Forum Topic

Dear LucilleWell, we seem to have a number of people who agree that the Museum is worth preserving.  I have raised this with my local councillor, Liz Stokes, who has passed my concerns on to Malcolm Grimston, who has yet to reply.I suggest all of us who want the Museum to stay should start by contacting our councillors and indeed writing to Edward Lister's Ask The Leader web page (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/Home/MyWandsworth/Leaders/default.htm).He will give you a standard non-reply which I posted a few days ago (see below) but presumably if enough people write to him somebody in WBC might start counting up the numbers and reassess whether it will cost too much political capital to save some cash running costs.  I hope the Council will come clean on the actual costs so if a "Friends of the Musuem" group is started there will be some sort of target to aim for.Councillor Lister's non-reply:"Dear Mr Callaway Thank you for your email. The Council is in a very tight financial position where it is not getting enough money from the Government to keep up with the rising costs of the services it is expected to provide. Next year our grant increase has been set at the lowest possible level (2.7%) which is well below the rate of inflation. In effect the Council is having to find an extra £5m every year just to keep services going at their existing level. This is the gap between the extra £3m grant we get from the Government and the extra £8m needed to keep up with inflation. Even if we raised the Council Tax by the full amount allowed by the Government, this would come nowhere near to bridging this gap. In these circumstances we are having to go through a painful exercise of examining all spending areas and looking for ways of ensuring that we can maintain funding for the most vital services on which people depend. Yours sincerely Councillor Edward ListerLeader of the Council"

Jonathan Callaway ● 7220d

Wandsworth Town is the only one of the five town centres in the Borough without a major library.  The site which is most likely be suitable is the old Court House on Garratt Lane, which presently hosts the Museum.  So, how do we go about providing a facility like Putney Library for the folks of Wandsworth Town, given that the Government has cut £5 million from our grant this year and prevents us by law from putting the Council Tax up by more than a pittance (not that we would want to if we could avoid it)?Answer - the Museum at present is not a well used facility - in fact every visit there costs the Council taxpayer around £10.  So we intend to look at the possibility of creating a new library in the building (or moving existing facilities there) and putting a space aside within for some of the present museum exhibits.  It's a complex proposal and we will need to do a lot of consultation and calculation to see if it will work.  Clearly we'd need to reduce the Museum's activities in the building if we were to go ahead.  But as anyone who has visited the great museums in South Kensington recently will know, static exhibitions are very much a thing of the past.  So we are also looking into the possibility of creating a new web-based museum to widen access to the best exhibits.It is always tempting to stand still and ignore changes in the way society works, but frankly it has never been the Wandsworth way.  There are always opportunities to provide a better service and if we can do so at a lower cost then so much the better.MALCOLM GRIMSTONCabinet Member, Environment & Leisure

Malcolm Grimston ● 7220d

This exactly illustrates my point - of course there will be consultation and doubtless a lot of good ideas will come forward which will help us get the best possible outcome, but we needed first to get to a position where there is something upon which to consult.  The series of decisions will involve first the publication of our proposals - until then there is no detail on which to consult - then examination by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (at which I would expect we would take deputations of interested groups and individuals), then by the Executive.  At every stage we can take into account public response, and judge those responses against the background of what we are trying to achieve, which is a solution to three problems - a little-used Museum (intersting how few people contributing to this strand knew about it) (though of course much-loved by the small number of people who in effect get paid £10 for every visit they make); a major Town Centre which now has great shopping facilities but no library; a government chopping £5 million from our grant but preventing us putting the Council tax up to compensate (not that we would want to if there was a better way).  Keeping the Museum in anything like its current shape seems to me simply not an option, but we will keep the best of the artifacts and find ways of making them more accessible if we can, e.g. through the web, schools, other libraries including the new Wandsworth town one.A new library in the middle of Wandsworth, if it is feasible, might be unpopular with some people but there are many who will welcome it.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7219d

I tend to agree with this, but Lucille has just posted asking how can we put proposals like this out without having done the detailed work on whether the Court House would make a good library!  If we had kept shtumm for another fortnight we could probably have kept her happy but annoyed you more!There's another problem with going too early as well, which I faced sharply when in charge of Education.  We knew we were not serving local children as well as we could because some of our schools had large numbers of vacant places so we were spending money on keeping buildings warm, support staff etc etc instead of on books, computers and teachers.  We knew we needed to close a couple of schools, and naturally we did some work on several schools before deciding how to proceed.  If we had made public our proposals right at the start, before we had eliminated certain apparent options, we would have caused enormous concern among youngsters, parents and staff in schools which we then decided to keep open and indeed to expand in a couple of cases.  What good would it do anybody for that level of concern to be raised completely unnecessarily?  (You may recall the dreadful effect the Labour Party had on our local schools when it put nine of them on a 'hit list' without, as far as I can tell, actually suggesting that they would close those schools if they got the chance.)  Sometimes it is actually irresponsible to speculate on matters or go to consultation before at least the basic initial work has been done, and that work always takes time.I would stress, however, that if we don't do something about the costs involved here then we have to do it elsewhere.  Raising a lot of money by raising the Council Tax is not an option (even if we wanted to, which we don't) because we would be 'capped' - but we're getting a £5 million real terms cut in our government grants for each of the next three years and undoubtedly we'll never get that money back.  So I would encourage all those who are arguing that we continue to spend £400,000 on the Museum also to suggest where they would prefer the savings to come from, so we can have the widest range of options in front of us.  Maybe Martine or Lucille would like to get the ball rolling so we could get some initial work done - Social Services?  Education?  Recycling?  Pavement repairs?  It is not much use to us simply to have 'Don't do anything' because sadly that is not an option at all.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7219d

It's a very small sum of money (just over £1,000 per year for four plaques) but it is designed to give us a better sense of place and belonging in Wandsworth.  The irony is that despite the Museum most of us have only a very vague feeling of the history of the Borough and the people who have lived and worked here.  That sense of place is valuable, especially in a place as diverse as we are, in offering a shared heritage to go hand in hand with our differences.  There's a lot of evidence that the more people feel they belong somewhere 'special', with its own unique history and culture, the happier and more productive they are (and conversely the less likely they are to trash the place!).Much the same goes for some of our ceremonial work involving the Mayor.  For many in the Borough, having the First Citizen present at a do adds a great deal to an occasion, delivering that same sense of belonging and local wellbeing.  Typically a Mayor will do some 700 engagements a year and reach a very considerable number of local people.  If I can reply to Justine here rather than in a separate entry, when we replace the Mayor's car in due course we will indeed be looking for an environmentally acceptable version, but the market for second-hand Mayoral cars is very limited and it makes no environmental sense to trash a car early and end up having to get a new one manufactured, since about a third of the emissions associated with motor cars comes from making them in the first place.One thing Wandsworth cannot be accused of is thinking about everything in money terms - I love this Borough, it's been my home for 20 years this July, and I want to be part of a Council that celebrates its special nature.  If we can square celebration of our culture with value for money then I will feel we've been doing our job.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7219d

Dear Mr GrimstonI have read all your comments on this thread with great interest.  Of course it is clear there are budget problems and difficult decisions have to be made, but I do have a number of concerns about the approach taken by the Council:- on timing - did the WBC formally announce their plans to PutneySW15 or elsewhere and if so why is there nothing on the WBC website?  Or was there a leak by people so concerned over your plans?- on costs - where does this £400,000 p.a. figure come from?  This is the first time I have seen the figure.  How is it broken down and how much is actual incremental cost to WBC over and above maintaining a building it already owns (for example)?  I think it would be helpful for us to know this.  Also, what are the costs associated with the other options you have floated, such as moving the library in there (is that really viable, with West Hill library so close by?)- on the size of the budget problem - how is the £5mn number calculated?  You repeat it as if it is cast in stone but it is in fact your own estimate, based on your own view of inflation versus the government's, so how reliable is it, and are you going to make hard spending decisions on the basis of it, when the deficit, if that is what it is, might actually be lower?  Or will you revisit the estimate to make sure it is actually right before making any decisions?- on the value of the Museum to the community - I would take issue with your statement that users are 'in effect being paid £10 each time they go there' - this is really not at all a helpful way to express the problem and 30,000 visitors a year is NOT a small number for our borough.  This number includes many educational visits undertaken by school groups which surely there should be some way to support, if not to treat differently from a cost perspective (what would alternative local history teaching cost?)- you do appear to have made your mind up about the Museum even though you state that there will be consultation once formal proposals have been drawn up.  Saying things like 'not a well used facility', 'static exhibitions are very much a thing of the past' and 'keeping it in its current shape ... is simply not an option' hardly conveys the impression of a council trying its best to find a way to keep this valuable educational amenity.  Rather it conveys the impression of a council trying hard to find a way to get rid of it.I think you can count on the Putney Society putting up a spirited defence of this amenity which even our MP admits to have 'thoroughly enjoyed' visiting.  Indeed, it is a well-run and well laid out museum with many unique artefacts on display, many donated by local residents.  What will happen to all these if the musuem closes?Finally, a suggestion: if the council insists on closing the museum, might a way be found to combine it with the excellent Wandsworth Local History Service in Battersea?  Or is that threatened too?I hope there will be a constructive debate on the future of the Museum and I hope we can all agree that trying to find a positive solution is the way forward, rather than the opposite.

Jonathan Callaway ● 7219d

Dear Mr GrimstonI have read all your comments on this thread with great interest.  Of course it is clear there are budget problems and difficult decisions have to be made, but I do have a number of concerns about the approach taken by the Council:- on timing - did the WBC formally announce their plans to PutneySW15 or elsewhere and if so why is there nothing on the WBC website?  Or was there a leak by people so concerned over your plans?- on costs - where does this £400,000 p.a. figure come from?  This is the first time I have seen the figure.  How is it broken down and how much is actual incremental cost to WBC over and above maintaining a building it already owns (for example)?  I think it would be helpful for us to know this.  Also, what are the costs associated with the other options you have floated, such as moving the library in there (is that really viable, with West Hill library so close by?)- on the size of the budget problem - how is the £5mn number calculated?  You repeat it as if it is cast in stone but it is in fact your own estimate, based on your own view of inflation versus the government's, so how reliable is it, and are you going to make hard spending decisions on the basis of it, when the deficit, if that is what it is, might actually be lower?  Or will you revisit the estimate to make sure it is actually right before making any decisions?- on the value of the Museum to the community - I would take issue with your statement that users are 'in effect being paid £10 each time they go there' - this is really not at all a helpful way to express the problem and 30,000 visitors a year is NOT a small number for our borough.  This number includes many educational visits undertaken by school groups which surely there should be some way to support, if not to treat differently from a cost perspective (what would alternative local history teaching cost?)- you do appear to have made your mind up about the Museum even though you state that there will be consultation once formal proposals have been drawn up.  Saying things like 'not a well used facility', 'static exhibitions are very much a thing of the past' and 'keeping it in its current shape ... is simply not an option' hardly conveys the impression of a council trying its best to find a way to keep this valuable educational amenity.  Rather it conveys the impression of a council trying hard to find a way to get rid of it.I think you can count on the Putney Society putting up a spirited defence of this amenity which even our MP admits to have 'thoroughly enjoyed' visiting.  Indeed, it is a well-run and well laid out museum with many unique artefacts on display, many donated by local residents.  What will happen to all these if the musuem closes?Finally, a suggestion: if the council insists on closing the museum, might a way be found to combine it with the excellent Wandsworth Local History Service in Battersea?  Or is that threatened too?I hope there will be a constructive debate on the future of the Museum and I hope we can all agree that trying to find a positive solution is the way forward, rather than the opposite.

Jonathan Callaway ● 7219d

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.Perhaps a few truisms might make a useful introduction to the background I can attempt now (while stressing again that the Committee papers for next month's Environment & Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting will give fuller details, e.g. of where the £400,000 figure comes from).There is an infinite number of nice things that a local authority might do, including charging low taxes so that people have more of their own money to spend in the way they want.  But we simply can't do them all - the Museum is certainly a nice thing but if we wish to subsidise it to the tune of £10 a visit, say, we need to cut services elsewhere, put up prices or (to a very limited extent) increase taxation.Politics is a matter of priority - deciding which of the many nice things we do are in line with our vision for the area, which less so.  One of the reasons why democracy is the best form of government, if not perfect, is that it creates a market in ideas - six months or so ago local people had a choice amongst four distinct political parties with distinct visions of what Wandsworth could be like.  In effect those parties offered a different set of priorities - the local Conservatives have always been very clear that low taxation and excellent service delivery are at the centre of our vision, Labour promised a lot of expensive new activity with all the associated costs, and everyone had a choice.It follows of course that if we are elected we owe it to local residents to make sure they get what they voted for.  That means us looking carefully at large expenditure items and asking if they fit into our priorities or if they can be delivered in a more cost-effective way.  It is only right that if we don't deliver on what people are looking for from us then we'll not get reelected, and that is what will happen if we start to behave like another party with another vision.On to how proposals can be announced.  As you'll have noticed, I did not contribute to this thread until it had been running for some time.  I would have preferred to launch the consultation with some rather firmer plans than we have at present, but as so often happens there was a lot of speculation and indeed calls for councillors to make a statement.  I decided to try to give some kind of outline to our plans, which are very different from the claims in some of the contributions to this strand, but I have been clear all along (I hope) that the details will follow soon.  The difficulty with taking the opposite approach, of saying nothing until the papers were ready, is that the most bizarre rumours can gain a spurious credibility if not countered or given proper perspective within a reasonable time.  So the formal position is that there is no announcement or plans as yet but there soon will be, and in the meantime I've been trying to explain the thinking in the informal setting of putneysw15.com.  I have been reading the metacomments with a lot of interest but don't think a consensus is emerging as to whether I should have waited until I had more detail or spoken earlier when I had even less.  In particular we don't yet have the firm costings on setting up a new library in the building (insofar as we ever have firm costings before we actually go out to tender in the marketplace and see what comes back) but will put these into the forthcoming Committee paper.The basis of the '£5 million cut' is clear - our grant is going up by 2.7%, or £3 million, but estimates of cost pressures are £8 million.  Details are on http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/Home/MyWandsworth/Pressreleases/newspage_detail.htm?id=4776.  If the figure turns out to be optimistic we'll need to be in a position to make more savings; if it turns out to be pessimistic we'll need to look at what our spending priorities would be across all of our services and of course balance them against lower taxation.I meant to say that a zero option across the piece is not an option - we need several millions of savings and I would be very interested in your alternative proposals and those of other people to find the £400,000 involved here.  We certainly will consult to find out if there are better ways of achieving our objectives, but consultation does not mean that elected representatives have no priorities of their own - what would be the point of elections if we did not? - and therefore does not mean that we can say 'do you want the Museum open or shut' and abide by the vote.We are intending to boost the history section in the Leisure & Amenities and there'll be more details in the paper.But to summarise, yes let's have a constructive debate - not just one which says 'we don't want it closed' but 'we want other services cut instead and these are the ones', so we can make real choices.  Within my political group we have been through an exhaustive process of this nature over the last few months but of course we may have overestimated the importance of some of the services we provide - if you tell us which ones we can look at making the savings elswhere.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7219d

Malcolm - Thank you for putting the 'official' side of things. Following up on Lucille's point, where is the best place to access and list of new developments for the borough please? Martin - I'd second you, Sir, on the 100 quid donation to a 'Friends of Wandsworth Museum'. Caroline - A splendid idea to consider moving the museum to West Hill and, in combination with the De Morgan treasures, creating a 'real' cultural centre. A combined facility would provide us with a unique perspective on our own local history from Saxon times to the present and a centre for the fine and decorative Victorian arts, Islamic art, plus insight into the thinking of two extraordinarily talented Victorians with interests including pacifism, female suffrage and spiritualism (issues just as relevant today as they were in the De Morgan era).Furthermore, perhaps the children's section in West Hill library could be converted to the mooted museum cafe? I'd volunteer to put in some hours on a Saturday serving coffee and I'm sure others would too (assuming red tape didn't put a damper on things).Perhaps it's wishful thinking but I can't help believing a combined museum, De Morgan Centre and cafe would increase the number of people visiting these cultural gems over and above the current figures.Such a move could be a political coup too. Just think of all those plaudits in the broadsheet Art & Culture sections! It might also make a nice break from the litany of rapes, robberies, murders and dodgy 'cultural' events reported on the local TV news.

