Notes from a meeting with the Natural History Museum + update

Steve Gill

5/26/2009

 Here at last is some good news about the project to have a memorial sited at the Natural History Museum. Although nothing is decided and they still have to run the basic concept by their board of trustees, both Robert and I were very encouraged by the attitude of the director Mike Dixon. Read on for the notes of the meeting. There is a short update at the end ...

Meeting Note: TS(UK) Memorial Sub-Committee meeting

Estates Meeting Room B

14.00 – 16.00 Friday 15 May 2009

Attendees

Dr Michael Dixon, Director, NHM

Joe Baker, Special Adviser to the Director, NHM (notes)

Robert Brewster, Co-Chair, TS(UK)

Steve Gill, Co-Chair, TS(UK)

Michael Holland, Member, TS(UK)

Apologies

Frances Macleod, Deputy Director, Humanitarian Assistance, DCMS

Meeting Note

Dr Michael Dixon, Director and Joe Baker, Special Adviser to the Director, Natural History Museum met with Robert Brewster, Steve Gill, Co-Chairs, TS(UK) and Michael Holland, members of the TS(UK) Memorial Sub-Committee on Friday 15 May, as promised by Oliver Stocken, Chair of Trustees at the Museum at the TS(UK) AGM on 4 April.

Dr Michael Dixon restated the Museum’s and the Trustees’ sympathies for the families of the 2004 tsunami victims and wish to assist TS(UK) in this matter and summarised the Trustees’ proposal for an indoor exhibit on tsunamis with an associated memorial. Notwithstanding Oliver Stocken’s offer in advance of the TS(UK) AGM to consider an external memorial, Dr Michael Dixon summarised the difficulties with hosting an external memorial, especially due to the need to complete the landscaping outside the second phase of the Darwin Centre ahead of its public opening in September. Dr Michael Dixon asked the TS(UK) representatives for clarification about the size and design of the memorial they had in mind.

Michael Holland stated that the TS(UK) favour an external memorial and that they would be willing to work within the constraints the Museum state.

Steve Gill stated that they have worked towards building a consensus of opinion with TS(UK) members and that the major issue was that the memorial should be outside and could not include or be near water.

Dr Michael Dixon acknowledged this and stated that the Museum needed to work with one view and that it was not best positioned to do any stakeholder management.

Michael Holland responded by stating that they understood that this was not the Museum’s role and that Robert Brewster and Steve Gill had a mandate from TS(UK) members to progress plans for the memorial on their behalf.

Robert Brewster stated that members did not want the memorial to be in a very quiet location, but rather in a living visited space, which was why they choose the Museum as the best site for the memorial. Robert Brewster also said that a central London location was favoured because 13 countries were affected by the tsunami and therefore would be easily accessible.

Dr Michael Dixon stated that he wanted to narrow-down the number of variables relating to the memorial. He asked if making the memorial accessible on the anniversary of the tsunami on Boxing Day every year was a prerequisite.

Michael Holland stated that he felt that generally access to the memorial on Boxing Day would not necessarily be required, apart from perhaps on special anniversaries. He also stated that Oliver Stocken had suggested at the AGM that access could be arranged if required as the Museum has a 24-hour, 7-day a week security presence. Michael Holland also stated that the scale and design of the memorial will be defined by the site’s constraints and in consultation with the Museum. He suggested that the option put forward in the past behind the Lodge, in front of the second phase of the Darwin Centre would be most appropriate as it is unlikely to be developed in the future. He also stated that it would be a positive thing if the memorial was in a used space.

Steve Gill added that they have a mandate for a memorial in a 25 square feet area including an object or sculpture not bigger than a person. He also stated that the design of the memorial would have to be in-keeping with the site. He stated that they have had many different opinions on what the memorial should be as the loss of life meant different things to different people, but that they had built a consensus. He acknowledged that the site would be used for different things and will therefore have different moods. Steve Gill also stated that the main reason members choose the Museum as the site for the memorial was that it offered an outdoor site and the possibility of an associated indoor educational exhibit.

Dr Michael Dixon stated that the Museum could not currently commit to build a new exhibit with its own limited funds and that any interpretation of the memorial could be conveyed via the website.

Robert Brewster acknowledged this and stated that they were keen on this as a long-term possibility.

Dr Michael Dixon stated that the Museum had some expertise and experience of working with the arts community via its Arts/Science programme, which could be useful.

Michael Holland agreed but stated that they would need assistance from the Museum for obtaining planning consent.

Dr Michael Dixon asked the TS(UK) representatives’ views on the maintenance of the memorial.

Michael Holland responded by saying that they felt that they wanted a low-maintenance or maintenance-free sculpture. He also stated that they want the memorial to enhance the Museum.

Dr Michael Dixon stated that he would need to look at the landscaping plans for the location and that no work could be done until after the second phase of the Darwin Centre was open.

The meeting concluded with a visit to the second phase of the Darwin Centre to view the potential site for the Memorial.

It was agreed that the Museum would write a note of the meeting and circulate to TS(UK), so that it can be made accessible to their members via their website, and update Frances Macleod at the DCMS.

It was agreed that Dr Michael Dixon would suggest the site discussed at the meeting with the Museum’s senior management as soon as possible and with Trustees at the next meeting on 21 May.

The Museum agreed to provide the TS(UK) with feedback from those discussions in early June.

We have now had some positive  feedback from the Natural History Museum management.
 

• The Management of the NHM have been extremely supportive, and following our meeting the good news and key point is that the NHM Trustees have agreed in principle to allow us to build an external memorial.
• The proposed position is close to the new Darwin 2 Centre which is due to be opened in September and understandably the first priority for the N.H.M. is to complete the landscaping around the centre in time.
• Therefore we will meet again with the NHM management after the opening for more detailed discussions about the exact scale, design and final location of the proposed memorial within this landscaped area.
• Whilst this may seem a long process it is real progress at last; we now have broad agreement on an acceptable site. Whilst there are many issues we have still to resolve, we can look forward with a sense of optimism that we will at last achieve our ambitions.