some clear similarities between the nature of the city museum services provided in Helsinki and Edinburgh. These include: No high profile central museum
0 Museums and galleries in buildings adapted from other uses Historic buildings rescued and converted into museums A substantial city service alongside a national service
In terms of differences: Helsinki charges for admission, Edinburgh does not Edinburgh has historically attracted up to four times as many visitors as Helsinki 0 Helsinki is much more heavily staffed
0 Helsinki is currently undertaking major refurbishments of at least four of its venues 0 Helsinki organises complex, intellectually demanding exhibitions in partnership with other European museums, as well as populist, locally based ones.
What is clear is that Helsinki takes a radically different approach to its museum service. Despite the fact that the visitor figures show that only the equivalent of 30% of the city’s population visiting its museums, as opposed to the equivalent of 120% of the population in Edinburgh, the city authorities value their museums and recognise the importance of a strong local service, Appendix 3 PE1083/I to complement the service provided by the state. They invest both revenue and capital in the service, equally valuing the importance of historic buildings and - in the case of Tuomarinkyla Manor - historic landscape.
Museums are not simply a utilitarian economic resource. They are a critical key to the understanding of their communities and a driver for social cohesion and mutual respect. This is underscored by the nature of the exhibitions that Helsinki City Museums put on.
Culturally, Finland and Scotland have certain common characteristics, notably a history of being part of another country. Finland has been part of Sweden and then Russia, before establishing its full independence. There is still an acknowledged Swedish presence in Finland and a less acknowledged Russian cultural influence.
Helsinki and Edinburgh, Scotland and Finland have much in common. What divides them in the commitment shown by Helsinki City to a high quality, adventurous museum service; as opposed to the way that Edinburgh has been allowing its city service to decline gently from the peak that it reached in the early 1990s. Appendix 4 PE1083/I
The Short Listed Options
1. Do Nothing: continue as now
2. Continue with existing service with additional resources
3. Close down the Museums Service altogether
4. Transfer the management and care of collections to a third party, such as the National Museums
5. Transfer the management and care of collections to Trust
6. Close all venues and relocate to new site, probably outwith the city centre
7. Rationalise city centre museums leaving flagship venues only (City Art Centre, Museum of Childhood, Museum of Edinburgh)
8. Create a Museums Hub in The Canongate and an Arts Hub at the City Art Centre
9. Close all High Street venues and relocate to the City Art Centre and adjacent site
IO. Create a Museums Hub in The Canongate and an Arts Hub at the Old Royal High School
Note Options 1 - 6 relate to the whole service; 7 - 10 relate specifically to the City Centre services and include consideration of the other venues, including the possibility of a Leith Museum. Appendix 4(a) PE1083/I
Options Appraisal: Scoring Procedure
Scoring for each option: 1 = doesn't meet criterion 2 = meets a little 3 = meets a lot 4 = fully meets Appendix 4( b) PE1083/I
Options Appraisal - Outcome
Option Score Posit ion Do nothing: continue as now 673 9 Continue with existing service: additional 958 7 I resources I I I No museum service at all 577 10 Transfer of ownership to 3rdparty 871 8 Transfer of management and collection care 1061 6 to Yd party Close all venues: relocate to new site 1309 3 Rationalise City Centre Museums, leaving 1200 5 flagship venues Museums Hub in Canongate; Arts Hub at 1358 2 CAC Close all High Street venues; relocate to CAC 1264 4 and aar, site VI Museums Hub in Canongate; Arts Hub at 1610 1 RHS Appendix 5 PE1083/I
The City’s Museum and Gallery Buildings
Historic Scotland Listing and Common Good Status
Museum of Edinburgh, Canongate This is the former Huntly House Museum (142/146 Canongate), with Acheson House -the adjacent building - as a planned extension.
Huntly House 146 Canongate was originally built as a row of three houses in around 1517, Huntly House was subsequently extended down Bakehouse Close and adapted over the years to become a network of flats. By the 1920s these were in a very poor condition and the building was purchased by Edinburgh Corporation. After extensive re-construction it opened as Huntly House Museum in 1932. In the 1960s the next door property, a public house at 142 Canongate, was acquired and similarly reconstructed as an extension to Huntly House. The two buildings underwent a major external refurbishment in the early 1990s.