Fraser Pearce ● 7218d

How sad it is to see that Cllr Lister is quoted as saying that the Museum was "not well used and not a great success" and that Cllr Grimston is writing reams on this Forum without any clear understanding of what museums do and how their success is measured. I have just run through the most recent statistics on museum visiting I could lay hands on - Wandsworth is join 9th for visitor numbers amongst the London Boroughs which wholly or partly fund museums. The figures are not always exactly comparable, since some include users of local studies and archives collection as well, but those occupying positions 3 to 8 range from 36,000 to 33,000. If the Borough Council had been concerned about the museum "not being a success", why were the staff not alerted and encouraged to improve. The  fact is that the museum is not only well used for its size, but that it was also last summer amongst the first group of  museums in Greater London to be awarded Accreditation, the new museum standard for the UK.Cllr Grimston seems determined to prove the museum a failure by calculating cost per visitor without including cost per user - what about all the telephone, mail, email and web uses that benefit from the museum's services? (The Audit Commission endorsed this calculation some years back). Reducing the cost per user could have been achieved by increasing usage and finding opportunities for earning more income rather than closing it down. Furthermore, reducing the cost overall need not require complete closure - but there is no evidence of any kind of appraisal of other options besides this one.Cllr Grimston has some peculiar ideas about museums - I cannot imagine where he has got the idea from that national museums are closing down direct access to collections in favour of internet access. He quotes South Kensington where the V&A alone is planning £9m of sponsored gallery development in addition to a major lottery-funded refurbishment of its mediaeval and renaissance galleries. Good museum web sites increase use of the real thing - they do not replace it. And digital access is not sufficiently reliable alone - look at all those sad broken down screens in parts of the Science Museum, for example. And other London Boroughs are planning museum improvements(Bexley, Enfield, Islington, Southwark, for example), have opened new or refurbished museums in the last five years (Brent, Croydon, Hackney, Redbridge, Richmond, Waltham Forest) or are planning completely new museums (Havering).Even more alarming, Cllr Grimston says "we will keep the best of the collections" - what does he propose to do with the rest and who will judge what to do with all that wonderful material with Wandsworth connections? Hundreds of local families have placed their trust in the Museum by donating objects made, used, owned, worn by their relatives and ancestors - how will he explain this proposal to them? The Museum is unquestionably successful - in the eyes of users, in the eyes of its peers and through the Museum Accreditation standard. It is dishonest to invent this as a reason for its closure and these councillors should be ashamed of taking this line - in reality they just thought it was an easy target on a valuable town centre site.

Valerie Bott ● 7218d

A response to Malcolm Grimston's most recent post:You ask me and others for their proposals on how the £400,000 cost of the musuem could be covered by savings elsewhere.  I would respond by saying (again) that I am not convinced it is as simple as lopping that amount off the council's annual spending.  Firstly, that figure needs validating, secondly, we need to know the cost of any alternative, thirdly, what proportion of the total budget is actually involved here - i.e. just how much of the council's budget problem will be solved by closing the museum?As to possible solutions, I very much like Fraser Pearce's idea of combining the musuem with the West Hill library and the De Morgan Centre to create a new cultural centre - just how much would that boost the Council's image??  Why not cost that out and see what people think?As to the 'value' of the museum, I am also very persuaded by the picture of its success, as seen through the eyes of its peers and in comparison to other municipal museums, painted by Valerie Bott.  She should be in a position to judge, as its first curator.There does seem to be support for a "Friends of the Museum" organisation, which would certainly bring some cash in.  But it might be helpful in this context to know- how much would it cost each council taxpayer if you could simply add the museum's annual running cost to their council tax bills?- how much would these Friends have to contribute to make the council change its mind about closing the museum?  100% of £400,000? 10%? 25%?I am not sure people will contribute if it just allows a penny-pinching council to walk away from a valuable amenity, just to help balance the books at no cost to taxpayers who might be prepared to pay some of that cost if asked.In my opinion this is not just about balancing the books but is more about properly valuing cultural assets which cannot easily be replaced once lost.

Jonathan Callaway ● 7218d

Quite simply, saving £400,000 a year revenue from the Museum will improve the local people's finances by £400,000 a year.  You will appreciate, also, that it is not as simple as just calculating the extra money needed from council taxpayers to keep the Museum going - we would also need to be sure that of all the variety of nice things we could do with that money keeping the Museum open is the best, and be sure that most people in Wandsworth would be happy to have money taken away to satisfy the pleasures of a very small minority.However, I am open to your idea about residents raising money directly.  If, as is suggested by some correspondents, a majority of people in Wandsworth would be prepared to pay more to keep it open then the most direct approach would be for the putative Friends of the Museum to raise £2 million, say, from those people to provide funding for the next five years.  This approach could only fail if most people in Wandsworth actually don't feel the Museum is value for money.  It's not an ideal solution, as it would still leave us needing a site for a town centre library in Wandsworth (one that people could drop into easily when visiting Southside, in the same way that they can drop into Balham and Putney when shopping there), but it has its attractions - the many people who struggle to pay council tax rates even at their present level would not be hit with extra costs to satisfy the small number of people who use the Museum.It would be helpful to know as soon as possible if that sum is likely to be found, as our proposals will go to the next Environment & Leisure OSC next month.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7218d

Rosemary, thank you for your suggestion.I think there are two issues at stake here:Firstly, Wandsworth library per se began in Putney Library so  perhaps taking back each separate area of the borough's history and putting it in local libraries is  certainly worth  considering and  a cheaper option than Malcolm's of asking  the community to find £2m in four weeks. That is, until libraries themselves begin to be closed for lack of use??????Secondly, and importantly - the lack of  consultation with Wandsworth residents about the proposed closure of the Museum - it is disingenuous for Malcolm to say  the council was elected with a mandate  last year when many of us MIGHT  have chosen to vote differently had we been aware that there was a possibility of the Museum closing. I may be a cynic but I  believe that the idea of closing the Museum lies far more in the possible sale of the Courthouse building  and the money that will bring in as much as to save costs of running it. If a new library is open in Wandsworth town centre what is going to happen to West Hill Library? Malcolm has not answered this  and there obv will be no need for two libraries within a few hundred yards of each other... that also begs the question of what would happen to the unique De Morgan Centre if that building becomes surplus to requirements too.For those Putney Society members who have  been reading this thread the issue regarding the future  of Wandsworth Museum is being raised at the Executive next week. There isn't enough time to ask the  whole membership what their views are, unfortunately, before the Council makes its decision early next month. Meanwhile, thanks to everyone so far who has made a positive contribution to this thread. I would suggest you continue to write in/email Councillor Lister direct to show that perhaps  this isn't a silent majority? There is a link enabling you to do so on the page with the news item about the Museum closure.

Lucille Grant ● 7217d

Obviously at the time of last May's election we did not know that the government was going to chop our grant by £5 million, nor was it clear if capping would remain in place (it has).  So we could not have known what levels of savings would be necessary to maintain a low council tax and protect core services.  In any case it would be impossible in a manifesto to predict every decision that would be necessary in the next four years.  British democracy involves electing governments, local and national, on a vision and set of principles.  The elected government is then expected to apply those principles to the changing circumstances in which it finds itself.I and my colleagues are motivated solely by a desire to serve the community.  Sometimes that means one section of the community feeling badly done by over a particular issue, since we can't do all the nice things that everyone could think of.  But I think it is farcical to claim that, after 28 years running the local council, the local electors did not know what kind of council they were getting.  The truth is the exact opposite - those on fixed incomes in particular like a council that allows them to decide how to spend as much of their income as is possible while fulfilling our role as community leaders.This morning I've been looking at the results of the investment we (and our partners, DC Leisure) are making in our leisure centres, some £6 million in total.  Balham Leisure Centre gets some 14,000 visits a week, the Lido about 10,000 a week in the summer.  These are the cultural and leisure facilities which are really well used and which should be our priorities.  If we don't manage to establish a new library in the Court House then we would indeed look to sell it to raise funds for reinvestment elsewhere, because in my view there are better ways of using the resources involved.  The offer is still open for anyone who has other ideas of services to cut or wants to put the mnoney up themselves (putting up business permits wouldn't raise anything, as we reckon they are already at the level past which demand would drop off, leaving us with still more money to find).  But as the responsible individuals we councillors have to propose something, and that is what we are doing.  If this is indeed an enormously unpopular proposal then we will not be reelected next time round, but in the meantime, after listening to all views, we must act in what we see as the best interests of the community at large.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7217d

I wasn't aware my motives were being questioned - I think and hope it is accepted by all that an elected politician must always act in the interests of electors as a whole or he or she doesn't get reelected.  We simply have a debate about who should take difficult decisions and on what basis.  'My own way' is simply the council's analysis of which savings would have least impact on the community (I take absolutely no pleasure in making anyone unhappy or uncomfortable about local facilities) and I welcome the contribution of all who make constructive suggestions as to how the savings could be achieved in other ways.But Wandsworth isn't like some local councils where there is still a lot of waste to be cut back - as you note (though not in quite the same words) we've been making the best use of public resources for some years and if the government cuts our grants we have to respond with local savings which will inevitably be difficult.  I think we've found a way of doing that which, if practical, will enhance access to library facilities in Wandsworth without seriously denting the cultural life of the vast majority.  On the wider point, it's only six months since the people of the Brighter Borough had the biggest say there is - a local election.  If you feel the people got it wrong that is your privilege - maybe you'll stand next time so they can pass judgment on your alternative approach - but as the elected council we have to take decisions based on what people expect from us.  I personally always welcome the candidacy of any resident with different views so that electors can have an even wider choice than the four Parties which stood in my Ward last May.Details, including statistics, on all proposals will be available in the papers for the Environment & Leisure OSC next month.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7217d

'Obviously at the time of last May's election we did not know that the government was going to chop our grant by £5 million' Rather disingenuous, I think. The  current government has consistently 'rewarded' Wandsworth's good practices (to date)by chopping  their grants - you've been in charge long enough to  have anticipated it so please don't try and make us believe otherwise.'If this is indeed  an enormously unpopular proposal then we will not be re-elected next time round' The next election does not take place for another three years - which gives plenty of time for people to forget that you closed the Museum. Meanwhile WBC will no longer be viewed as one of the best Boroughs to support the Arts and will also be diluting  its educational facility in favour of leisure centres! Hey guys, do you want your gym or  your Musuem - it should not be a question of either/or.'After listening to all views, we must act in what we see as the best interests of the community at large.' But you're NOT listening - you are not consulting, so how can you be listening? You seem to conveniently forget that  the majority of exhibits and objects kept by the Museum have been donated by members of the community, many of whom live in Putney as that was where the Museum originated. Therefore NOT to consult is unacceptable.You ask us, your constituents, to come up with cost saving ideas but do  not respond when asked why the council considers new initiatives when it can't afford to support existing ones. You also ignore my question about West Hill Library (also Allfarthing is a Wandsworth library) Are you seriously suggesting that Wandsworth needs three libraries? No, I'm sure you're not. A final word on consultation - it isn't difficult - just ask  us:a) Do you want to keep Wandsworth Museum as it stands and if so are you prepared either to pay more tax (you haven't told us how many pence per month it would cost each one of us)and/or to  part fund it through a Friends systemb) to disperse the  artefacts among each of the borough libraries (and  provide  necessary members of staff)which would dilute the  whole historical and educational effort but be better than nothing at all.

Lucille Grant ● 7217d

Dear Mr GrimstonI have read your further posts since mine of about 24 hours ago.Firstly, your position is becoming ever more clear - you want the museum to close, absent - it would appear - an overwhelming protest which might seriously threaten your party's re-election next time around.Secondly, you do not appear to be ready to consider any of the alternative proposals people have put forward, nor have you explained why you think replacing the museum with a library would work (in fact you state in your earliest post that this would be "... a complex proposal and we will need to do a lot of consultation and calculation to see if it will work.")  Am I alone in fearing that what you will conclude is that the building is not best suited to having a library in it and selling it off becomes the 'only option'? Thirdly, you have not answered some of the questions raised, such as:- how does the £400,000 p.a. break down?  Is all of it incremental expense?- what would the cost to each council taxpayer be if the £400,000 p.a. were added to the council tax.  A reasonable question ,what is the answer?- who will you consult with and are you prepared to listen?- where will the exhibits go if the museum does close?- is the Wandsworth Local History Service in Battersea also threatened?  If not (and I hope not) might it be viable to combine the museum with it?I am afraid I am as unimpressed as others with your proposal that if a "Friends of the Museum" organisation is formed, it will need to raise £2mn to secure the museum's future.  That is clearly an utterly unrealistic figure, however committed a number of borough residents might be.  What I had in mind was a fundraising vehicle which would raise funds on a regular basis to support the museum, i.e. make a contribution to its costs, not take it over lock, stock and barrel.You mention a number of times the mandate the council got in the last election but that does not give you carte blanche.  It will not have escaped your notice that this is already the longest thread on this Forum for quite some time.  That should indicate that it is not just a small minority who are upset at the prospect of losing the library.A more constructive approach to solving the problem and some genuine listening would not go amiss!  I await the papers for the Environment & Leisure OSC with interest.

