Chasing Cow Press Release 05/07/21

BADT’s claim of “overall public satisfaction” for LSi plan challenged

The BADT published press releases on 10 June and 1 July providing more information about their plans for the LSi, including the results of their own survey conducted between 6-25 May. This latter press release ran with the heading ‘Landmark Plan Wins Public Support’. We believe their claims of “overall public satisfaction” and of winning public support are misleading due to the following reasons: 

1. The Survey Results 

The survey had a total of 70 respondents [1]. It asked people four questions related to the proposal (and a fifth general question about receiving updates about the LSi [2] ) each with six possible responses: 

Very satisfied   -    Satisfied   -    Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied   -    Dissatisfied   -    Very dissatisfied   -  Not applicable 

According to the Councillor representative to the BADT, in a ‘Report of the Town Clerk’ on a Town Council Meeting on 22 June:

“Of the 70 respondents, the majority found the proposals ‘very satisfactory’/‘satisfactory’” [3]. 

We do not believe that the results released by the BADT support this claim – our understanding of the results is as follows [4]:  

Q1 How satisfied are you that the proposal meets the needs of Bridport as laid out in the LSi’s aims?

48.57% responded ‘very satisfactory’/ ’satisfactory’ – not a majority 

Q2 How satisfied are you with the proposal’s offer for community and public use?

50% responded ‘very satisfactory’/ ’satisfactory’ – not a majority 

Q3 How satisfied are you that the proposal creates unique and inspirational place for enterprise and giving young people new opportunities?

48.57% responded ‘very satisfactory’/ ’satisfactory’ – not a majority 

Q4 How satisfied are you that the proposal creates the right balance of financial stability and benefit to the town?

55.63% responded ‘very satisfactory’/’satisfactory’ – slight majority. 

As can be seen, of the four questions related to the plan, only one received a majority vote for ‘very satisfactory’/‘satisfactory’, seemingly contradicting the interpretation of the results in the report from the Town Clerk. 

1. Chasing Cow’s Public Response

We also believe that the BADT is wrongly claiming overall public support for its plan because none of their literature mentions the public response Chasing Cow published [5] which currently has over 130 signatories, all of whom are against the current plan going ahead in its current iteration. Not only does this greatly outnumber the BADT’s survey, there are also a number of personal comments from community members, including from individuals involved with the building over the past two decades, none of which have been acknowledged. 

In light of both their own unconvincing survey results and the result of our public response we believe the BADT’s claim that there is “overall public satisfaction with the LSi plans” [6] to be misleading. 

This combined with their decision not to hold the promised March 2021 public consultation [7] suggests a lack of genuine interest in the public’s views on the LSi.

Furthermore, we remain unconvinced that the BADT’s plan provides sufficient public access to the LSi or does justice to the immense volunteer effort and funds that have gone into the restoration of this community asset.

We now invite the BADT to comment on the above as well as to respond to the following points:

1. Why did the promised March 2021 public consultation not take place?

2. It is our understanding that the BADT has received over £80,000 of Resilience Funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to support the Trust in developing a new business plan for the LSI. What has this been spent on (the Town Clerk report states that all but £7,000 has been used)? [8] Why was this process abandoned?

3. We would like a breakdown of the reported £80,000 annual running cost for the building with one staff member [9].

4. Which spaces will Crowdfunder be occupying?

5. How much rent and service charge will Crowdfunder’s partner 3DC be paying, and for which spaces?

6. What is the name of the financial services company occupying the top floor? What rent and service charge will they be paying?

7. The report by the Town Clerk on 22 June reports that the BADT has requested a further £5,000 per annum for three years from the Town Council to support their proposed plan. This has been approved [10]. What is the intended use for this additional public money?

8. Why does the BADT say that the building is being kept “open” [11] when it is quite clear that an asset held in trust for the benefit of the community has been enclosed – i.e. closed except for token access by the community, mostly via events controlled by the building’s tenants?

We look forward to a response as it will give us, and the wider community, a clearer sense of the proposed plan. 

Many thanks,

Chasing Cow Productions CIC

07/07/21 clarification: where Appendix 1 of the ‘Report of the Town Clerk of the Town Council Meeting on 22 June’ is cited we wish to make clear that this is authored by the Councillor representative to the BADT and not the Town Clerk.

Update 20/10/21: The public response is no longer open as the BADT’s proposed plans went ahead. We received no response from the BADT regarding this public letter, or our follow up questions. We thank all signatories for your interest. To see the latest information and what access is available please visit the LSi website: www.lsibridport.co.uk .

End Notes

1. Councillor representative to the BADT, Appendix 1, ‘Report of the Town Clerk of the Town Council Meeting on 22 June’ Bridport Town Council. Accessed July 4th 2021, https://www.bridport-tc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/22-06-21-Literary-Scientific-Institute-ENCL-3630.pdf

2. The fifth question was: How interested are you in receiving regular updates about the work and activities of the LSi?

   Results: % 22.86, 30.00, 32.86, 8.57, 5.71, 0.0

3. Councillor representative to the BADT, Appendix 1, ‘Report of the Town Clerk of the Town Council Meeting on 22 June’ Bridport Town Council. Accessed July 4th 2021.

4. Full results can be viewed at: http://www.lsibridport.co.uk/11961-2/

5. Chasing Cow’s Public Response can be viewed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hfMhbQuAhUjTvmDXgRYyGDDOS9HzkJ2G1WQD1KCWe_g/edit?usp=sharing

6. ‘LANDMARK PLANS WIN PUBLIC SUPPORT’, LSi Bridport, 1 July 2021. http://www.lsibridport.co.uk/11961-2/

7. ‘VIEWS SOUGHT ON PROPOSAL FOR LSI’. LSI Bridport, 14 January 2021. http://www.lsibridport.co.uk/views-sought-on-lsi-plan/

8. Page 1, ‘Report of the Town Clerk of the Town Council Meeting on 22 June’ Bridport Town Council. Accessed July 4th 2021.

9. ‘PUTTING BRIDPORT ON THE MAP AND BENEFITING THE COMMUNITY’ LSi Bridport, June 10 2021. http://www.lsibridport.co.uk/11917-2/

10. ‘LANDMARK PLANS WIN PUBLIC SUPPORT’, LSi Bridport, 1 July 2021. http://www.lsibridport.co.uk/11961-2/

11. Ibid.