UPDATING MEMORANDUM FOLOWING THE NMGW COUNCIL MEETING ON 16 OCTOBER 1998

  At the time I submitted our document of 24 July, the process of deciding the new location for WIMM was well in hand. Two further sites were soon being considered and an enlarged team of consultants was appointed—adding experience in museums, tourism, visitor attractions, project management and engineering to Cooke & Arkwright's estates and planning expertise.

  The enlarged team was led by L&R Consulting (advisors to our successful Heritage Lottery Fund bid for the Welsh Slate Museum, and leisure consultants to Cardiff Bay Development Corporation since its inception). Though the team's brief was to consider all 18 proposed locations, they were asked to look particularly closely at three lead sites—Cardiff Bay (Alexandra Head), Swansea (Maritime Quarter) and Caernarfon (Victoria Dock). Their report, delivered on 8 October (four months after the appraisal process began) explained that they started their work by evaluating all 18 sites against a set of weighted criteria:

No	Criteria & Justification	Weight
1.00	Quality of industrial & maritime heritage context—reflecting core National Museums & Galleries of Wales objectives	10.00
2.00	Quality of input to collection by NMGW and local partners—NMGW is looking for a strong local relevance and operational partnership	7.00
3.00	Quality of opportunity of promoting access for users—reflecting core NMGW & Heritage Lottery Fund objectives	10.00
4.00	Enduring quality of the cultural destination—appropriate quality of locality	8.00
5.00	Site buildability and costs—this impacts on the budget available for collections and exhibitions within the available capital budget	7.00
6.00	Development opportunity, quality and timing—this impacts on the realisation of the NMGW project	8.00
7.00	Capital funding opportunity—which impacts on the realisation of the NMGW project	7.00
8.00	Partnership for revenue sustainability—this is a key financial consideration for NMGW during a growth phase in its total estate	9.00
9.00	Effect on NMGW profile throughout Wales—contribution to NMGW image, public attitudes and access	7.00
10.00	Track record and credibility of partners in the cultural sector—this impacts on the ability of NMGW to realise the project	8.00
11.00	Marginal economic impact—the additional impact net of displacement	5.00

NB Scores for 17 sites (Pwllheli was withdrawn) appear as an Annex to this paper

  After completing and scoring these criteria, Swansea emerged as a clear leader, followed by Caernarfon. Eight further sites—including three in Cardiff Bay—were within a relatively narrow band of scoring. Though Alexandra Head (Cardiff Bay) was placed 10th, we asked for it to be given detailed analysis because of NMGWs long association with Cardiff Bay and because it was the most realistic of the Cardiff Bay sites. The third ranked site at Newport is not available for early development; the fourth ranked site at Merthyr Tydfil has no waterfront. These two locations were therefore not given further detailed appraisal, and the three lead sites remained Caernarfon, Cardiff Bay and Swansea.

Heritage Merits of the Destination

  In terms of the general destination, Swansea scores highest, as it has the oldest and most diverse industrial context, and an older and more diverse maritime history than Cardiff. NMGW's strong collection is well oriented to Swansea's industrial heritage and Swansea Museums' strong industrial and maritime collections fit very well with ours. NMGW would certainly optimise its industrial and maritime collections at this site.

  Cardiff scores at a mid level, behind Swansea but above Caernarfon, as its coal trade and allied maritime history is highly significant, despite its role as a "single industry and export only" port. NMGW has a substantial collection related to Cardiff's industrial and maritime heritage.

  Caernarfon is not rated as importantly as Cardiff, but its maritime tradition is very old and associated with considerably more than only slate—although its industrial history is largely limited to slate and engineering, neither of which matches coal in importance. The relationship of NMGW's collection to Caernarfon is not as strong as it is to either Cardiff or Swansea.

Promotion of Access to the Heritage at the Destination

  Swansea scores very well on this criterion as it already has a strong Museum Service with well-developed programmes of access. Furthermore, its museums have good visitor numbers (its Maritime & Industrial Museum has 50 per cent more visitors than did the Welsh Industrial & Maritime Museum) and strong links with the authority's Education Service. We understand that it spends a greater sum per capita on the arts than any other British local authority.

  Cardiff Bay also scores well on this criterion since NMGW's activities in the area are very strong, with good visitor numbers; Cardiff Bay is already a successful visitor destination.

  Caernarfon scores less well, but would be assisted by NMGW's Welsh Slate Museum (in Llanberis), by the general heritage interest of Caernarfon and its hinterland, and by Gwynedd Education Service's activities. Caernarfon's scores should be regarded as positive.

