Agenda of Public Art Panel Meeting

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Local Government Act (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

§ The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

§ The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a) the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b) the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

§ If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

§ Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

§ Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

§ A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

§ The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b) at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

A Councillor is not prevented from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or from voting on, any of the matters/questions detailed in Section 452 of the Local Government Act.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with. Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

§ It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal. However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

§ Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa). Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

§ Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

§ Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in S451 of the Local Government Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1) In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a) including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b) not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

(2) The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3) For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4) Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5) This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.2

Report No. 4.2 A Public Art Strategic Framework and New Policy

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Joanne McMurtry, Community Project Officer

File No: I2017/457

Theme: Society and Culture

Community Development

Summary:

Following the report presented to the 16^th March Public Art Panel meeting and discussion at that meeting, this report provides a revised Draft Public Art Policy, and information to begin devising a Public Art Strategy/ Strategic Framework.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Public Art Panel:

1. Review the draft Public Art Policy attached and recommend to Council to place the new policy on public exhibition prior to adoption.

2. Commence development of a Public Art Strategy.

Attachments:

1 Draft Public Art Policy following feedback from Public Art Panel, E2017/28300 , page 10⇩

2 Submission from Geoffrey Cotton (artist) re changes required to Public Art documents, E2017/25414 , page 17⇩

Report

The suggested process for establishing a more strategic approach for public art in Byron Shire is through the following steps:

1. Review how other local government areas manage public art and obtain advice from the new Public Art Panel;

2. Review the Public Art Policy;

3. Consider a Public Art Strategy to identify the strategic direction for public art in the Shire;

4. Review the Public Art Guidelines and Criteria;

5. Review the process and materials for artists in applying for public art projects.

Draft Public Art Policy

The Draft Public Art Policy presented at the 16^th March meeting has been revised incorporating feedback from the Panel.

The Public Art Panel are requested to review the draft Public Art Policy attached and make a recommendation to Council to place the new Policy on public exhibition prior to adoption.

Public Art Strategic Framework

Members of the Panel were requested at the 16^th March meeting to prepare a few points to contribute to a vision, strategy or framework to be commenced at the 4^th May meeting.

In reviewing other Council plans and documents and talking with staff from other Councils, the following learnings could be considered:

· Some Councils focus on temporary art installations for several reasons, including the loss of impact of pieces after a certain amount of time and maintenance considerations. A maximum ‘life’ for pieces acquired in the public art program could be considered, such as between 2-5 years.

· City of Sydney do not accept non-commissioned artworks which provides for a more controlled curatorial approach for public art. Whilst there are obvious differences between Sydney and Byron Shire, including the size of the budget, ongoing maintenance of donated pieces does need to be considered. Byron Shire has several sculptures that have been donated and are listed in Council Public Art Register and there is currently no maintenance program in place for these items. This is perhaps another reason to consider all donated artworks to have a lifespan of 2 – 5 years. (Some Councils accept artworks for a maximum period of 25 years).

· Community art can be developed in partnership with community groups and may take a similar approach to the ‘Brisbane Canvas’ project, which firstly identifies sites for outdoor galleries and wraps up several sites together for an annual commissioning process.

· Unsolicited community art projects under a certain dollar value could be dealt with by a cross-divisional staff working group which would check that the art fits with the Public Art objectives and strategy prior to any approval being granted. (An example of this is the separate report in this agenda for decorating the roundabout tree in Mullumbimby for Christmas).

· Public Art in new/ private development offers opportunities which could be explored in more depth and detail than the Byron Shire Development Control Plan Chapter on Public Art currently articulates, and staff would recommend a review of this chapter as part of any public art strategy.

Based on a review of best practice, a Strategy would likely include the following headings:

· Executive Summary

· Objectives/ Key Statements

· Context (alignment with other plans, background)

· Guiding Principles (Sydney example)/ Themes/ Narratives/ Strategic Focus Areas

· Performance Measures

An Action Plan is often part of similar strategic documents.

Council has received a recent submission from a local artist – Geoff Cotton - suggesting changes are needed with both the current Public Art Policy and the Public Art Guidelines and Criteria and the submission is attached for the Panel’s information.

Summary of points already discussed by the Public Art Panel that need to be considered when developing a Public Art Strategy:

· Need to link in with Masterplan work that is underway;

· There are areas in the Shire with no public art;

· Small budget frustrates the process;

· The current ‘one process fits all’ is onerous when dealing with ‘community art’ projects, such as murals on walls and other small projects. Staff have identified that there needs to be one process for dealing with small community art projects, and a different process for high end strategic public art projects.