Jonathan Callaway ● 7217d

There's not much further we can go with this strand until the Committee papers are ready - they will have the details (on costings, etc) as requested.  At that time public views will be welcome, as indeed I have welcomed the views of the ten or twelve people who have contributed to this strand.I would say though that our democracy is representative, not delegative.  Governments are not elected simply to carry out a series of binding referenda on each individual issue - after all, there'd be no place for political parties, no alternative visions for people to choose from at election time, it could all be done by computer.  And we would end up with an incoherent mess without a binding ambition or 'big picture'.Of course this does not mean that we cut ourselves off between elections - as demonstrated by our willingness to get involved in debate such as this strand, local meetings, deputations to Committees and so on - but ultimately we are elected to use our best judgment on each issue, not to try to avoid accountability by ducking difficult decisions each time.  Referendum (as opposed to consultation) is anathema to the British way of government and has rightly tended to be restricted to constitutional changes such as entering (or staying in) the EEC.  Even if it were more common, why would we choose this one issue, raised by a handful of people in one part of the Borough, as opposed to the other difficult decisions that have to be taken or potential spending that could be increased?Perhaps the single statement I find most odd in this posting is "why [does] the council consider new initiatives when it can't afford to support existing ones".  If I read it right, it is saying that we should never seek to respond to changing needs in the population, the financial or other operating environment, the opportunities offered by new techologies etc.  I cannot agree.  For example, I believe climate change is a real and growing threat and I want the council to be in a position to reduce its carbon footprint even if we have to invest e.g. in energy efficient equipment in order to do so.  Those resources must come from somewhere, and they're not coming from the government.I don't believe the outcome of elections can be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion.  If people in this strand are right, that we have massively misjudged the public mood towards the museum and should indeed be cutting street cleaning, refuse collection or recycling, or closing parks or town centre libraries instead (they are the main items within my portfolio), then we will not be reelected.  That is as it should be - I stood for election because I have political principles, not for my own sake, and if people don't like those principles they should and will elect someone else.  But in the meantime I don't think any of my colleagues will apologise for using our best judgement on behalf of those who elect us about how to respond to the changing environment in which we operate.  That best judgment will be formed by taking into account fully the range of alternative proposals that come forwards, with the probable exception of major increases in council tax (which is one of our core values and in any case is severely limited by capping legislation).  After all, at the last election Labour was in effect suggesting a council tax of over £1,000 before the Mayor's slice (when its spending promises were totted up) and the LibDems a local income tax of around £2,200 for a working couple, so there were plenty of alternatives for those who don't like low taxes.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7217d

I didn't realise this was a competition with cats....!Meanwhile,  has everyone read this week's front page story  in the Wandsworth Borough News  with Councillor Lister's comments on the closure of the Museum? A little more informative than his  standard email response  to Jonathan and myself but just persuades me even more that the whole exercise is a done deal and that there is no intention nor ever was of consulting the people of Wandsworth.He states 'We have got the museum and it is nice, but if it is a choice between  that and children's services it is not a priority. (Closing the museum) is a saving that can be made with little damage to our most vulnerable residents......most of the exhibits will be stored in three unused chapels, others will be placed in schools. The council is looking to develop a more comprehensive web-based history facility.'In addition, acording to the WBN, 'Councillor Malcolm Grimston said that the closure would be the first step towards getting culture back out into the community' Come on Malcolm, credit us with some intelligence - the Museum as a whole IS in the community, right at the heart of the Town Centre! But, if it can be divided up into each of the local libraries, that would at least be preferable to  putting  it into unused chapels if that really is one of  the options you are considering. You also point out that the green plaque proposal will 'work to make the community more aware of its history' I'm sorry, much as I support the plaque system, I do not believe that children pay the slightest interest in them and within the historical context a local museum is of far more benefit in the long term to our community.Please can someone  work out the figure of £400,000 divided  by all the council tax payers ...then we would know exactly how much our tax would go up just to save the museum in its current format.

Lucille Grant ● 7217d

If I remember right the tax base is 116,750, so it would take an tax increase of about £3.40 at Band D to raise £400,000.Our problem is that to raise the £5 million we need just to stand still - i.e. no extra investment in energy savings or increased recycling, cutbacks on services because we are finding the tender market a bit tougher now than it was when tenders coming up for renewal now were last let and so on - would require about £43 on council tax Band D.  But as you will know the governmant has said it will 'cap' any authority which raises taxes by more than 5% and it has used these powers several times.  Our tax at present (ingnoring the Mayor's big fat wedge) is £354.80.  So even if people had voted for a more profligate Party last May which wanted the highest taxes possible, they could only have put it up by £17.70, raising £2.07 million.  Very large savings would still be needed.  In fact I have no idea what we will have to do to council tax but we may well have to raise it to deal with the pressures we are facing.So the real question remains - is preservation of the Museum better than preserving current standards in recycling, street cleaning, education, social services or whatever?  We can't consult on the basis 'do you want it or not', nor ignore our central manifesto promise of maintaining low taxes so that, as far as is consistent with services for the vulnerable and community leadership, people can decide for themselves whether they want a Museum or whatever rather than having the decision imposed upon them.  I think I have made very clear that I will listen to anyone who can give me evidence that very large numbers of people in Wandsworth want the cuts to fall elsewhere - presumably the acid test is whether those people will dig into their pockets to find the £2 million to form a trust to take over the Museum and pay suitable rent on the premises.  I can't see any flaw in this argument - if our judgment that the Museum is actually rather close to the top of the list of savings we must make is wrong, then there will be no difficulty in raising the sums.  In the absence of such evidence we will take our decisions based on our judgment of effects on the community - it is what we were elected to do.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7217d

Cllr Grimston is writing so much here, and with such a scattergun approach, that he cannot be much of a team-player with the rest of the borough council - which remains noticeably silent as to what the actual proposals are, the costs and the implications. I was always a bit worried about the implications of cabinet government in local authorities. . . this man appears to be making his own decisions about future policy while abruptly dismissing the views of those who care about the loss of the Museum in his spare time on this site. The result is that the decision and the secretive approach to making it appear to be entirely his personal responsiblity.There is plenty of evidence in Cllr Grimston's posts that the decision is being made without proper understanding of either how the "value" of the Museum should be judged or what would actually be lost. For example, he uses levels of use of other facilties to confirm its "failure" when museums are far more than facilities where numbers through the door are the primary indicator of effectiveness. Use of libraries and sports centres also follows different patterns from that of museums, so the comparison is foolish.The Museum's core role is preserving the community's collective memory - and judging that role in terms of numbers is not enough. Further, the visitor numbers do not reveal the range of outreach work the museum service has been engaged in - its small team has an enviable record in working with all sorts of community groups, engaging their interest and understanding, sharing existing collections, assembling memories and objects for future generations. There is no logic in closing the Museum to save money (and the cost of closure will be high) if he can now find the funding to create a new library. If limited funds are available for some changes, then one would expect the council to have carried out an options appraisal which assessed whether it was more important to keep the Museum going (as there is only one) or to remodel the borough-wide library service. In such an appraisal process, opportunities for external funding, income generation and other ways of operating ought to be taken into account as well.His lack of respect for 20 years of recording and preserving that community history, confirmed by the suggestion that three disused cemetery chapels might be an appopriate home for the collections, is insulting to all who have donated objects over the years. (Disused chapels have none of the internal environmental management systems in which the council invested to enable the Museum  to protect the collections). Over the next few years Wandsworth Museum ought to be playing a significant role in the redevelopment of the town centre, working with the community which is going to go through a difficult period of major change, with the developers to advise how to preserve key components of the old brewery, recording the changes, acting as a home for the finds from major excavations which should precede development and providing a much-needed cultural facility which will help attract businesses and give new residents new "roots". That role could attract valuable funds from the developers to match grants from other bodies like the lottery distributors and charitable foundations to enhance, move or expand the Museum - surely Wandsworth Council does not want to pass up the opportunity of raising such investment at no cost to itself?

Valerie Bott ● 7216d

Reading all Macolm Grimston's comments since my last visit to this thread, only yesterday evening (and how it has grown!) we have learnt a couple of things:- it would cost the 116,750 Wandsworth taxpayers about £3.40 each at Band D to raise the £400,000 p.a. said to be needed- the £2mn he says we have to raise within a few weeks would not be enough anyway - I now see WBC would expect the putative volunteer owners to "pay suitable rent on the premises" on top! (talk about shifting the goalposts, unreasonable as they already are!)- WBC has been thinking about this for months, quietly and of course secretly - with open debate there might have been time to mobilise resources and funding if that is what has to be done to keep this amenity- more and more people are raising concerns  about the council's plans.We should all read the second valuable contribution to this discussion by Valerie Bott.  I wonder if Malcolm Grimston has.As I have stated before and as others on this thread have noted, we are dealing with a fait accompli here - unless voices are mobilised and not just individuals but organisations even WBC has to listen to all get involved.  The Putney Society, we very much hope, will be one such voice, other borough amenity societies too, I would also hope.  Is this a suitable case for the Arts Council or another quango, or for those who oversee cultural policies around the country (the Culture Secretay even??)  Would the National Lottery be good for some serious input?What does our MP think, having stated that she 'thoroughly enjoyed' visiting the museum?Does Valerie Bott's suggestion that further town centre generation and attendant opportunities for property developers create potential new sources for funding?Will WBC consider merging the museum with West Hill library, and/or the De Morgan Centre?If a "Friends of the Museum" fundraiser is started and is taken seriously enough by WBC to delay closure plans, then I would happily commit money to it.  Is WBC open to discussion on this?Will WBC listen, full stop??I think we all fear this is a fait accompli by a council which does not have to face the electorate until this episode is long forgotten.  Just wish I was wrong.

Jonathan Callaway ● 7216d

I just received this...I dont know whether copy and paste makes unreadable... suggest you do the same and send it on to as many people as possible.Wandsworth Historical SocietyTHE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE BOROUGHNo 225      NEWSLETTER        January 2007Chairman General  Secretary    Treasurer Newsletter EditorDorian Gerhold19 Montserrat RoadSW15 2LD0208 788 0546 Janet Smith          16 Crowborough Rd    SW17 9QQ                  020 8767 4331          Alan Buss9 Farnhurst HouseBlondel StSW11 5 DD            Post Vacant WANDSWORTH MUSEUMUNDER THREATYou will have seen in the local press that Wandsworth Council is proposing to close Wandsworth Museum in September. The Management Committee has held an emergency meeting and is launching a campaign to save the Museum. The Society played a key role in the founding of the Museum 20 years ago and we want to see it continue long into the future. We will be sending out a letter to all members asking you to write to the Mayor, the Leader of the Council and your local councillors to persuade them to think again. As soon as you receive this, PLEASE TAKE ACTION. A decision will be taken by the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 6th FEBRUARY so time is short. The monthly meeting at 8.00pm on Friday 26th January, OPEN TO ALL, at the Friends’ Meeting House, Wandsworth High Street (opposite the Town Hall)  will be devoted to a talk and discussion about the history and the future of the Museum.  PLEASE COME. 

Julia Matcham ● 7210d

Councillor Grimston is to be saluted for his single-minded dedication to reversing the "rather disappointing" number of visitors at West Hill Library.  Who else would have the courage and imagination to propose shutting down a unique Museum that serves 44,000 visitors, outreach individuals and research enquiries each year just to encourage more library usage?  Who else can see the benefits of demolishing the Borough-wide community and educational services provided by the Museum to make way for a library that is slightly more convenient for shoppers in the centre of Wandsworth?There are some who might say Councillor Grimston's logic is perverse.  After all if "West Hill (Library) is just that annoying distance up the hill" as he states, moving it to the Courthouse will oblige current users of West Hill to make an equally annoying trek down the hill.  This could well put a dent in Councillor Grimston's personal crusade to improve library usage but I am sure users of West Hill Library will happily walk the extra distance to ensure Councillor Grimston reaches his library usage targets.Given Councillor Grimston's selfless commitment to improving access to library services in the centre of Wandsworth, I have a suggestion which I am certain he will rush to support.  Turn the Town Hall into a large central library - the courtyard is ideal parking for mothers and children, for the disabled and for the elderly.  Move the Council to West Hill and if it proves too small to accommodate all the Councillors, house the overflow in some of the disused chapels that Councillor Grimston considers such a congenial destination for the Museum's collection of irreplaceable artefacts and memorabilia.  Indeed, given Councillor Grimston's whole-hearted endorsement of the need for a central library in Wandsworth, I believe we can count on him being first in line to volunteer for an office in one of the disused chapels.

Cedric Peachey ● 7208d

Thank you for the kind comments and I must say quite like the Town Hall suggestion in some ways, but I don't think it is really a starter.  Perhaps I should say first of all that I don't have an office at the Town Hall - only the Leader and the Leader of the Opposition have their own offices, and there is a little space for Executive Members plus a Members' Room for all councillors.  Since the 60 of us are in effect Non-Executive Directors of a £1 billion-a-year business then a certain amount of close contact with senior managers and with each other is needed, I think.  So yes, if I thought it were a good use of public money for me to have my own office, rather than the resources being spent on services, I would be very happy in a nice chapel.The Town Hall buildings (and other council premises) are actually the headquarters for the council's wide range of activities and the several thousand workers who are delivering the services that make us the best council in the UK, according to the government.  There are two advantages in keeping as many as possible of these staff and their managers close together in a single location.  First, economies of scale - breaking up into several dozen small units would inevitably increase the total spent on administration, heating, security and so on.  Secondly, it is important that officers are in close contact with other departments so that we can continue to give a whole-council approach to community service, rather than risk breaking into silos.  (A brief look at some of our more sparsely populated County Councils would illustrate this point - staff in far-flung outposts often do not feel part of the organisation as a whole.)  Of course IT could help to a degree but face-to-face is still often the best way of doing business and we would not want staff spending a large proportion of their day simply ploughing through Wandsworth traffic to get to and from meetings (formal or informal).According to the Audit Commission Wandsworth is one of only four 'upper tier' councils in the country which gets top marks (4 stars) for financial control.  Administration is cut to the minimum so more resources are available for services, but it would be unwise to cut below that level.  But in any case moving out of the Town Hall would not deliver any savings.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7208d

I'm a member of WRWA, I just did not (and do not) understand your point.  One of the areas of our operation which will almost certainly become more expensive over the future years (and for which we must find the resources from somewhere) is waste disposal and recycling, for several reasons.  Landfill is becoming more expensive, both intrinsically and because of LATS (the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme).  It gets progressively more expensive to recycle, as more effort has to be put in to persuade the more reluctant to use orange sacks for example.  Incineration is both cheaper and more environmentally attractive than landfill will be but not necessarily than what it is now.  I have to say that I am personally delighted that all political parties are beginning to take the environment more seriously but as something goes up lists of priorities then inevitably other things have to come down.We will publish the proposals as soon as possible.  Policy emerges as a result of a number of discussions within the council, and many people (e.g. staff at potentially affected locations) need to hear the news before it is made public.  Going too early may result first in time being wasted discussing proposals which are impractical anyway and secondly may cause unnecessary concern to some who would have been affected by proposals which are not pursued.  You make the point yourself - some calculations and considerations are inescapably complex (not just economically but making sure we have considered all the implications as far as we can) and it serves nobody to start discussing them in detail before that detail is available.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7208d

In general, and this is the same in all political groups in all councils as far as I know, the ball starts rolling with the government's statement on local government grants which is typically published at the end of November (as it was last year).  At that point we start the process of working through the implications for what we can afford to spend over the following three years (the period covered by the spending review) given the enormous real-terms cuts we have been landed with in recent years, and implications of various spending scenarios for council tax.  Officers provide basic financial and other information about options (they may have been collecting this for some time in readiness) and specific proposals start to emerge soon thereafter.  They are then debated with colleagues to make sure that we make the best of the range of talent, interests and community knowledge available among councillors, rather than any policy simply being the whim say of the Cabinet Member or even the Executive.  Initial suggestions are often changed significantly at this stage as a result of the debate.We come to a decision as to what we believe is the best possible outcome for the community at large (i.e. the 280,000 residents, all of whom of course have different interests, needs, resources etc), based both on the facts before us and our own priorities and manifesto commitments e.g. to keep council tax distinctively low.  We then publish our detailed proposals as soon as possible, after we have had a chance to check their feasibility and tip off any staff or other stakeholders who might be directly affected.  There is no point in keeping anything secret unnecessarily (and it is against our culture to do so) and we wish both to allow for proper public input before decision-making and to make sure that the period of uncertainty is as short as possible.  It would not be right to reveal specific details of confidential discussions but you will have noted that I was able to outline our preferred route, or at least the bones of it, in this strand on January 8.The decision, of course, is not taken until it is agreed through the council's procedures (Scrutiny, Executive and sometimes full Council).  As you will be aware, on several occasions the council has changed its mind on proposals as a result of public response and the emergence of further information - e.g. the proposed move of Greenmead School to Southmead School when I was on the education watch.  I don't think anyone has ever claimed that we are dogmatic or do not listen to good argument (after all, our only motivation is to work in partnership with residents to deliver the best possible outcome, given the difficulty of some decisions and a desire to fulfil the manifesto promises on the basis of which we were elected).  But equivalently we try not to mess about and publish proposals which are not tenable, as this is not fair to those involved.  To fulfil the last requirement we need to do quite a bit of work between the idea emerging and the public announcement being made, as discussed above.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7208d

