FULL LETTER: University of Sunderland Vice Chancellor Denies Glass Centre Closure is motivated by land sale

Councillor Wilson

Thank you for your emails of 25 and 26 July regarding the National Glass Centre (‘NGC’).

Your interest in preserving Sunderland’s glassmaking heritage and your concern about the decision to close the NGC, is acknowledged and appreciated.

From the outset, the University has been clear about the reasons behind its decision to close the NGC and has been open in sharing key relevant information by publishing documents on our website, meeting with various stakeholders and responding to numerous FOI and informal requests for information.

Since 2010 when the business and assets of the NGC transferred to the University, the University has invested substantially in the NGC, notwithstanding the operational and maintenance costs of the building and visitor attraction.

Furthermore, at that time – and in a different economic environment, not least for higher education – the University considered that, without offering the NGC a ‘blank cheque’, it was in a financial position to absorb the relevant costs to maintain the NGC as a gallery, tourist attraction, and as part of its teaching and research base.

The University has diligently governed the NGC to ensure it had the investment, physical infrastructure and resources – including financial and staffing – to operate as a well-respected cultural asset.

However, the University has had to provide – or plan to provide – a significant financial subsidy in excess of £1m each year. This is a pattern repeated every year since the University took ownership of the NGC. That is in addition to the significant capital monies the University has invested in the building.

In summary, the University has spent over £15m on the National Glass Centre in the 12 years between 2011 and 2023 and, in effect, kept it solvent.

Following continuing – and, indeed, increasing – concerns about the future sustainability of the NGC building, and commensurate with the Board of Governors’ longer-term stewardship responsibilities, the University commissioned a full building survey report in 2022.

It concluded that continuing a ‘maintenance only’ route would be unsuitable,as the structure of the building was in a state where it was deteriorating badly.

At that time, it was recommended that the roof be replaced at a cost of c.£14m to remedy the leaking issues of the structure. In addition, the report recommended the remediation work on the steel beams and the replacement of roof and mechanical/ventilation at a total cost of c.£45m. It is highly likely that, since the building survey report was commissioned in 2022, those costs will have increased.

You have queried why the University did not subsequently seek multiple estimates for the building work. The University has been clear from the outset that none of the options outlined in the building survey report were affordable as they were of a scale that the University could never possibly contemplate.

We could never justify multi-millions of pounds of new expenditure on the NGC given that the bulk of the University’s income comes from student tuition fees and, as such, our monies must be focused on our core student-facing priorities of teaching and research.

The Board of Governors took the decision in December 2022 to close the NGC building in summer 2026. This decision, along with the relevant supporting documentation, was published externally in early 2023 to give interested parties as much notice as possible. Key stakeholders were informed at that time and have been kept updated and involved throughout.

In terms of a ‘credible alternative to demolition’, whilst I appreciate the strength of feeling about protecting and preserving the NGC, it must be said that, to date, no individual or organisation has come forward to offer any financial support towards refurbishing or saving the building at the scale that would be necessary.

As previously stated the University stepped-in in 2010 but cannot reasonably be expected to do so indefinitely.

The University has not yet determined what will happen to the NGC site. However, we would want to avoid having an empty and derelict building much beyond summer 2026. So, it is likely that the University will incur the cost of demolishing the building properly and safely at the earliest possible opportunity, including temporarily landscaping the site, before determining next steps.

It is simply wrong to suggest that the University’s intention to close the NGC building was driven by a desire to ‘sell off the land’. Indicative external advice suggests that the land is not of significant value and even that would be largely offset by the cost of demolishing the building and undertaking any potential landscaping.

While the University’s priority must be its students, we are highly respectful of the city’s history and heritage and will continue to work with city stakeholders to explore options for cultural activities, with the caveat that these must be both affordable and financially sustainable. Specifically, the University is seeking to lease space within Culture House as a likely permanent home for the Northern Gallery of Contemporary Art (NGCA) and as a location that could be used as a public gallery and exhibition space. In addition, the University continues to support Sunderland Culture Ltd on the establishment of a new Glassworks facility within the city.

Finally, in the same spirit in which you have written to me, I am making the contents of this reply public.

Best wishes.

Sir David Bell KCB DLVice-Chancellor and Chief ExecutiveUniversity of Sunderland