· Rather than ad hoc submissions, it would be better to call for expressions of interest once or twice a year;

· Need to think about how to manage Councils visual art collection;

· There are lessons to be learned from the Placemaking Seed Fund project conducted in 2016 in terms of requesting matching funding towards the project.

Questions for discussion (repeated from previous report):

· What is public art vs community art? Is this defined in terms of project cost, scale or scope?

· How does public art fit with place-making?

· What might be included in a strategic program for public art?

· What other considerations should be included in a strategic framework, for example, a four year program based on specific locations or based on a curated public art program?

· How does a proposed public art strategy work with the Masterplan work that is underway across the Shire? Are there place-making/ public art projects or are there public art projects outside the Masterplan areas?

Financial Implications

The remaining public art budget for the 2016/17 financial year is $21,000. The draft budget allocation for public art in the 2017/18 financial year is $16,900.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Public Art Policy

Public Art Guidelines and Criteria

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.2 - Attachment 2

Geoffrey Cotton

Making art happen: Proposed amendments to Byron Shire Council Public Art Policy

A submission to Byron Shire Council and the Public Art Panel

Executive summary

Byron Shire represents itself as a home of creatives and creativity, and uses this image to differentiate the shire from competing locations. However, the Byron Shire Council is hamstrung in installing public art works throughout the shire by a lack of funding to purchase, erect and maintain works.

This problem is compounded by the current unadventurous public art policy and by guidelines which lack flexibility. The policy and guidelines, together with council development control processes, deter private individuals – artists, residents and others – from contributing public art works for display within the shire. A specific case is outlined, which resulted in a possible benefactor who was prepared to purchase two significant works for loan to Council, withdrawing his offer because of the complication and cost of meeting Council requirements.

This submission seeks to have the public art policy and guidelines reframed from an emphasis on control, to a focus on encouragement and facilitation. It also asks whether Byron Shire should position itself as a destination for art-lovers. Finally, it proposes a way to remove an administrative barrier to the loan of artworks for public display.

Background

Council’s current Public Art Policy draws heavily on the Byron Shire Cultural Policy and Cultural Plan 2008-2013. The cultural policy seeks to protect the unique cultural aspects of the shire and its communities, although it does not specifically describe what these ‘unique aspects’ are. It does however refer to the need to protect ‘heritage, character and charm’, suggesting a romanticized, past-oriented emphasis (there’s no mention of Byron’s history of whaling, meat-processing or sand-mining, and the violence that accompanied these). The cultural policy does not acknowledge the interrelationship between the ways culture is expressed (including through public art) and how development controls impact such expression.

The cultural policy sets out seven key themes and issues for action: the importance to economic and social prosperity of identity (reflecting the unique natural environment and social diversity) and a sense of place; the value of creativity and innovation in making cultural, social, economic and natural capital; the value of acceptance and diversity in building and sustaining cultural vitality; the importance of providing access and opportunity for people in the shire to participate in cultural activities; the need for conservation and sustainability of both the cultural and the natural heritage, to avoid burdening future generations; the value of co-operation and integration, joining the efforts of Council, the community and the private sector to effect cultural development; and the importance of recreation, health and wellbeing.

In respect of public art, the cultural policy and plan set out three strategic actions:

· The development of a public art policy (including an aim to ‘add vibrancy and a sense of local identity in towns and villages’)

· Investigate opportunities for an ‘innovative contemporary art gallery’

· Reinstate a Council sponsored Annual Acquisitive Art Prize.

The public art policy was also informed by research involving community consultations in 2008, facilitated by Arts Northern Rivers (which includes local councils as partners), which proposed the following vision:

The arts and creative industries will be accepted as a vital part of the lifestyle and economy of Northern Rivers.

Despite the breadth of the cultural vision and the agreed centrality of the arts and creative industries in reflecting and effecting culture, the public art policy that sprang from it in Byron Shire is inward-looking and timid, although typical for its time. Byron’s policy appears underpinned by unstated assumptions about the role of public art as decoration, and the need to control its character and placement. As with most development control policies, it seems driven by risk-aversion.

