2002-2005
(updated April 2002)
CHAPTER ONE
THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Introduction
The Museum
has embarked on a programme of development to make it a fit institution in
curatorial and commercial terms to justify its status as one of the six
Principal Military Museums sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. To achieve an
appropriate museum complex, due consideration must be given to a significant
number of influences, some of which are not necessarily mutually compatible.
These are:
·
the
Museum’s product range
·
quality
and quantity
·
effect
and impact
·
availability
of land
·
availability
of finance
·
cost
effectiveness
·
long
term sustainability
·
relationship
with neighbours
·
regard
to longer term development of the area of SSI
Terms of
Reference
The Committee, having taken due regard of all criteria, will:
·
identify
the requirements
·
determine
priorities
·
identify
the optimum way forward to achieve the aim (ie the plan/timetable)
·
take
due account of financial and environmental considerations
·
approve
the design brief
·
identify
appropriate contractors
·
approve
final design
·
oversee
the project
·
accept
the project
Committee Membership
The Chairman of Trustees
Not less
than two Trustees with appropriate specialist experience
The Director
The Curator
(Whenever
possible the Chair of the Audit Committee will be in attendance)
A nominal
list of committee members and observers is at Annex A.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fundamental precept
No investment
should be embarked upon without thought being given to its value for money and
ongoing revenue consequences.
Investment appraisal
The purpose
of investment appraisal is to ensure that proper consideration is made prior to
making a decision to invest resources in any project. Considerations should
usually include financial, and non-financial costs and benefits.
• Capital costs
• Means of funding
• The financial impact of the project on
running costs
• Projected operating surpluses/deficits
Non-financial
considerations
• Heritage merit
• Impact on the profile and reputation of
the Museum
• Non-deferrable maintenance
• Education programmes
The Plan
-
The Museum’s
development plan, itself a reflection of the remit given to it by its sponsor,
The Second Sea Lord, calls for
(a) the completion of the Exhibition and Interpretation of Holland 1 project.
(b) the
undertaking of the Conservation of HMS
Alliance project.
(c) the
construction of the Fieldhouse Building.
(d) the
updating of Torbay Block
(e) the
development of the new Staff Room
(f)
the provision of an annex to the Cafeteria
(g) the
provision of an accessible First Aid room
(g) the
enhancement to the present Weapons Gallery
(h) the
provision of additional car parking space
(j) the
development of the Front Entrance to include
o
the
provision of a Memorial Area
o
the
replacement of the Weapons Gallery
o
replacement
of fencing
Timetable
A
provisional timetable for these projects is at Annex A to this chapter.
THE HOLLAND 1 PROJECT
As an authoritative marketing report emphasized, in order to maintain its
visitor ‘attraction’ in an increasingly competitive heritage sector, it was
essential that the Museum improved its product range.
It was
essential therefore that a project was undertaken.
Criteria
The project
selected to fulfill the aim had to meet the following criteria:
(a) there
had to be a high degree of confidence that it would attract HLF backing
(therefore have strong heritage merit)
(b) there
had to be a high degree of confidence that it would attract partnership-funding
support from Industry
(c) it
had to have the potential of a high tourist profile to beat the competition and
have a positive effect on visitor numbers (estimated at +20,000 by marketing
survey)
(d) it
had to have a relatively short lead-time for its completion by the Royal Navy
Submarine Service’s Centenary in 2001
(e) it
had to be sustainable, with overhead costs that were manageable in both the
short and long terms
(f) it
had to have high accessibility potential for all categories of visitors
Options
Given the
variety of constraints built into the criteria, the only viable commercial
option was the Holland 1 project.
Additional
benefits
In addition
to meeting the basic criteria, the Holland
1 project brings with it the following ancillary benefits:
• it
meets the Trustees’ aims and responsibilities with respect to overall care of
the collection
• following
its initial substantial financial support for the ‘salvation’ phase, it meets
the County Council’s expectations of the artefact’s earliest possible
re-exhibition
• the
re-display of the Royal Navy’s first ever submarine is a most appropriate way
to celebrate the Service’s centenary in 2001
• the
world-wide publicity accompanying the centenary will have enormous PR benefits
for the project
• it
will add to the overall attraction of Portsmouth Harbour as a visitor
destination
• to
provide the means for the long term conservation Holland I, through the provision of an environmentally controlled
viewing gallery
• to
substantially improve physical and intellectual access to the exhibit, through
the provision of a new interpretation facility
• to
improve the product range of the Museum
Financial summary
(See end comments)
Financial Benefit
The Market
Survey indicates that an additional 20,000 visitors pa can be expected. This
translates into a net financial gain of £40,000 pa.
Additional running costs
• Staff.
It will be necessary to man the gallery for conservation and health and safety
reasons. This function will be undertaken by three part time wardens operating
a similar roster to those in the Museum. The cost (£19k pa) will initially have
to be borne by the Museum, although application will be made for a volume
increase in GiA to cover this vital function.