Acheson House Built in the eaty 1630s as an urban mansion, Acheson House, too, went through a range of guises before also being bought by the Corporation in the late 1920s. For financial reasons, the Corporation was unable to restore the building, so it was sold to the Marquis of Bute in 1933. He commissioned the architect Robert Hurd to restore it as a dwelling and the 1930s interpretation of a traditional Scottish interior is outstanding. Subsequently the building was the home of the Scottish Craft Centre and then bought back by the Council in 1994 with a view to acting as an externsion to Huntly House/the Museum of Edinburgh. Apart from occasional use as temporary office accommodation, Acheson House has been unused for ten years and has had only very basic maintenance work underatken.
Listed Building Category: Acheson House and Huntly House (142 and 146 Canongate) are Category A. Common Good Status: Huntly House is inalienable Common Good. Acheson House is not common good
Canongate Tolbooth, Canongate Built in 1592 as the Tolbooth of the Burgh of the Canongate, the building has always been in Municipal ownership. In later years it was used for dances and other public evetns, before being incorporated in to the museums service as a temporary exhibition venue in 1954. In the early 1980s, the ground floor became the Brass Rubbing Centre, while the first floor provided a temporary home for the Museum of Childhood during its major refit in 198546. In 1989 it opened as The People’s Story Museum, following a major refurbishmen t . Appendix 5 PE1083/I
Listed Building Category: Category A. Common Good Status: Inalienable Common Good
Museum of Childhood, High Street Founded as a private museum and taken over by the city in 1954. Purchased by the Council from Castle Rock Housing Association in 1988, the Museum of Childhood underwent a major expansion and refit in 1985/6 as part of the development of the adjacent buildings and site for housing. It occupies two buildings - a tenement block and a former shop, which includes part of an eighteenth century theatre. The interior is now “tired”, not having received any major refurbishment since 1986.
Listed Building Category: Category B Common Good Status: not common good
Writers’ Museum (Lady Stair’s House), Lawnmarket Given to Edinburgh Corporation by Lord Rosebery in 1907, Lady Stair‘s House has been occupied by a number of different parts of the service, before becoming home to the Writers’ Museum, housing collections relating to Burns, Scott and Stevenson. In recent years the Close outside has been developed as “Makers’ Court”, memorialising Scottish Writers.
Listed Building Category: Category A Common Good Status: Inalienable Common Good, Title Conditions: Must be held and used by the Council as a municipal gallery or other public purpose for the benefit of the community
Brass Rubbing Centre, Trinity Apse, Chalmer’s Close As a service the Brass Rubbing Centre was established in Canongate Tolbooth in the 1980s. It was re-sited in Trinity Apse at the end of that decade, to make way for development of The People’s Story. Trinity Apse is the survivng element of the 1 Century Trinity Collegiate Church, which was demolished to make way for the extension of Waverley Station in the late 1840s. The numbered stones lay on Calton Hill for twenty years before being re-erected as part of a new church in Jeffrey Street. When that, in turn, closed and was demolished the building was acquired from the Church of Scotland General Trustees by the Corporation in 1961 and has since been used as a Library Reading and then a Museum Store before it was adapted for the Brass Rubbing Centre.
Listed Building Category: Category A Common Good Status: Owned, may be inalienable Common Good, Title Conditions: not to be used as licensed premises, for the sale of alcohol, betting/gambling or in connection with any religious denomination other than Scottish Presbyterian. Appendix 5 PE1083/I
City Art Centre, Market Street Built in the 1890s as a newsprint warehouse for the Scotsman, the buidling was used for many years as fruitmarket, with office premises above. Acquired by Edinburgh Corporation in 1971 & 1972. In 1980 the lower five floors were opened as the City Art Centre. In the early 1990s the remaining four floors were incorporated, providing six floors of gallery space and three floors of support. The City Art Centre now suffers from lack of adequate access for exhibits and inadequate air conditioning and other M&E services. It is next door to a gap site and the former police garage, both owned by the Council.
Listed Building Category: Category A Common Good Status:,may be inalienable Common Good
Lauriston Castle Originally built as a Tower House in the 16‘h Century by the Napier Family, Lauriston Castle has had many owners and been regularly extended and altered, until it was left in trust- with its contents - to Edinburgh Corporation by its last private owners, the Reids, in 1926. The Council as trustee manages the Castle and its grounds, although the original endowment now produces less than €3,000 per annum. The Castle has undergone a range of improvements in recent years and the grounds, too, have been upgraded, including the creation of the Edinburgh/Kyoto Friendship Garden and the restoration of the Italian garden.