Most of the terms used to describe ‘acceptable’ public art are procedural, focusing on how the art will be made, chosen, displayed and maintained. Where aesthetics is mentioned, in section 5.2, it talks about art ‘reflecting’ community values, identities, issues and the like. There is no acknowledgement that public art could be used to amuse, to lampoon, to unsettle, to challenge, to excite discussion, to inspire, to bring about change (including cultural change).

Funding public art in Byron Shire

The Public Art Policy envisages that works will be obtained by commissions and acquisitions (funded by Council using capital works and operational budgets, s.94/s.94A developer contributions and, possibly, by sponsorship and donations) and by bequests. The accompanying Public Art Guidelines also allow for artworks to be loaned to Council.

However, the low allocation of Council funding to public art effectively prevents significant commissions by Council. The Byron Shire Developer Contribution Plan 2012 earmarks unspecified s.94 funding (levies from residential development applications) for art installations as part of the Byron Bay and Mullumbimby Master Plan works, and earmarks unspecified s.94A funding (non-residential development levies) as part of the works associated with the redevelopment of public toilets in Byron Bay, Suffolk Park, Ocean Shores, Brunswick Heads and Bangalow, and with the installation of additional beach showers throughout the shire. The Developer Contribution Plan also reserves s.94A funding of $30,000 annually across ten years for public art in town centres.

Generally, developer contribution funds have been spent on painted or mosaic mural-style works to decorate utilities such as electricity substations and water reservoirs, which had previously been decorated by graffiti artists. It is not known whether Council’s recent $20,000 contribution to the Elysium project from the Byron Master Plan Placemaking Seed Fund came from the s.94 funding sources (residential development levies) or from the s.94A (non-residential development) levies, or whether it will impact other public art funding.

Despite the $30K annual allocation for public art prescribed by the 2012 plan, only $16,900 has been set aside in 2017/18.

The low funding allocation by Council underscores the need to achieve leverage by attracting funds and loans of works from private benefactors. The Public Art Guidelines set out the hoops through which a potential benefactor (artist, sponsor, building owner etc) must jump in order to display work in a public place. This includes a requirement that “Where an artwork is loaned to Council, the artist will be responsible for maintaining and insuring the public artwork on loan.” (Section 7, p.8). The Public Art Policy does not currently envisage or allow for the loan of an artwork to Council other than from the artist who creates the work.

The following example shows how the policy and guidelines actually work against public benefaction.

A real-world example of shortcomings in policy and guidelines

A Byron Shire ratepayer wished to place a sculptural installation on a road reserve next to his property in Cooper’s Shoot. In effect, he wished to loan the work to Council for public display. The work had been exhibited at the Byron Writers Festival 2016 where it had been received well by attendees. It had withstood gale-force winds which had blown down many of the festival marquees, and was unlikely to threaten public safety. It would have provided a place marker in a semi-rural location on a road much used by both locals and visitors.

Council required the potential benefactor to provide public liability (PL) insurance for the artwork for it to be considered for placement on the reserve. Council officers advised that if the work were a loan (rather than a donation), Council’s own insurances would not cover the work. However, as the work would not be situated on the potential benefactor’s land, his own insurers could not provide PL coverage.

Council staff suggested that the potential benefactor should consider leasing or purchasing part or all of the road reserve, to allow him to obtain PL coverage. After investigation, it was found that an application to lease the road reserve would require him to have the reserve surveyed, have a registered valuer undertake a market valuation, and submit a s.138 Roads Act application for leasing – all at his cost, estimated at $3,500. It would probably also require an engineer’s report on the proposed structure and footings, to support the application; again, at the benefactor’s cost. This documentation and expense provided no guarantee that a lease would be granted. The annual cost of the lease could only be determined by Council following submission of the application, which was required to be advertised for 28 days. The annual lease fee may well have been $1,000 or more.

In short, the benefactor would need to spend possibly $10,000 on top of the $17,500 cost of the work in order to display it for the benefit of the wider community, for five years. Council’s financial contribution would be $nil.

To purchase the road reserve adjacent his property would have been even more complicated and costly, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars.

This ‘Catch 22’ situation regarding PL insurance prevented the placement of a work of public art in a rural location where all shire residents and visitors might be able to view it. It also resulted in withdrawal of an offer to purchase another work for loan to Council for placement elsewhere in the shire. For the artist (me) it resulted in the collapse of two potential sales totaling $35,000. Clearly this is an unintended outcome of the Public Art Policy.

