Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
20 Public Art Commissioning Strategy and the use of S106 Funding for Public Art PDF 982 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Pounds withdrew from the meeting for this
item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.
Matter for
Decision
Following
the approval of a Public Art Manifesto in March 2022, a Public Art
Commissioning Programme had now been developed. This
set out a package of future
S106-funded projects in Cambridge, which would help the relevant time-limited
public art developer contributions to be used effectively and on time. It
featured new proposals for public art commissions.
The programme also included the public art commission at Nightingale Recreation Ground (Queen Edith’s ward)
to which the Executive Councillor allocated £40,000 of S106 funding in January
2024. An artist was being commissioned to design and deliver bespoke artwork/s
inspired by the recreation ground, its new pavilion and its community garden.
As well as developing the
Commissioning Programme, the Council had undertaken a
2023/24 S106 public art grants round in order to be able to take stock of ideas
from local communities for local public art projects and to support the timely
and effective use of time-limited S106 funding.
Paragraph 5.2 of the Officer’s
report featured a table that set out how emerging public art projects come
together to form the overall programme, along with
possible timescales for when these projects might be commissioned.
Decision of Executive Councillor for
Communities
Agreed to:
i.
Note the updated S106 funding
availability analysis in Appendix A and the de-allocation of public art S106
funding from a number of a few projects that either stalled or were not taken
forward (see paragraph 3.7 of the Officer’s report).
ii.
Allocate a £30,000 S106-funded
public art grant to the Menagerie Theatre Company for its ‘Trials of Democracy’
project, subject to business case sign-off, a public art grant agreement and
project completion or significant progress within 18 months (see Section 4 and
Appendices C and D).
iii.
Allocate public art S106 funding
to the following new public art projects, subject to further engagement with
councillors, communities and professional artists and business case sign-off
(see Section 5 and Appendix F of the Officer’s report).
Project |
Public art S106 funding |
More Playful Art, Please! |
Up to £60,000 |
Urban Voices (four x
phase 1 Area projects of up to £30,000, plus a phase 2 project) |
Up £187,000 |
Romsey Recreation Ground |
Up to £66,000 |
iv.
Delegate authority to the Director of City Services, in consultation with the
Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokes for Communities and the Chair of the
Environment and Community Services Scrutiny Committee to add to the
Commissioning Programme any time-limited opportunities for funding small-scale
(under £30,000) public art projects opportunities may arise before the next
Committee meeting in June 2024 (see paragraph 5.3 of the Officer’s report).
v.
Approve the draft Public Art
Commissioning Programme (see Appendix F of the Officer’s report).
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Strategic Delivery Manager. He clarified that due to a communications
glitch during the application process, Officers had not responded to one
group’s email (Riverside Residents’ Association). Officers would contact the
group to allow them to resubmit their application, so they were not
disadvantaged.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
What could be done in future to rectify issues, so
they did not occur again?
ii.
How many applications were refused and what could
be done about it?
iii.
Suggested residents engaged with Ward Councillors
to seek help with the application process. Recognised that Officers were tied
by the legal/application process.
The Strategic Delivery Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Referred to Appendix A of the Officers’ report
which set out the process followed and how applications were considered.
ii.
It was
regrettable that not all projects could be approved. Each application had to be
considered against the public art S106 funding criteria.
The Urban Growth Project Manager said that,
having overseen every S106 funding round over the last twelve years, he was
satisfied that the assessment of the public art applications received in the
recent public art S106 funding grant round had been fair and consistent.
The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services said the City
Council was looking at how to improve Environmental Improvement Programme and
S106 funding processes. Various Councils across the country were also doing
this.
The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.