Meeting documents

Cabinet
Wednesday, 3rd September, 2003

Bath & North East Somerset Council

DECISION MAKER:

Council Executive

AGENDA
ITEM
NUMBER

DECISION DATE:

3rd September 2003

TITLE:

Bath Postal Museum: Annual Grant and Rent Subsidy

EXECUTIVE

FORWARD

PLAN REF:

E

WARD:

Abbey

AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM

List of attachments to this report:

1 RATIONALE

1.1 The recommendations are a direct consequence of the Council's budget decision in February 2003 to reduce the funds available for financial assistance to independent museums.

2 THE ISSUE

2.1 The report describes the financial circumstances of the Bath Postal Museum at 8 Broad Street, Bath, and seeks approval for a reduced annual grant and reduced rent subsidy for the Museum. If the Museum is unable to source sufficient funds to pay the balance of its rent it may be obliged to close and the report sets out ways in which its collections and services can be protected should this happen.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Council Executive is asked to:

3.1 approve a grant to the Bath Postal Museum of £1,250 and a rent subsidy of £18,000.

3.2 approve the transfer of all property-related budgets concerning the Bath Postal Museum from Heritage Services to Property Services;

3.3 that in the event that the Bath Postal Museum is unable to fund the balance of its rent in the current year, the Executive approve officer support for the Museum:

a) to transfer the Museum's collections to another Registered Museum in Bath as required by its own Registered status;

b) to investigate ways of assisting the Postal Museum Trust to maintain its website if it so wishes; and

c) to ensure that the historic significance of 8 Broad Street is commemorated in an appropriate way.

3.4 confirm that it wishes this important aspect of Bath History to be promoted in appropriate ways and be taken into account when considering future museum developments in Bath.

3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 When setting its budget for 2003/04 in February 2003, the Council reduced the budget for support to independent museums by £20,000. This has left a total of £47,470 in the Financial Plan, insufficient for the Council to continue to grant aid the four museums it currently supports and also pay the rent subsidy on behalf of the Bath Postal Museum.

3.2 The recommendations for grants and rent subsidies in 2003/04 were as follows:

Organisation

2002/03 award

£

2003/04 request

£

2003/04 recommendation

£

Bath Postal Museum

Rent subsidy:

2,500

38,000

5,148

1,250

(half year) 18,000

Building of Bath Museum

0

4,623

0

Holburne Museum

10,500

21,560

12,000

Mayor's Honorary Guides

5,000

5,000

5,000

Museum of Bath at Work

Rent subsidy:

3,000

12,310

4,000

4,000

3,220

Museum of East Asian Art

0

5,000

0

Radstock Museum

2,800

5,000

3,000

William Herschel Museum

0

3,865

0

Total:

23,800

54,196

25,250

Rent subsidies:

50,310

 

21,220

3.3 The financial awards in 2002/03 represented the following levels of subsidy per visitor.

Organisation

2002/03 support

£

Visitors in 2002

Subsidy per visitor

£/p

Bath Postal Museum

40,500

5,711

7.09

Holburne Museum

10,500

22,115

0.47

Mayor's Honorary Guides

5,000

25,438

0.19

Museum of Bath at Work

15,310

6,142

2.49

Radstock Museum

2,800

8,318

0.34

3.4 The Executive Member for Tourism Leisure and Culture has already considered the awards recommended at 3.2 above but has deferred making her Decision on them so as not to deny the Executive the opportunity to consider the alternative course of action at 8.1 below.

3.5 The report recommending grants to independent museums for 2002/03 indicated that the funds for rent subsidies allocated to buildings occupied by independent museums would be transferred from Property Services to Heritage Services, although in the event this did not occur. It was this budget that in February 2003 Members reduced by £20,000 as part of the budget decision for 2003/04. Subject to the detail of these financial issues being satisfactorily resolved, it is appropriate for all budgets, notional or real, relating to 8 Broad Street to rest in one place, ie with Property Services.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1 The Bath Postal Museum opened in 1981 in Great Pulteney Street, Bath, and in 1984 moved to 8 Broad Street. The Museum describes the prominent part the city of Bath has played over the past 300 years in the development of the British postal service and the influence this has had on postal services worldwide. 8 Broad Street was the post office from which the world's first stamped letter was sent on 2nd May 1840 and so the building has considerable significance.

4.2 The Museum enjoys Full Registration status with the national Registration Scheme for UK Museums, which sets out basic standards of collections care, governance and public services in publicly funded museums. Under the Registration Scheme and in the context of the officer support given to many independent museums by Heritage Services staff, the Head of Heritage Services has been the Museum's Curatorial Adviser.

4.3 It is appropriate here to note the dedication and skill with which the founders and trustees of the Bath Postal Museum have sought to run this Museum over the last two decades.

