22nd January 2008

Jan 22 2008 Letters to the Editor

Targeting a coveted heritage status
 Dear Editor, A possible bid for Unesco World Heritage status for the Jewellery Quarter is a welcome move from the city council (Heritage status of city's crown jewel, Post January 18).
 
As both a Quarter resident and former English Heritage commissioner I welcome the vision, but would point out that both the council and agencies like Advantage West Midlands will need to up their game to achieve this coveted status. 

If a bid is to be prepared, there are some interesting implications in terms of resources for the city council and AWM as neither of these bodies devotes any substantial capital spend to the JQ. I recognize the very welcome backing the city gives to the JQ Regeneration Partnership, but major spend in the Quarter relies on cash from developers for local improvements. This would have to change to some extent if we want to improve environmental and architectural quality in a consistent way and avoid further reduction in character and quality within Birmingham's "hidden gem".
 
Having sat on the original UK government committee advising Ministers on potential sites and chaired the Ironbridge management plan process, I know that getting WH status is not easy. The JQ is certainly unique and a tremendous selling point for Birmingham, but is it a strong enough contender by itself?
 
One point not mentioned in the council committee paper is whether the city is willing to link up with the Black Country, where some work has already been done on the West Midlands canal system as a possible WH bid. Given the canal network goes right into the JQ, this offers the possibility of a joint bid. A regional bid linking the canals and the Jewellery Quarter should at least be considered.
 
It is also vital that any bid process fully involves local residents, businesses and others in the Quarter.
 PHIL DAVIS, Founder Chair, Local Authorities World Heritage Forum
 
Lifting the suburbs 
Dear Editor, Following Nick Corbett's' letter of last week, May I re-quote his words and pick up his theme? (Bishop Vesey would have turned in his grave, Post Agenda January 18).
 
Nick was talking about visions of excellence for Sutton and Birmingham, and the standards set by Bishop Vesey. Can anyone disagree with his suggestions? The application to give the Jewellery Quarter heritage status is a wonderful move by the council for Birmingham, but we should move forward to lift all of our suburbs.
 
The suggestion of an application for confirmation of historical royal town status for Sutton is little different from the Jewellery Quarter application for heritage status. This is not political, it's about history. Sutton has a history that
 
needs protecting and sustaining. The recent report on Sutton's poor performance in the business field is all part of how people perceive this area, and its decline.
 
This is what regeneration is all about, its not a return to an oldfashioned Suttonian outlook. Restoration of our historical title is our local heritage. It's why we have our park and Bishop Vesey Grammar School.
 
If Birmingham has a fault, it's that it ignores its suburbs. We should seek a cultural lift for all of our suburbs by looking into, and restoring their history. We shall then be staking a claim to be a real City of Culture.
 KEN RUSHTON, Sutton Coldfield
 
Why not switch the game? 
Dear Editor, I know that a good chunk of our rulers on the RFU live in a different century to the rest of us, but if Nuneaton's ground was unavailable for the first round of the cup against Launceston, why wasn't the game switched six miles down the road to Coventry's ground?
 
Our first team match was away, so Nuneaton's gate would have been boosted with a few thousand Coventry supporters.  
This would have been much better for the game than forcing Moseley to loose a chunk of its income so that the game could be replayed at the weekend.
 
I fully support any claim Moseley makes against the RFU for loss of income.
 CHRIS YOUETT, Coventry
 
Strategic choices that will not please all 
Dear Editor, It was disappointing to read Terry Grimley's attack on the Arts Council in Friday's Birmingham Post, particularly since your accusations of incompetence in the West Midlands appear to focus on a continued misunderstanding regarding the rationale which underpins our proposals not to renew revenue funding to Orchestra of the Swan and Birmingham Opera Company (Why our Arts Council just isn't performing, Post Agenda January 18).
 
Of course I accept that organisations faced with non-renewal of funding feel aggrieved, but it is the role of the Arts Council to make strategic choices which will inevitably disappoint some.
 
I trust that when we are in a position to publish the full picture of the many organisations who will benefit from increased funding - some 30 per cent of West Midlands based organisations - that you will give equal prominence to the good news stories and successes that they represent.
 
With regard to Birmingham Opera Company, it is true that following financial difficulties in 2002, when the Arts Council stepped in to provide substantial extra financial support, that the company has since balanced its books. However it has done so by significantly curtailing its activities in some years. With around £330,000 of subsidy we would hope for a greater level of work - and impact.
 
With regard to the McMaster report, there is of course an exhortation that we support excellent work - which BOC achieves - but not at any cost. Brian's report also urges public funders to ensure that from every penny spent, the greatest value is extracted.
 
He also counsels that risk-taking and innovation need to be planned and managed properly.
 
We have consistently urged BOC to get more value from their works by strengthening their administrative base so that they can have a more sustained year-round impact and forge the kind of partnerships which will drive up the value of their work. This is the focus of our concern with the company.
 
With regard to Orchestra of the Swan, the Arts Council's strategic approach to the production and distribution of orchestral music has been to support eight major orchestras (CBSO being one) and to focus our support for chamber orchestral music through subsidising promoters rather than a range of smaller orchestras.
 
Orchestra of the Swan receives a very small revenue grant and then applies for further project support to our grants for the arts programme. Our project budgets have been reduced because of funds diverted to the Olympics and so we cannot continue to provide organisations with both revenue and project funding. Given that we invest a significant amount of our budget in orchestral music we have made a strategic choice not to increase Orchestra of the Swan's revenue budget but to ask them to consider project funding alone. This frees up our revenue funding to support a wider genre of music which will attract a broader base of audiences.
 
Given that we are talking in a cordial and professional manner to both Orchestra of the Swan and Birmingham Opera Company about the options open to them for project support rather than revenue funding, it is disappointing to see such an unbalanced piece in our local paper.
 SALLY LUTON, Regional Executive Director, 
 Arts Council England, West Midlands