Report of the Director of Strategic Development

This report provides an overview of the design process and the work undertaken as part of the design of the Peterloo Memorial.

The Committee received a report of the Director of Strategic Development which provided an overview of the design process and the work undertaken as part of the design of the Peterloo Memorial.

The main points and themes within the report included:

• The inception of the project;
• The design formation; and
• The current position.

The Lead Member for Disability commented that the Our Manchester Strategy Outcomes at the front of the report did not mention equalities and suggested that the Committee might want to give consideration to how equalities could be incorporated into this.  She informed Members that she supported the creation of a memorial to the Peterloo Massacre but that it had to be for everyone.  She advised Members that this issue should have been identified and addressed earlier in the process and that it was not acceptable for non-disabled people to decide that a ramp which enabled partial access to the memorial enabled ‘meaningful participation’ for wheelchair users.  She expressed concern that the process through which the memorial had been developed had failed to ensure accessibility and called for a review of the Council’s processes, as well as training for Members and officers, to ensure that the issue of accessibility was central in future work.  She questioned why there was no reference to the social model of disability in the documents and whether an equality impact assessment had been carried out.  She also questioned whether there was any ongoing dialogue taking place between the Council and disabled people’s groups and advised that it was important for this to happen.  She emphasised the importance of pro-actively consulting with the public, including disabled people’s groups, rather than putting a consultation on the Council’s website and assuming that was sufficient.

Brian Hilton from the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP) reported that his organisation supported the creation of a fitting memorial to the Peterloo Massacre but that a fitting memorial could not involve the segregation, discrimination and humiliation of disabled people.  He stated that the consultation had been flawed and that the consultation period had not been long enough.  He reported that the campaign to make the memorial fully accessible had been widely supported, including by local, national and international disabled people’s organisations, by the group which had campaigned to have the memorial built and by a number of high profile individuals including the singer-songwriter and political activist Billy Bragg.  He commented that the Peterloo Memorial had been described as a memorial that people could interact with in a number of ways, including viewing it, climbing on it and speaking from it, but that disabled people could not do this and that, in its current design, the memorial was a metaphor for segregation, with disabled people at the bottom being talked down to.  He advised Members that what was important was not completing the memorial in its current form by the 200^th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre but getting it right by ensuring that it was accessible for all.

Mark Todd informed Members that he was representing a grassroots campaign group which included disabled people, their organisations and non-disabled people who wanted an accessible, inclusive memorial.  He referred to documents which, he informed the Committee, indicated that the memorial was not just public art but an interactive memorial which people could speak from and expressed concern that the current design made disabled people passive spectators rather than active participants.  He informed Members that the changes agreed so far to make the memorial more accessible would only raise wheelchair users seven inches off the ground and did not provide them with access to a speaking platform.  He reported that campaigners had been working with the artist to improve the accessibility of the memorial design and that he believed a solution could be found; however, he advised Members that on 14 May 2019 the Council had halted these discussions, citing time constraints.  He questioned this, stating that the timescales were all decided by the Council and that the memorial was not intended to play a major role in the 200^th anniversary commemorations.  He reported that his group would be happy to contribute their views on how consultation processes could be improved in future but that their priority now was the memorial.  He informed Members that the artist and the campaigners were still willing to work together to resolve this and asked that the Council join them in finding a solution.

The Executive Member for Skills, Culture and Leisure reported that the Council took pride in being inclusive and in its commitment to equality but that this had failed during this process.  He reported that the Peterloo Memorial had originally been commissioned as a public art installation but acknowledged that later changes to make the design interactive had not been fully inclusive.  He proposed to revert to the original brief that this would be a piece of public art which was not to be climbed on by anybody and that signs be put up to this effect.

The Leader of the Opposition supported the comments of the Lead Member for Disability and thanked Mr Hilton and Mr Todd for their contribution to the discussion.  He expressed concern that, despite the multi-staged process that the proposal had been through before going to the Planning Committee, the lack of accessibility was only identified at that stage and advised that processes should be reviewed to address this.  He advised Members that the memorial should be fully accessible to all, including people with different types of wheelchairs and mobility scooters.  He stated that he did not believe that the Executive Member’s proposal was acceptable and recommended that the relevant parties meet to find a way to make the memorial accessible to all.

The Ward Councillor for Deansgate reported that there had been a long-term commitment to building this memorial.  She reported that during the consultation period councillors had raised the issue of access and had been assured that this issue would be addressed.  She stated that she did not believe that the Executive Member’s proposal was a workable solution and suggested that the work go ahead as planned in time for the commemorations with a clear statement from the Council which acknowledged the mistakes that had been made and gave a commitment to make appropriate changes.

Some of the key points that arose from the Committee’s discussions were:

• To question whether a meaningful consultation had taken place;
• To question the proposal that the memorial be re-designated as a non-interactive piece of public art as the artist had said that people would get the most out of it from the top of the memorial and members of the public were still likely to climb it due to having been told previously that it was interactive;
• That the Equality Act referred to people with a protected characteristic being encouraged to participate in public life on the same level as people who didn’t possess that protected characteristic and that preventing everyone from using the memorial as a speaking platform was not in keeping with this and was contrary to the message of Peterloo; and
• That this situation should be rectified in consultation with and using the expertise of disabled people’s groups and that the Executive Member should meet with Mr Hilton, Mr Todd and the Lead Member for Disability as soon as possible to discuss options.

The Executive Member for Skills, Culture and Leisure informed Members that the unveiling of the Peterloo Memorial would be part of the 200^th anniversary celebrations but that the original intention of the memorial had not included it being a speaking platform and that all elements of the memorial could be seen from the lower level.  He reiterated his proposal to revert to the original brief for the memorial, that it was not intended to be stood on and that people should be discouraged from doing so.  He stated that he was trying to find a practical solution and that it was difficult to adapt it to the degree that the campaigners wanted.

The Development Manager outlined the consultation process, stating that 14% of respondents had raised issues relating to accessibility but that this included a range of accessibility issues, such as access during party political conferences, in addition to disabled access.  In response to a question from the Lead Member for Disability, he reported that disabled people’s groups had not been pro-actively engaged with during the consultation process.  He advised Members that, following the consultation period, Mr Todd had raised concerns about accessibility and that a meeting had been arranged with him, the Council and the artist but he acknowledged that it had taken too long for that meeting to take place.

Decisions

1.            To express concern that the Council’s processes had failed to identify and address the accessibility issues at an early stage, to ask the Lead Member for Disability to liaise with the Executive Member for Skills, Culture and Leisure and other relevant Members on the best way to review the processes to ensure that this does not happen in future and to request that the Committee be updated on the progress of this work.

2.            To request that the Executive Member for Skills, Culture and Leisure and relevant officers meet with all the relevant parties, including the Lead Member for Disability and representatives of disabled people’s groups, to find an acceptable solution.