• Utilities. Additional
cost for utilities will be 6k pa. GiA has already been increased to cover this
commitment
• Through life costs. It would be sensible to put £3k pa
into a Designated Account to cover replacement costs for the dehumidification
plant in 20 years time.
In place
Introduction
Locum
Destination Consulting were commissioned to undertake a market analysis to
support the Holland 1 Restoration and
Conservation project.
Locum Destination
The company
was chosen to undertake the research because of their detailed knowledge of the
broader Hampshire Tourism picture (collected as a result of their involvement
in the Hampshire Museums Benchmarking
Project sponsored by the County Museums Service), and their focused
knowledge of the Portsmouth Harbour area (acquired through their work with
Flagship Portsmouth and the Historic Dockyard).
Methodology
The
methodology used is defined on Ps 5-6 of the report. It is both comprehensive
and detailed.
Major Conclusions
Positive
• That
the loss of Holland 1 from the
attraction base in 1994 severely impacted on the Museum’s visitor numbers, from
which it has not recovered
• That
restoration of access to the submarine (both visual and physical) will reverse
this trend with the potential of boosting numbers by 20,000 to ~80,000. It is
of particular note that this projection has not been adjusted to reflect the
likely increase in the size of the Portsmouth tourist segments as a result of
the other developments in and around Portsmouth Harbour, nor does it include
admissions by residents, tourists and school groups outside the 60-minute
catchment. The projection of 80, 000
visitors can therefore be considered a conservative estimate.
• That
the presence of Holland 1 will
improve the visitor experience significantly, thereby encouraging repeat visits.
·
That
the project will contribute tangibly to the attraction of Portsmouth Harbour as
a visitor destination
·
That
the Museum’s membership of the Portsmouth Harbour Consortium (marketing and
ticketing), and its Waterbus jetty (access), should ensure that the Museum
attracts its expected share of the anticipated boost of increased visitor
numbers to the region
·
That
the launch of the Museum’s Education
Initiative in January 00 will raise the Museum’s profile
• That
the centenary of the Royal Navys Submarine Service, with its nation-wide
publicity (newspaper and film features, Royal Mail stamp etc), will have
downstream beneficial effects for its Museum
• That
the Museum’s traditional visitor base (ACORN categories ABC and retired) is
growing in both the 0-30 and 30-60 minute catchments as a result of business
and residential development.
• The
Museum is rated as good value for money by its visitors
Negative (but which are within the powers of the Museum
to correct through its marketing campaign and future development programme)
• The
Museum attracts few Group visits
• The
Museum is viewed as ‘boys toys’
• The
Museum attracts few overseas visitors
• The
Museum must maintain a product renewal programme through temporary exhibitions,
events and so on.
The Building was opened in May2001 by Countess
Mountbatten of Burma. The project was three months late (weather and other
circumstances beyond control), and it was necessary to seek additional funding
of £25,000 from HLF. The quality of the building in terms of both providing
environmentally stable surroundings for the historic submarine and an
enhancement to the ‘visitor attraction’ was a great success.
The major lessons learned were:
CHAPTER FOUR
THE FIELDHOUSE BUILDING
Why do anything?
The recent
marketing report highlights the need to
• maintain
the visitor base in the face of growing competition
• maximize
the potential of secondary income sources
• provide
the visitor with a high quality visit that will generate repeat visits and
‘spread the word’
• provide
modem, educational and inspirational displays for the younger visitor
• a
broad product range to ‘wrap around’ the tour of HMS Alliance
In
collection requires
• additional
exhibition space
• higher
environmental standards that presently offered by the gallery building
The site as
a whole
• lacks
buildings of quality
• the
present admin/cafeteria building blocks out the view of HMS Alliance from Millennium Promenade
• the
present building arrangements fail to exploit the asset of the waterfront
outlook
It is essential
therefore that a project is undertaken.
Criteria
The building
provided must
(a) enhance
accessibility for all visitor groups
(b) be
energy efficient
(c) be
thematic and have landmark qualities to match other attractions around the
Harbour
(d) be
of sufficient size and scope to provide the required facilities for public
services and collection needs
(e) have
a positive effect on visitor numbers
(f) exploit
the waterfront must be energy efficient
(g) must
provide a high level of access for all visitor groups
(h) should
be of high quality in design and appearance to meet HLF expectations
The
Development Committee selected Robert Warren (RW) as the architect.
Although
relatively expensive at £30k, RW produced a quality product that covered all
the essential elements for a Stage 1 HLF bid.
The capital
cost of the project, including conservation costs of HMS X24 and the
employment of an in-house monitor, will be capped at £2.4M. Assuming a 66%
grant from HLF, this leaves £305k to be raised in matched funding, after
other allowable partnership funding has been taken into account. It follows
that any lesser offer by HLF will result in an increase in the Museum’s cash
contribution.
Financial
benefit
Although
detailed market research has yet to be undertaken, it is estimated that the
building will add 10,000 visitors per year. This will yield £20,000 additional
gate income.