Let's get the figures on council tax over the four years of the last Council (2002-2006) right, shall we.The Band D tax rose by a (simple) average of 15.3% per year over the four years.  The Wandsworth Council portion rose by an average of 14.3% per year, the Mayor for London's tranche by 18.5% per year.  The rises for the Wandsworth portion were in 2003/4, the year that the government's stealth taxes on local councils really hit hard.  Although our cash rise was around the London average, it was of course a much bigger percentage because of the low denominator.Let us leave aside the observation that, unless Councillor Belton was telling a bare-faced lie when he promised to keep council tax the lowest in the country in his election leaflets in 2002, he would have to have followed precisely the same taxation policy as we did.  I have long ago given up expecting principled opposition from the local Labour Party and in any case the overwhelming election result last year shows that most local people approved of our approach over those four years.  Let's instead look at the overall effect.A rise of 15.3% during a period when inflation, and therefore rises for those on fixed incomes, ran at between 2 and 3% represents an enormous burden for those living just above the benefit line.  I'm on business in a Lancashire District Council at the moment and have been looking at their surveys of local people's concerns.  Surprise surprise, the difficulty in paying council tax is right at the top.  I much regret that we have been forced to cane local people so hard with such large rises, as I believe in letting people decide for themselves how to spend their own hard-earned money as far as is consistent with top quality services.  But with the Labour government playing a long-term game of removing the fruits of Londoners' income taxes and VAT to give to its Friends in the North we have had no choice, just as we have no choice but to respond in some way to the latest £5 million chop.So, we have a choice of remaining faithful to our manifesto pledges and long-term aims of distinctively low local taxation, an aim fully shared by Cllr Belton in last year's elections when he acually promised a zero council tax rise over the next four years, or taking difficult decisions over how we deliver our priorities.  Actually, I am coming to the firm view that we will end up with more people visiting the Museum exhibits when we focus the Wandsworth Town cultural resources into a single building right opposite Southside and find space in our other libraries for display of artifacts.  But when finding the right way forward we have to take into account the interests of the mjaority of people in Wandsworth as well as the devotees of individual establishments like the Museum.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7203d

Malcolm Grimston really should stop spreading abuse and dare I say fabrications. The Council Tax has been frozen for the last 3 years AND has risen by an average of nearly 15% over the last 4 years. Both are true, incredibly, because his party raised it by 57.3% in one go immediately after the 2002 Council Election, having reduced it by 25% immediately before that election. Since then it has been frozen.However, as many have pointed out the current situation is the problem - not either his or indeed my interpretation of history. But actually it is not much of a problem at all! The Council Agenda for 31st January, page xxxiii, has a table showing that to deliver the current programme the Council needs to raise the Council Tax to £383. BUT, and it is rather an important but, this table does not yet take into account the latest Council Tax Collection Fund surplus. When one asks the Director of Finance what that is estimated to be the answer is £1 million, which brings down the Council Tax requirement to £375.Peculiarly enough a Council Tax of £375 represents a 5% increase, which is what the Government allows. Incidentally another 5% increase in each of the following two years would give a Council Tax of £394 in 2008/9 and of £413 in 2009/10, enough to cover the totality of inflation and of current Council requirements. (Here I am allowing that the Collection Fund Surplus in the next two years is much the same as its historical trend)This would ensure the future of the Museum for the next three years at least and of Battersea Arts Centre. What it would not do, however, would be to allow Cllr Grimston and his colleagues to freeze Council Tax. There is the rub!

Tony Belton ● 7202d

A comment from Michael Bull, a lifelong resident.Wandsworth council`s proposal to close Wandsworth Museum is a devastating shock considering its high reputation and success over the past years. It has grown from strength to strength and is now an integral part of the borough`s heritage and culture, giving both pleasure and education  to all age groups and communities and giving them an awareness of the history of their part of the borough, being themselves part of its developing history, which will be passed onto future generations.To lose this Centre of Excellence in the Borough without any creative discussions and committed debate between Councillors, Teachers/Parents, School Governors, Local Groups and Societies, the Council`s Education and Leisure Departments, Museum Staff, National Museums and related agencies in a positive endeavour to keep the Museum and resolve the situation without the irrevocable action by the Councillors to destroy what is already in place.The Borough has invested a considerable amount of money to preserve the Borough`s history and heritage for its residents, so why throw it away?  I urge all ward Councillors, especially those on the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to make an in depth visit to the Museum before the 6th. Feb. to see for themselves the Permanent Galleries ( on 2 floors ), the Temporary and Community Galleries, the Education Dept. and Outreach, the extensive stores and reserve collection, all the conservation work that has been undertaken during the past 20 years, the donations and gifts from residents entrusted to the Borough, in order for them to make their own valid and informed judgement when asked to vote on the future of the Museum with a clear conscience, having also taken on board constructive ideas, requests and suggestions they have received from all groups and residents for keeping the Museum. Also for the sake of the whole Borough, its cultural heritage, of which the Councillors and Officers are custodians for the present and future generations.I urge them to put a hold on the idea of closure and enter into open and creative discussion with all those listed above, with the will and commitment to explore all avenues available to make it possible for the Museum to be funded and safe guarded now and in the future.

Peter Tuppen ● 7200d

Readers will be interested in the following link to the Council's website: http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000296/M00002584/AI00004730/$COUNCILQUESTIONS31107.doc.pdf It is a question I put to the Leader of the Council (it has John Farebrother's name associated for procedural Council reasons) about the potential budget for 2007/8.You will see in the unusually frank reply from Councillor Lister that a Council Tax increase of 3.8% would be sufficient to cover the budget shortfall and to pay for current expenditure such as the Museum and BAC. If you disentangle the figures further this is equivalent to a shortfall of £2.3 million and not the fabled £5 million that Cllr Lister keeps talking about and which is in Brightside - leaving aside whether the Government should be expected to fund the totality of inflation, something that no other Government of either political persuasion has ever done.This means, as I and a few others have said before, that next year and the year after are OK. It is 2009/10 and 2010/11 that the Tory Council is concerned about - the second of these is of course Council Election year.To be fair (why should I be?) I was very clear in the question and he in the reply that this was based on the Director of Finance's assumptions at the time of writing the report. Since then Bank Rate has gone up 0.25% and the Director has been become more pessimistic about both inflation and Government grant.However, if inflation were to stabilise or drop back; if Government grant regimes were to change; if there were a different Chancellor; if the Council Tax was pushed up 5% each year,; if; if. I suspect many would argue that to close the Museum and BAC precipitately now when one has a 2/3 year gap before some hypothetical financial crisis might hit us is premature - consultations and negotiations should start now with a promise to review in early 2008.

Tony Belton ● 7196d

In searching Justine Greenings speeches on www.theyworkforyou.com (excellent website) I cant find any instance of her talking about the Museum. Although she did ask a more general question to the Local Government Minister on Local Council funding on Tue 23rd Jan:See: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-01-23a.1286.4&s=wandsworth+speaker%3A11771#g1286.7It was:House of Commons debatesTuesday, 23 January 2007Oral Answers to Questions — Communities and Local GovernmentLocal Government FinanceAll Commons debates on 23 Jan 2007  2:30 pm  Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative): "To what extent her Department will take into account its assessment of value for money in local authority spending in 2005-06 when it determines local authority grant uplifts for 2006-07; and if she will make a statement".Phil Woolas (Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government):"The local government finance settlement for 2006-07 was approved by the House on 6 February 2006".Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative):"The Minister will be aware that my local council of Wandsworth received a much lower than average grant uplift this year—in spite of being graded excellent by the Audit Commission and in spite of being rated as the best value for taxpayers' money council in the whole country. How can he justify my local taxpayers getting such a raw deal from Whitehall when the council is doing such a good job?"Phil Woolas (Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government): "I challenge the hon. Lady's assumption that her constituents are getting a raw deal. Indeed, we specifically provided a floor to protect authorities such as hers that do not suffer the same deprivation— I am not denying that there is some deprivation in her area—as other authorities. Rather than criticise us, I would have thought that the hon. Lady would be thanking the Government for providing a floor to protect the grant, which has been above inflation throughout the Government's period of office."

John Ager ● 7196d

As you will see from our proposals, the Borough’s Cultural Strategy, ‘Enriching Lives’, still very much underpins our approach, though naturally as times change some of the details change with them.The vision (page 20) remains central to our policies:"Our vision is for everyone to have the opportunity to participate in a rich variety of cultural activities within a diverse and vibrant borough."The success criterion for the changes we are proposing with the Museum and libraries is simply to increase the total number of visits, i.e. to widen the number of people who are taking the opportunity to participate in our culture.The importance of the five town centres is emphasised (e.g. pages 6 and also 19, where maintaining the distinctive five centres is supported by over 80% of consultees).  However, it is noted that although the development of the Wandsworth Shopping Centre was one of the key cultural opportunities then in the pipeline (page 14):“Wandsworth is the only town centre in the borough without a library in its shopping area ...  It is recognised that the Library Service could play a constructive role in the regeneration of the town centre by complementing the plans in the renewed Wandsworth Shopping Centre and by promoting social inclusion.  Opportunities will, therefore, be kept under review.”  (Page 46)When it comes to discussing the way Wandsworthians view culture, it is clear that for most of them Wandsworth remains a collection of villages rather than a single area (page 11).“Culture is also linked to the immediate neighbourhood and seen to take place at a very local level e.g. in Battersea, Tooting, Putney etc.  Few people see the borough itself as a cultural entity.  This was reflected in residents’ views towards local town centres, with a strong feeling that these should provide a sense of local neighbourhood identity.”  (Page 17)This may go some way to explain why only a minority of people at the time (and now) visited the Museum.  By having local cultural items in our town centre libraries, we will be able to work with the prevailing perception, giving people a feeling that the exhibits refer to an area they recognise, while also giving us an opportunity to get some Wandsworth-wide cultural messages across to far greater numbers of people than the Museum can do.The consideration of what cultural activities local residents take part in is important (page 17).“Visiting parks and open spaces is the most popular activity, with over three quarters of residents visiting them each month, followed by visits to libraries, sports centres/swimming pools and rivers or canals.”Our recent and proposed cultural actions have reflected these priorities among our residents – ongoing investment e.g. in Battersea Park and Tooting Common, a new library for Wandsworth town centre, £4.4 million investment in the sports centres and so on.  The Museum is not mentioned on the list of cultural activities enjoyed by the majority of residents.Finally, we are aware that:“In general, respondents did not want the Council to … increase the levels of taxation to support cultural initiatives.”  (Page 19)And of course council tax was much cheaper in those days than today. Although a new strategy will be produced in time to take account of the detailed changes, I doubt that the underlying principles – localising the activities, providing a library for Wandsworth town centre, focusing on the cultural activities which are people’s priorities and noting the desire not to increase taxes to pay for them – will change significantly, as they seem to me and my colleagues to be as relevant today as they were five years ago.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7193d

This doesn't mean that we can all lie down and wait to be railroaded, Adrian.There are dozens of unanswered questions - not the least being where is WBC finding the £1m to fund this  state-of-the-art Wandsworth Town centre library?Also, if they sell off  the other two library sites as  they plan to when they close the libraries and make the  De Morgan centre homeless, is this revenue supposed to be used to keep our Council Tax the lowest in the land - or will it be funding the Library instead? Meanwhile,  none of us  have seen the feasability study for converting the  Courthouse into a state of the art 21st century library - by the time English Heritage agree/disagree with the proposals to convert the  grade II listed building no doubt  WBC will have given up on the idea and decide to sell the Courthouse so we end up losing not only the Museum and De Morgan Centre, but possibly three libraries in the Borough too. It's about time all our ward councillors stood up for us instead of being  bullied into submission by senior members of the Council by the  fact that  national government  has cut  WBC's grant. This issue is not  about money alone: at the very least they should a)all be asking the same questions regarding the  future of  the artefacts that their constituents own, b)reviewing the feasability study and reporting back to us,c) agreeing that more time  needs to be given for  all the suggestions we have raised to be investigated, therefore  approving a 12 month delay in the decision to close the Museum.I respectfully suggest that tonight's meeting will be the  perfect opportunity for those  representing us on the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee, (operative word being Scrutiny, in this case)to do so.

Lucille Grant ● 7192d

A few more questions for our unusually silent Cllr Grimston:1.  Paper 07-169 on the proposed closure of West Hill and Alvering Libraries and their amalgamation in the Court House makes the statement (para 11) that the floor area in the new town centre library will be larger than Balham Library.  Balham Library currently employs 12 full-time staff while the new Library in Wandsworth will be staffed by only 8 full-time staff (para 15).  The Court House, with its many floors and small rooms will need even more staff, not less.  Is this another example of Cllr Grimston's idea of improved service?  Or is it further evidence (if such were needed) that he and his department have cobbled together these Heath Robinson proposals with so little thought that they cannot withstand even the most superficial scrutiny?2.  Putting up exhibitions at the Museum requires a large workshop with woodworking tools, digital scanning and printing equipment as well as facilities for planning layouts and installing lighting, temperature and humidity controls.  Where will these facilities be situated in his "museumlets" and where are the trained, experienced staff required to operate them?3.  Is he aware of the success of Hounslow CIP, a leisure trust formed in 1998 that has to date secured savings of £4.5 million and £5m in grants since its establishment as a not-for-profit social enterprise?  Or is this the sort of innovative solution he refuses to consider when he is busy "thinking outside the box"?I am not holding my breath for any answers to my questions as they would no doubt publicly embarrass Cllr Grimston and his department.

Cedric Peachey ● 7191d

At last night's meetimg, Neil Robson was a star - measured, thoughtful and coping with questions with considerable charm. And the museum staff responded to questions from the councillors with real commitment, revealing the quality of their work in the community. In the end the decision was based upon inadequate and inaccurate information and, as Grimston acknowledged, was being made for political reasons (to cut the overall budget with comparative ease)not for service/community related reasons. I was shocked by the sheer stupidity and complacency of the councillors from the ruling party and surprised and pleased by the efforts of the opposition to find a cross party compromise, but it was to no avail.The idea of a trust was raised in Neil Robson's presentation and also by Cedric in the message above. A small number of Museum trusts have been successful in taking over a museum or gallery from a local authority - the best are in Sheffield (2 of them) and York, where the combination of an agreement with the local council to continue its existing level of funding and a change of culture in the new organisation enabling more effective applications for external funds and improved sponsorship oopportunities have meant that all are flourishing. However, Hounslow's CIP has been an unmitigated disaster for the borough's cultural heritage (I live there and spend a lot of my spare time propping bits of it up). It has had a series of hopeless CEOs, has no culture of expansion and no vision for the future - everything is stagnating. Furthermore, CIP is utterly proud of the savings it has made (it is on the website) but these lie mainly in no longer having to pay 100% business rates and accepting council cuts year on year. Parks are maintained minimally, historic buildings are falling apart, and no-one can attend the meetings of the network of companies that run it so there is no public accountability as there is with a council. All vacant posts are currently frozen (including the museum curator, vacant since Christmas 2005 and two archives posts which have become vacant since Christmas 2006) and 100 redundancies are being announced to horrified staff across CIP this week.A new trust would only work if core funding was provided by Wandsworth, close to the present level of funding, for long enough to enable successful bids for funds from elsewhere to be found. Of course, if Wandsworth Council had wanted the Museum to continue in a different form, to save some of its costs or to relocate, all of this could have been investigated and a sustainable way forward found. But the councillors (and apparently the Director of the department) actively want to close the Museum and reduce the local studies service - and are prepared to lie about how good it will be with minimal resources and only two staff. Now all we need them to do is to decide they do not want the archives and local studies library collections and they'll have destroyed the lot.

