Original proposed design of
Original proposed design of 'To The River'

Claim: the money could be spent on anti-poverty work

Reality: Not true

Public Art money is part of Section 106 (S106) developer agreements. This is money that developers are required to give, and it includes contributions for open space, schools, community facilities, sports and so on. A lot of the things we value in the city, such as new playgrounds, sports facilities and community centres comes from S106 contributions. By law, S106 must be used for the purposes it was collected or be returned to the developer. So if we refused to spend this money on public art, we couldn’t use it on anti-poverty work. Instead it would have to go back to the developers, and that would include a lot of the money spent on the project so far – money that the council would then have to find from somewhere else.

Claim: the council has already made its mind up on the design and location

Reality: not true

The consultation which has just closed is a consultation on a concept. The consultation is there to gauge public opinion, to decide whether we move on with this concept or make changes. The executive councillor for communities made it very clear in committee and in the press that the consultation responses would be fully listened to and the responses published for transparency. No decision on the artwork has been made.

 

Claim: the Communities and Environment Committee should have made a final decision on the concept

Reality: this is not the role of this committee

No-one stopped the decision going to the committee, because the decision is not in the committee’s remit.

This sculpture is part of a much bigger artist-in-residence scheme around the river art, with more work having taken place before the pandemic hit. Because it was an ambitious scheme, and several thousand pounds were set aside for it, the original concept went to what was then Community Services Committee to be signed off, and the scheme was passed.

However, public art commissions go to committee at the START of a project, not for final sign off. That happened with this project in 2016. There is a separate public art panel, made up of a range of experts and interested people. It’s the public art panel who decide on public art, working with the public art officer at the council. If it’s a physical piece of art, like a sculpture, that decision then also has to be signed off by the planning committee. (And that means it would also have to go to planning consultation.)

What is in the committee’s remit is the allocation of funds. The original funding for the project was signed off in 2016 but because the project went more slowly through the pandemic, some of the money was transferred to other projects so it didn’t lapse. What the committee were being asked to do was to re-allocate some of that money. As is normal with a public art project, that happens at the start of the project or phase, not after the work has been done. If the money isn’t needed, it will go back to the public art pot.

 

Claim: But allocating the money must mean you’ve decided?

Reality: Not true

See above – we’ve made it really clear that we will listen to the consultation. (And thanks to excellent local activist, Cameron Holloway, who has been very vocal on this on behalf of Newnham residents, and secured that assurance at committee.)

If the project is going to need a redesign, as a result of the consultation, then it’s probably going to need more money than before. So allocating the funds doesn’t tie the council’s hands with a particular idea. And if the money isn’t needed at all, it will just be returned to the pot. But that pot can still only be used for public art.

 

Claim: there hasn’t been a proper consultation

Reality: not true

The consultation on the concept has just finished, and that is the first formal consultation. However, in there’s been a huge amount of other engagement work to feed into that concept.

Caroline, the artist, has residency in our community, and has engaged extensively with the community during that time. Public art engagement is not often in the form of surveys, but in terms of events and co-creation work which seek to reach out into the community in a variety of ways and discuss with them what the river meant to them. And that’s very much part of the consultation. Examples included working with families as part of the Chypps summer programme and engaging with nearly 2000 people as part of Cambridge Pride. 

However, it also included more formal conversations with key groups who are connected particularly with the river or its history, including: 

  • The Camboaters 
  • The Cam Conservators
  • Cam Valley Forum 
  • The Wildlife Trust
  • Cambridge History festival

The Friends of the Cam didn’t exist at this point, or they would have been on the list, but Caroline has subsequently had an extended meeting with them.

There’s also a formal steering committee, whose members include the Cam Conservators and the Museum of Cambridge.

Whatever happens, the consultation that’s just finished will not be the last. Were we to continue with this concept, it would have to go to a planning consultation and then onto the planning committee. Were we to ask for a different concept to be worked up, then we’d go to consultation on the new concept too.

 

Claim: why not just put out some more bins, paint a picture on them, and call it art?

That’s not within the rules. Whilst there are obviously lots of different views as to what constitutes art, there are limits to what is allowed.

And actually, public art is really important. The intensity of the debate around this piece shows that. Both our exec for communities and our chair of the committee have spoken about how art in public spaces made a real difference to their lives growing up. So we’d rather continue to work towards good quality public art.

Also, when we tried putting out more bins to deal with litter louts some years ago, the current Green candidate for Newnham went to the press about it, asking us to take them away again.

 

Claim: this shows you really hate the environment

Reality: not true

We are absolutely committed to the environment – tackling the climate and biodiversity emergencies is one of our key campaign pledges. Work on our rivers is a big part of that. That includes being absolutely clear in the draft local plan that no building will happen if the waters companies can’t come up with a plan to provide water without chalk stream extraction. We have already set up a chalk-stream action plan, and have secured Combined Authority funding for a project to develop this further. You can find out more about our record and plans HERE

 

Claim: I don’t like the piece – it’s bad art

Reality: that’s your call

We all have opinions on art work, and they all differ. We aren’t going to tell you whether to like the art work or not, and we hope that you gave your view one way or the other in the consultation, and will give your view on it again in the next consultation.

What we would say, in all seriousness, however, is that the artist who was appointed to this project is one with a great reputation, who has worked on well-received projects in Cambridge before, and who has worked very hard on this project. She’s researched the history of the river, met stakeholder groups, worked with the local museum, and engaged with thousands of people. All public artists are used to criticism of their work, but we’d ask people to remember that this is work that’s been done by a person who loves Cambridge, and who has done the work in good faith.

 

Link to Instagram Link to Twitter Link to YouTube Link to Facebook Link to LinkedIn Link to Snapchat Close Fax Website Location Phone Email Calendar Building Search