Agenda item

To consider the outcome of the piloting phase of the Graffiti and Street Art Management Policy 2022 to establish Street Art in South Holland to provide safe and welcoming public spaces for our local communities (report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Communities) enclosed). 

Consideration was given to the report of the Deputy Chief Executive – Communities, to consider the outcome of the piloting phase of the Graffiti and Street Art Management Policy 2022 to establish Street Art in South Holland to provide safe and welcoming public spaces for our local communities.

The Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture introduced the report which outlined the six-month pilot phase of the policy at section 4.

The Graffiti and Street Art Management Policy 2022 was included at Appendix A; and proposed street art concepts for the Castle Sports Complex were included at Appendix B.

During the pilot stage, two pieces of work were completed (by one of the artists who had brought the Street Art Wall petition to the Council in November 2021) and had resulted in the following outcomes:

• the first piece of work was based on a mental health concept – this had been completed and received positive feedback from the public and members of the Task Group who had formed the policy;
• the second piece of work had been based on an environmental theme - the completed work was based on the cost-of-living crisis which did not meet the agreed concept. Under the terms of the policy, the artwork was designated as graffiti and the boards were removed and stored pending consultation with the artist.

The Task Group had convened on 20 September 2022 to undertake a six-month review which established that the policy had been effective.  Following the piloting phase, it was agreed that the policy could be successfully implemented and that the development of a wider educational project would seek engagement with arts-based organisations, artists and young people.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members thanked the Task Group for the work on the Graffiti and Street Art Management Policy and stated that the recent testing of the policy had been positive and had proved that the policy was effective and robust. There was a requirement for policy adherence and whilst the quality of the removed artwork had not been in question, approval to change the agreed artwork concept needed to have been sought by the artist prior to completion. The Task Group’s recommendation to work with arts and education organisations, to show the positive outcome of street art, was supported.

• Regarding the unauthorised artwork and subsequent removal of the boards, Members asked whether this had incurred costs, and if so, had these been recovered. Costs should not be borne by the Council.
  • The Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture stated that the boards were owned by the Council and their removal from the site had borne little cost. The artist had been consulted over the preservation of the artwork and had been offered the opportunity to purchase the boards from the Council. Should this be declined, the Council would retain the boards which could be painted over and reused.
• Members debated the removal of the boards. Whilst the decision to remove the boards was supported by some Members, others stated that the boards belonged to the public and should have remained in situ to be reused rather than being removed and offered to the artist. Input from the artist in helping to bring forward the policy was also recognised and the offering of the boards for purchase by the artist was seen as a goodwill gesture.
  • The Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture stated that the boards would usually have been retained by the Council for reuse, but a different course of action had been considered acceptable during the testing phase. The decision to remove  the boards had not been a political decision, but had been solely based on the non-adherence of the policy. Had the artist approached the Council to amend the theme, this would have been considered.

• Members noted that the issue had received press interest and that the relevant Portfolio Holder had submitted a timely formal response.

• Members asked whether the adoption of the policy had led to a proliferation of (non-authorised) graffiti within the district.
  • The Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture was not aware of any such proliferation. Tagging had occurred but had been removed when reported.

• Members stated their support for the policy which enabled art to be publicly visible and not confined to galleries. The policy was supported and needed to progress.

AGREED:

a)    That the Panel noted the outcome of the Piloting Phase which tested the draft policy, and its subsequent review;

b)    That the Panel noted the outcome of the review by the Street Art Task Group following the review of the 6-month Piloting Phase, to enable the policy to be successfully implemented;

c)     That officers work with the arts and education sectors to develop a project to provide a more permanent opportunity for street art in the future; and

d)    That the policy be reviewed by the Policy Development Panel one year hence.