Limited and inconsistent application of the Public Art Policy

Although intended to cover all situations in which public art is proposed for council-owned and –managed public spaces within the shire, and provide guidance for public art in private commercial developments costing over $1 million, several recent situations have escaped its application. In addition to the now-scuppered Cooper’s Shoot proposal, which would have been controlled under the Roads Act and therefore possibly may not also have required PAAP approval, the recent Elysium project in Lateen Lane, Byron Bay, apparently emerged without passing through the Public Art Assessment Panel’s endorsement processes, apart from a presentation by one of Elysium’s organisers to the PAAP at its December 2015 meeting. Council contributed $20,000 to this project from the Placemaking Seed Fund. The ownership of these works is unclear, as the lightboxes and some of the painted works are on privately-owned buildings, one is on the roadway and the sculpture is suspended from steel posts erected on the roadside but tied back into the adjacent buildings’ walls. Thus their PL insurance status is also unclear.

It is also believed that the loaned works installed at the Bangalow Sculpture Walk adjacent the sportsfields in 2011 did not have the required $20 million PL coverage. These works were to be temporary loans to Council following the Sculpture in the Paddock exhibition, although many remained on site since their installation. The works were selected by the exhibition’s curator. Similarly, the works that remained on display following the Brunswick Heads Sculpture Walk in 2015 and approved by the PAAP are believed not to have had the required insurances.

The Public Art Policy also appears not to apply to loaned works displayed in the Art Cube in the foyer of the council chambers in Mullumbimby. It is believed that loaned works displayed in the cube are covered for PL under Council’s insurance policy, although they may have no PL cover owing to their loaned status. It is unclear whether this space has a legal status that is any different from any other Council-owned or -managed public space.

These inconsistencies and departures from the PL insurance requirements would appear to set a precedent for Council to cover loaned artworks for public liability.

It is now time for our public art policy to change to accommodate both the actual challenges facing the display of public art in our shire, and the need to find better ways to encourage private benefactors to make public art available widely.

The need for change

Good public policy of any kind typically will:

· identify a problem and/or opportunity, illuminate its dimensions and define the key terms surrounding it

· assess the importance of tackling the problem/opportunity and the likelihood of success

· articulate specific goals in respect of action on the problem/opportunity

· address the problem/opportunity in forward-looking and flexible ways that are likely to deliver the desired results efficiently and with minimal intervention (i.e. red tape)

· identify how the results will be measured and where accountability lies, and explain how it will be changed to met changing circumstances.

All of this must be done with opportunities for those who will be affected by the policy to have genuine input into it.

Our public art problem/opportunity

Byron Shire’s public art problem is that we have way too little of it, particularly of significant works, anywhere in the Shire. This undermines our claims to be a creative place. Byron Shire should be an area teeming with public art works of all kinds, easily encountered by residents and visitors alike. This could include significant works of a global standard, making Byron Shire an art destination.

The challenge our shire faces in relation to public art is not in controlling it, but in encouraging it and in making it easy for artists to create work, for benefactors (artists, art show organisers, philanthropists, property owners etc) to display art works in public spaces and for members of the public to view and interact with these works.

This controlling/sanctioning orientation to public art is not confined to Byron shire. The summary report of consultation outcomes from Framing the Future: Developing an Arts and Cultural Policy for NSW 2014 noted the identified statewide need for more, affordable spaces (for making art, in social settings) and venues (for performing and displaying work). The lack of these spaces, in Sydney at least, was attributed to over-regulation and bureaucracy.

The degree of control over public visual art in Byron Shire is at odds with that exerted over a different public art-form, namely, busking. Although busking takes place in specified locations on streets and in other public places, approval to busk can be obtained relatively easily and inexpensively. A busker is not required to have his or her artwork (music, tarot card reading, juggling performance or even pavement art etc) inspected, certified or approved. Neither is a busker required to have public liability insurance cover in the event that a passer-by trips over an amplifier or gets grazed by a firestick, although this cover is recommended (but unlikely to be held by most buskers).

How progressive cities are responding

Progressive cities now specifically encourage risk-taking and boldness in the arts. For example, Melbourne’s current arts strategy outlines its ‘creative city’ goal, and notes that ‘Creative cities encourage risk-taking’ (p. 13). The strategy backs this up with commitments (not ‘desires’) to support artists and present work in the public realm, and to lead and partner in the delivery of significant art projects (Commitments 3 & 4). Other truly arts-supportive cities such as Denver, Colorado are now reviewing governing plans, permits and codes to allow for more temporary art installations. Sydney is set to expand its month-long Art and About festival into a year-long series of temporary exhibitions in public spaces such as laneways.

