On 18th June the trustees of the Vivacity Culture & Leisure Trust announced that, due to the impact of the pandemic on its business model, it would be terminating its contract with Peterborough City Council. This was a difficult decision but the loss of £800K of revenue per month could only be mitigated by furloughing 98% of its staff for so long. The physical assets, the libraries, sports centres and pools, the city museum and art gallery, the Key Theatre and Flag Fen, and the 500 staff who run the services in them, will be transferred back into council control over the following 90 days.

As this represents the majority of the city’s cultural assets it felt important to dedicate some of the Culture Forum on 22nd June to this change in the local landscape. The detailed notes from these discussions have been passed onto ACE, Vivacity and PCC. This blog attempts to summarise the main points of the discussion (in bold) with my own reflections thrown in for good measure (not in bold.)

Whether Culture Forum participants felt this change was a shock or inevitable there was a universal feeling that much could be lost – specialist skills, important relationships and the momentum that Vivacity had built over its 10+ years lifespan.

The libraries and swimming pools, the provision of which are statutory obligations for local authorities, will continue, at some point. Cambridgeshire Libraries are to reopen on 6th July, but no date has been announced for when Peterborough libraries are to be reopened. Museums and open-air attractions across the country are also in the process of reopening, but again there is no sign of that happening for Peterborough City Council’s assets.

The gloomy fate of arts and culture is a world-wide problem, particularly for venues, such as The Key Theatre, which relied on ticket sales, bar takings and room hire to survive and be able to host shows and workshops. Across the sector, globally, those performing arts companies that have been vigorously entrepreneurial and commercial have, perversely, been the most vulnerable to collapse as income has disappeared. For instance, the entirely commercial, Cirque Du Soleil global franchise, has made 3500+ people redundant and filed for bankruptcy.

The fragility of the arts lies, not in its ability to spend money, but in its entrepreneurial talents, and it’s creative generosity in balancing the books so that maximum public benefit and creative ambition can be reaped from every £ spent.

The Vivacity model, of a blend of statutory provision (swimming pools and libraries only) and income generation to balance the books across the wider, huge, portfolio, which many of the forum participants were unaware of. The city’s public sports centres generated a profit that covered any costs that the arts and culture facilities couldn’t cover themselves through income generation (costs such as overheads and background services like HR and finance departments). Or to put it the other way round PCC’s contract with Vivacity did not provide any income for the museum, theatre or Flag Fen, so costs not covered by their own income generation had to be found within the organisation, and there was an expectation that even statutory services would cost less and less over time (despite the needs of the city’s growing population, poor health outcomes and a literacy crisis.) The maintenance of the buildings, which are assets that belong to PCC, were paid for by its contracts with the likes of AMEY and SERCO.

The lack of knowledge of this funding model, which was also being squeezed by huge pressure from government spending cuts, suggested, to some, a lack of transparency about the Vivacity model. And highlighted that there was now a significant, potential threat to the city’s public, cultural facilities, which alarmed many. The model that Vivacity was expected to move towards was one where culture was entirely commercially funded, albeit from the sports centres’ (declining) surpluses. There are very few theatres that thrive on this unsubsidised model, unless you look to the West End in London (average ticket price paid £52 (see SOLT), £15+ for two drinks at the bar and capacity of 1000s, 7 performances a week). And there are no, public, free-to access museums that could survive that model either. And libraries are even less likely to generate substantial income.

Many of the forum participants commented on the fragility of this framework for public services, especially in a low-income city like Peterborough, and the imbalance that this creates in understanding the value of arts and culture in relation to commercial sports and leisure. Though in reality the Vivacity arts team (and others) were highly successful in raising millions of pounds of extra funds for activities, and the theatre had very good occupancy, i.e. ticket sales.

Unsurprisingly, in a Culture Forum, the value of arts and culture was passionately defended, including its:

- Direct value to the local economy

- Importance to make Peterborough an attractive place to live and work.

