The Director of Tourism Culture and Economy
submitted a report providing Members
with an overview of Leicester Riverside Festival, including its
history,
location, activities, partnerships, and recent
development. The report also outlined how the festival has evolved
and its current strategic relevance to the
city. Key points to note were as follows:
- The festival was a large, free,
family-friendly outdoor event around the River Soar.
- It had grown from a small event to
an event that now attracted over 60,000 people.
- The economic impact of the festival
was estimated at £3.1m.
- The festival had initially taken
place across Bede Park, Western Boulevard, Castle Gardens and the
River Soar, but had now expanded on to the De Montfort University
(DMU) campus.
- The festival had over 80 performers
and over 100 traders.
- The live music stage would now be
moving on to Bede Park, featuring local artists and providing a
platform for a larger audience.
- The festival included free arts and
heritage experiences.
- The festival was inclusive and
multi-generational, and reflected the city’s diverse
communities. It was led by the
Festivals and Events team and supported by partnerships.
- DMU provided space and venues and an
events team. Students were also
becoming involved in programmes and using it as a showcase.
- Leicester Music Board was a new
partner.
- There was a wellbeing-focussed arts
programme called ‘Bloom’ in collaboration with Bright
Spark Arts.
- Heritage Bus tours would be
available.
- Outdoor film screenings would take
place using DMU screens.
- £30k funding had been received
from Arts Council England. Arts Council
funding also provided free outreach workshops which included
storytelling events that signposted to the festival. There was also Arts Council funding for people who
wished to be involved in the festival and work with the Festivals
and Events team in production.
- Families with complex needs could
use quiet/safe spaces.
- The festival was of strategic
importance as it was a platform for community engagement, including
the Family Hub.
- The festival was important for
economic activity as it was a chance for businesses to make money
and a chance to promote tourism. It had
enhanced city centre vitality and activity beyond the site, in the
city centre could benefit.
- Of the £147k budget, the
Council contributed around 24%, the other 76% came from vendors,
PRS sponsorship, Arts Council funding and DMU funding.
- The festival brought societal,
cultural and economic value to the city, and had the potential to
become a significant regional or national festival.
In response to member discussion, the
following was noted:
- With regard to issues raised around
crowd density, it was noted that there was lots of space on the DMU
campus and around the Newarke to expand. Ambition was subject to resource, but it was hoped
to move activity to other areas to help the flow of
audiences. The peak attendance was
around 3-5pm, to people could avoid peak times if they wished to
avoid crowds. Hotspots were
traditionally where the arts and crafts markets were and around the
music stage, the music stage moving to Bede Park would create more
audience capacity. Weather had an
impact on footfall.
- In response to points made about
events helping to Leicester as a destination, it was noted that
other events had taken place, such as Light up Leicester, which had
helped to increase footfall in the city, and further events would
take place, such as the World Cup Fanzone on Jubilee Square, and
the Radio 2 Party in the Park festival on Victoria Park.
- It was suggested that
Leicester’s proximity to London could be a selling-point to
make it attractive as a destination.
- Cosmopolitan Arts Festival would be
incorporated into the fan zone event plans.
- The Council’s contribution to
Riverside Festival had remained similar over the last few
years. Mors sponsorship was now being
brought in. If the festival was to
continue at the same level, it may be necessary to consider
incremental improvements. It was
further noted that increased audience came at an increased security
cost and that when money was brought in, it was often spent in
areas that could not be seen, such as infrastructure. It was hoped it could be looked into as to how to
get money into artists.
- In response to suggestions
surrounding purchasing equipment rather than hiring, and
potentially using barriers for sponsorship, it was noted that
opportunities to attract capital investment were always being
sought and that Arts Council Grants were going into creative
programmes. It was also noted that it
was good to have a certain amount of fixed infrastructure, but this
would need storing. In response to a
suggestion that Council-owned equipment could be hired out when not
being used, it was explained that rules around the use of public
funds would mean that it could not be offered at less than the
commercial rate.
AGREED:
1)
That the reports be noted.
2)
That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into
account by the lead officers.