Open Letter To Walsall Council, Walsall College & Cultural Associates Oxford regarding Walsall Leather Museum:
Walsall College:
The Leather museum building was already an extremely difficult choice in respect of SEND provision – it would have needed to be completely gutted (if not torn down and replaced) to be made suitable. The Grade II listing has made what was just difficult now impossible, particularly given the number of internal features specifically mentioned in the assessment.
Despite assertions to the contrary this is not a subjective opinion – it is legally enforceable fact.
Historic England are hardly reluctant to show their teeth in these matters and have very little tolerance for those who attempt to circumvent their rules, being able to bring criminal charges prosecuting both organisations and individuals which can lead to limitless fines and custodial prison sentences.
2.4 million is an excellent start in funding a purpose built, fully accessible by design, SEND school with sensory gardens included from the start, not as an afterthought.
This is an alternative that will likely prove cheaper (and certainly quicker) than desperately trying to keep to an unpopular plan.
Don’t let yourself be sold a pup.
Walsall Council:
You have seen the strength of feeling and the media coverage of this. Buck vs. Doncaster is not the legal precedent you think it is – the case related to whether allocated funds have to be spent as originally stated, not whether nine members of a council can remove a publicly owned asset with no public consultation, transparency or plan.
This is outside of policy framework.
Historic England is not subjective, nor can it be circumvented – planning applications are now subject to a level of scrutiny which is wholly out of WMBC’s control.
As a result of your actions public feeling is that there are some form of underhanded dealings going on – as seen in comments on social media, heard in pubs, discussed with taxi drivers and related on market stalls. People can think of no other reason why you would ignore so many communities, from industry to the electorate, on this issue.
This perception has only been made possible by your actions on this matter.
Please, consider your next steps carefully. Don’t allow your responses to be governed by spite.
Cultural Associates Oxford:
As the firm advising WMBC you are inevitably seen as the source of information your client is drawing from.
When that client publicly, on broadcast media, demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what heritage is, the role and practicalities of the listing process, continues with a deeply unpopular plan with absolutely no willingness to consider practical alternatives and is seemingly unaware that their actions in closing a functional, established museum with a brilliant local, national and international reputation will lock them out of many revenue streams to establish a new one from scratch, one has to question the quality of the advice that client is acting upon.
As such this reputational damage falls squarely on you.
Personally, as an artist who has made work involving the heritage sector for well over a decade and a committee member of The Black Country Society,
the events of the past fifteen months make me extremely reluctant to consider Cultural Associates Oxford should I ever have need of consultancy services.
Sometimes a client needs to be informed when they are making a mistake. The difficulty with this type of work is often how to tell a client that what they want to do isn’t feasible. This is one of those times.
Think of it in terms of: which hairdresser would you go back to?
The one who just takes your money and ruins your hair with an impossible haircut that they knew wasn’t going to work from the start, or the one who gently tells you it won’t suit your face shape and finds you an alternative that makes you look and feel fantastic?
Be the firm that makes magic happen, not the one that just shows up for a cheque.
To All:
There is a way out of this that keeps everybody happy.
First: press pause on the closure of Walsall Leather Museum. Don’t redeploy the staff. Reallocate the funds earmarked for removal and storage of the collection to continuing the operation of the museum – and the legal precedent for this?
Buck vs. Doncaster.
Ironically enough, the case misused to attempt to prove the legality of this decision provides the precedent to reallocate the funds to keep the museum going.
In terms of further funding – we can help with that. There is a wealth of academic funding, Corporate & Social Responsibility funding and other potential income which can be obtained, but ONLY by an established museum, and only due to its status as a living history museum where the visitors are walking through the actual rooms where the historic trade took place.
A glass case in a former drapers will not qualify.
In respect of 1-3 The Bridge: It could be an excellent replacement for the Walsall Museum which closed in 2015, but you need to allow yourself time to secure the funding and work with Walsall’s communities to make a museum which they are truly part of and invested in.
Again – we can help.
I myself put forward a self-funded three year project which built on Julie Brown’s magnificent Community Collections Panel at the New Art Gallery – the only cost to WMBC is a shop space.
Do that project at 1-3 the Bridge.
If you keep WLM operational for the duration I’m absolutely happy for you to run a version of it yourselves and claim no IP or recompense from it – the point of the proposal was entirely to demonstrate how Walsall’s communities can be directly involved with their local history.
Give us the opportunity to make this work –
you will either have the joy of two excellent museums which reflect the town and celebrate Walsall’s historic and future industry,
or you will have the joy of seeing us fail and being able to laugh at us.
Either way, you win.
Vicky Roden 