- Ability to bring communities together.

- Role in improving well-being, supporting mental health and addressing loneliness.

- Supporting and inspiring learning, mainly, though not exclusively, for young people. (Our cultural experiences as young people are often our most memorable and therefore most significant.)

- Unique role in creating a sense of celebration and positivity, such as festivals, but in also through events and exhibitions which bring pleasure and inspiration.

All of this were repeatedly identified as outcomes that were more important than ever.

But what really concerned the forum was the impact on the staff. This concern went beyond a fear for their jobs and future prospects, many of whom are on low wages and don’t have an option, locally, of moving into another similar role (where would they go?) These was also deep concern that the city could lose the intrinsic value of the Vivacity staff, and volunteers – their knowledge, their contacts, their trusted relationships, and their commitment to their services.

Added to this worry for the staff, there was a fear, considering the arms-length “partnership” between Vivacity and PCC, of a lack of expertise to manage the transition of the services back under the Council’s control. There is expertise in the Vivacity staff, most of whom are furloughed. How are they going to contribute to the survival of the services that they know better than anyone?

There was a call for a public statement from PCC about their “vision” for the services, from reopening to creating a new plan for the future. But who else is going to shape that plan? As well as Vivacity staff contributing their understanding, there needs to involvement of many other stakeholders, from audiences to artists, from businesses to funders, and this needs to be an ongoing conversation, not a one-off online survey or a scan of the outpourings on social media.

And a new plan was called for – not a rehashing of the Vivacity model, that takes learning from its many successes including:

- Income generation and fundraising;

- Improved physical facilities;

- Improving programming;

- Stepping in to address gaps in provision, such as for people with disabilities or young people, at a time when other services where being decimated.

- And partnerships with national bodies, such as the National History Museum, Arts Council England, Heritage Lottery, live screening from the National, the RSC and ROH, Tate’s Artists Rooms, National Literacy Trust etc..

And a cold hard look at what PCC actually intends to do for:

- Local artists, both professional and community / amateur;

- The many communities of Peterborough (there was some criticism of Vivacity that it hadn’t gone far enough to serve all parts of the population, especially the diverse communities);

- The city’s well-being;

- Linking arts and culture to the new university.

- And the use of arts, culture and leisure to rebuild a post-Covid city, both internally, and to improve the reputation of the city nationally.

Because all that is Peterborough City Council’s responsibility now. Good luck to them.

But this isn’t just PCC’s responsibility, it’s all of ours (and our neighbours and friends), to make a case for arts and culture to be truly embedded across the city, for everyone’s benefit. And not just those looking for a local version of the £52 per ticket West End show and £7.50 G&T. Because this is everyone’s city - we all need to take responsibility, as well as expecting the benefits.

POST-SCRIPT: One reader has asked, “What can I do to help?” And I said: “I suppose it's writing to your elected representatives, your councillors, MP, and the mayor, to contribute your ideas, to ask to be consulted, and to see their plans.... and getting others to do so?” Something to do of an evening - it’s not like we can go out to see a show, or watch sport, or listen to music….?1

Kate Hall

Creative Producer

Jumped Up Theatre

NB – this session also had a presentation about social media from a Digital Champion at the Digital Culture Network which will be presented in a separate blog posts.

The next Culture Forum session is 4-5pm on Monday 6 July, and will be about Freelancers: Strategies for Survival. If you want to join the Culture Forum please fill out the Subscribe form HERE and we will email you the link to join the event before we next meet.

ATTENDEES

Alyson Tipping, Eastern Angles

Amanda Rigby, Paper Rhino

Charley Genever, Poet / SYNTAX

Clare Currie, Poet

Dawn Birch-James, Art In The Heart

Di Goldsmith, URock

Helen Gould

Helena Del Pino

Graham Casey, Musician / City Cllr

Judi Aston, One To One Development Trust

Jon Marsden, Vivacity