Tories ignore public consultation
Dog bites man. Here in Canterbury, a number of residents groups and a significant chunk of the people who responded to a Tory public consultation on the proposed budget (of swingeing cuts) have been upset about plans to close several of Canterbury’s fine museums.
Bearing in mind that the city thrives on tourism, and that a related fixed capital project to improve and expand them might boost tourism income in the long term – while helping to boost employment in sectors hit by the recession – it seems mad to get rid of these museums.
Our local press sniffed blood in the water when the figures began to come out for the budget (that will be approved this month) talking about cuts of £3 million, half of what Canterbury City Council lost through investing in Icelandic financial derivatives.
Since then the Tory council ran a consultation exercise. The single largest block of votes (44.8%) flatly opposed the closure of the museums. Nevertheless the council executive has decided to close the museums and this will be approved on February 18th.
The importance of having a space, and professional staff, to show the many archaeological finds from Canterbury – which is a key area for Britain’s heritage – cannot be underestimated. This is precisely what the Tory plans strike at.
UNESCO declared a World Heritage Site in the city in 1988, including Christ Church Cathedral, St Augustine’s Abbey and several smaller churches in the location. The museums, including Westgate Towers and the Roman museum, are clustered around these important sites and form part of the itinerary of a large number of visitors’ groups.
Dr. Paul Bennet, of the Canterbury Archeological Trust, railed against the move. “It is the very combination of museums in different locations that with greater engagement ought to provide added value to the Canterbury experience. We should be exploiting Canterbury’s heritage assets more fully at this difficult time, not considering closure of the best of them for potential re-use as a retail outlet.”
These cuts form part of a wider attack on the services provided by the city council, including the demolition of Westgate Hall, a community centre which is one of the few centrally located indoor public spaces (which will be fewer still, once the museums go). Several sources have remarked that the area may be used for car parking, threatening a traffic control system that protects the centre of Canterbury.
What I really want to know is, is it justifiable to spend money ‘consulting’ the public when you are simply going to ignore the results?
Lib-Dem group leader on the Council, Alex Perkins, pointed out that, “At every opportunity every single liberal democrat cllr (18) has voted against the tory proposals to close the museums. And will be proposing an alternative budget on the 18th feb which provides adequate funding to keep them open.”
Of course one wonders what Mr Perkins would say if he was in the shoes of John Gilbey, Tory supremo. And what other necessary or commercially viable services he’s planning to cut to save the museums.
Hmm. History repeats itself weirdly – and wherever there’s plenty of history, even more so. In Chester, we have many Roman remains. The walls are in need of rather a lot of TLC whilst the amphitheatre must be the only semi-circular one in the history of the Roman Empire. Long-term doesn’t mean anything in the vocabulary of certain municipalities. We haven’t even got a bus station for National Express coaches. When you live life by resting (literally) on your laurels, the needs of the future seem to escape you, don’t they? Contrast this with what the council of Bilbao did some years ago when they captured and paid for the Guggenheim Museum. And it paid for itself within a decade with the increase in tourism. Is such foresight only to exist in industrial cities these days? I wonder if the gift of history is actually a plague and those who have grown up with the past are condemned to live there, whilst only those who have to live with the present are capable of creating better futures.
I’m not quite sure I know what you mean by the last bit. Those of us who have grown up with the past are surely the better prepared to harness the past constructively, for the benefit of the future?
Actually I don’t think your categories are appropriate. Those who have grown up with the past surely include the Conservative councillors of Canterbury and Chester? They’ve lived here longer than I have. So have many of those who oppose the destruction of our museums.
I only wonder if it’s a plague, Dave. Only wonder.
Anyhow. Am reminded of the so-called “glass slug” issue here in Chester some years ago. Very similar building to the Guggenheim in Bilbao in a way. Was a proposed council building. Should’ve been a proposed museum, in my opinion – on the lines of the Guggenheim. Something really big and significant and cultural. But either way, Chester as a body politic was unable to contemplate approving or working together to achieve any kind of world-class architectural signal. We currently have no theatre or cinema in the centre of town. You sometimes get the feeling we’re so frightened of losing the coherence of our history that we refuse to accept that history is made out of juxtaposition and difference over the centuries. History, in order to be historic, needs to grow. My experience of cities with a lot of history is that they tend to preserve rather than grow. I suppose that’s what I meant by history – its baggage I mean – being a possible plague.