Joint Museum Storage Project with Southampton

Transcription

1 Report to: Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure Date: 5 November 2009 Report by: Written by: Report Title: Head of Cultural Services Jane Mee, Museums & Records Manager Joint Museum Storage Project with Southampton 1. Purpose of Report: 1.1 To advise of a joint initiative with Southampton which entails reviews of a number of museum collections to ascertain their relevance to council policy and priorities and an options appraisal to identify a series of solutions to address the museum and archive collection storage issues affecting both services. 2. Recommendations: 2.1 That the joint storage project is approved subject to the successful outcome of a funding bid to the Museum Libraries and Archive Council (MLA). 3. Background: 3.1 The collections that tell the stories of Portsmouth and Southampton are a valuable resource. However, their full potential for public engagement is not being achieved because they are currently managed in subject silos, distributed across a range of storage facilities with limited public access and provide varying standards of collection care. Individually, Portsmouth and Southampton are developing a strategic approach to managing these collections. However, shared challenges and shared needs will be addressed more cost effectively and dynamically through a partnership approach. 3.2 At the heart of this approach is the shared aspiration to make our collections accessible so they can be readily and effectively used to engage a wide range of audiences and to contribute to the delivery of a broad range of local, regional and national objectives relating to learning and social cohesion for example. 3.3 The current cost of Portsmouth s main museum and archives stores is 91,612 per annum. This includes some staff costs. The project described below may deliver some economies of scale. However, in the first instance it should be understood in terms of better care of collections, better use of collections and hence better value for money. 1

2 4. Joint Storage Initiative with Southampton: 4.1 The aims of the project are: To create a set of relevant, accessible, well-cared for and well-used museum and archive collections across the PUSH area. To identify and evaluate a range of storage options including solutions that involve both separate and shared storage solutions and a mix of both. To raise public awareness and understanding of the issues round collecting (and dispersal / disposal) and collection management through a series of workshops, store tours, other events and through the use of the local media. To disseminate learning and best practice with colleagues across the region and more widely. 4.2 The collection reviews and storage options appraisal form the first phase of the project. The second phase will be implementation. The dissemination meetings which mark the end of phase one, will provide an opportunity to seek the involvement of other museum services enabling us to potentially provide a storage solution serving the museums of the PUSH sub-region. 4.3 Project costs and programme are shown in the matrix below. Funding for the full cost of the project has been requested from the MLA. Project element Cost Timetable Project management 20,000 Appoint Nov 2010 Collection reviews 105,000 Complete SCC May, PCC Sept* 2010 Storage options appraisal 60,000 Complete May 2010 Public programme 15,000 Start Jan 2010 Contingency (@10%) 20,000 Total: 220,000 *Plan to bring this forward if possible 5. Collection Reviews: 5.1 The following collections will be the focus of the collections review. They have been selected due to: their size (bulk archaeology, social history for example), issues round storage and access (large objects including vehicles) and where there is a need to confirm relevance (this is a particular issue for Portsmouth s decorative art collection, especially the furniture). Southampton: Large objects and groups of objects in heritage collections (including those on loan) such as furniture, ship models, tools, guns, swords 2

3 Bulk archaeology collections (bulk material - shell, charcoal, stone etc - collected during excavations in the city which can be discarded once information has been recorded) Museum art collection (ships and local views). Portsmouth: Large objects and groups of objects including vehicles, cannon, interiors/fittings and trade and craft tools Social history including furniture, domestic equipment, tools, guns Bulk archaeology collections (stone, soil, shell which can be discarded once information has been recorded and samples taken) Decorative arts, specifically the furniture collection - an external assessment of the integrity, coherence and the regional / national significance of the collection is required and recommendations as to how it should be developed Natural sciences - an external assessment of the regional / national significance of the collection is required and recommendations as to how it should be developed. 5.2 The collection reviews will enable the two services to better understand how the two city s collections relate to and complement each other and how we should position and align them further through future collecting. To enhance this further and future collaborative working, the project will also include familiarisation visits and formal and informal skill sharing. 6. Storage Options Appraisal: 6.1 An options appraisal is required to identify and evaluate options for storage. This will need to include a range of options encompassing both shared and separate storage elements, options with elements located both within and outside the boundaries of the two unitary authorities. It is envisaged that options will be influenced by the collection reviews and having a better understanding of the synergy between the collections and the knowledge and specialisms of the staff of the two services. Aspirations for enhanced access will also influence the evaluation of options. The views of stakeholders - including Members - will also be key. The options appraisal will therefore include: Identifying storage requirements, including both space and environmental conditions. This will draw on work already undertaken - Portsmouth has a report from external specialists and Southampton has undertaken an internal review - and the findings of the collection reviews. Design input to make most cost-effective and efficient use of the building/s Supporting facilities required - learning space, space for staff, volunteers and researchers, loading bays, quarantine facilities etc 3

4 Identification and assessment of potential sites against criteria informed by corporate policy and consultation with key stakeholders and including capital and ongoing revenue costs. 6.2 Southampton has a pressing need to have a storage solution identified by May 2010, as their main store has to be vacated in Portsmouth also needs to identify an alternative to its main museum store at Hilsea as the Primary Care Trust requires this site. 7. Involving the Public: 7.1 As part of this project we want to increase public understanding about what museums do. We propose therefore to engage the general public, special interest groups and other stakeholders in the issues surrounding collecting and collection management through workshops, tours and other events so at very least people have an informed view about the issues involved. We will also begin the process of directly involving people in the choices we make - what to collect, what to let go. We will evaluate changing views and perceptions resulting from participation. 7.2 The project will also benefit from a communications plan and we propose to employ a PR specialist to help us develop and implement this. 8. Delivering Corporate Priorities: 8.1 The joint storage project with Southampton, including involvement of the wider public, is very much in accordance with the Council s Efficiency and Involvement priority and establishes good practice for the museums sector. 8.2 By developing stores to facilitate access to our collections museums also directly contributes to the Council s aspirations for learning for both adults and children encompassed in the priority to Raise standards of English and Maths. 8.3 As the joint storage project would lead to easier access to our collections we would also hope to positively impact on both visitor numbers to Portsmouth and to the museums service. 9. Legal Issues The City Solicitor has advised that the recommendations made in this report are within the competence of the Cabinet Member to approve 4

5 10. Equality Impact Assessments The actions proposed relate to enhancing access for a range of users. There seems no requirement for an EIA at this stage. 11. Financial Implications Costs relating to the preparation of the bid have been met from within the existing Museum and Records service budget. If the bid is successful and the storage project goes ahead, it is likely that efficiencies due to the economies of scale created by working in partnership with Southampton City Council will be realised. Signed: Stephen Baily, Head of Cultural Services Background List of Documents Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 The following documents disclose facts of matters which have been relied upon to a material extent by the author in preparing this report. Title of Document Location None The recommendations set out above were approved/approved as amended/deferred/rejected by the Cabinet Member on: Signed: Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure 5