Valerie Bott ● 7190d

Val,Thank you for your first-hand experience of Hounslow CIP.  I know them as one of 110 Leisure Trusts that are part of the Sports & Recreation Trusts Association (SpoRTA) that I deal with regularly but I cannot vouch for their track record on culture.  What I do know is that three years ago there were only 30 such Trusts and the models they have developed not only work but are flourishing in most parts of the UK, serving all parts of the community and attracting grants and support that are not available to local councils.  In short, the proliferation of the leisure trust model has been nothing short of phenomenal.  The very latest is in Rochdale where a Trust has been specifically formed to run cultural facilities - art galleries, museums and libraries.  It will be formally launched in April 2007.The most successful of all is Greenwich Leisure, who manage 60 sports and leisure facilities with an annual turnover of some £60 million.  If they were to be approached with regard to Wandsworth Museum, they would certainly require a significant level of grant while they take over the staff and facilities but most Trusts expect the grant to reduce over an agreed number of years as they introduce savings and secure support from agencies and external partnerships.  Unfortunately, WBC appear to live in a world where they expect a cheque for £418,000 to be put on the table before they will even consider any scenario besides closure.By the way, we have yet to see what cross-charges and other costs are included in the £418,000 that Cllr Grimston uses as his touchstone for savings.  I would not be surprised if it includes a significant element of Council charges that will not disappear with the closure of the Museum.

Cedric Peachey ● 7190d

I am so sorry you've all had such a bad experience.When our asphalt resistance was treated similarly we felt it so undemocratic that we kept fighting and it looks like that paid off, inasmuch as it looks like pavements in our small area will not be treated with asphalt.Yes,what about the rest of Wandsworth!I recommend all avenues to you- if thats not coals to Newcastle.Get publicity to continue with an emphasis on the rushed way the Council did this-be an angry victim in the papers;contact Prince Charles;the BBC-you and yours?;take an ad out looking for a sponsor;ask the British Museum;local and central banks;email Private Eye; keep embarrassing the councillors with earnest letters-many will have felt uncomfortable about the museum closure; ask the lottery people if they ever make exceptions since this is so urgent; get people to ask for return of objects donated in the event that the museum were to close;look into the legal aspects;the deeds-how did WBC aquire that;look into how protected that buildings interior might be and how to reinforce that protection by alerting those authorities who might get a request for internal alterations to be granted; make sure the councillors all know  that you are doing some of that-unease helps-frequently too;make them know you will be personally canvassing against them at the next election-they might forget but you wont;kepp writing to the Mayor and the assembly-ok they can't interfere-they might advise; Tony Blair; Campbell; famous local and national        Historians?;universities; American universities-twin one!;Richard Branson;Fayed;the Queen;Paul Mccartney;the Royal Acadamy;LBC radio-Nick Ferrari; anything that comes into your heads in effect and let gardening centres lie for the moment! Your choice looks like- let it happen or have the satisfaction of doing the best you can even if the result is not positive! You never know.What you do know is that the Full Council Meeting is not likely to overturn the committees' decision.Ask Francis DeLima if they ever have.Also attempt to split the work load of investigations and keep mutually informed by email.

Lois Matcham ● 7176d

Can I join in the Council Tax (CTX) discussion?Martin, with WBC Tax going up 4.9% and Ken's going up 5.3% that does NOT mean it is going up in total by more than 10%. What it does mean is that the average of the two results in a 5.1% increase! Secondly the Corporate Resources Committee where CTX will be discussed is on the 7th March AND the Executive and Council when it will be formally agreed is on the 8th March.I would also add that on my reading of the papers (and briefing from the Director of Finance) one could argue that the reserves have had £6.9 million added into them - I am not quite sure where the £1.5 mill from a recent contributor originates but would be interested to hear. To be fair, however, one could also say there is good reason for that as what in a sense the Council is doing is putting aside money for as yet unagreed but probably uncontentious items like "Building Schools for the Future", necessary maintenance, etc.However, the figures also show two other things. First that CTX will rise by 4.9%, give or take a smidgeon, in each of the next two years and that there will be a CTX freeze in Election year 2010. Second that there is not a shadow of a doubt that on these figures the Council could keep the Museum open.Tony Belton, Labour LeaderPS There is a fascinating and very technical discussion in para 18 of the CTX paper (07-288) which in essence says "On the basis of the Revenue Support Grant formula Wandsworth gets £34 million (sic) more grant than it is theoretically entitled to (an equivalent to a 75% rise in CTX) but we, the Government, recognise that we can't expect any authority to take a hit like that so we are going to reduce other authorities grant by 31% to pay for a "floor" level for Wandsworth and many other authorities in the south east". So much for the Tory argument about Labour favouring its "Friends in the North". Do they really want all 60 million of us to live down here, because if we do not do something about redressing the national imbalance that is exactly what we will get!

Tony Belton ● 7173d

On the Politics Show London on BBC1 today, someone openly described the proposal by Wandsworth Council to close Wandsworth Museum as "a mistake - it's worse than a crime!"  What public personality could possibly have been so unambiguous in their condemnation of this Council's sudden decision to close the Borough's one and only Museum?  Surely this had to be someone with no connections with the Conservative party and with none of the experience, the intelligence or the vision needed to appreciate Councillor Grimston's vaunted strategy for "bringing culture to the community"?The culprit was none other than Sir John Tusa, Managing Director of the Barbican and recently appointed Chairman of the Conservative Party's brand-new Art Commission - a post he was asked to take by Hugo Swire, Shadow Secretary of Culture.Tim Donovan's interview this morning with Sir John Tusa and Chris Smith will not make comfortable listening for our Conservative Councillors or for Justine Greening, but it does express what thousands of residents have been saying to their elected representatives for the last seven weeks.  If this Council will not heed their own electorate, perhaps they might just listen to their betters, both in politics and in the arts.The link is at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/regions/london/default.stmClick on the button on the right-hand side "Latest Programme"One point - the £18 per visitor cost quoted by Tim Donovan is a great specimen of how inaccurate statistics can be.  The Council's publicised cost of running the Museum is £418k (which is yet to be properly validated).  That sum divided by 30,000 visitors produces a cost per head of £13.93.  However, the Museum also serves a further 14,000 customers through its research services, outreach programmes and website.  If we take these into account (as they are indeed an integral part of what the Museum does), the cost per customer drops to £9.50 - a very far cry from the figure that the Council has used to justify its closure proposals.

Cedric Peachey ● 7172d

Jenni -  this whole issue is not a  grizzle about arts and heritage and I'm sorry if that's how  you feel. It's really about the  demise of culture and  its valuable support for education in the Borough that so many of us are  most concerned with and the fact that there  has been no proper consultation prior to  the  decision being taken. £400,000 pa  runnng costs are a drop in the ocean when you consider that the Council is  planning to spend  £4.4 MILLION on upgrading leisure centres including £2.7 MILLION on Barn Elms (which everyone  thinks belongs to Richmond and isn't mentioned on the Wandsorth Council website listings of leisure centres!)Perhaps  people who  already pay to use leisure centres  should 'privately fund in a public spirited way' their leisure and sports facilities? I  certainly am happy to  pay through my taxes for such facilities, which I don't use at all, but not at the expense of the fantastic  educational facility that a local Museum of the stature of Wandsworth provides. There are  other  ways of cutting the £400,000 costs which the council have not  investigated including  varying opening hours, cutting back staff requirements etc. The council can very likely afford to keep the Museum in one location, even if it no longer situated at the Court House. What they actually want to do (in order to keep  council tax at the lowest in  the UK) is to sell off sites 'surplus to requirements' - these  include Alvering and West Hill libraries and  the Court House  if/when it is  deemed unsuitable to become  a Town Centre library.In addition, I may be jumping the gun, but I wonder whether  more libraries will close as a result of  the Council's policy. I believe there are currently 12 in the borough inclduing Putney, Southfields and Roehampton. Perhaps  Malcolm Grimston could reassure us that  once his vision of FIVE town centre libraries is achieved, the  other 7 libraries such as Roehampton (hardly a town centre) will not be lost to us? By the  way have you  visited the Museum yourself? Do you have children who have benefited from  going there on a school visit?

Lucille Grant ● 7169d

Mr Dixon, at the risk of adding to your despair, I suggest you look at Cllr Grimston’s strenuously upbeat assessment of his own proposals on the Wandsworth Conservatives website: http://www.wandsworthconservatives.org.uk/record.jsp?type=news&ID=315His theme is very clear – “never mind the quality, feel the width!”  Anyone who seriously believes that the thousands of people who dash into libraries every day to collect orange recycling bags, to renew books, to pick up a Freedom Pass or to squeeze in 30 minutes on the internet will have the time or inclination to interrupt their timetable to look at and try to understand a few fragmentary museum artefacts put on display somewhere else in the building is beyond sensible argument.  And for those occasional visitors that do, the experience will be so incomplete, so superficial, so lacking in any broader context and relevance that they will rapidly conclude they have wasted their time.Anyone who has visited the Museum can’t help but notice that the lighting throughout the ground floor is quite subdued and for a very good reason – all the items on display would be damaged by bright light.  Libraries, however, are the very opposite – bright lighting is essential.  This alone will limit what can be displayed and where.There are similar issues with controlling temperature and humidity – this can best be organised and provided in a dedicated building.  In the case of Wandsworth Museum, there has been substantial investment in ensuring the correct levels of care are maintained.  To comply with the same standards when items are spread across five different buildings, each with their own environmental idiosyncrasies, is certain to be far more risky, complicated and expensive.The lack of reality, the absence of informed thought, the refusal to acknowledge that there are fundamental reasons why libraries and museums cater to very different needs and accommodate very different activities is truly astonishing.  As a final postscript, it is worth pointing out that Cllr Grimston carefully omits any mention that his proposals mean the eviction of the De Morgan Centre.

Cedric Peachey ● 7167d

Dear Ms Greening,Thank you for your letter dated 2nd March in response to my previous email on Wandsworth Museum.You state that you were surprised to see the Parliamentary Early Day Motion No. 809 on the closure of Wandsworth Museum tabled by Martin Linton and Sadiq Khan “as the point of an effective EDM is generally to lobby Parliament and Ministers about an issue that is decided in Parliament”.  This view is directly contradicted by other EDMs that you have signed.  I refer you to EDM 1002 and EDM 180 which you signed and which did not concern any issues decided in Parliament – they simply offered MPs the opportunity to express a view in exactly the same way as EDM 809.  I also refer you to EDM 195 which you signed and which highlighted the fact that “insufficient funds are available for the conservation of Scott's hut and its artefacts at Cape Evans” in the Antartic.  Why are you not equally prepared to support an EDM that highlights WBC’s decision to stop funding for Wandsworth Museum?  Should your constituents read into this that the only occasions when you will sign an EDM that is concerned with the preservation of our heritage is when it doesn’t concern this Borough?  Or worse, that you will not say anything that might be at odds with the local Conservative Council although you were expressly elected to represent the entire constituency and not just those voters that support the Conservative Council?If so, it seems that we have to turn to the House of Lords to find a committed, outspoken Conservative representative for the thousands of residents who are bitterly angered by the Council’s plans to close the Museum.  I refer to the former Conservative government minister, Baroness Trumpington, and her forthright comments in the House of Lords last Thursday:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2007-03-01a.1640.0&s=%22wandsworth+museum%22#g1640.3How much more irremediable damage to this Borough’s unique culture, history and heritage will you stand for before finally raising your voice in public to persuade the Council to give residents the time, support and flexibility the Council are offering Battersea Arts Centre so that some way can be found to save Wandsworth Museum?  Or have you decided to wait until it is far too late?In light of your repeated reluctance to take a public stand on this matter, I will be publishing this as an open letter on www.putneysw15.com  I will, of course, be happy to publish any response from you, should you so wish.Yours sincerely, Cedric PeacheyTo access EDM 809, please see:http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=32506&SESSION=885

Cedric Peachey ● 7166d

As a further response to Martin Hime's comment about writing to Councillors rather than asking questions on this Forum, I would just say that I am sure they read the comments but I note they are extremely selective in which ones they respond to.  Look how little we have heard from Cllr Grimston since the OSC Committee meeting on Feb 6th when the closure plan was voted through in the presence of 100s of protesting (and disbelieving) borough residents.It is desperately frustrating to be told that the only way to save the museum is to raise large sums of money to cover running costs, without being given any assurance that it will exist after September.  As Lucille asks "who will put money up for an institution which may not exist in a few months' time?".For the relatively small sums of money involved (less than 1/4% of the annual council budget or £3.40 per person per annum on the Council Tax) this shows a remarkable rigidity of approach.The Wandsworth Museum Campaign Group is trying very hard to find workable alternatives but the reason we have not been able to report any progress is that our discussions with councillors, verbal and in writing, are painfully slow.  One suspects deliberately so on their part.Public pressure remains by far the best way to get them to concentrate their minds.  We are fortunate that Sir John Tusa and Baroness Trumpington have spoken out against the council's plans.  I am quite sure they would not have done so had we remained silent.

Jonathan Callaway ● 7165d

No Martin I did not know you have  never visited Wandsworth Museum. How long  have you lived in Putney?!If you would like to go  I would be more than happy to drive you there and I'm sure Pat Astley Cooper will be only too willing to give you a tour.As to Malcolm being  senstive to  comments on this forum - surely that comes with the territory of being in public  office. Ask T. Blair, Gordon Brown et al. It has been ever thus.Frankly I don't believe he is the only bad guy in this case: Edward Lister and Maurice Heaster have also under-estimated the feelings of the  residents of Wandsworth. The Conservatives seem  hell bent on alienating their core  voters.As for other Tory councillors,  if they look closely into  this policy  they cannot seriously believe  it is the right one. Perhaps they are being bullied into submission. It ceetainly appeared that way to some of us at the  Scrutiny Committteee when Malcolm  gave  his spiel in front of the packed Council chamber.Re raising of cash - I can assure you this  has been discussed thoroughly by the Campaign Group and  we have  been advised that promises of sponsorship cannot  be relied upon UNLESS we are assured of the future of the Museum ie that it has a single permanent home. There is little doubt that  were this the case  funds could then be raised.As to  your query re the  visitor levels, Fraser - I know that the De Morgan Centre has  been extremely busy since  publicity over its  closure or  loss to Wandsworth has been publicised. I would  imagine the same  has been true of Wandsworth Museum. Perhaps Wandsworth Councillors would like to  tell us how many have paid it their  very first visit since they became aware of  their own decision to close it?