5. THE RENT SUBSIDY

5.1 The Audit Commission requires local authorities to realise the Open Market Value (OMV) for their property assets. For many years the rental value of 8 Broad Street was £24,024; the Museum paid £5,250 p.a., and the former Community Culture & Leisure Committee paid £18,774 p.a. to the Property Committee as the rent subsidy. However rental values have risen considerably and in 2002/02 the rental value of 8 Broad Street was assessed at £43,000 p.a. The Museum has continued to pay £5,250 which was the market value of the property when they moved into the building in the early 1980s.

5.2 The modest visitor numbers attracted by the Museum makes it difficult to justify the substantial rent subsidy of £38,000 p.a. on an ongoing basis. The recommendation is for proportionately reduced grant and rent subsidy awards, to enable the Museum to remain for part of 2003/04 while it identifies other sources of funding to pay its rent, or find alternative premises to which it can relocate. If the Museum cannot identify alternative sources of funds from which to pay its rent, it will be necessary for it to vacate 8 Broad Street, which will then revert to the Commercial Estate.

6. RELOCATION OF THE MUSEUM

6.1 Sadly, despite the Museum's city centre location, it has proved impossible to attract sufficient public interest and the Museum has struggled to attract more visitors. After more than twenty years of relatively static numbers, it is unlikely to attract significant new audiences in the foreseeable future.

6.2 For several years Council officers have discussed with the Museum the precarious nature of its financial position and have advised it that its rent subsidy could come under scrutiny during the Council's annual budget formation process. The Museum has therefore known that its future in 8 Broad Street might be limited. The Museum was invited to participate in discussions about a possible move to another location in Bath which, although less central, would have had the advantage of bringing together several museums, attractions and facilities which could create sufficient critical mass to give the Postal Museum sufficient footfall to pay what would be a much lower rent. Unfortunately the Museum was unwilling to contemplate relocation under any circumstances due to the importance it attached to 8 Broad Street.

6.3 Mindful of the Council's budget decision in February 2003 officers in Property Services and Heritage Services have undertaken considerable research into possible alternative locations for the Museum in the city centre but, to date, this work has proved fruitless.

7. ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

7.1 The Collections. Registered Museums are encouraged to identify another public museum to which collections would be transferred in the event of closure. If the Postal Museum's trustees decide that their Museum should close, the Council could facilitate the transfer of its collections to another museum in Bath where they could continue to be publicly accessible, in store if not on open display. Numerous items in the collections belong to private lenders and so have no security in the public domain. These collections would either return to their owners or, if the owners wished, could transfer with the Museum's collections to the new location.

7.2 Education. The annual grant made to the Postal Museum to fund its part-time Education Officer would also pass to the recipient museum to ensure that the collections can continue to be used for educational purposes in their new location.

7.3 The Website. The Museum has an excellent website and, if the trustees wished to maintain this to meet their objective of telling the story of the post, assistance from the project grants budget would be favourably considered.

7.4 8 Broad Street. The Council would ensure that the importance of 8 Broad Street is commemorated in an appropriate way.

7.5 Postal History. As stated above, Bath has played an unusually prominent part in the development of the post. It is not essential to have a museum to tell this story, but it is also important that this story is not lost and that other means are found to support it.

7.6 The Charity. It would be a matter for the trustees to decide whether they wish to remain in being as a charity and retain title to their collections. This would keep alive the possibility of re-creating the Museum at an alternative location in the future, and under more manageable financial arrangements.

7.7 Officers will continue to be available to advise the trustees on these and other matters as the trustees consider their future actions.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

8.1 Council has required a reduction of £20,000 in the financial support given to independent museums. This reduction can either be taken from one museum alone, or it can be spread proportionately across all of them, including the Bath Postal Museum. This is a matter for Members to decide. The recommendation in this report is that it is better to reduce the subsidy to one museum and leave the services of the others intact, rather than expose all of them to financial hardship and risk several or all of them closing.

9. CONSULTATION

9.1 The possibility of the rent subsidy being the subject of scrutiny has been discussed with the Museum over several years. In March 2003 the Head of Heritage Services met with the Secretary of the Postal Museum Trust to advise her of the Council's budget decision and describe the assistance the Council could offer should the Museum's trustees decide to vacate 8 Broad Street.

9.2 In March 1998 the Head of Heritage Services recommended that the Postal Museum change its named residual legatee from the National Postal Museum in London to the Museum of Bath at Work. This was to prevent Bath-related collections from leaving the city in the event of the Postal Museum closing. The Museum of Bath at Work agreed to consider this proposal, although it is now known that the Postal Museum took no further action on this advice.

9.3 The matter has also been discussed with the South West Museums Libraries and Archives Council.

9.4 The report has been prepared in consultation with Property Services.

Responsible officer:

Stephen Bird, Head of Heritage Services x7750

Background papers:

Annual Grants and Rent Subsidies to Museums and Heritage Bodies 2003-04 report to Executive Member for Tourism Leisure & Culture, August 2003

Revenue & Capital Budget 2003/04 Full Council, February 2003

Annual Grants to Independent Museums 2002/03 CCL Committee, March 2002