The Fight for Mareel

SUE WILSON looks at the increasingly fractious – and perhaps not yet fully resolved – debate over the proposed Mareel development in Lerwick

Of its £9.3 million cost, a total of £5.2 million has now been allocated by SIC, along with £2.12 million from the Scottish Arts Council Lottery Fund, with the remainder pending from other bodies including Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the European Regional Development Fund.

The recent SIC vote marked the end of a knife-edge six months for the project, during which it twice seemed on the brink of being scrapped. In February, new Health and Safety Executive planning guidelines, issued in response to the Buncefield oil depot fire, threatened to scupper the chosen site, which lies close to several fuel storage tanks.

After intensive negotiation and lobbying, not least by the islands’ MP Alistair Carmichael, agreement was eventually reached on the necessary modifications, clearing the way for SIC to grant planning permission in April, the Lottery award having been announced the previous month. Just at this point, however, the formerly prevailing tide of public support for Mareel seemed in distinct danger of turning.

As happened in many areas of Scotland, the 2007 local elections had brought about significant changes in SIC’s make-up. These newly-elected members included several whose attitudes to Mareel ranged from scepticism to vehement hostility, opposition that was fanned into widespread local unease with the advent of the current economic downturn.

Despite the project’s lengthy gestation – dating back to at least 1996 – having entailed extensive local research and consultation, prior to rigorous assessment of the plans by external funding bodies, some Shetlanders had always seen Mareel as a luxury too far, even for their oil-rich economy. As the credit crunch bit, and the mood of financial anxiety spread, such arguments came increasingly to the fore - and as can happen in small island communities, the debate swiftly became polarised, even bitter.

Those in favour of Mareel were accused of riding roughshod over urgently-needed care homes for the elderly, or vital improvements to inter-island ferries, in pursuit of (at best) an expensive frivolity, or (at worst) their own careerist agenda. Those against, meanwhile, were cast as backward-looking philistines, content to see Shetland increasingly deserted by its younger generation.

It was amidst this atmosphere that eight SIC members signed a “notice of motion” to the council’s May meeting, demanding a full review of its commitment to the project. A sizeable majority then voted for a detailed re-examination of the entire business plan by senior finance officials, who were tasked to report back the following month.

Even then, a final decision might have been postponed again, but there seemed general agreement that June’s meeting was make-or-break time, with any delay until after the SIC’s summer recess putting external funding pledges – in particular the Lottery award – severely at risk.
 

In many respects, the debate over Mareel can be seen as a microcosm of that which has always raged over public subsidy for the arts, in which the manifest exigencies of underfunded hospitals and schools are weighed against the less tangible or immediate benefits of cultural investment.

Reflecting the current policy climate, Mareel’s promoters (chiefly the Shetland Arts Development Agency, which will run the venue) based their case primarily on an alternative bottom line, presenting the project as a crucial motor for developing Shetland’s creative industries sector – already estimated to be worth an annual £25 million - and thereby generating new sources of employment as traditional industries decline.

Education was another strong suit, with many of Mareel’s facilities designed in conjunction with Shetland College, who plan to expand their range of music technology and media production courses, offering hands-on experience in a state-of-the-art working venue. Combined with the actual entertainment on offer, it’s hoped that this will persuade more young Shetlanders to remain in the islands, as well as attracting newcomers from outside.

The finance officials’ 39-page report found Mareel’s business plan to be “robust and well researched”, although some estimates of costings were deemed “light” and audience and income targets “challenging”. Its overall recommendation, however, was that SIC approve the project.

Nonetheless, the ultimate result could not have been closer, requiring the convener’s casting vote to tip the balance in favour. Some opponents have been quick to cry foul, claiming that of the four councillors absent from the meeting, three would have voted against. There has also been talk of some last-ditch derailment via the council’s development committee, which is due to consider a final chunk of the budget in August.

A consensus appears to be emerging, however, both among other councillors and in the wider community, that with both sides having had more than ample opportunity to make their case, and with all due process having been followed, June’s decision ought now to be accepted, if not universally welcomed.

At the very least, Shetlanders can look forward to perhaps the most thoroughly debated new arts venue ever built in Scotland [Eden Court might argue about that – Ed.]. As the construction contracts go out to tender, Mareel’s supporters must be praying for the antithesis of Holyrood-style shenanigans between now and (hopefully) 2010, while some opponents will be biding their time for opportunities to say “I told you so”. Watch this space. . .

© Sue Wilson, 2008

Links

• Shetland Arts