Lucille Grant ● 7165d

I eventually received Cllr Grimston's calculations a few days ago and find that there are issues about the accuracy and presentation of his economic argument that must be urgently addressed. Paper 06-643 (Report to the Environment and Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Committee; Sept '06) shows an establishment of 8.93FTE (full time employees) for the museum. Cllr Grimston's calculations indicate 11.92FTE. If the former figure is correct, by pro-rata, Salaries are £80,552 less he states. Cllr Grimston's budget for 07/08 indicates £36,580 for building repairs. This can not, by it's nature, be considered a repeat item of expenditure and should be excluded from savings calculations. By adjustment, this results in a budget of £299,582. In view of the fact that visits to the museum in person have been increasing by 11% (and apparently by significantly more recently), this leads to a cost per visit of £9.40, excluding enquiries by letter, phone & e-mail, web visits and virtual tours or £5.85 including these which is distinctly below Cllr Grimston's CLAIMED cost of £18 per visit as reported by the council to local and national media. In view of the fact that redundancy costs are estimated at £250,000 and estimated additional costs this year are £146,000, actual savings can not be claimed for 08/09 but circa +£100,000 of extra expenditure and circa £300,000 p.a. savings thereafter (less the cost of the proposed library based service, storage of artifacts etc for which no figures have been calculated). If, for arguments sake, we estimate the cost of Cllr Grimston's proposals at say £150,000 p.a., savings will be less than £150,000 or less than £0.50 per resident p.a. I have asked that Cllr Grimston:- 1. Publish the estimated cost of his proposed library based service without further delay.2. Publish the responses to his proposals by the Lottery Heritage Fund, The Learning & Skills Council, The European Social Fund, The Museum & Galleries Commission, The Wolfson Foundation and other benefactors to our museum. Also to publish the initial responses to grant applications under his new proposal or confirm if benefactors have indicated they are prepared to help fund his proposal.  3. Confirm if there will be grant claw back by outside benefactors if the museum closes September 07 thus further distorting his calculations. It is clear that Cllr Grimston has misled his fellow councillors, council tax payers and the general public about claimed costs and savings. This is a very serious charge.I e-mailed the 3 requests above to him on 4th March together with my comments on his financial calculations and have not received a response. I believe he has deliberately misinformed councillors and brought his office and the whole of Wandsworth Borough Council into disrepute. Furthermore, I believe he has damaged the image of our borough (and The Conservative Party) far beyond it's boundaries.I would add that I am very disappointed with Justine Greening. Thank you for keeping us informed Cedric.

Roland Gilmore ● 7161d

The AQPR figure was taken from the Establishment and Employee Report for the Museum which gives a total employee FTE (full-time equivalent) figure, which was 8.93 on the list for last July when the AQPR was written.  The discrepancy is accounted for by some posts which at that time were only filled in part, for example a museum assistant working 11 hours in a post established at 23 hours.  The budget is based on the full establishment of 11.92 (a figure which has been verified by the Head of Corporate Services) so this is the appropriate figure to use when calculating budget savings.  In summary, the AQPR figure was staff in post at that time, the 07-168 figure was the FTE for posts listed on the Council's establishment. £36,580 is the revenue budget allocation for repairs and planned maintenance for the Court House building in 2007/08, which is a percentage of the Leisure & Amenities department's total budget for the year - actual expenditure can be higher or lower in any one year as the costs of managing each building is averaged over 5-10 years.  It would be contrary to health and safety regulations to fail to maintain the Museum in a safe state for visitors and repair work crops up on a regular basis in a building of that age.The figures on redundancy etc in 07-168 are correct.  Therefore the full costs of the new town centre library are those included in paragraph 16 of 07-169 and considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.  There is no budget change to the cost of the Local History/Heritage Service which is shown as £113,000 (excluding all building costs) in para 81 of the AQPR 06-643.Lottery Heritage Fund: the only direct funding has been for local history archives with no direct funding to the Museum, therefore we have received no response.  I am not aware of any funding from the Learning & Skills Council apart from (indirectly) a small grant from the Education Department for family learning which was completed, therefore there has been no response from the LSC.  The European Social Fund - no funding, therefore no response.  The Museum & Galleries Commission (replaced by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, MLA): a grant of £30,000 was received in 1996 and they have confirmed no requirement to repay as the Museum has been in existence for more than five years.  The Wolfson Foundation gave a grant of £20,000 in 1995/96 and as far as I know the situation is the same as the MLA case above (indeed it was administered by the MLA) therefore no response.  I do not understand the second sentence in question 2.Potential grant clawback is covered by Appendix 2 of report 07-168 (£13,447).  Only the V&A have so far written to indicate they may require the return of their grants, representing £9,597 between 1988 and 2006.It is indeed a serious charge that I have deliberately misled anyone - in fact, it is clearly libelous.  Why does this have to be so viciously and unremittingly personal on your part instead of our discussing the real benefits and challenges of the changes?

Malcolm Grimston ● 7160d

Dear Cllr GrimstonWelcome back to this ever-growing thread!If you are ready to respond to allegations, whether well-founded or not, perhaps you could answer a few of the following questions:1.  Why cannot more time be allowed for a longterm solution to the Museum's future to be worked out?  It has been allowed for the BAC.  Is the difference the degree of national attention given to the council's original plans?2.  Why cannot some core funding, or staff support in the form of expert curator(s) continue to be made available so that the integrity, unity and continuity of the collection be maintained?3.  Why cannot the Council bring itself to engage credibly with the WANDSWORTH MUSEUM CAMPAIGN GROUP, rather than propose unworkable solutions and leak them to the press in the hope that criticism is thereby deflected?4.  With visitor numbers rising rapidly (53% higher in February), no doubt in part thanks to the publicity generated by our campaign, the average cost per visit number you have been quoting surely now needs amending.  Will you now compare monthly visitor levels to monthly borrowers of library books rather than gross library visits - surely a fairer comparison?  The results must show the Museum to be relatively more popular than your original figures.5.  Do you have any thoughts you might like to share with us on the criticisms made by the Conservative Party's new "Arts Czar" Sir John Tusa, who said that the Museum closure would be "an error, worse than a crime"?  Or indeed the trenchant criticisms made by Baroness Trumpington, the Conservative peer and former cabinet member?6.  What will happen to the 10,000 artefacts if the Museum does indeed close?  Is the disused chapels plan still on the cards?  And what will be done to make them safe and to establish the controlled environment in them necessary to prevent deterioration of the exhibits?  Has all this been costed properly?7.  Do you actually know if English Heritage will allow you to carry out the £1.2mn of works you say are necessary to convert the Court House to library use?  Have detailed plans yet been drawn up and if so is that £1.2mn estimate too low?There are many more questions but these are few for you to get your teeth into.I look forward to your reply.

Jonathan Callaway ● 7160d

Malcolm I personally have no intention, nor  ever had, of getting into  a (personal) slanging match with you. I hope  no-one else will fall into that trap. However  I must take task over  your assertion that we  should be discussing 'the real benefits' of the  changes. Challenges  yes, particularly to those  who are campaigning and trying to  have a meaningful and positive dialogue with the Council.Although  your fellow Conservative councillors  are responding  (to  constituents who are  voicing their concerns) that  the proposals  will mean  culture will be  made  more widely available, this is all New Labour-style 'soundbites': How  can you possibly defend a  few static displays of a minimal number of  artefacts (of which there are 10,000 to draw upon)  applicable to one  local area in each of  five town  centre libraries (Wandsworthiness, indeed!)against the vibrant  tactile displays and education facility provided  by a  single entity Museum in the heart of the Borough.You and your  fellow Councillors (Putney ones in particular, I'm sad to say) who are writing this are guiilty of misleading constituents.Your priority should be to listen to  suggestions the Wandsworth Museum Campaign Group  have made and be supportive of them by in the first instance finding a suitable  single central borough location for the  Museum if  it  has  to move from the Court House. You should have  held consultations with  residents last year when you knew that  the  cost savings  you wanted in order  to  provide funds for  Tooting Library as well as  your dream Wandsworth Town Centre Library  were  first thought about.

Lucille Grant ● 7160d

Martin; As architect of this scheme, Cllr. Grimston positioned himself in the firing line and must expect to be shot at. I make no apology for anything I've said even if he perceives those things as "vicious" when they are mainly expressions of frustration with his intransigence. He protesteth too much! To suggest that his proposal was "just to save money" is rediculous. We now know that he intends not to save money but to asset strip the Borough. Incidentally, did you know that the council subsidy for a borough resident to be an audience member at BAC ammounts to £29.06 by using the same analogy of Cllr. Grimston's cost per visit to the museum. He is prepared to negotiate with BAC but not with defenders of Wandsworth Museum. Why this uneven handedness Martin?If answered honestly, your question about employee numbers would only go to demonstrate how Cllr. Grimston has exaggerated costs to justify his policy. I believe that by presenting guesses and budgets as fact, he has misled decision makers. I read no rider to his £18 claim that the figure was dependant on some abstract idea of staff attendances; did you?. I therefore hold by the accusation that intentionally (or to be kind, unintentionally) he has misled us all in persuit of his agenda. On the specific issue of building repairs. Cllr Grimston now confirms that the £36,580 he added to museum "costs" is a budget that may or may not be spent. That sounds like cooking the books to me. Not only that but if the building became a library, by his reasoning, that cost would transfer to that library and would therefore not be a saving at all.The largest "cost" by far is staff. Included in Cllr. Grimston's reckoning (£320,000) there is a full time "building manager" for the library. What a rediculous notion that such a tiny building would require the services of a full time manager! Who's idea was that? Cedric, with your knowledge of museum services, could you please propose a reasonable level of staffing since I suspect that the staffing levels claimed in Cllr. Grimston's "costs" exceed what is actually required for the museum to function effectively.  If the intention is "just to save money", then let's have a positive discussion about saving money and saving the museum. (He has still not answered so many questions such as the cost of non-statutory translation services.) Cllr. Grimston is reported as saying that he would resign if his policy is not adopted. I say to Wandsworth Conservatives and The Conservative Party; Dump the Chump! It is people with attitudes like him that are stopping the party from advancing into David Cameron's new vision for Conservatism; Engaging with the electorate to find mutually beneficial solutions to problems is the way forward and not by ultimatum to satisfy one politician's vanity.

Roland Gilmore ● 7159d

But this is how policy is always made.  Objectives are identified, initial proposals made, discussions follow (including, as you will know Martin, not only taking into account public comments but also vigorous debate within the Conservative group to produce a policy which everyone hails as being in the community's best interest), new proposals emerge, they are scrutinised by the Council and then a decision is taken.  The use of the word 'afterthought' is therefore rather odd - it would be like describing the creation of our new school in Chartfield Crescent (Paddock Primary) for youngsters with Severe, and complex Moderate, Learning Difficulties as an 'afterthought' because it was not in the initial version of the major investment in our Special Schools in which you and I were involved.  As you say (and I have always made clear), the starting point was a need to respond to the £5.3 million cut in government support, given that raising council tax by the maximum with all the trouble that causes people on fixed incomes, as we have reluctantly done, only gives us £2 million and that all London Boroughs are expecting things to be much much worse over the next three years (cross-London consensus is that the cash increase in each of the next three years is expected to be 1%, i.e. something like a 3% cut in real terms, with more Borough treasurers thinking it will be 0% than thinking it will be more than 1%).  But what has emerged is an exciting enhancement of cultural activity (as understood by most residents) in the Borough.  It is the final outcome which is the matter for discussion, surely, not the process by which it emerges - otherwise there would be no point in listening to people's responses to initial proposals (e.g. the concern that was raised about the future of the Court House).  I do not believe the additional 100,000 visits to the new library will lead people to spend too much time wondering how the decision-making process was carried out which has delivered them such a great benefit.By the way, accounting rules which all councils must follow (and which prevent fiddling the figures for political advantage) dictate that we have to consider budget headings, not the day-to-day recruitment picture with respect to any service.  (Of course, at any moment a certain number of council posts will be vacant because staff have moved on and we are recruiting their replacements.)  I will find out what the current vacancy position at the Museum (if any) is like but the aim always is to recruit up to establishment so the budget variation is always, by convention, the full cost of establishment.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7159d

Actually, our intention is to use the existing sense of place to pull people in to viewing Wandsworth as a wider community in a way the Museum fails to do for the vast majority.  But even ignoring that, if I understand your point, one cannot understand the culture of Nine Elms without it being in the context of Earlsfield and Roehampton (but not Clapham, Vauxhall or Kennington which are outside the London Borough of Wandsworth); it is meaningless to feel one belongs to Tooting without also feeling that one belongs to Southfields and Queenstown (but not Collier's Wood or Streatham); that one cannot feel a Putney person unless one knows the heritage of Battersea and Furzedown (but not Fulham or Sheen)?  That a performance of Siegfried (like last night's on BBC2) cannot be appreciated in the absence of the rest of the Ring, or Ständchen without the rest of Schwanengesang?  Table Number 7 without Table By The Window (I've actually acted in such a performance and it did not seem to meet with much antagonism)?  That it is cultural vandalism to perform Vltava without the rest of Ma Vlast, or to sing only the first verse of the National Anthem?  That we should ignore The Apostles and The Kingdom because EE did not complete the trilogy?  It is an interesting case you make but I do not personally agree - there is rarely a self-evident cultural 'bite', above or below the size of which things are meaningless.  If one is interested in culture in the community rather than for the elite, one should, in my view, be looking for the most likely way one can get people interested in a way that means something to them and then seek to build on it.  Many a choral singer (myself included) started with Hallelujah and only later progressed to the rest of Messiah.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7158d

Roland,According to paper 07-168, the Museum staff is equivalent to 9.92 full-time employed although there are some vacancies.  The number of staff at the Museum is directly linked to the range and quality of services it provides and it is worth pointing out the following:1.  The team includes two trained education officers who organise and run classes in the Museum and outreach activities.2.  The steady growth of the collection over the years and its success in attracting donations from residents and loans from other museums requires not just expertise but a considerable degree of administration to assess, document and catalogue new items.  Last year, an average of 50 new artefacts were added to the collection each month, with a large number being politely declined.  If you remove this capability, the collection will cease to evolve and develop.3.  Planning and mounting temporary and community exhibitions requires a lot of backroom work and there is a workshop with specialist equipment at the Museum for constructing displays, printing images and text, wiring, lighting and protecting the results.  The team includes a mix of full-time and part-time staff who have the necessary skills and training to do this.  Again, once this capability is lost, the scope to explore and effectively present the many facets, threads and themes covered by the Museum's collection will cease.4.  The Museum, like most facilities run by the Council, has an ever-increasing reporting burden.  The demands for statistics continue to grow in number and complexity and are driven as much by central government as by the Council's own requirements.While no one would deny that there is scope to reduce the number of staff at the Museum and perhaps use more volunteers (the Museum already has the services of two volunteers) and possibly make other cuts and savings, I should point out that a couple of years ago the Museum was obliged to save money by reducing its opening hours.  Since then, the Museum has been closed on Saturday mornings.  Despite this, the Museum has continued to attract more visitors than ever.The nub of the issue here is not how few people could "run" a Museum but what sort of Museum do you want?  If it is to be anything more than a passive, unchanging, dusty repository of artefacts, you have to have the skills and staff that can make positive use of the collection and engage with the public through the creative presentation of different aspects of the collection, whether through exhibitions or family events or school visits or outreach programmes to the elderly, the disabled and the hospitalised.It is the breadth and depth of Wandsworth Museum's services to the community that singled it out and won it Accreditation last year.  This award will be immediately withdrawn under Cllr Grimston's plans as he plans to reverse all the work it currently does.One statistic for Wandsworth that has come my way is that the majority of borrowers of books at libraries spend less than five minutes in the library.  The thousands of visitors who come to collect orange bags and pick up Freedom Passes certainly spend even less time.  To argue as he does that you can count heads in libraries and claim that each will enjoy a "cultural experience" under his plans is like saying that everyone who passes a theatre poster advertising Macbeth will have gained some sort of appreciation of Shakespeare.My main problem with any discussion with Cllr Grimston is that, with the greatest of respect, it seems he really does not know what he is talking about.  He has already retracted his initial quite baseless criticism of the Museum.  At the same time, he declared that static displays are old hat and that digital access is the way forward and referred to the Kensington Museums.  He clearly is not aware of the V&A's plans to spend several millions to increase its space for static displays.When Cllr Grimston gave an interview on Radio London back in January, he was asked what was his favourite item in the Museum.  Janet Smith of the Wandsworth Historical Society had been on just before and talked about the Wandle Industries.  Cllr Grimston simply paraphrased what she had said and avoided naming an object.In a set of questions posted on this thread a month ago, I enquired when Cllr Grimston last visited the Museum for any reasonable length of time and how often has he been to the Museum in the last 12 months?  I received no answer.To the best of everyone’s knowledge, Cllr Grimston’s only recent visit to the Museum took place the afternoon before the ELOSC Meeting on 6th February.  It lasted less than 20 minutes and he made no attempt to speak to the staff about the Museum’s collection, their work and the services they provided.I am sure that Cllr Grimston would have been invited to exhibition openings and as the new Cabinet Member for Leisure & Amenity Services from May 2006 I would expect him to have visited the Museum to talk to the Curator to understand the facility and its services for which he was now responsible.  As far as I can determine, Cllr Grimston never undertook any of these quite obvious actions.  If I am wrong and have misrepresented him, I would be pleased if he would promptly put us right.What I find striking is that Cllr Grimston works in an industry where the use of experts is commonplace.  The Museums Libraries Archives Council has immense, wide-ranging expertise in the use of, the interraction between and the essential differences between museums and libraries.  Senior representatives of the MLA met with Cllr Grimston in January but it seems their comments and advice were ignored.  Why is Cllr Grimston so set on dismissing expert advice where it concerns the interests of Wandsworth residents and their culture and heritage?I'm afraid the same lack of understanding extends to many Councillors.  Several have sought to portray the Museum as a luxury used by middle-class residents and an imposition on the lower paid and disadvantaged.  Figures published by the Council itself confirm that 20% of visitors to the Museum come from black and ethnic minorities.  The results of a research study carried out a few years ago showed that Wandsworth Museum's visitors are predominantly from the less well off socio-economic classes:AB:  22%C1:  23%C2:  20%DE:  35%These results confirm that Wandsworth Museum attracted a far higher proportion of socio-economic class DE than the national average.  The same study highlighted that the Museum's visitors included 17% with no formal educational qualifications and 22% with only GCSE O Levels.  Those Councillors who minimise the relevance, contribution and educational value of the Museum to the less well-off, the deprived and the disadvantaged in our community have got it completely and spectacularly wrong.Given such fundamental gaps in Cllr Grimston's knowledge and understanding, it is difficult to see how there can be a meeting of minds with the thousands of residents who do appreciate the Museum, who value what it does and who therefore know why his proposed “museumlets” marooned in libraries with no coherent central collection to refer to and no over-arching curatorial support would be an irredeemable failure.