Typically, progressive cities mix these ephemeral and temporary works with large signature works commissioned for public spaces in urban redevelopments such as Sydney’s Green Square.

It is time for our shire to switch to this facilitative, risk-taking approach to public art.

If Council cannot actively facilitate the development and presentation of art works in public places, it should at least get out of the way of those who wish to do this.

Suggestions for taking public art forward in Byron Shire

‘Walking the talk’ about creativity in Byron Shire requires changes to the public art vision, policy and guidelines.

Vision: Byron Shire as a global art destination

Global art destinations are places that are recognized internationally for one or more significant artworks. Typically this is because of some characteristic such as the reputation of the artist, the extent of the collection, the iconic nature and scale of the work, or even a unique character of the work such as its quirkiness. Frequently art destinations combine a striking landscape or streetscape with works that enhance or contradict.

Art destinations contribute strongly to both social and economic outcomes for the host area. They have been shown to revitalize ailing centres, for example, MONA in Hobart, MassMOCA (Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art) in North Adams, Massachusetts and the Judd and Chinati Foundation museums in Marfa, Texas. Locally, the Tweed Regional Gallery & Margaret Olley Art Centre at Murwillumbah has had strong benefits for the town.

Although it may be aspirational rather than realistic to plan for Byron Shire to rival the world’s major sculpture parks, the shire is home to some very well-resourced residents with an interest in visual art. The Byron hinterland has a landscape that would suit a sculpture park that could become world-class. This could become the ‘innovative contemporary art gallery’ set out in the Cultural Policy and Plan, which has eluded us while neighbouring shires have created marker galleries.

Already our shire has people with drive who have made small-scale forays into establishing public art precincts. The Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk project and the small collection of sculptures in the park at Federal (associated with the biennial Sculpture by the Tree festival) represent examples of local art destinations. In both cases the projects have been driven by unpaid community members rather than initiated by Council. The main source of funding for Creative Mullumbimby, the community body behind the Mullum Sculpture Walk is a $64,000 grant from Arts NSW, with a $5,000 contribution from Council.

What is needed now is for Byron Shire Council to actively support those in the community who wish to make a difference, and to foster co-ordination of effort and dismantle administrative barriers to such contributions.

Welcoming loans of works in public spaces

One immediate need is to deal with the ‘Catch-22’ public liability insurance problem. This could be done administratively by enabling the donation of works to Council, for placement in locations agreed by the benefactor and Council, on the understanding that after a defined period (say, one to five years, with extensions by agreement) the work/s would be offered to the donor to purchase for a nominal amount.

This would enable the works to be insured by Council, possibly for no additional cost to Council’s existing insurance policy. Most importantly, it would add to the stock of work on display.

Designated display sites

Also important in adding to the stock of work in the short term is a stock of sites throughout the shire at which work could be displayed, by application. Concrete pads or similar bases for 3D works could be poured on-site or trucked to the sites and made available for short-term use by interested artists or art owners. This would require Council to have (either internally or by contracting a curator) mechanisms for management of bookings and installations, oversight and site maintenance. Such management would overcome the neglect experienced by the Bangalow Sportsfields sculpture walk, once the (voluntary) curator left.

Finally, the need for vision and courage

This submission sets out only one resident’s/artist’s views. It is now up to Council – through the PAP and other mechanisms – to initiate discussions with all interested parties to identify and investigate the full range of challenges and opportunities facing public art in our shire; to draw out and reconcile different visions; and to develop a coherent public art strategy, policy and guidelines that encourage and facilitate the spread of public art shirewide.

Geoffrey Cotton

55 Eureka Rd

Clunes, NSW, 2480

E: geoffcotton.sculptor@gmail.com

M: 0417 031 302

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.3

Report No. 4.3 Public Art Proposal - A Christmas Installation

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Joanne McMurtry, Community Project Officer

File No: I2017/458

Theme: Society and Culture

Community Development

Summary:

A request has been received by Council to support ‘A Christmas Installation’ on the tree on the Argyle/ Station St roundabout in Mullumbimby. This report provides the relevant information for the Public Art Panel to make a recommendation to Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Public Art Panel recommend to Council:

1. That the artist proposing to donate ‘A Christmas Installation’ for the Argyle / Station St roundabout in Mullumbimby from mid-December through to end January 2018 be approached to loan the work to Council, rather than donate.

