Labour launches all-out war on history, heritage and culture in Newport

It would be good to understand exactly what it is about Newport’s history, heritage and culture that so offends the Labour Party that they feel the need to sweep it aside with such vigour.

Most residents of the city will recognise that culturally Newport is a shadow of its former self. You only need to look back to the 1980s and 1990s to find a city that was culturally vibrant with a hugely successful and throbbing nightlife, a global reputation for music (remember ‘Newport - The New Seattle’), and when the likes of Sir Elton John and David Bowie were performing at the Newport Centre.

The museum also used to attract major touring exhibitions. There was a time when queues formed across John Frost Square for entry to an exhibition of paintings and sculptures by Gerald Scarf (the man behind the Pink Floyd ‘The Wall’ artwork and opening credits to ‘Yes Minister’). And as you walked around the town you got the feeling of a town built on a rich heritage played out on grand murals that most of Newport’s residents took for granted. That was just the way it was.

Newport was truly buzzing. All of this culture helped to bring people into the town (as it was then) and those people would spend money in our shops, pubs, clubs and restaurants. So the local economy benefitted. There were few, if any, boarded up shops and a thriving local independent retail community that gave the place identity and character.

It’s hard to think of Newport then and Newport now without being struck by the scale of the contrast.

The Labour-led Council’s long war of attrition against Newport’s history, heritage and culture stepped up a gear last year with the underhand destruction of the Chartist Mural in John Frost Square. This disastrously handled affair drew national attention and shock at just how arrogant an elected Council could be. A somewhat reluctant attempt at an apology was eventually dragged out of the Council, and promises were made by Council Leader Bob Bright that 2014 would be ‘a year in which Chartism is celebrated in diverse and imaginative ways that give their ideas a contemporary relevance.’

At the time of writing this blog we are just a few weeks away from the end of 2014. The ‘diverse and imaginative’ celebrations promised by Cllr Bright remain locked in the imagination. If it weren’t for Newport’s schools and schoolchildren recreating the Chartist march on the day of the 175th anniversary of the Chartist Uprising, we would have had virtually nothing to mark the single most momentous event in Newport’s history.

The latest assault comes with the announcement that it’s highly likely that Newport will lose its city centre museum, art gallery and library. According to a report in the South Wales Argus, ‘Proposals could see its [museum and art gallery] closure, with the collection moved out of the building and exhibited at temporary events with 13 full time jobs being lost’. This would be almost inconceivable that a city – supposedly ‘on the rise’ – would not have a city centre museum, art gallery or library. It is difficult, if not impossible to think of any other city that can make such a shameful claim.

As well as a proposal to close the museum, art gallery and library, there is also a proposal to reduce funding to the historically important Newport Medieval Ship.

The Newport Medieval Ship has been an inconvenience for the Council since the day it was discovered during the building of the Riverfront Arts Centre. As this case study from the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement explains [click for link], its discovery was initially kept secret but was leaked. In one moment of inconvenience, Newport City Council’s simplest – and no doubt preferred option of quiet destruction of the remains was foiled and the Council was effectively lumbered with an albatross around its neck. The Council has never been a fan of the ship, but has had its hand forced to go along with the public, the Welsh Assembly Government, and the Friends of the Newport Ship in supporting the relic.

At the time of writing, news is breaking that Associated British Ports (ABP) have stepped forward as a hard-cash sponsor helping the Friends of the Newport Ship towards its target of £100,000 to rebuild the ship in a purpose built museum. ABP must be applauded for its vision and generosity.

Just a month earlier, a Newport City Council report [dated 3 October 2013] discusses disposal as a potential option. The negatives against destruction are listed as:

• Loss of opportunity to develop a visitor experience that tells a unique story
• Possible loss of museum’s accredited status
• Grants might be reclaimed

It’s hard to believe the chance to develop a visitor attraction would feature highly on the Council’s list of benefits, and with the likely loss of the central museum would this have left only the threat of reclaimed grants as a hurdle to the Council breaking out the sledgehammers? If only people like Associated British Ports would stop adding extra complication for the Council. The Labour councillors must be spitting feathers up there at the Civic Centre and scratching ABP off their Christmas card list.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that the Labour-led Council really doesn’t see any value in Newport’s history, heritage and culture. Instead we have a Council that has given its unswerving loyalty to big brand retail logos. They just want Newport to be distilled down into a city of mere consumers spending what little hard-earned cash we have in the familiar retail brands of the typical clone High Street.

History, heritage and culture doesn’t really fit with multinational retail. The two tend to live in entirely different unconnected worlds. But if and when history, heritage and culture become an obstacle or an inconvenience, Newport City Council has no qualms in brushing it aside. Chartism is not as important as Next and Nandos to this Council.

The scale of this misguided devotion can be seen in the Council’s eagerness to put the city into hock for £90 million for a new shopping centre (built as a response to the popularity of Cwmbran Shopping Centre), yet it claims poverty and budget pressure as justification for closing down the museum, art gallery and library. No developers were prepared to take a gamble on funding Friars Walk, but such is the conviction to multinational retail that the Council signed OUR collective names on the loan form. So if we have to lose our history, heritage and culture to help them realise their dream of Newport as a city of shoppers, that’s the way it has to be.

This nonsense has to stop. Whatever side of the political spectrum we individually sit, we cannot let this arrogant, self-serving, misguided Council to ransack OUR city, OUR history, OUR heritage any longer.