Collection Care at the Destination

  Swansea—Swansea's important Museum Service is willing to make available its Collections Store and conservation facilities as part of its proposal.

  Cardiff Bay would be able to use the existing Cardiff services of NMGW.

  Caernarfon would need to undertake collection care on site, but there are no stores, conservation facilities or curators locally. There would appear to be a marginal weakness at Caernarfon with regard to collections care.

Other Factors

Cardiff Bay

  As well as Alexandra Head, a site at the Graving Docks in the Inner Harbour was considered, but found to be too small, with no real prospect of partner financial support. Alexandra Head is not primed for development and is clearly secondary as a visitor destination in comparison with Cardiff Bay Inner Harbour. It is clear that there would be a relatively high level of visitation anywhere in Cardiff, but the Museum would be a "secondary" rather than a "primary" attraction in the whole Cardiff Bay destination context. Critically, there is no partner commitment evident to support either investment or revenue sustainability.

  The consultants highlighted the following risk and uncertainty factors, as well as economic and wider impacts:

—  The lack of involvement of Cardiff County Council in a Cardiff Bay site proposal;

—  The demise of CBDC in eighteen months and the probable limitation of available funding;

—  The commercial perspective taken by ABP to the valuation of the Alexandra Head Site;

—  The lack of a clear agreed development plan for Alexandra Head between ABP and CBDC and the existence of other important bids for use of the site;

—  The uncertainty of funding and timing of the Barrage Access Road on which any development is dependent;

—  The adjacent development by ABP and CBDC is unclear, as is related co-funding of environmental and access works;

—  The uncertainty of a public transport link between Alexandra Head and the Inner Harbour;

—  The high value of Inner Harbour sites and the commercial objectives of a prospective development partner on the Graving Docks site;

—  Marginal increments to visitor expenditure are likely to be relatively modest and that there could be some displacement of visitation and visitor expenditure within Cardiff Bay.

  The consultants saw no fundamental improvement of the development context to give NMGW confidence that previous failures to develop a new museum in Cardiff Bay would be avoided. They concluded that the Cardiff Bay site did not present NMGW with the right opportunity.

Swansea Maritime Quarter

  Swansea was evaluated as the first site. Swansea Council is offering to donate a site—originally estimated at 2.5 acres and valued at £2,000,000, but now possibly considerably larger—and suggesting that other cultural buildings in the area (Dylan Thomas Square, the Tramshed, Swansea Little Theatre, etc.) could become part of the new museum's operation. They have offered to consider letting the existing Maritime & Museum building commercially (they already have prospective tenants), with up to £100,000 rent per annum coming in to the new museum. They propose that, if NMGW's and Swansea's museums on the site combine, the Council could contribute up to £400,000 revenue from their annual museums budget.

  The amalgamation of these two museum operations and their collections could have great impact, with prospects of considerable increases in visitor numbers. Swansea, the second city of Wales, has no national institution, and has good access to west Wales, where NMGW is keen to improve its coverage. The adjacent buildings on offer mean that, even if NMGW failed to raise further capital than the £4.5 million already "in the bank", it would be possible to create a first class new museum. Nevertheless, there are—as with the other two lead sites—risk and uncertainty factors:

—  The City and County of Swansea Council is offering a revenue contribution of probable long length; such forward obligations are usually difficult for local authorities to make on a fixed and contractual basis;

—  There may be some difficulties in NMGW deriving benefit from the offered input of land for museum and commercial development;

—  The proposal to use the existing Maritime and Industrial Museum building for commercial rental (there are already prospective tenants) will not appeal to the Heritage Lottery Fund;

—  There may well be restrictive covenants on some of the site and its buildings which could limit their use, and the benefits which can be derived from them;

—  There may be some difficulties in agreeing the ambitious and innovative partnership which is suggested between NMGW and The City and County of Swansea Council;

—  The costs of development of the site (public domain, car parking, pedestrian routes, listed building issues, etc) may be higher than envisaged.

Caernarfon Victoria Dock

  The site on offer has already received some £2 million investment and is thus primed for development. A commercial manager (to act, we believe, as development manager with risk) has come forward, as have two occupiers (one a voluntary arts trust with possible Arts Council of Wales Lottery funding). The site infrastructure is complete, and a comprehensive mixed use development could proceed immediately.