Secondary
income sources (giftshop, cafeteria and corporate entertaining) should yield an
additional £20,000 pa.
Running cost
implication
Staff It is anticipated that three
additional part-time wardens will be required at a cost of £20k.
Utilities Annual utility running costs will be
in the order of £15k. Past experience
suggests that at least an element of these costs will be funded through GiA.
Through life costs It
would be sensible to set aside £5k pa in a Designated Fund to cover plant
replacement costs.
Planning
permission was obtained from Gosport Borough Council in June 2001.
The Stage 1
bid was submitted to HLF in October 2001. A reply is expected in May 2002.
CHAPTER FIVE
1 Why do anything?
HMS Alliance, a member of
the prestigious Core Collection of
Historic Ships of the United Kingdom,
and the jewel in the Museum’s crown with respect to visitor attraction, has
been on display since 1982. Like all metallic objects exposed to the elements,
particularly sea-air, she requires constant attention, and should be the
subject of a comprehensive and rigorous conservation programme. It is to be
regretted that, because of other extreme pressures on the Museum’s limited
budget and lack of curatorial expertise, she has not received the attention
that she deserved.
2 Condition
surveys
Two
condition surveys conducted by Fleet Services Ltd (Portsmouth), and the
Mitie-Lindsay
Group in conjunction with Babcock, came to similar conclusions.
These are:
• The
general condition of the exterior of the submarine is poor and requires
immediate work, but is well within the scope of repair rather than write-off
• The
condition of the pressure hull is fundamentally sound, but requires
preservation.
• The
work required to the submarine is confined to external items, and comprises
renovation and ‘cosmetic surgery’.
• The
present condition of the submarine casing and supporting structure at the
forward end is unsafe, and may become detached if remedial action is not taken.
• The
reforming/repair of the bow area can be carried as a totally separate exercise
to the work required on the remainder of the submarine.
• The
condition of the remainder of the submarine casing is fundamentally sound, but
requires some attention to the supporting structure and would benefit from the
removal of (now) unnecessary under-casing pipe work and corroded supports.
• The
work required to the rest of the submarine can be completed in later phases,
and is not as urgent as the front-end work.
3 Areas
of concern
Fore-end structure
The main
area of concern is the bow section forward of frame 18, the free flood area.
This portion of the submarine is in very poor condition as described below;
• External
structure. Currently of steel construction this is formed of light plate, parts
of which have already fallen off. Many shell plates have sprung or are holed in
places.
• Internal structure. Currently of steel construction, the structure consists of flats (horizontal plate diaphragms), plate frames and a centreline bulkhead. The internal structure is in poor condition to the extent that some members are 100% wasted. It is likely that much of the remaining structure has diminished close to this.
·
The
stern contour plate is very badly corroded, and is unsightly and is one of the
first areas to be viewed by visitors.
The after
stabilizers are in poor condition, holed and corroded severely.
Tank Lids
The tank
lids collect water and are leaking, and should be replaced.
Shell fairing plates in way of forward
hydroplanes
The shell
fairing plates are completely wasted in the region of the forward hydroplanes.
4 Criteria
The remedial
option adopted must fulfill the following criteria:
• It
must attract HLF support
• It
must be ‘non-interfering’ to the visitor operation
• For
financial reasons, it must be able to be staged
• It
must be sustainable under a ‘conservation plan’
5 Options
To date two
options emerge that must eventually decided upon by the Development Committee
• A
radical solution that involves removal and remodeling of the bow section in
aluminium. This would be followed by a staged refurbishment/replacement of
other areas of concern identified. (Mitie/Babcock) (£380,000 followed by
£400,000).
• A
rolling programme of repair (FSL) (£800,000)
6 Sources of Funding
HLF £500k,
Partnership Funding £250k (in place)
7 Progress (as at Mar 2002)
·
the weak bow structure has been removed
·
casing plates in the vicinity of the bow and forward
door have been replaced
in addition, for the short/medium term
·
there is evidence of corrosion in the lower levels that
requires attention
·
the stern contour plates/after stabilizers require
immediate attention
·
a scientific input will be required for the
conservation plan
·
there is justification to advance the introduction
of dehumidification at an early stage
Timetable
Having taken all the above into consideration,
the proposed timetable for work appears at Annex A to this chapter.
(a) Torbay
Block houses the written and photographic archives, reserve collection, library
and administrative staff.
(b) It
was falling down
(c) It
was unacceptable environmentally for a national collection
(d) Was
far from a ‘flagship’ building for a MoD Museum
Cost and investment appraisal
An overhaul of the building has merit in the following areas
(a) Museum
reputation
(b) Care
of the Collection
(c) Staff
working conditions
(d) Health
and safety
The
project was completed in February 2002
MoD, at no cost to the Museum;
(a) Underpinned
the toilet/stores wing
(b) Double-glazed
throughout
(costs significant bur unknown)
(a) The
creation of a classroom
(b) The
move of the Archive to the ground floor
(c) The
move of the Reserve Collection to the ground floor