Cedric Peachey ● 7158d

Malcolm, I must be  extremely thick. I do not understand what you mean by using 'the existing sense of place to pull people in to viewing Wandsworth as a wider community in a way the Museum fails to do for the vast majority.' This comment is from the person whose  direct remit includes the Museum, the one  major community arts  asset  we have in the Borough (BAC is  a performing arts  asset, so offers soemthing entirely different), who  never visited the Museum until the day its future  was to be decided. When I used to work for a major retailer this would be tantamount to a Director deciding to  close a department  down because  he personally never bought anything from it, didn't  understand the product and therefore,  whatever the  service and sales figures  decreed,  it wasn't worth displaying in the store.From your post you seem to have only an appreciation of the performing arts (as you use  analogies of opera and plays) and none of history and passive art in the form of museum exhibits. Many people appreciate both and one should never  be sacrificed for the other. Personally I would feel  a Putney person only, and have  no sense of belonging to the wider borough of Wandsworth, if  my so-called Borough Museum was to illustrate a few artefacts specific to Putney in Putney Library. You cannot tell the whole story the way you propose, just as I assume  Wagner  doesn't tell the whole  story of The Ring through the individual operas  that make up the whole. Sorry, I've not  heard them all - opera not being  my musical preference. Schools in the Borough, in order to educate children, need  a wider picture available than that proposed to be  displayed in their  nearest  town centre library. What do you mean by 'culture in the community rather  than for the elite'? As you will have seen from Cedric Peachey's latest post, research shows that more  DE visitors visited the Museum (35%) than ABs (22%) when the research was undertaken. Even adding  ABs and C1s together (45%), they are less than C2s and DEs  together (55%).

Lucille Grant ● 7158d

Malcolm, I must be  extremely thick. I do not understand what you mean by using 'the existing sense of place to pull people in to viewing Wandsworth as a wider community in a way the Museum fails to do for the vast majority.' This comment is from the person whose  direct remit includes the Museum, the one  major community arts  asset  we have in the Borough (BAC is  a performing arts  asset, so offers soemthing entirely different), who  never visited the Museum until the day its future  was to be decided. When I used to work for a major retailer this would be tantamount to a Director deciding to  close a department  down because  he personally never bought anything from it, didn't  understand the product and therefore,  whatever the  service and sales figures  decreed,  it wasn't worth displaying in the store.From your post you seem to have only an appreciation of the performing arts (as you use  analogies of opera and plays) and none of history and passive art in the form of museum exhibits. Many people appreciate both and one should never  be sacrificed for the other. Personally I would feel  a Putney person only, and have  no sense of belonging to the wider borough of Wandsworth, if  my so-called Borough Museum was to illustrate a few artefacts specific to Putney in Putney Library. You cannot tell the whole story the way you propose, just as I assume  Wagner  doesn't tell the whole  story of The Ring through the individual operas  that make up the whole. Sorry, I've not  heard them all - opera not being  my musical preference. Schools in the Borough, in order to educate children, need  a wider picture available than that proposed to be  displayed in their  nearest  town centre library. What do you mean by 'culture in the community rather  than for the elite'? As you will have seen from Cedric Peachey's latest post, research shows that more  DE visitors visited the Museum (35%) than ABs (22%) when the research was undertaken. Even adding  ABs and C1s together (45%), they are less than C2s and DEs  together (55%).

Lucille Grant ● 7158d

I really should stay out of this discussion as so much I say seems to be misunderstood. But you miss the point about saving money, Roland. All departments of the Council were asked to come up with ideas for saving money. The closure of the Museum was not the original idea of Councillor Grimston, but one which he accepted. Now, with further thought, it is being presented as a "way to improve culture" in Wandsworth. I think no one agrees with that. If saving money is essential that is one thing, but let us not pretend that the plans will "improve" culture in Wandsworth.Malcolm, as briefly as I can, I remember very well the question of Special Schools which indeed I was involved with. The original idea was "planning for inclusion" as proposed by this Government ie as many as possible of children with special needs going to mainstream schools. The proposals went on being looked at at numerous meetings over at least 2 years. Then both the Govt and Wandsworth recognised that "inclusion" was not a good idea for many children. So the Wandsworth plan was changed to "reorganisation and investment in Special Schools" In the end I think the proposals were good for all children, but the principal was turned on its head.I think the same thing is happening with the Museum. The original idea for closure was purely to save money - nothing else. Now, after a much shorter debate than occurred over Special Schools, we are suddenly ie in 2 months rather than the 2 years (for Special Schools) told that the main reason for closure is to "improve culture" in Wandsworth. I find this hard to swallow.Secondly, Malcolm, I understand what you say about using "formal" figures for identifying costs. But I think we should talk about the "real" amount the Council will save by closure. This depends on the actual cash dispensed in 2006/2007 - a figure we still do not have.I still think to ask for a further 6 months delay is not asking a lot and something you could live with Malcolm.The effect on Council expenditure will be very little, bearing in mind no savings at all are expected this financial year. (And we expect £2 million from increased parking charges)I believe a short delay would give everyone a real chance to think all this through again and perhaps find sponsors and/or suggest alternative plans.

Martin Hime ● 7158d

I really think I should stay out of this discussion as so much I say is misunderstood. Nevertheless here goes again.Roland, you miss the point about saving money. Council staff were asked to find ways of saving money. Someone came up with idea of closing the Museum, and Malcolm agreed. There was no suggestion at that time it would "improve" culture in Wandsworth.Malcolm, I remember very well the question of Special Schools which was debated at many meetings over at least 2 years. Originally the Council was folowing then Govt policy for "inclusion" ie as many as possible children with special needs should go to mainstream schools. Then the Govt changed its attitude as did Wandsworth. It was recognised that "inclusion" was often far from a good idea. So Wandsworth changed the progamme and called it "reorganisation and investment in Special Schools" . The way it all turned out was, I believe, of advantage to children with special needs. But it was a "volte face".Similar events are occurring over the Museum. It is no good pretending that the original idea of closure was other than to save money. As things have developed (over 2 months rather than 2 years as was the case with Special schools)it is being alleged that the proposal is just to improve "culture" in Wandsworth. I find this hard to swallow.I also understand Malcolm why the "formal" budget was used to calculate savings. But this is a distortion - the figure which must be looked at which represents any real savings is the actual cost of running the Museum in 2006/07. We still have not been given that figure, but I suspect it is a maximum of £300,000 perhaps less.I still think Malcolm you could accept a 6 month delay without loss of face (In fact gaining it showing you listen)This would allow further thought to be given by everyone to plans for "culture" in Wandworth Town, and perhaps for sponsors and/or alternative plans to be found without too much rush.Incidentally I know that £2 million extra is coming to the Council from increased parking charges, so I think the Council will be able to survive.

Martin Hime ● 7158d

It is interesting to compare the overall way in which Wandsworth Council runs its affairs, with Bexley Council, both having enormous Conservative majorities. I think Wandsworth has 51 Conservatives, and 9 Labour. Bexley has 54 Conservatives, and again 9 Labour. But whilst the balance here has not changed for a very long time, that in Bexley is new –as of last May, up to which time Labour was in power.A friend is a Conservative Bexley Councillor, and we discussed the comparative positions last week. 3 interesting points emerged in the context of the current Museum issue:[1] Composition of committees. The general rule apparently is that the make-up of committees should be proportionate to the overall numbers in the Council. However, Bexley feels that it is not appropriate to have just one opposition member in any committee, because it is virtually impossible from a practical point of view to act alone in these circumstances; Labour has therefore been given the option of having 2 members on every committee, whilst capping Conservative numbers at 12. Looking at their website [which is better than Wandsworth’s, as you can see at a glance which party every Councillor is from] it would seem that Labour simply has not got the manpower to put up 2 members in every instance. Wandsworth seem to have 2 Labour on every committee, which is good, for the sake of good government, but crucially in the Finance Sub-Committee, there are only 4 members overall, with just one Labour. Given this is the key area where the initial decision to make cuts would have been made, is just one opposition representative sufficient, however good his calibre?[2] ‘Brightside’. Bexley’s equivalent is published quarterly, and the Conservative Chief Whip contacts the Labour Chief Whip every time with regard to proposed content. Earlier comments in this thread have pointed to the unacceptable level of self-satisfaction in ‘Brightside’, and whilst I personally read it regularly, I do think there is a high ‘squirm factor’. It is apparently illegal to say anything like ‘We Conservatives have been doing a wizard job on dustbin-emptying’ or whatever, an element of spin certainly oozes in. Could not the opposition have the right to designate, say, 2 pages for issues where things are not so bright, and then leave the editor [who must be a Council official?] to address how the Council is going to resolve the point? And if something is actually going to happen, surely that must be bright? As to the current issue’s copy on the Museum, I am not entirely happy with the precise wording. There’s talk of a ‘shortfall’ of £5 million. The cognoscenti may know what that is about, but there is a risk that the average reader will take that to mean that there is a negative balance on the 2007/8 Budget, and the Council is going to have to draw on reserves, when I think the contrary has been shown earlier. A small point, but these things all add up…[3] Relations with Ken Livingstone. This is an interesting one. Bexley under Labour did not get on with Ken. Bexley under the Conservatives is trying another tack – and they are already reaping some dividends. Ken has chipped into legal fees on a joint battle about an incinerator; and into construction costs of a link road into a freight depot. Contributions had not been expected under either heading, apparently. So what are the chances of getting Ken to contribute to the Museum? Have we even asked? Possibly there is not even an expense heading under which the GLA could contribute? Or perhaps the financial case for closure this year is currently so weak that Ken would simply say…..Anyhow, just thought I would raise the point.

James Dixon ● 7158d

Cllr Grimston,If you will take the trouble to read what I posted, I asked you in this very thread, on the 4th February, well over a month ago, when you last visited the Museum.  My precise words were:"When did he last visit Wandsworth Museum for any reasonable length of time and how often has he been to the Museum in the last 12 months?"You declined or failed to reply, despite several reminders from other readers.  It is strange indeed that you now suddenly feel moved to take such overstated umbrage when the question is repeated and the obvious conclusions have been drawn from your repeated refusal to respond.  Attempting to smear residents who pose an entirely proper question is a pretty poor tactic.I am delighted that you found time to make so many photo-opportunities in the Museum.  I'm sure Brightside and the local press were very grateful.  Would it be too much to enquire if you also spent some time with the staff in the last 12 mionths to find out what they actually do and the range of services they provide?  Or were you content to rely on your occasional wanders around the Museum to provide you with a complete assessment of the Museum's value and performance?As for the comparison with BAC, the maintenance of a respectful, positive, professional dialogue depends on both parties.  As I have shown above, too much of what has been said by Councillors on this matter has been inaccurate, exaggerated or an insult to our intelligence.  Martin Hime has asked you to stop pretending that your proposals will somehow "improve access to culture".  Will you now do so?  It is evident that your figure of £417,000 for the Museum's costs was inflated as it includes the Local History Service.  The cost per visitor of £18 quoted by the Council and fed to the press is therefore more than double the true cost per customer served by the Museum.  The current £5m funding hole that Cllr Heaster conjured up is equally dubious as it is obvious from the Council's own figures that there is no funding gap this year beyond that created by three years' worth of nil community tax increases.  How many more examples do you need of a failure to speak to residents honestly and fairly?  Meet us halfway and we'll be more than happy to enter into a sensible dialogue.  But please stop these Alice-in-Wonderland pronouncements and gimmicky sloganising.