  A highly significant associated development is the attempt to link Llanberis (home of The Welsh Slate Museum), Snowdonia National Park and Caernarfon with a narrow gauge rail link which would exemplify the relationship of a Welsh extractive industry with its port. Together, these projects would form an outstanding industrial heritage asset of international note.

  A new museum in Caernarfon could well have a high impact on the sub-region's economy, provide a focal attraction for a larger development and assist with creating a major all-weather destination. Its synergy with the Welsh Slate Museum and the potential strengthening of NMGW's presence—and relationship with public agencies—in north Wales led to Caernarfon being evaluated as a very close second to Swansea. Its risk and uncertainty factors were:

—  The development package requires a number of parties to deliver, and for grant aid to be forthcoming. Gwynedd Council's record in relation to project procurement is excellent;

—  The prospect of obtaining a subsidy in the form of an income for NMGW is dependent on the developer finding the right occupants of a "Retail Outlet Mall" in a marginal commercial location. The ideas and current expressions of interest may be sound, but have to be delivered. It is unlikely that rents and investment yields on the site will be high;

  Gwynedd Council is a relatively small local authority with limited capacity to sustain revenue subsidies, particularly since it has a modest existing scale of heritage operations of its own;

  The outstanding heritage opportunity in relation to the rail link is subject to an indeterminate time scale and high government prioritisation;

—  Despite its outstanding site, and the motivation of Gwynedd Council, it may not be possible to deliver the benefits needed by NMGW from a small economic base.

Conclusion

  The consultants' conclusion was that the site opportunity in Swansea offered the "best value"—in both the short and long term—for NMGW. The report (of which the foregoing is a much abbreviated summary) was presented to NMGW's Council on 16 October (not 17 October as I mistakenly said in my earlier submission) and Council then adopted the following Resolution:

"That a decision be made in favour of Swansea but that a plan be put in place with achievable milestones over the next six months to ensure that, if an agreed partnership with Swansea cannot be finalised in that time, the opportunities which are already in place at Caernarfon are not lost, and that NMGW should assist Caernarfon wherever possible with the interpretation of their industrial and maritime heritage, and their planned railway link with Llanberis".

  Meanwhile, 58 responses were received to the 226 distributed copies of our industrial consultation document Wales—The First Industrial Nation; these are currently being analysed. Those expressing a preference for one of the three lead sites were more or less evenly divided between Cardiff (10 for, three against) and Swansea (10 for); Caernarfon had three votes.

Colin Ford
Director

21 October 1998

Assessment Criteria & Weighting: The extent to which a project has/ does/ creates . . .	Quality of Industrial & Maritime Context	Quality of input to collection by local partners	Quality and opportunity of promoting access for users	Enduring quality of the cultural destination	Site buildability and costs	Development Opportunity, quality & timing	Capital Funding Opportunity	Partnership for revenue sustainability	Effect on NMGW profits throughout Wales	Track Record & credibility in cultural sector of partners	Marginal Economic Impact	TOTAL SCORE	RANK
Weighting Factor	10	7	10	8	7	8	7	9	7	8	5
Projects
Barry	5	2	5	5	5	4	5	2	6	5	5	363	5
Blaenavon	5	5	6	6	3	3	3	2	7	3	5	357	7
Caernarfon	6	5	7	6	8	7	6	5	8	7	9	524	2
Cardiff-Bute Cres/Place	5	0	6	6	6	5	3	0	5	3	4	340	8
Cardiff-Ferry Road	3	0	5	3	4	4	2	0	5	3	3	252	15
Cardiff-Alexandra Head	5	0	6	4	5	4	3	0	6	5	5	337	10
Cardiff-Graving Docks	6	0	7	6	3	4	3	0	6	3	4	338	9
Merthyr Tydfil	5	4	6	5	5	5	3	2	5	4	6	371	4
Milford Haven Docks	4	0	3	3	5	5	3	2	4	3	4	262	13
Newport	6	4	6	5	5	3	3	2	6	5	5	375	3
Pembroke	3	0	4	6	5	3	3	2	4	5	5	291	11
Pembroke Dock	5	0	3	4	5	3	3	2	3	5	5	270	12
Pontypridd	3	1	3	3	5	3	3	2	3	5	5	257	14
Portcawl-Jennings Bldg	3	0	4	2	5	3	3	2	3	5	5	252	15
Portcawl-Sandy Bay	2	0	2	1	5	3	3	2	3	5	5	211	17
Porthmadog	5	3	5	5	5	3	3	2	6	5	5	358	6
Swansea	8	8	8	8	7	8	7	8	8	8	8	602	1