SAFEGUARDING has been cited as a key reason for a new sports facility to skirt the requirement for all developments to include a piece of public art.
Despite a requirement for a all new developments to spend 1% of their budget on art, the government is seeking to have this requirement lifted on the new Oakfield sports hall, which is currently being built.
Work on the site was allowed to start on the building on condition that developers add a Percentage For Art proposal later, but a planning application has now been submitted by Morris Architects on behalf of government is asking for the requirement to be dropped fully.
There has been no design submitted for the Percentage For Art at Oakfield – but it could, like in other developments, include a statue outside the building, decorative railings or doors, or a mural.
In a letter submitted to Planning, Peter Garforth, Practice Director at Morris Architects, argued on behalf of government that the sport’s hall’s “primary function” means that public art would be out of place.
“The inclusion of public art may inadvertently encourage unnecessary visits or loitering around the facility during the school day, which could raise safeguarding concerns,” Mr Garforth said in his letter.
“We would prefer to avoid any perception that public art is a key draw for people to visit the facility outside [opening] hours, as this could undermining the controlled access and timetabling measures already in place.”
They said: “The new sports hall sits alongside the existing Oakfield Sports Centre, which is also used by the neighbouring schools and colleges, but does not include any public art. We believe it is important for the two facilities to remain consistent in terms of their public access and use.”
The JEP has asked how much money the government estimates it will save on the development if it does not have to provide public art. A response had not been received at the time of publication.
