Agenda item

The Lead Councillor for Environment introduced the above mandate and advised that the Council was seeking to balance its need to reduce expenditure in line with the agreed Savings Strategy against its wish to continue to offer financial support to the Guildford Book Festival (GBF) to enable the organisation to maintain its viability.  Attention was drawn to the four funding options contained in the mandate and the alternative option agreed by the Executive / Management Team Liaison Group on 3 March 2021.  The EAB’s views in respect of the options were invited.

The Strategy and Communications Manager presented the mandate and outlined the related Strategy, Options, Considerations and Resources, together with the strategic Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies, Constraints and Opportunities.  The options consisted of:

a)           Do Nothing - Continue with the existing annual grant at the current level of £23,000.

b)           Do Something - Introduce a gradual phased reduction in funding of £18,000 (2021), £13,000 (2022), £8,000 (2023) and £5,000 (2024).

c)           Do More - Reduce funding to £11,500 in 2021/22 and discontinue all funding in subsequent years.

d)           Do Most - Discontinue all funding with immediate effect.

e)           Alternative Option - A future funding path of £12,000 (2021), £6,000 (2022) and £2,000 (2023).

The EAB was reminded that one of the prioritised workstreams of the agreed Savings Strategy was to identify discretionary services savings of £2million.  This included delivering savings approaching £1million in respect of culture and heritage services.

Mr Andrew Hodges, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of GBF, was a registered speaker at the meeting and spoke in support of the Festival and provided some historic information regarding the levels of financial support which GBF had received from the Borough Council.  In conclusion, Mr Hodges advised that GBF appreciated the grant from the Council and requested that, in the event that the grant was reduced, the reduction was not severe and that there was no decision to phase out the grant entirely.

Some of the EAB’s questions were directed to Mr Hodges owing to his background knowledge of GBF and he responded in the following terms:

·             GBF had anticipated a reduction in Council grant in 2021.  A deficit in the region of £11,000 had occurred in 2020/21 owing to constraints associated with Covid-19 and related factors.  The Festival required working capital of approximately £30,000 as expenditure was incurred early in the planning process to fund publicity and organisational costs whilst revenue was received later through ticket sales.  Although GBF could continue in 2021 on the basis of the receipt of a Council grant of £18,000, there was doubt regarding its financial viability the following year.  Whilst sponsorship could assist with filling funding gaps, it could be challenging to obtain and be subject to conditions.  Low level sponsorship, for example from publisher sponsors, had been received in respect of individual events and high level sponsorship from sponsors such as national newspapers was sought.  However, there was no guarantee that the receipt of sponsorship would continue.  Reducing the scale of GBF due to funding constraints was likely to render it less attractive to sponsors.  Obtaining sponsorship from authors was unlikely as they tended to charge a fee to appear at book festivals and many were arranging their own literary events as a source of personal income leading to limited interest in attending events such as GBF unless they particularly sought publicity.

·             No book or literary festivals comparable to GBF were held in the local region.

·             GBF intended to offer some future on-line literary workshops, events etc.

The following points arose from further related questions, comments and discussion:

1.           GBF was a wide and inclusive event which had been operating for 30 years and provided a literary offering to cater for a broad range of interests and ages attracting a number of celebrated authors.  The event was a point of connection for residents and enhanced the community’s wellbeing in the widest sense.

2.           The Board acknowledged that the Festival was a significant local event and an appreciated aspect of Guildford’s cultural offering.

3.           Whilst recognising the Council’s need to secure revenue savings, the EAB expressed the view that the grant to GBF should not be reduced to the point that the Festival became unviable and ceased to continue.

4.           A clear trajectory of future funding reductions, as depicted in some of the options, could incentivise GBF to intensify its efforts to identify alternative funding sources such as benefactors who may be willing to assist in the absence of a Council grant.

5.           The possibility of offering Council support other than that of a financial nature to GBF, such as reducing costs in relation to the use of venues for events, was raised.  However, there was an associated risk of the displacement of income in other areas resulting in a need to identify savings elsewhere.  As an alternative, there could be scope for the Council to support GBF in areas such as communications, promotion and utilising commercial or other contacts to obtain sponsorship in the long term.

6.           It was emphasised that there was a need for EABs to review potential savings in a holistic manner to ensure that decisions were made in a wider context and not individually in isolation.  As details of other proposed mandates in the culture and heritage stream were unknown, it was difficult for councillors to make comparisons leading to the selection of appropriate funding reductions.  Further information concerning the main savings targets and mandates to come forward would facilitate informed choices.  In this connection, reference was made to the amount of funding allocated to the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre and the EAB was advised that the related mandate would be complex as it involved the use and ownership of land and a building.  Such complexities did not apply to the GBF mandate.

7.           Whilst the importance of culture and heritage services was recognised, some members felt that they should not currently be prioritised over other services to support residents directly.

8.           Arts and heritage had received a low priority rating in the public consultation in respect of future spending priorities undertaken from November 2020 to January 2021.  However, this consultation had coincided with waves of Covid-19 and the associated lockdowns when residents had been unable to access cultural offerings and were likely to have prioritised other matters such as wellness and protecting the elderly and vulnerable under the circumstances.  It was not felt that these views would reflect residents’ priorities in future years when the situation had changed.  Councillors did not share the view that culture and heritage services were a low corporate priority.

The EAB agreed that Option B (introduce a gradual phased reduction in funding of £18,000 (2021), £13,000 (2022), £8,000 (2023) and £5,000 (2024)) be recommended to the Executive.