2. If the artist agrees to loan the artwork, pending appropriate public liability insurance being in place, Council provide the assistance requested for a Traffic Management Plan, installation and pack down from the public art budget.

Attachments:

1 Public Art Proposal - A Christmas Installation application, E2017/24814 , page 30 ⇩

2 Images for A Christmas Installation, E2017/24788 , page 30 ⇩

3 Yazmina-Michele de Gaye CV, E2017/24790 , page 30⇩

Report

A request has been received by Council to support ‘A Christmas Installation’ on the tree on the Argyle/ Station St roundabout in Mullumbimby.

The artist has provided the attached application, along with an artist’s statement and CV.

The artist is requesting:

· Permission to install the artwork from approximately mid-December 2017 to end January 2018.

· Assistance from Council’s tree experts to assess the tree branches for safety (eg some appear brittle and the artist would like to rule out the risk of branches falling)

· Assistance with a Traffic Management Plan for the installation

· Assistance with the installation with use of Council equipment and/or staff, eg a cherry picker.

· The proposal is to donate the work, which would mean Council would need to remove and re-hang for future applicable Christmas periods.

Image of Ballina Shire Council workers undertaking

a similar installation in Ballina.

Rather than donate the artwork, which will mean Council pulling down and then storing the artwork, with possible installation in future years, should the artwork be approved by the Panel, it is recommended the artist loan the artwork for the duration of the installation. This will ensure that Council is liable for storing the artwork so as not to damage it.

As the artist has the support of the Mullumbimby Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber may be the appropriate sponsor for installation of this artwork and other Christmas decorations each year.

This application is one which might be considered in the future as a ‘Community Art’ project, providing it aligns with the (yet to be determined) objectives of the new Public Art Strategy.

Financial Implications

The cost to develop a Traffic Management Plan for the proposed installation would be approximately $150. The cost of Council staff assisting with the installation/pack down would be $45 per hour and it may take two staff 3 hours to set up the traffic controls and assist with the installation. The cost of a cherry picker would be approximately $260. If all these costs were realised, the total approximate cost for installation would be approximately $700.

The remaining public art budget for the 2016/17 financial year is $21,000.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Public Art Policy

Public Art Guidelines and Criteria

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.4

Report No. 4.4 Late Report - Public Art Proposal - Revive - Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Joanne McMurtry, Community Project Officer

File No: I2017/555

Theme: Society and Culture

Community Development

Summary:

The attached information has been received from Creative Mullumbimby as one of the sculptures for the Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Public Art Panel recommend to Council to approve the ‘Revive’ sculpture as part of the Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk based on the information submitted to the Public Art Panel.

Attachments:

1 Revive - Mullum Sculpture Walk documents, E2017/27866 , page 30 ⇩

2 Revive concept artwork - Mullum Sculpture Walk, E2017/27867 , page 30 ⇩

Report

The attached information has been received from Creative Mullumbimby as one of the sculptures for the Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk.

The previous Public Art Assessment Panel received regular updates about the progress of the Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk and the following has been achieved to date:

· Community consultation around the concept of the Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk along the park and riverside;

· A DA has been approved for up to 7 permanent and 6 temporary sculpture sites;

· Raised matching community funding for a Creative Partnerships grant which contributed to the first sculpture ‘Enter Here’;

· ‘Enter Here’ and the Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk were launched to the public 30^th April 2016;

· A grant was awarded to Creative Mullumbimby from Arts NSW. The group have conducted a Public Art Forum and Public Art appreciation workshop;

· Further information about the group and the activities to date are available on their website http://mullumsculpturewalk.com.au/

Creative Mullumbimby are now managing a ‘pilot’ project to establish procedures and practices for the future commissioning of sculptures for the remainder of the Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk. It is understood that a ‘call for expressions of interest’ was conducted by the group and the successful artist has put together the information attached to this report.

The Public Art Panel are requested to provide feedback if required and recommend to Council that the proposed sculpture meets Council’s requirements and is provided with approval.

Financial Implications

Nil cost to Council.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Public Art Policy

Public Art Guidelines and Criteria

Venue	Conference Room, Station Street, Mullumbimby
Date	Thursday, 4 May 2017
Time	9.00am