Cedric Peachey ● 7158d

James,As the single Labour member, I think you misunderstand the Finance Committee. Despite its name it is not in reality THE important Committee, which is the Corporate Resources Committee and which defines the budget, etc., etc. On that we do have 2 members.I absolutely agree re Brightside. I have in fact been airbushed out of photographs that have appeared in Brightside! It is a Labour councillor joke, but not a very funny one, that Kathy Tracey has her picture on every single page.That is an interesting point about Ken. The trouble is that Wandsworth Tories have created such a relationship with both the Government and with Ken that sensible dealings are almost impossible. Take just, for example, the Council story, repeated by Malcolm Grimston, of the £5 million cut in Grant. There is no cut, there never has been a cut. What there has been, and let's admit it, is an increase below inflation levels, which is not the same thing at all.Even if Wandsworth got the same increase as the national average then there would still be only another £1.5 million in the pot and nothing like the £5 million Grimston claims. The problem is almost entirely down to the Council's irresponsible budgetting for the last 3 years and blaming the Labour Government is not exactly the most sensible approach IF you want to get a better deal in future. Fortunately both Ken and the Government make decisions on a fairer and more rational basis than Wandsworth councillors conceive.As a PS I would wish that Malcolm would cease getting so shirty about libellous accusations and the like. No one dishes the dirt like Malcolm, I should know as I get a fair proportion of it, but few people squeal so much like a stuck pig when he gets it in return.Tony Belton, Labour Leader

Tony Belton ● 7157d

The point I am making is that when negotiating over difficult issues there are two stances that can be taken.  BAC decided that they would treat discussions as confidential, would not look for every opportunity to attack the council in public and would focus on building trust on both sides to find a way forward.  So a relationship has built up whereby we've been able to discuss the real issues and negotiate, knowing that if I or the council team put forward an idea, say, that might or might not work (because obviously I don't make policy, that's done by the Conservative Group collectively, so I need to see what is acceptable to colleagues as well), we will not then see a distorted version of it, sprinkled with lies about individuals, appear in a long diatribe on a website within a few hours.  This has made it a much easier job to find a compromise, which I think we might be in the course of doing, hence the extension of the lease.  Sadly this has not proved possible in the case of the Museum - there are some who seek to put the worst spin on anything that is said, and indeed seem to take as their starting point that the council is being dishonest (so anything that did come out of negotiation would be meaningless, presumably, as it would be portrayed as mendacious and untrustworthy.  To use the future of the Court House as an example, even my categorical statements that it will be used for the new library have been dismissed by some participants).  Would you believe there are even leaflets in circulation that do not mention the new library!  Fine, that's a personal choice since everyone has to weigh up how to behave in a way that is most likely to get everyone on board and so deliver their objectives, whatever those objectives might be, but it makes meaningful discussion and negotiation - which always involve risk-taking and therefore need a high degree of trust on both sides - impossible.Incidentally, re the current staffing, there is a difference of 0.68 of a post between establishment and actual fte at present.  All posts are occupied but three posts have officers employed for a lower number of hours than the establishment - 0.5 fte Museum Technician (18 hours a week 'shortfall'); 0.16 fte Museum Assistant (5.5 hours); 0.02 fte Museum Assistant (1 hour).  This approach allows flexibility so that staff work extra hours at busy times (e.g. for a Saturday event or when setting up a new exhibition) but it also means those staff are not required to work those hours every week whether or not there is work to do and are therefore not paid at quieter times.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7157d

Malcolm please let's get one thing  straight: this  thread began  because of a news item on the forum and I naively thought  it was a  minor issue that would be sorted  very quickly and that we  had  all misunderstood the Council's intentions. How wrong  can one be.No information was forthcoming  from the Council or you at the time. I recall particularly asking the  question on this thread as to what  would happen to both West Hill and Alvering Libraries if  you were to  open a town centre library in Wandsworth, barely half a mile away from each of these  locations and this wasn't  alluded to at all  by  yourself until the Committee papers became available to the public a few  days before the Committee meeting  that voted for your policy.As to not mentioning this  new library in leaflets: until detailed plans  are available and have been assessed  by both council officers and  English Heritage  how can you be so certain that the library will open in the Courthouse. It has  already been established that the overall floorspace  is far more restricted  than at other  town centre libraries, for example.You appear to be accusing  the Wandsworth Museum Campaign Group of  not keeping discussions between themselves  and  the Council confidential. I can assure you that no-one  from the Group has passed on any details of recent negotiations. As far as the  idea of  using Putney Library as a location for the Museum is concerned, as appeared  in last week's Wandsworth Borough News, this 'leak' did not come  from the Campaign Group. It is no-one's interests to talk about  possible  solutions to the problem until  both parties are in agreement. The  reason why so many of us are raising  questions is because you have never beeen open and honest with us. If you had  then  a middle way might  already have been found through negotiation. Many of us feel  completely railroaded by your actions (shades of one T. Blair).I'm sure I speak for us all that we  still hope 'meaningful' discusssions are possible that will result in a positive solution and that you and the Council are willing to meet  us at least halfway in order to preserve Wandsworth Museum for future generations.

Lucille Grant ● 7157d

Dear Cllr GrimstonI'm going to try once last time.  You may have been upset by some of the comments on this thread, and used that as an excuse for not contributing any more, but in fact you are continuing to contribute when and where it suits you, so why not respond to those of us who genuinely want to find a solution to the problem of the Museum's future?  And I have never said anything here which could have contributed to your outrage (though that may well change if you continue to avoid a serious debate)The WANDSWORTH MUSEUM CAMPAIGN GROUP has initiated a written and verbal dialogue with Edward Lister, as you will undoubtedly know.  The contents of his last letter to us were leaked to the Wandsworth Borough News - not by us by by someone on the Council, so you can't complain about us betraying confidences.  The leak looks like an attempt to head off the continuing criticisms voiced not only by us but by many other contributors to this website, by letter writers to the WBN and by signatories of the various petitions (over 12,000 now I believe).  But it hasn't worked as our campaign work will continue undiminished.I still believe there are a number of unanswered questions about the financial impact of the Museum and the plans to replace it with a new town centre library.  The WMCG has asked these questions privately and had no convincing answers.  So I will try again and repeat the questions I posted last Friday, just to make it easier for you to reply this time:1.  Why cannot more time be allowed for a longterm solution to the Museum's future to be worked out?  It has been allowed for the BAC.  Is the difference the degree of national attention given to the council's original plans?2.  Why cannot some core funding, or staff support in the form of expert curator(s) continue to be made available so that the integrity, unity and continuity of the collection be maintained?3.  Why cannot the Council bring itself to engage credibly with the WANDSWORTH MUSEUM CAMPAIGN GROUP, rather than propose unworkable solutions and leak them to the press in the hope that criticism is thereby deflected?4.  With visitor numbers rising rapidly (53% higher in February), no doubt in part thanks to the publicity generated by our campaign, the average cost per visit number you have been quoting surely now needs amending.  Will you now compare monthly visitor levels to monthly borrowers of library books rather than gross library visits - surely a fairer comparison?  The results must show the Museum to be relatively more popular than your original figures.5.  Do you have any thoughts you might like to share with us on the criticisms made by the Conservative Party's new "Arts Czar" Sir John Tusa, who said that the Museum closure would be "an error, worse than a crime"?  Or indeed the trenchant criticisms made by Baroness Trumpington, the Conservative peer and former cabinet member?6.  What will happen to the 10,000 artefacts if the Museum does indeed close?  Is the disused chapels plan still on the cards?  And what will be done to make them safe and to establish the controlled environment in them necessary to prevent deterioration of the exhibits?  Has all this been costed properly?7.  Do you actually know if English Heritage will allow you to carry out the £1.2mn of works you say are necessary to convert the Court House to library use?  Have detailed plans yet been drawn up and if so is that £1.2mn estimate too low?As I said on Friday, there are many more questions but these are few for you to get your teeth into.I do hope you can respond this time and show us all that the Council is serious about negotiating a way forward for the Museum.  We believe it fulfils an important cultural function and is worth saving.  We would love to be able to start raising money to support its future running costs but it needs a home to get such an effort off the ground and it needs at least initial support from the Council which was until last year very proud of its achievements.Surely there is a basis here for discussion and compromise?Over to you!

Jonathan Callaway ● 7157d

OK, a last try on the assumption that the questions have been asked for the benefit of those who are undecided and want further information to them make their minds up.1.  We need the site for the library (this is part of our bottom line) as soon as possible and I have seen no convincing argument that people should be deprived this major cultural benefit for the community longer than is necessary.  There is a two year period for anyone to put together the finances for the West Hill library site if that is the preferred option so there is plenty of time for a solution to be found.  BAC have no such time available and in any case have proved to be trustworthy negotiating partners.  I have no doubt that the Museum Group can also become such partners if they want to work with us constructively, but not if some members continue simply to snipe and so make it impossible for us to take the risks inherent in negotiation, as I have explained elsewhere.2.  The other services which would have to be cut to provide this are higher priorities for the council.3.  If the Group wants to work in an honest and respectful fashion with us then we will be delighted to engage with them, as we have demonstrated over BAC.4.  False premise - it is the visitors who do NOT go to borrow books (i.e. use the wider cultural services of the libraries) who are the relevant comparison group.  More visitors mean a lower cost per visit but I have not seen any evidence that these higher numbers will be sustained.  In any case they come nowhere near the 300,000+ expected for the new library.5.  Since neither of them mentioned the new library I assume they had been misinformed about the proposals, perhaps by those who do not want a balanced debate on all of the proposals.  I have written to them both with the true position and await their replies, but until I have them I can't be sure what their views are.  Like Martin Linton, they have made no attempt to contact me directly to discuss things fully.6.  Many of those which we will retain will stay in the Court House but we have not yet identified which.7.  I understand this is unlikely to be a problem.  Estimates are estimates, sometimes they prove high and sometimes low but this is the best figure currently available from the professionals who have reported.I think our bottom line (i.e. our non-negotiables) is clear enough - financial savings, a new library for Wandsworth Town and culture out in the community where more people will engage with it.  I am very happy to engage with those who have ideas as to how we achieve these aims and indeed always have been.

Malcolm Grimston ● 7157d

You're good Tony, I wasn't going to continue this but you've a real talent for getting me going!  (I do actually mean that as a compliment, as it is the legitimate role of opposition to do that.)Read the council's cultural strategy!  “Wandsworth is the only town centre in the borough without a library in its shopping area ...  It is recognised that the Library Service could play a constructive role in the regeneration of the town centre by complementing the plans in the renewed Wandsworth Shopping Centre and by promoting social inclusion.”  In any case, though, surely it is the result of a policy that matters, not the way it was constructed - I've been perfectly clear that we started with the need to deal with the £5.3 million of real-terms cuts in central grant (with much worse to come in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007) and then found what my colleagues believe to be the most constructive way of delivering them, ending up with a better coverage of cultural involvement than previously.  The people who will benefit from the new library and from refurbished Tooting, both of which you oppose, over the next decades will not, I suspect, spend many hours reflecting on how the details emerged from the democratic process.But I am confused about your stance on taxation over the last three years - your election promise in 2002 was 'the lowest council tax in the country' (not qualified, e.g. 'just for this this year and then we'll go back to our natural tax-and-waste instincts') so you would obviously have had to follow the same taxation path as we did.  Were you simply trying to grub up a few votes with that promise - i.e. people should know in future to ignore Labour manifestoes as fiction - or did you mean it, in which case why are you criticising us for carrying out your manifesto promises?  I've never managed to get an answer from you on that but perhaps this time?

Malcolm Grimston ● 7157d

I just want to pick up Cllr Grimston's comment in his message on 12.03 that the BAC was "a trustworthy negotiating partner". Not only does this imply that the Museum supporters are somehow UNtrustworthy but it points up a serious problem. The BAC was able to negotiate because it is an independent body which receives some council funding. The Museum is completely different - it has no independence, as it is wholly run by the local authority. This body cannot negotiate with itself and its employees, who have devoted many years to developing the collections, ensuring their preservation and providing appropriate services, were never in a position to campaign against this proposal. However, as the council is supposed to represent the local community the very least it could do is to listen to their views. In over 30 years working for museums, 20 of them for London Borough museums I have never seen a local authority treat its people's history in quite such a cavalier fashion, or fail to listen when people say they want to find a way to become more involved in preserving it. This is not about numbers through the door - it is about a threat to the local studies and archives collections and the museum collections which will be left with two staff and inadequate resources to provide a service which every borough needs to have available - Wandsworth has seemed to understand this in the past and has invested to do it to a quality which others have admired. What has changed is the arrival of Mr Grimston in his curretn role where he seems to be acting in complete ignorance of how museums and archives work, and without any real understanding of the potential value of such holdings as a resource. This is not just educational but, for example, provides archaeological and map evidence needed by site developers, whether domestic or commercial, contributes to legal matters like adoptees tracing their birth parents, enables newcomers to the borough to find new roots and old established residents to share and celebrate their own contributions with younger generations. This is not a short-term attraction which needs just to count current users - preserving a community's heritage is a long-term investment in resources which need cherishing for the benefit of all Wandsworth residents. To do otherwise shows how little regard Wandsworth councillors have for their voters and their families.

Valerie Bott ● 7156d

LucilleCome to think of it, I am not totally surprised that other Councillors have not contributed to this thread in particular, although apparently under general ‘instructions’ to participate in as many dialogues as possible.As a complete outsider, may I add a few comments?The reason why the Conservatives have been so successful in recent years [and I have supported  them, although the national picture for me was a different matter] may have been due to good party discipline, and a strong whip. I have no inside information.Recognising from the outset that the Museum issue was likely to be controversial – and the strength of the controversy may have taken all by surprise – I sense that instructions were given that only the Cabinet member responsible should defend the policy. It only required one Councillor to say one thing on-line which was ‘off-key’, and utter chaos would have reigned.Short of a Councillor resigning the whip or a larger rebellion in the party, I do not think that we are going to see any change in the near future.By the same token, and for the same reason, I don’t think we are going to see Justine Greening contribute to this debate, despite the Putney constituency having a strong history of involvement in cultural, etc., matters – Hugh Jenkins was Minister for Arts, if I recall it, and David Mellor to this day is a leading presenter on Classic FM. So long as she is a Conservative and the local authority is also Conservative [but heavens knows why in this day and age there is such a strong link between local and national parties, when the issues involved are so often hugely different], there can not be a breaking of the ranks, very regrettable though it may be.We may see another story unfolding at the end of the month, but that is for the future.On the general concept of democracy, I am astonished to find the word ‘negotiation’ being introduced into relations between a local authority and its constituents.It is also ground-breaking that discussions of this nature should be taking place in such a ‘virtual’ world. This thread would never have existed ten years ago. Participants in a sense are privileged to have the ears of those who represent them. New etiquettes are being learned, and forms of self-discipline established which hopefully will lead to success.

James Dixon ● 7155d

These last few weeks saw front page news items in London that confirmed, if further evidence was ever needed, the rising violence between youth gangs.  Comments from residents, from experts and from politicians point to the lack of social cohesion, of facilities for the young that many believe are the root causes of such gangs.This week also saw a large demonstration by young people outside Parliament asking for better facilities for the young, for "places to go" where they aren't at risk from gangs, from drug-pushers and where they can develop their interests without the obligatory supervision of teachers and parents.It is therefore doubly and tragically ironic that the Council is so determined to close Wandsworth Museum and save the relatively modest costs of running it (compared to the millions it has set aside for leisure centres and for payment into general reserves, not to mention the very high salaries of many of its officers).The crucial difference between Wandsworth Museum and the two-man "heritage service" that is scheduled to replace it with passive displays in five libraries is that the Museum actively sets out to engage with its visitors, whatever their age and background.  Anyone who knows the Museum will know that its staff come from different ethnic backgrounds and a wide age range.  The "Medieval Machines" event that has just finished had plenty of children-friendly attractions.  The new "Queer is Here" exhibition will tackle completely different topics and issues for a different audience.  This is not just ticking boxes for educational purposes - it is a question of maximising social inclusion and community-wide cohesion.  There can be no argument that the Museum achieves this:* 20% of its visitors come from black or ethnic minorities* a research study has confirmed that 55% of Wandsworth Museum's visitors are from the less well off socio-economic classes (C2 & DE), well above the national average* over a quarter of visitors to the Museum are childrenThere can also be no doubt that the Museum has not had anything like the publicity and advertising support it should have.  The neighbouring borough of Lambeth has its own equivalent of Brightside and the space and prominence it gives to events at Wandsworth Museum regularly exceeds the publicity provided by Wandsworth.If proof were needed, the very sharp rise in visitor levels in February (up 53%) can be directly linked to the upsurge in publicity provided by residents, amenity groups and other interested parties.  During the same period, Brightside devoted the merest minimum of space to the Museum.Taking these factors in the round and at a time when ASBOs are being handed to 14-year old youths, does it make sense to close one of the few award-winning facilities that actively seeks to engage with the young, that has as its central remit the creation of a sense of involvement in communal history and culture and has shown time and again that it has the staff,