NOTE At the time of writing neither Paul Flynn MP (Labour) or Jessica Morden MP (Labour) have stated an opinion on the proposed closure of Newport museum, art gallery and central library. One would expect a staunch criticism of the closures considering the reason behind them is apparently the Coalition's programme of austerity and budget cuts. However, in the absence of any such criticism from the MPs, this writer will assume they agree with any forthcoming closure, and by extension the austerity programme.

Why it's wrong to demonise Queensberry

In all the furore surrounding - and indeed triggered by - the destruction of the Chartist Mural, people are venting their anger in many directions, some right, and some not so. Queensberry Real Estate, the developer of Friar's Walk, is increasingly being talked about in negative terms. But the reality is that Queensberry is almost definitely an innocent party in all this.

A little bit of background on my experience here...

For some time I worked for a very good PR company in Bath. I was very happy there and I enjoyed the city, the team I worked with, and the clients I looked after. Our office - in a very quaint converted townhouse in Lower Borough Walls - sat on the verge of the SouthGate Centre, one of Queensberry's landmark shopping centre developments.

One of the clients I looked after was Bath Business Improvement District (BathBID). A BID is a business-led and business funded body formed to improve a defined commercial area. It was set up by Bath and North East Somerset Council (BaNES) and basically all businesses over a certain revenue have an extra 'tax' (for want of a better word) that they pay which goes into a pot to help with the promotion and management of the BID area. It's a great idea and the BathBID delivers real results - from better security and refuse management, to organisation of events like the Christmas Market, to getting John Cleese to turn on the Christmas lights. Newport could really benefit from having a BID, and indeed for taking lessons on how to run a city from BaNES and the BathBID. But that's for another blog.

SouthGate Centre (and the businesses within) is a significant contributor to the BathBID, and so I spent a lot of time either in SouthGate Centre, or working with the Centre management on various stories and initiatives.

The one thing I can tell you about Queensberry is; they are very, very good at what they do. SouthGate Centre revitalised a part of the city which was in dire need of attention (between the railways station and the bus station). Queensberry delivered a shopping centre that is very well designed, very convenient and easy to use, and extremely well managed and promoted. From moving in fake beaches and deckchairs in summer, to Christmas events, there is always something going on there and it is genuinely a really nice place to be.

Crucially, Queensberry delivered a development which perfectly compliments the city of Bath. From the look to the ambiance, it just works. It doesn't sit as a 'sore thumb'.

SouthGate Centre, Bath. A Queensberry development that compliments the city

We need to appreciate here that Bath is a heritage city that has in place a very strict rule book for building and development, and even for how shops present themselves. For example, if you want to build you need to use Oolitic Limestone - better known as Bath Stone, the warm honey-coloured stone that defines the city. Even the global giants McDonalds and Starbucks are restricted on how they present themselves. They can't simply do as they please, as it would appear they are allowed to over here in Newport. There is a rulebook in place, and they like it or lump it.

Queensberry, as a highly professional and experienced developer will not have railed against the design considerations and limitations when they read the brief and starting their thinking about SouthGate Centre. They will have considered it an exciting challenge to rise to. The thinking would have been simple, 'Right team, we need to develop a shopping centre in Bath. It needs to use Bath Stone, and it needs to fit in with the wider Bath landscape. Thinking caps on...'

Ultimately, they will have taken great delight when their design ticked all the boxes and was approved by BaNES.

So let's now look at the Friar's Walk development in Newport which I'm personally against, but only because I don't see that we need more new shops [see my previous blog for the reasons why]. But if we are going to have Friar's Walk, then I'm glad that Queensberry got the gig because it won't be half-arsed. It will look good and it will be well managed.

We - the people of Newport - were 'threatened' many times that the Chartist Mural would jeopardise the Friar's Walk development. The inference was that if we didn't shut up our whinging, Queensberry would go off in a huff and never look back. Like so many naughty kids we were told to sit down and be quiet or Santa wouldn't come.

I don't believe this for one moment.

My suspicion is that what we have here is a particularly negative aspect of Welsh political and business culture - fear.

I suspect that the Council never actually approached Queensberry to talk about the issue of the mural and certainly never thought to stipulate that the mural was incorporated into any design for approval. The Council just IMAGINED that Queensberry would react negatively and, as is so often the case, decided to simply not raise the problem to the developer. Instead, they thought they could sort the issue out themselves, and as we now see, this was an incredibly foolhardy approach which has done nobody any favours, including Queensberry.

I believe that, if Queensberry had been invited to tender a design which incorporated the mural, they would have simply relished the challenge, added it to the brief, and would have done what was required with no problem. This is what they do. This is why they are good at what they do.

Of course I stand to be corrected, and I welcome any response from the Council that they DID stipulate the incorporation of the mural at the invitation to tender. But I really don't expect that to be the case, and I will certainly be both surprised and disappointed if Queensberry actually turn out to be the stroppy teenagers that Newport City Council has, through their threats, inferred they are.

So don't automatically diss Queenberry Real Estate. We are all in the dark about the exact timeline and dialogue leading up to the destruction of the Chartist Mural and the briefing and approval for Friar's Walk. Queensberry are, in all likelihood, holding their heads in their hands over the complete pig's ear Newport City Council has made of this so far, and of how they have been dragged into this as part of Team Bad Guy by the Council's ineptitude, and ultimately how the Council has delivered at their door bad PR and bad feeling even before demolition has started to make way for Friar's Walk.