Listed Building Category: Category A Common Good Status: N/A
Newhaven Heritage Museum, Pier Place Created in part of the former Fishmarket in partnership with Edinburgh Fish Restaurants, Newhaven Museum is owned by Forth Ports plc and was formerly leased to the Council for a peppercorn rent. The museum is currently closed pending a refit and the identification of resources to pay the annual rent, which is now required, following the closure of Harry Ramsden’s and the Landlord’s reorganisation of the rest of the premises.
Listed Building Category: Category B Common Good Status: N/A
Queensferry Museum, High Street Opened by the former Royal Burgh of Queensferry in 1951, the Museum occupies the first floor of the Local Council Office, previously the Burgh Chambers. In addition there is an ofTice/reserve collection store on the ground floor. The building was originally a temperance hotel and was occupied by the Norwegian Naval Command during World War II. Access to the museum is by staircase only.
Listed Building Category: N/A Common Good Status: may be Inalienable Common Good Appendix 5 PE1083/I
City Observatory Complex, Calton Hill This includes the William Playfair designed City Observatory, James Craig House, the City Dome and the Nelson Monument. All are significant historic buildings. The City Observatory is leased out to the Astronomical Society of Edinburgh and the Nelson Monument is open to the public. The Observatory still retains its orginal astronomical instruments.
Listed Building Category: Category A (all) Common Good Status: Inalienable Common Good
Scott Monument, East Princes Street Gardens Although not a museum as such, this is open to the public and has some interpretation. Held in trust by the Council
Listed Building Category: Category A Common Good Status: N/A
Museum Collections Centre, Broughton Market Acquired by the Council in 1994, with grant aid from the Scottish Museums Council, this holds the museums’ reserve collections and is a purpose adapted building, whose conversion was grant-aided by the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Listed Building Category: N/A Common Good Status: Not Common Good
Note: Historic Scotland Listed Building Categories Category A: Buildings of national or international importance, either architectural or historic, or fine little-altered examples of some particular period, style or building type.
Category B: Buildings of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some particular period, style or building type which may have been altered.
Category C(S): Buildings of local importance, lesser examples of any period, style or building type, as originally constructed or altered; and simple, traditional buildings which group well with others in categories A and B or are part of a planned group such as an estate or an industrial complex. Appendix 6 PE1083/I
Council supported Community and Specialist Museums and Collections in Edinburgh’
1 This excludes Museums/Collections operated/owned by the city’s Universities, the National Museums and Galleries, National Trust for Scotland, private companies, regimental museums etc. Appendix 7 PE1083/I
CULTURE AND SPORT
INTERIM REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
JANUARY 2008
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. INTRODUCTION On 5 February 2008 the Culture and Leisure Committee is due to consider a report on “A New Future for the City’s Museums and Galleries”. In order to support the next stage of the Review it will be necessary to put in place Interim Management Arrangements to create senior staff capacity to undertake the complex range of tasks required. This should be regarded as part of the overall Museums Review.
2. CURRENT POSITION Currently seven senior staff report direct to the Museums Manager. This is not sustainable in the long term and certainly not in the short term. In addition, the parallel review of the future of residual “Support and Quality” staff is likely to see further staff groups transferred into Museums.
In addition, there are shortages of staff in key areas and it is not appropriate to make any permanent appointments or changes until the longer term future of the service has been clarified.
The transfer of Customer Assistants into Museums, reporting to the Learning and Access Manager has also had an impact on the management structure.
3. THE REVIEW The following issues need to be addressed: (a) The reduction in the number of direct reports to the Museums Manager (b) The creation of a small cadre of senior managers to support the further development of the overall Review of Museums and Galleries (c) The maintenance of service levels pending the long term outcome of the overall Review This interim review may affect the current gradings and working arrangements of the staff. It is likely that some form of temporary adjustment to a small number of salaries will be required and there may need to be a more flexible approach within the current broad JDs for the various levels of posts. Appendix 7 PE1083/I
4. HOW WILL THE REVIEW BE MANAGED? There will be a working party, chaired by the Museums Manager. Membership will consist of the Quality and Performance Manager, a member of the Museums Review Project Group and a representative of HR.
This process will go ahead in parallel with the interim review of the Management of the residual “Support and Quality’’ staff.
There will be consultation with the staff - including local management - and the Trades Unions. The Trades Unions will be consulted initially about these Terms of Reference and over draft and final proposals.
5. TIMESCALE It is desirable to have the new arrangements in place well in advance of the departure of the Quality and Performance Manager to allow them to “bed in”. A target implementation date of Monday 3 March is suggested.