SMAG meeting update - no compromise on the table

I attended the mostly-full ‘Raising the Bar’ meeting yesterday at New College, to see and hear the SMAG new-build proposals being very positively presented. It is true to say that IF the backdrop of crumbling, ill-served and hastily ‘dealt with’ heritage buildings in Swindon did not exist, these proposals look exciting and visionary. However, in the many years set aside for SBC’s new-build ‘Cultural Quarter’ development plan, there seems no time, funds or compassion for anything other than a cursory treatment of our unique heritage buildings. The negative impression created by new area co-existing with a shabby, ill-treated heritage area how seems to just go over the heads of the blissful new-build supporters. The optimism I genuinely and naively had about compromise -- after last week’s ‘summit’ meeting called by MP Robert Buckland -- has gone. It seems evident that there is no compromise available. Plans and attitudes are fixed in stone, in spite of public opinion. I feel this because: - David Renard, SBC leader, claimed that the public were consulted about the SMAG proposal and that the project enjoys the ‘wide public support’ the HLF bid needs. Cllr Gary Perkins reinforced this claim by shaking his head in disagreement when private investor Robert Hiscox freely admitted public consultation should have been much better. SBC has not consulted at all adequately. Mike Pringle also acknowledged flaws in the processs. - ANY wonderful development – and especially an historic one -- would bring business and people who want to live in Swindon. David Renard cited a number of positive business quotes (but only one quote from a member of the public). Given a stunning vision in a heritage building, a similar set of responses could have been garnered. - Robert Hiscox believes that a 60/40 ratio against a new-build was a figure to be fully expected, but that dissenters would end up loving the new-build. He has not factored in the long-standing local anxiety with the dilapidation in heritage areas. - The cost to the tax-payers could well be much more than claimed. David Renard conceded that SBC might have to look into borrowing far more than £5 million towards the new-build project if the HLF bid falls through. With the wider work needed in the area and completion of the museum’s build specs, the SBC costs could well go up. - SBC’s placing of precious heritage into commercial hands is alarming custodianship and should not be promoted. This is evidenced by the way that private interests are currently behaving with SBC acquisitions, such as the suggestion of flats in Milton Road Health Hydro and flats planned against SBC wishes where a quality market should still be. Cllr Perkins said that SBC had just granted planning permission for the Carriage Works to be renovated by a ‘high-tech industry’. Alongside this, Forward Swindon’s self-confessed ‘roof-fixing’ plans, rushed in for the heritage buildings, are sketchy and as yet unfunded. - SBC reasons for not considering the Carriage Works are misleading. The Carriage Works was not yet owned by SBC at the time of the options study for the new gallery and museum, yet SBC was aware it was easily available. It had also been considered for gallery/museum use in the 1990s. The Mechanics’ Institute was also not owned but was considered, so claims that SBC considered only what they owned are false - the Carriage Works should have been an obvious consideration for so many good reasons. - There is clear, open exasperation in the new-build proponents with any promotion of Swindon’s Railway Heritage – why is unclear. This will only mean that the necessary protection and development of Railway buildings may not become a priority before they are too damaged or compromised. It might also explain why SBC continues to block the Heritage Lottery Fund bid for the Mechanics’ Institute, even though they have been asked by HLF to sign a letter of support. It would be interesting to know how HLF views this obstruction. - No-one has ever disputed the other parts of Swindon’s history -- to use this as an excuse to continue to poorly treat the unique Railway heritage buildings is unacceptably derisory. Mike Pringle’s cheer-leading presentation for the new-build used a recurring image of a found and restored cart which he used to display that Swindon’s agricultural and other heritage went further back than the Railways. A clear wrangle with heritage ‘folk’ trying to cover their own interests and bases seems to be indicated by the repetition of why other heritage areas deserve (possibly more) focus. They ALL of course should be acknowledged in a museum, even one in the Railway area. - Claims that the new-build will provide a positive knock-on effect to development in heritage buildings is dubious given the massive time-frame and financial cost of the whole ‘Cultural Quarter’. David Renard asserted that the new development could be a ‘5/10/50 year plan’. This includes a total new-build of the Wyvern Theatre, the astounding total removal of Law Courts from Swindon, and development all the way round to Fleming Way. The preparatory car park itself has already taken up to £15 million of funds and there are reports of real problems with the developer’s behaviour. Personally, I think the new-build is a stunning structure and the idea of Swindon’s amazing and unique art collection in such a place is seductive. But I am left cold by its poor location and the flawed town development rationale which will doubtless do a disservice to buildings which deserve better treatment. What constitutes the ‘town centre’ is also open for debate – why can’t it extend from the railway line down through a unique heritage area to the shopping precinct? Acknowledging --without shame -- our Railway Heritage and saying ‘Hey, this is just ONE part of an amazing heritage which goes back to medieval times and brings us right up to Honda’ is certainly achievable. Any gallery and museum could easily place the at-risk agricultural artefacts within an amazing timeline – of course, the iconic cart should go with Mike Pringle to the Richard Jefferies’ museum! Compromise means more than just being expected to trust a so-far untrustworthy Council and be expected to believe that this will eventually all turn out well for everybody. The attitudes so far towards buildings belie such reassurances. Actions are needed, not assurances. Public consultation was sought far too late in this process but that does not mean that the public should feel obliged to give in to this proposal as it stands, or be blamed for its failure. To do so sets a very poor precedent for future projects and the obligations to serve the public that SBC must feel. There was – and still is – an opportunity to complete a ‘double whammy’ of housing our artistic heritage AND going a long way towards finally doing justice to our heritage buildings. All parties working together to achieve a better vision is the only responsible move. I started this as a concerned Swindonian and I remain one. Despite very pointed false accusations, this is not an intended act of sabotage or a conspiracy started with other groups. For the reasons given, I feel obliged to continue with the petition, both online and on paper, for submission to all bodies in due course. . Ana