Agenda item

Culture Mile Transition - update

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Innovation & Growth.


The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Innovation & Growth.


The Committee noted that Destination City was expecting to launch its own consumer-facing brand as of April 2023, and that the Culture Mile brand was therefore being withdrawn to avoid confusion between overlapping initiatives (including the new BID vote).


Some Members commented that were the new BID to be called the ‘Culture Mile BID’, that would generate confusion of itself – noting also that the naming decision had not yet been finalised.  A Member commented that were the new BID to have the phrase ‘Culture Mile’ in its title, the brand’s intellectual capital that belonged to the City would be being handed over to a business-led entity at which the Committee would only have observer status. The meeting heard that the phrase ‘Culture Mile’ had not been protected in any way, and that there was some benefit to the City associating itself with the phrase. A Member commented that, as the BID proposer, the Corporation ought to be exploring ways to suggest that the Culture Mile name not be used as part of the BID, noting that other BIDs were named around locations or districts. The meeting heard that the proposal was to explore the potential for public realm designs (rather than the brand itself) to be offered to the BID for consideration, and that the Culture Mile’s strategy still existed with objectives, impact assessments, and clear strategies.


On recommendation 3, a Member commented that item 7 of the minutes of the meeting of 14 November 2022 referenced a sentiment that BIDs did not often involve SMEs and micro-businesses, and asked for an exploration of how BIDs might represent such entities or explore resource allocation to facilitate such involvement. The meeting heard that Destination City engaged with an SME team within the Corporation. A Member commented on the importance of including micro-businesses in consultation processes to inform the wider process, noting also the ratepayer threshold for those involved in the BID process (that generally precluded the involvement of micro-businesses on that criteria).  


A Member commented that there was merit in having a more dynamic and joined-up approach to culture in the City with clear objectives, given the potential concentration of City-owned assets. Such an approach would benefit from a holistic strategy. The Member noted an apparently limited co-operation between entities. The Committee noted that the Policy & Resources Committee co-ordinated the roles of the various entities that came together to deliver the culture programmes that met regularly to explore synergies and efficiencies.


On a question on the role of Destination City within the overarching cultural strategy, the meeting heard that Destination City embedded culture within its remit by working with the Built Environment team through planning and consultation. 


On paragraph 10, a Member commented that two to three years was a long time for designs to be decommissioned. The meeting noted that the time period reflected the maximum lifespan of the designs.


The Committee noted an erroneous reference to a ‘new Culture Mile Steering Group’ in section 14 that should not have been in the document, noting that details of any such group were currently being worked on with any required decisions on that to be submitted to a future Committee meeting.


RESOLVED, That Members


1.    Note the report;

2.    Endorse the recommendation that the City Corporation and the partnership’s cultural organisations cease to use the Culture Mile brand from 1 April 2023; and

3.    Agree in principle that the City Corporation is happy to explore the transfer of the existing public realm designs and associated rights to the area’s new BID (assuming the area’s businesses vote to create this - a ballot result will be available in February 2023).




Supporting documents: