The South West has the creative talent. It does not yet have the platform. This report makes the case that a FE Creative Festival for the South West is both needed and viable, and sets out exactly how to build it. The conclusion is unambiguous: the evidence supports moving forward, the model is clear, and the conditions for delivery are understood. What is required now is a properly resourced Phase 2 to convert recommendation into reality.

The South West is one of England's strongest creative regions. Its further education colleges are producing exceptional creative work by students aged 16 to 19. But those students, particularly those in rural, coastal and more disadvantaged areas, are routinely expected to demonstrate ambition and professionalism before they have had fair access to the networks, visibility and industry-facing experiences that make those things possible. At 16 to 19, that gap is not a minor inconvenience. It shapes trajectories.

The recommended model is an Anchor and Satellite structure. This means one central event in Bristol providing the main sector-facing moment: a curated, high-quality regional platform for visibility, progression and industry engagement. Connected to it are satellite events across the wider South West, ensuring that participation is not concentrated in one city and that students across the region can access meaningful festival activity closer to home. The anchor provides the gravity and the industry-facing value. The satellites ensure the festival is genuinely regional, not just Bristol-branded.

Bristol is the strongest anchor in the evidence, supported by its venue cluster, cultural infrastructure and industry density. Stakeholder feedback spans Exeter, Bath, Somerset, Wiltshire, Cornwall and Plymouth, and Student Voice points most strongly to Bristol too, while making clear that access design, not preference alone, will determine whether participation is fair. The festival is only viable if satellites carry real programme value, not token presence, and if the model is experienced across the region as South West-wide from the outset. Autumn 2028 is the recommended delivery point, with the first two weeks of November as the planning assumption.

Access is decisive. Students in rural and coastal areas consistently identify travel cost as the primary barrier to participation. A minimum bursary of £15,000, schedule mitigation and meaningful satellite routes are not optional additions to the model. They are the conditions on which the model's credibility rests. A festival that cannot genuinely reach students in Cornwall, rural Somerset or coastal Devon is not a South West festival.

The pilot year is scoped to 19 state FE colleges to protect feasibility and delivery quality. Across the wider South West context, the opportunity is significant: there are an estimated 10,000+ creative vocational FE students across the region. Colleges want a model that is ambitious but realistic. Students want something that feels genuinely professional and worth aspiring to. Stakeholders respond most positively to a festival that is purposeful and progression-led, not simply a showcase. There is appetite, there is need, and there is no comparable offer currently in place across the region.

Phase 2 focuses on mobilisation: securing named roles, confirmed partnerships, curation systems, access planning, venue feasibility and a modest proof activity that demonstrates the concept before full investment. Phase 3 delivers the pilot. This report has done enough to move the project out of concept and into mobilisation. It sets out a clear recommendation, a credible evidence base and a route that is achievable, but only if Phase 2 is properly resourced and tightly scoped. This report sets out that route.

This document is a feasibility study. Its role is to examine whether a FE Creative Festival for the South West for 16–19 students is needed, what form it should take, and what would need to happen next for delivery to be credible. The main report presents the strategic case, evaluated options, recommendation and phased route forward, while the appendices hold the more detailed evidence, formulas, operational material and supporting analysis behind those conclusions.

The report draws on three main evidence strands.

• FE evidence, from the main college survey (Master Survey), FE roundtable discussions and project meetings. Used to understand practical provision across participating colleges: subjects delivered, facilities and footprints, timing and staffing constraints, and key risks and opportunities.
• Student Voice evidence, from the student survey and associated student discussions. Interpreted at college level to reflect the spread of views across the network. Particularly important for understanding what would make the festival feel worthwhile, what would prevent participation, and what access conditions are needed.
• Stakeholder evidence, from the stakeholder survey and direct conversations with cultural organisations, venues, festivals, sector bodies and partners. Used to assess model credibility, realistic contributions, and where future support may sit.

Together, these strands have been used to assess delivery models, compare anchor options, identify risks, and shape the recommendation set out in this report. For clarity:

• The pilot scope used in the analysed FE evidence base is 19 colleges, with 17 completed FE returns.
• Cornwall College Group and Callywith College are listed in the master sheet but were not included as no completed FE return was received.
• Student Voice comprises 27 survey responses from 17 colleges, submitted by staff who gathered views directly from students before submitting. Responses are interpreted at college level. (See Section 7.3 for full methodology.)
• Stakeholder feedback is reported at 25 survey responses, with a further 12 engagements through individual meetings and roundtables, 37 stakeholder engagements in total.

This report therefore does not present a fully fixed delivery plan. Instead, it sets out the strongest evidence-based recommendation now, and identifies what Phase 2 and Phase 3 would need to secure and deliver.

The festival is a curated, high-quality regional platform for FE students aged 16 to 19, designed to present exceptional work across disciplines and strengthen progression into further study and the creative economy. (See Appendix A, Table A.1 for the evidence summary and Table A.2 for the core questions examined.)

It is not an open access fair, not a single college showcase, and not a one-off event with no onward pathway. Curation, quality and progression are core design requirements. The intention is to develop a repeatable regional operating model that can be strengthened and embedded across the South West once feasibility is proven, rather than attempting full regional coverage through an overly complex model in the pilot year.

Pilot boundary: year one focuses on state FE colleges only, with a fair anchor selection and a light alumni offer; wider eligibility and formats are reserved for postpilot growth once the model, cost envelope and partnerships are proven.

Creative practice, FE students in the South West

6.1 How the Feasibility Study was Structured

Phase 1 was designed to move the project from concept to recommendation, examining whether a FE Creative Festival for the South West is needed, what form it should take, and what would need to be true for delivery to be credible rather than aspirational.

The feasibility work gathered and connected evidence from FE colleges, Student Voice, stakeholder surveys, the major stakeholder meeting, FE roundtables, targeted partner discussions, delivery-model assessment, cultural-landscape mapping and wider policy and sector research. The purpose was not simply to collect support, but to assess the model against practical delivery reality.

6.2 Precedent and Comparator Evidence

This proposal builds on established national and regional precedent, demonstrating both the viability and strategic relevance of an FE-led creative platform at scale.

These examples support the central proposition. A curated, regionally rooted FE creative festival is both viable and strategically aligned with established practice.

This feasibility report is evidence-led and brings together three connected strands of input. All data was collected through closed online surveys, supplemented by roundtable discussions, individual meetings and targeted partner conversations. (See Appendix A, Table A.1 for the evidence summary and Table A.2 for the core questions examined.)

FE Evidence

Provision breadth, capacity, timing preferences, access barriers, operational realism and strand allocation across 19 colleges

Student Voice

Participation barriers, practical mitigations, professional expectations and progression value across 27 survey responses from 17 colleges

Stakeholder Evidence

Anchor preference, engagement intent, likely contribution types and model credibility across 37 stakeholder engagements

7.1 Data Collection and Methodology

Each evidence strand was collected through a closed online survey to its relevant audience, supplemented by roundtable discussions, a major stakeholder meeting and targeted individual conversations. FE and stakeholder responses were analysed quantitatively for pattern and preference, and qualitatively for context. Student Voice responses were interpreted at college level to protect anonymity. Importantly, each college and each stakeholder organisation submitted one response via a designated representative — this is why FE evidence is reported as n=17 colleges rather than a larger individual count. Full methodology detail is in the supporting appendices.

Note on methodology: This feasibility study takes a pragmatic, mixed-methods approach. It is primarily inductive in character, meaning conclusions emerge from the evidence gathered rather than from a pre-formed hypothesis being tested. Findings are interpreted thematically and contextually rather than statistically, and are not intended to be generalisable beyond the South West context they describe. The study does not claim experimental rigour, but does claim methodological consistency, transparency and a breadth of evidence appropriate to its purpose.

Note on roundtables: The FE roundtables were facilitated by Corrina Cooper within an established programme of Creative Heads meetings, termly in-person gatherings of creative leads from across the South West FE sector, held once per academic term with Arts Council England in support.

7.2 FE Evidence

FE evidence is reported across 17 completed survey returns from the 19 colleges in scope. Each college submitted one organisational response via a designated representative. Two colleges did not return a completed survey and are not included in the analysed evidence set, giving a response rate of 89%. (See Appendix B for the full FE evidence analysis.)

This evidence examined provision breadth, operational capacity, timing preferences, access constraints, strand allocation and delivery realism. The returns confirm that colleges want a model that is ambitious in purpose but tightly scoped in its first year.

7.3 Student Voice Evidence

Student Voice evidence comprises 27 survey responses submitted by staff on behalf of students, across all 17 colleges in scope. Responses were completed by staff who had gathered views directly from students in their subject areas before submitting — in some cases through structured group discussion, in others through individual consultation. Each response therefore represents the considered input of a group of learners, not a single staff opinion. Actual student reach across the 17 colleges is likely to be considerably higher than the survey returns alone suggest. All responses are interpreted at college level, giving 17 college-level evidence positions. (See Appendix C for the full Student Voice analysis and Appendix D for strand allocation detail.)

A note on representativeness: the survey went to all 19 colleges, a census, not a sample. The two Bristol-connected colleges represent 12% of respondents. If Bristol accounts for more than 12% of regional creative FE students, Bristol students are under-represented in the data, meaning the 65% Bristol anchor preference comes disproportionately from non-Bristol colleges, which strengthens rather than weakens the recommendation.

Student Voice asked learners what would make the festival feel worthwhile and professional, what would prevent participation, and what practical mitigations would help. Travel cost emerged as the strongest participation barrier, while travel bursaries, schedule design and a meaningful satellite model emerged as the strongest mitigations. Learners responded most strongly to the idea of a festival that feels credible, well-produced and genuinely connected to industry.

7.4 Stakeholder Evidence

Stakeholder evidence was gathered through the Stakeholder Feedback survey (25 organisational responses), a major stakeholder group meeting (25 March 2026), and targeted individual discussions — 37 stakeholder engagements in total. The survey was distributed to a broad cross-section of the regional cultural ecology; the 25 responses represent organisations across Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Bath, Somerset, Wiltshire and Cornwall. The 12 additional individual meetings and roundtable discussions are listed in Appendix E. (See Appendix E for the full stakeholder analysis.)

Bristol-based organisations form the largest single group within the stakeholder respondent set, which reflects the concentration of cultural infrastructure in Bristol and the lead researcher's professional networks as Head of Department for Digital and Creative at City of Bristol College. This geographic weighting is acknowledged. Targeted engagement with rural, coastal and non-Bristol partners was built into the process specifically to mitigate it, as the individual discussions below demonstrate.

Individual discussions deepened specific parts of the recommendation. Young and Talented Cornwall confirmed Truro as the strongest Cornish satellite hub; Exeter Phoenix and Activate Performing Arts reinforced the Eastern satellite case; the Octagon Theatre and Fringe Arts Bath offered hosting interest from Somerset and Bath. In Bristol, Watershed and KWMC strengthened audience design thinking; Creative Youth Network strengthened the inclusion and progression case; Team Love added workforce-pathway insight; and RWA Bristol added a longer-term progression dimension through emerging youth infrastructure.

7.5 What this Evidence was Used to Examine

Across all three strands, the evidence was examined to understand: the need for the festival and its regional rationale; the credibility of an Anchor and Satellite model; Bristol as the recommended pilot anchor; Autumn 2028 as the delivery point; the access barriers and minimum offer required; curation and quality logic; partner readiness; and match-funding realism.

The evidence base does not provide a fixed delivery plan — that is the purpose of Phase 2. What it provides is a sufficiently evidenced recommendation and a clear basis for moving into mobilisation with confidence.

8.1 Cultural Landscape and Opportunity

The cultural landscape mapping highlights South West strengths in festivals and outdoor events, screen and digital media, visual arts and craft, music and performance, and creative education. The region has disproportionate cultural influence relative to its size, with internationally recognised organisations and programmes anchored across its cities and towns, and a broader creative ecology extending from urban centres into rural and coastal communities. (See Appendix H for the full cultural landscape and partner ecology mapping.)

The creative organisations and impact mapping identifies a production ecology across Bristol, Bath, Exeter and Plymouth with significant reach into rural and coastal areas through touring, residency and community programmes. Representation and lived experience are emphasised as design considerations, supporting a festival that is regional rather than city-centric.

The South West already has significant cultural energy, infrastructure and creative industry activity. The festival does not need to create a sector from scratch, it needs to make a regionally distributed FE student cohort visible within and connected to that existing ecology.

8.2 Regional Venue and Partner Ecology

The mapping identified a substantial South West ecology of venues, producers, youth arts organisations, festivals and cultural institutions with real appetite for engagement with the 16–19 cohort. Across all anchor options, there are sufficient venues, partners and organisations to support a credible pilot. The challenge is not the absence of cultural infrastructure, but the uneven distribution of that infrastructure across the region, and the access barriers this creates for students from rural and coastal colleges.

What this mapping shows is that the South West does not lack cultural infrastructure. It lacks a structured mechanism for FE students to access that infrastructure in a way that is visible, professional and progression-connected.

8.3 Place, Access and Regional Design Implications

The place-based evidence shows that a South West model cannot treat geography as neutral. Travel time and cost vary significantly across the region. For students from Cornwall, parts of Devon, rural Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, travelling to a Bristol anchor event requires significant time, cost and logistical coordination. A festival that does not actively mitigate this risks reproducing the access inequality it is designed to address.

A credible festival model cannot rely solely on students travelling to a single anchor city. It must combine a strong anchor with a meaningful satellite offer that reduces the access burden for students from more distant colleges, and that provides a genuine participation pathway, not just a consolation option.

The evidence therefore strengthens the case for a model that combines regional presence and equitable access, anchor for quality, visibility and industry connection; satellites for access, local relevance and regional ownership. The satellite model is not a concession to geography. It is a design requirement for a festival that is genuinely regional in character.

8.4 Student Journey and Progression Context

8.5 What this Context Means for the Feasibility Study

This is a crucial part of the report's logic. The festival is not being proposed because the South West lacks creative infrastructure, it is being proposed because that infrastructure is unevenly accessible to FE students at 16–19, and because there is currently no structured regional platform that makes their work visible within it. The cultural landscape evidence supports the concept and strengthens the delivery case. The access and place evidence supports the Anchor and Satellite model and reinforces the access conditions that must be part of any credible design.

The cultural landscape, regional ecology, place-based access conditions and student journey logic all point in the same direction: a curated, professionally presented, regionally accessible festival that functions as a real progression mechanism for FE students across the South West.

This contextual evidence does not determine the final model on its own, but it sets the conditions within which any credible model must operate. A festival that does not address place, access and progression by design will not be credible to colleges, students, stakeholders or funders.

9.1 Delivery Framework

This section sets out the delivery routes considered through the feasibility study, the framework used to assess them, and the conclusions that emerged. It does not yet constitute the formal recommendation, that is set out in Section 11, but explains how the recommendation was reached and what the options assessment showed. (See Appendix G for the full delivery model options and anchor scenario assessment.)

The seven delivery models considered here represent established frameworks used across the cultural sector and festival landscape in the UK. They were not derived from the feasibility data alone. Rather, they represent the principal delivery routes that could plausibly respond to a brief of this kind, drawn from established practice in the cultural sector. Each was then assessed against the locally gathered evidence to determine which offered the strongest fit with the conditions identified. This structured assessment sits within the study's broader inductive approach: the frameworks provided the starting point, but the evidence determined the conclusion.

Models were assessed against a consistent framework covering quality and curation, access and equity, regional ownership, delivery realism, partnership logic, financial sustainability and progression value, with roles divided between a core programme team, colleges and cultural partners.

9.2 Why Place Matters

Place is not a backdrop to this proposal, it is one of the reasons the festival is needed. The South West is a geographically large, culturally diverse region with significant internal variation in access to cultural infrastructure, transport connectivity and progression opportunity.

9.3 Audience Design

One of the most important findings was that the festival needs to work for two distinct audience groups: a sector-facing audience (industry, HE, funders, press) served primarily by the anchor; and a student and community-facing audience served by both anchor and satellites. This distinction affects how success should be judged and how each part of the model should be designed.

9.4 Full List of Delivery Models Considered

The feasibility study considered seven broad delivery routes, each tested against the delivery framework.

What the options assessment shows is that the key decision was not simply whether to have an anchor, but how to design the relationship between anchor and satellites so that the model is genuinely regional in character, access and ownership.

9.5 Comparative Anchor Scenarios

Alongside the model options, the feasibility study tested three anchor-city scenarios: Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth. These three cities were selected as the realistic anchor candidates for the South West: they are the region's principal cultural centres, each with significant FE presence, established creative infrastructure and the transport connectivity that a pilot anchor would require. The survey then tested which had the strongest support across the evidence base, each assessed against the same delivery framework.

9.6 What the Options Assessment Shows

This does not yet constitute the formal recommendation, but it makes clear which direction the evidence points. The formal recommendation, including the specific anchor, satellite logic, timing, curation model and access framework, is set out in Section 11.

This section brings together the main findings from the feasibility evidence and shows what the combined datasets make possible to conclude. It draws on the FE survey and roundtable evidence, Student Voice, stakeholder survey returns, the major stakeholder meeting, and targeted discussions with partners. Across these strands, findings move the report from context and options assessment to a clearer evidence-based position on what the pilot would need to prioritise, protect and deliver. (See Appendices B, C and E for the full FE, Student Voice and stakeholder evidence.)

10.1 FE Landscape and Appetite

FE feedback has been gathered through the Master Survey returns and follow-up FE discussions, including roundtable activity and project meetings. The pilot year is scoped to 19 colleges, with 17 completed Master Survey returns informing the current evidence base. (See Appendix B for the full FE evidence analysis.) Cornwall College Group and Callywith College remain outside the analysed return set because no completed FE return was received from those institutions. This FE input has shaped what the model must prioritise in practice: deliverability alongside teaching pressures, genuine regional access, and credible quality and curation.

Provision from the Master Survey shows substantial breadth across the region. Exhibition and making disciplines, screen, photography, performance, fashion, music and design all appear strongly across the returns, while Games and Immersive, Digital and Marketing, Festivals and Live Events, and more specialised areas appear in smaller but still meaningful numbers. This strengthens the case for a multi-strand pilot, but also indicates that the pilot footprint will need to remain controlled if quality is to be protected.

Multi-site coordination is also a significant operational factor: 14 of the 17 completed FE returns came from multi-site colleges. This increases the importance of clear internal college mobilisation roles, local selection processes and early travel planning.

Scope preference within the FE evidence also supports a controlled pilot boundary. Eleven respondents selected state FE only, five selected a wider provider set, and one did not answer. In practical terms, this suggests that the first pilot should remain focused rather than attempting a broader provider landscape too early.

The FE roundtable evidence further shaped how student representation should work. During South West Creative FE Roundtable Meeting Two, participants agreed that student voice representation should be subject-specific, with two students from each college: one from a higher-level programme and one from a lower-level programme. Colleges were therefore asked through the survey to indicate first, second and third subject-area preferences for representation.

The evidence also highlighted that nomination and participation would need to be managed locally within colleges. Each college would need to determine its own internal selection process for student representatives, while being encouraged to consider students who can meaningfully articulate access and participation constraints as well as the priorities and lived experience of their wider cohort.

Across the FE discussions, a consistent set of feasibility conditions emerged. Access constraints, travel cost, timing and staffing pressures were repeatedly identified as material delivery issues, and the need for controlled scope was reinforced as essential to maintaining quality and funder confidence.

The provision mix supports a multi-strand footprint. The pilot should therefore be designed around three core public-facing strands, exhibition and making, screening and digital, and performance and live work, with an embedded student production strand. This aligns with the strongest provision signals while avoiding an over-fragmented first pilot.

10.2 Student Voice Findings

Student Voice is reported here at college level, using 17 college-level responses from the latest dataset. (See Appendix C for the full Student Voice analysis and Appendix D for strand allocation detail.) Of the 17 colleges represented, two have Bristol connections, City of Bristol College and SGS College, which spans Bristol and Stroud. The 65% Bristol anchor preference therefore reflects colleges from across the South West choosing Bristol, not a concentration of Bristol respondents. Even removing both Bristol-connected colleges from the calculation, the signal remains strong. This approach reflects the structure agreed through the FE roundtable process, which recommended subject-specific representation and a consistent college-level method to avoid over-weighting centres that submitted more than one response. Colleges were asked to indicate first, second and third subject-area preferences, and the resulting allocation was used to support a balanced spread of representation across the responding network.

Student Voice Allocation Note

The feasibility process also produced a proposed allocation of subject strands across responding colleges, based on first and second subject preferences and a simple fairness rule: first preferences were honoured wherever possible, with second preferences used where needed to maintain a balanced spread across the disciplines represented in the returns. All allocations fell within first or second preference, with 65% allocated at first preference.

Within-college variation between Bristol and Exeter exists in a small number of cases, and in most colleges that preferred Bristol it was a clear first choice rather than a marginal one.

10.2 What the Anchor Preference Data Shows

These barriers do not affect all students equally: rural and coastal colleges are more exposed to travel cost and time, while colleges with higher proportions of part-time or working students face scheduling constraints that are harder to mitigate through programme design alone.

Industry partnership and having an audience are tied second, ahead of cost and brand. This supports a delivery logic where industry engagement is designed through concrete activity such as workshops and feedback, rather than assumed as an automatic product of proximity to the sector.

Student voices, what they told us

The following responses were gathered through the Student Voice survey. These are direct quotes from students across the South West, speaking in their own words about what the festival would mean to them, what they need to participate, and what would make it worth attending.

10.3 Stakeholder Findings

Stakeholder input has been gathered across multiple parts of the South West through the Stakeholder Feedback survey, the major stakeholder meeting, and targeted discussions with cultural and sector partners. The evidence base includes perspectives from urban, rural and coastal contexts across the region, including Bristol and Bath, Somerset, Wiltshire, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset-facing partners. (See Appendix E for the full stakeholder analysis.) Collectively, findings show that the proposal has been tested against a geographically varied set of views rather than being shaped by one dominant place perspective. They therefore provide the clearest picture of how the project is being understood beyond FE, what kinds of contribution are realistic, and what the sector sees as the strongest value of the proposal.

The recommendation is stronger because of the combination of profile, venue cluster, cultural infrastructure and perceived readiness, and it only holds if the satellite design remains meaningful and the access model is costed properly.

The contribution data suggests stakeholders are more willing to contribute through programme input and satellite support than through passive industry attendance alone. The delivery plan should therefore lean into defined roles and asks, not assumed attendance.

This reinforces the core structure of the pilot: the model must protect both profile at the anchor and reach through satellites. Industry engagement must be designed intentionally through curated activity, not treated as the primary value driver in isolation.

Interest in mentoring and future partnership is also strong. Lower appetite for industry audience or talent scouting alone suggests that industry engagement should be designed as defined roles, workshops, talks, mentoring, feedback and hosting, rather than assumed as general attendance across multiple sites.

The feasibility narrative should explicitly frame the festival as a regional skills and progression platform, with the anchor acting as the sector-facing gravity point and satellites supporting access, local participation and regional ownership.

Free-text responses strengthen the case for three things in particular: a clear audience design statement, an explicit travel and access assumption and minimum access offer, and a clearer explanation of what partners will actually do rather than simply who they are. In other words, stakeholders responded positively to the concept, but expect it to be sharply articulated, well-scoped and practically credible.

10.4 Cross-Dataset Synthesis

Across these strands, findings support a clear direction. (See Appendix F for the full cross-dataset synthesis.) The synthesis was conducted by mapping each strand's findings against the five core questions examined in Phase 1, identifying points of convergence and divergence across the datasets, and drawing combined implications where two or more strands pointed in the same direction. Where strands diverged, the stronger or more consistent signal was noted with the source of divergence explained. The table below summarises the key convergences. The evidence does not suggest that the strongest pilot is the most centralised or the most expansive. It suggests that the strongest pilot is the one that combines profile with access, quality with realism, and regional visibility with meaningful distributed participation. That is the basis on which the recommended model is set out in the next section.

The following synthesis points are drawn from Appendix F. See Appendix F for the full cross-dataset synthesis.

11.1 Recommended Model: Anchor and Satellite

The recommended pilot model is an Anchor and Satellite structure. The recommendation reflects the combined weight of FE, Student Voice and stakeholder evidence, and the options assessment set out in Section 9. (See Appendix F for the full cross-dataset synthesis underpinning this recommendation.)

In this model, the anchor provides the main sector-facing moment: a curated, high-quality regional platform for visibility, progression and industry engagement. Satellites ensure that participation is not concentrated in one place, enabling local access, regional ownership and meaningful delivery across the South West.

This model responds most effectively to the conditions identified through the evidence: the South West's geography, the uneven distribution of cultural infrastructure, the travel barriers identified by students, and the need for a model that is both professionally credible and genuinely accessible. It also aligns most clearly with the way stakeholders and students described value, anchored quality, regional reach, progression purpose.

11.2 Recommended Pilot Anchor

Bristol is the recommended pilot anchor. This recommendation is evidence-led: organisational-response-level stakeholder data gives Bristol the strongest anchor preference signal, and Student Voice at college level also points most strongly to Bristol. Bristol offers the strongest combination of venue cluster, cultural infrastructure, sector visibility and perceived readiness for a first pilot.

This recommendation should not be mistaken for a claim that Bristol alone is the festival. Bristol works as the pilot anchor only if it sits within a genuinely regional model, with meaningful satellite activity, clear access planning and a visible commitment to regional ownership. Without that, the model would risk being perceived as city-centred rather than South West-facing.

11.3 Recommended Pilot Timing

Autumn 2028 is the recommended pilot timing, using the first two weeks of November 2028 as the planning assumption. Survey responses indicate Autumn is the strongest delivery window, with Spring second and Summer third, reflecting the academic calendar, assessment periods and staff availability across colleges.

11.4 Recommended Curation and Submissions Route

The preferred curation route is a college shortlisting or nomination stage followed by a central curation panel. This is the fairest and most workable route evidenced through the FE roundtables. Local pre-selection keeps the process manageable for colleges; central curation ensures consistent quality standards and cross-college equity.

The strength of this route lies in its clarity. Colleges know what is expected of them, the curation panel can apply consistent standards, and students can understand why their work was or was not selected. The system should be transparent, with clear criteria published in advance and feedback available to colleges post-selection.

11.5 Festival Operating Concept

The recommended model should operate under a unified regional identity, with a shared brand, curation standards and access framework across all Anchor and Satellite activity. The anchor would carry the largest programme footprint: exhibition, screen, live work, talks and an industry-facing strand. Satellites would carry a curated sub-programme, meaningful in its own right, not a scaled-down version of the anchor.

The anchor audience should include students, college communities and families, creative industry and HE partners, funders, press and the wider public. Satellites should be designed for local audiences, local college communities and regional engagement, with their own identity within the overall festival framework.

11.6 Recommended Pilot Decision

The report recommends proceeding with an Anchor and Satellite pilot, with Bristol as the pilot anchor within a South West-wide model, and Autumn 2028 as the recommended delivery point. This recommendation reflects the strongest route through the feasibility evidence and the clearest path to a credible, accessible and regionally owned pilot.

Alumni engagement should form part of the anchor programme, drawing from graduate networks across the South West rather than being limited to any one city. The recommended model offers the clearest route into Phase 2: visible enough to attract partners and funders, structured enough to be deliverable, and grounded enough in the evidence to be credible.

This section sets out the conditions that make the recommended pilot model credible. Access, inclusion and progression emerged from the feasibility work as core design requirements, not secondary considerations. Without them, the pilot would risk being visible but not equitable, and regionally branded without being regionally experienced. (See Appendix J for the full access and participation framework.)

Access is the decisive feasibility condition. Student Voice identified travel cost as the strongest participation barrier and travel bursaries as the strongest practical mitigation. The framework below responds directly to that evidence.

12.2 Travel Bursary Model

The travel bursary should be distributed proportionately rather than as a flat equal payment. Each participating college receives a base bursary, with the remaining fund allocated using a weighted formula reflecting both distance to the anchor and the number of approved travelling students. A separate accessibility reserve should be held outside the formula for agreed reasonable adjustments and exceptional access needs.

A prudent planning figure for the travel bursary is £15,000, intentionally higher than an equal split to recognise that participation burdens are uneven across the South West. This model directs more resource to colleges where access barriers are greatest.

12.3 Participation Planning and Allocation Principle

Participation in the pilot should be planned intentionally rather than assumed. Three connected mechanisms create the participation logic: a nomination and curation route for featured anchor participation, a satellite model for wider regional involvement, and the proportionate bursary model for access support.

For the anchor, participation should remain controlled and curated, using a hybrid principle: a guaranteed baseline level of representation for each participating college, with additional capacity weighted by student scale, subject footprint and available strand capacity. For satellites, participation should be broader and more flexible, providing the main mechanism for widening student involvement beyond the limits of the anchor.

This allows the pilot to protect fairness, maintain quality and respond to the different participation pressures created by geography across the South West.

12.4 Inclusion and Place-Responsive Participation

The pilot cannot rely on one model of participation. A place-responsive approach is required, recognising that students' routes into opportunity are shaped by geography, transport, local infrastructure and confidence, not only by ability or ambition. Students in rural, coastal and less well-connected areas must not be treated as peripheral to the model. Satellites play an inclusion role as well as a logistical one: they reduce travel burden, create local visibility, and make meaningful participation possible without requiring students to cross the region.

The feasibility work points towards the value of a broader inclusion route for young people at the edge of participation. A Phase 2 development route should explore how NEET and edge-of-participation young people could be included through county and local delivery partners, including local authority youth teams, Youth Hubs, youth arts organisations and referral pathways through colleges. Participation through this route should remain no-cost to the student and may include tasters, crew roles, satellite activity, mentoring and trusted-adult accompaniment where needed.

12.5 Progression and Professional Value

The festival should not be designed as a celebratory endpoint. The evidence supports a model in which participation acts as a progression mechanism, connecting students to visibility, feedback, networks and realistic next steps. Workshops, talks, mentoring, portfolio feedback, student production roles and curated audience design should all be treated as integral to the programme. The Anchor and Satellites should not be judged by identical progression metrics: the anchor provides sector-facing value and industry reach, while satellites provide local credibility, community connection and a lower-barrier entry point into the wider festival.

12.6 What this Framework Means for the Pilot

The access, inclusion and progression framework is not a separate layer added after the main design. It is the condition on which the recommended model depends. A centralised model would weaken access and reduce regional legitimacy. A highly distributed model without quality control would undermine the progression offer. The Anchor and Satellite structure holds precisely because it creates space for both: anchor credibility and satellite reach, with access support built in from the start.

This is not simply a question of fairness. It is a question of feasibility. The pilot will only be credible to colleges, students, stakeholders and funders if access, inclusion and progression are treated as core design principles from the outset.

This section does not list things that might go wrong. It identifies the conditions that must be actively resolved in Phase 2 for the pilot to be credible and deliverable. Each risk is real. None of them is a reason to abandon the recommended model. Together, they constitute the Phase 2 agenda.

The following risks relate to partnership, funding and delivery timing. All three require active management in Phase 2 before the pilot can be confirmed as deliverable. The third, funding realism, is the one funders will scrutinise most carefully and the one the report addresses most directly.

Governance and curation sit at the centre of the pilot's credibility. A festival that is well-governed and transparently curated is more likely to attract funder confidence, partner commitment and student trust. Phase 2 should begin by establishing governance, not by designing programme. (See Appendix I for the full governance, curation and delivery framework.)

14.1 Five Governance Principles

14.2 Conflict-Management in Practice

All panel members should complete a declaration of interest before seeing submissions, and no panel member should score work from their own institution or from an organisation where they hold a current paid, governance or close mentoring relationship. Where possible, an initial sift should be anonymised. A quorate panel should include at least one FE voice, one external cultural or industry voice and one chair or process lead. Recusals should be recorded formally, tie-break decisions should sit with the independent chair, and a scored reserve list should be maintained for withdrawals or practical constraints. This policy should be finalised in Phase 2.

14.3 Delivery Capacity and Roles

The pilot should be supported by a small core programme team responsible for coordination, partner communication, safeguarding, access planning, production management, evaluation and communications. At local level, each satellite should have a named coordinator or host lead, distributed participation cannot be managed through central coordination alone.

Within colleges, clear mobilisation roles are needed for student communication, internal selection, travel coordination and local problem-solving. The model should also make meaningful use of student production roles, front-of-house, technical support, documentation and event operations, widening participation beyond those selected for public presentation.

14.4 Technical and Quality Thresholds

14.5 What this Means for Phase 2

Phase 2 should not invent the governance route from scratch. It should confirm and formalise what feasibility has already identified: finalise the accountable structure, confirm the curation panel model, publish the conflict-management process, define delivery roles, validate technical thresholds and ensure local and central responsibilities are clear before mobilisation advances.

The feasibility work has demonstrated need, evaluated options and identified a preferred model. Phase 2 must now convert that evidence base into a deliverable and fundable proposition, securing roles, confirming named partner commitments, refining assumptions, running a modest proof activity, and building a funding route that can support pilot delivery with confidence. (See Appendix K for the full partnership development and Phase 2 routes.)

15.1 Partnership Strategy

The partnership strategy should focus on delivery-enabling relationships rather than broad association. Named organisations should be described as interested, supportive in principle, or having indicated likely areas of contribution, not as confirmed delivery partners unless a specific commitment is evidenced. The strongest next step is to convert current signals into defined asks and realistic partnership routes across six functions:

15.2 Funding Logic and Match Realism

The strongest funding model is blended rather than reliant on any single source. Phase 2 should explore local authority and combined authority skills funding, trusts and foundations with youth participation or place-based priorities, employer sponsorship linked to talent-pipeline outcomes, and cultural or venue partners where in-kind support can be structured credibly.

Match realism is critical. The funding narrative must distinguish clearly between cash, in-kind and support in principle, and frame the festival as a regional skills and progression intervention rather than a cultural participation project alone.

15.3 Phase 2 Mobilisation Tasks

Phase 2 is the securing and mobilisation stage. Its purpose is to convert the current recommendation into something deliverable and fundable, while resolving the uncertainties that feasibility has identified but not yet closed.

The feasibility work has moved the proposal far enough to identify a clear Phase 2 budget and an indicative Phase 3 cost envelope. The report distinguishes clearly between a funded mobilisation phase and a full pilot delivery phase, these serve different purposes and should not be costed as though they are the same stage of work.

16.1 Phase 2 Budget: £36,125

The recommended planning figure for Phase 2 is £36,125. This is a funded mobilisation stage, not a repeat of feasibility or a premature partial delivery. The budget covers three focused staff functions and one modest proof activity: a half-day showcase with a streamed talk or Q&A, creating visible public value without over-extending the ask. Any additional access support or digital enhancement should be pursued through in-kind support or sponsorship rather than inflating the current figure.

16.2 Phase 3 Pilot Cost Envelope: £163,550

The indicative Phase 3 cost envelope is £163,550 as a prudent planning figure for full pilot delivery. This is not a fixed final budget, it is an evidence-based planning envelope covering lead-in, the live festival period and wrap-up. It will require refinement in Phase 2 once venue fit, technical requirements, satellite scope, partner roles and access conditions are confirmed.

Within this envelope, the travel bursary is treated as a core access line, not an optional enhancement. The £15,000 figure gives the model enough room to respond to distance, rural transport issues and higher support needs, operating as an equity mechanism using the weighted formula set out in Section 12 rather than a flat equal split.

16.3 Funding Landscape

The Phase 2 Funding and Development Lead exists to develop and secure this model. Sources below reflect the realistic landscape identified through the feasibility work; none are confirmed commitments and no figures are attached. Ask sizes will be shaped by Phase 2 conversations and the evidence generated by the proof activity.

The proof activity delivered in Phase 2 is designed in part to generate the evidence base that will strengthen funding applications and demonstrate demand to prospective funders and sponsors ahead of Phase 3 delivery.

The strongest long-term case for the festival lies not in scale for its own sake, but in establishing a repeatable, trusted and regionally meaningful operating model that can develop over time without losing quality, access or purpose. Sustainability here should be understood in strategic, relational and delivery terms, not only financial ones.

17.1 Sustainability Logic

The feasibility evidence supports a sustainability model built on repeatability, quality control and phased growth. The pilot will only be credible in the longer term if the first edition establishes a clear operating approach that can be trusted and refined. What sustainability means in practice differs by constituency:

The sustainability logic is therefore not about maximising scale in the first year. It is about establishing a pilot strong enough to justify continuation and measured enough to be repeated with confidence.

17.2 Growth Pathway

Growth should not be a pilot requirement. It should be a post-pilot opportunity, contingent on successful delivery, evaluation and partnership development. The most credible growth routes are:

This feasibility study concludes that there is a strong, timely and evidence-based case for a FE Creative Festival for the South West for students aged 16 to 19, and that the project is now ready to move beyond exploration and into mobilisation.

That conclusion matters because the report has not been evaluating an attractive idea in principle. It has been examining whether a region-wide festival model could respond to a real structural gap: the gap between the strength of creative talent in further education and the limited number of visible, structured and industry-facing opportunities designed specifically for this stage of progression. This gap is real, shaped by place as much as aspiration, and felt most sharply by students whose access to networks, visibility and cultural infrastructure is weakest.

The South West is unusually well placed to respond. This is a region with a recognised cultural identity, a significant festival ecology, strong creative and cultural infrastructure, and a compelling strategic fit with wider conversations about skills, progression, place and workforce development. Yet opportunity remains unevenly distributed. For many students, particularly in rural, coastal and less well-connected areas, geography still shapes not only how far they can travel, but how visible they feel, what pathways they can realistically imagine, and whether the creative industries feel open to them at all.

The combined evidence base supports this case with clarity. FE returns show substantial breadth of provision, but confirm that any credible pilot must be tightly scoped and operationally realistic. Student Voice shows that students are drawn to the ambition of a professionally meaningful regional festival, but are equally clear that access is the deciding condition, travel cost is the strongest barrier, and travel support, scheduling and meaningful local participation routes are the strongest mitigations. Stakeholder evidence shows that the concept resonates beyond education, particularly when framed as progression-led, regionally owned and clear about audience design.

This is why the report recommends the strongest model, not the biggest or the easiest. The Anchor and Satellite structure, Bristol as the pilot anchor within a genuinely regional model, Autumn 2028 as the recommended timing. It is the model that best balances profile with access, quality with realism, and regional ambition with a manageable first-stage footprint. The pilot anchor sits within a South West-wide model, its strength derives from the combination of anchor profile and a genuinely resourced satellite network across the region.

18.1 What Phase 1 Has Concluded

18.2 Phased Route Forward

Satellite Location Selection

Specific satellite locations will be confirmed during Phase 2 and will not be predetermined. Selection will be determined by two factors working together: stakeholder partnership readiness, assessed through the Phase 2 engagement process with cultural organisations across the region; and college resource and geography, reflecting where participating colleges are located and what satellite access routes would genuinely reduce travel burden for students. The aim is a satellite geography that represents the South West equitably, prioritising rural, coastal and less well-connected communities. The evidence gathered in Phase 1, particularly from Young and Talented Cornwall, Exeter Phoenix and Somerset partners, indicates strong appetite for satellite hosting across the region.

The pilot will only justify continuation if it is evaluated honestly. This section sets out what success looks like for Phase 3, organised across five dimensions. These are not aspirational targets: they are the conditions that would need to be met for the project to demonstrate that the model works, that the regional logic is sound, and that a second edition is warranted.

19.1 Participation and Reach

19.2 Access

19.3 Quality and Curation

19.4 External Credibility and Progression

19.5 Sustainability Signal

The appendices provide the detailed evidence, operational material and supporting analysis behind the main report. Each can be read independently or alongside the relevant section.

This appendix summarises the evidence used in the feasibility study and how each dataset contributed to the report's conclusions.

A.1 Evidence summary

A.2 Core questions explored

All datasets were treated as valid contributions. Where response rates were incomplete this is noted in the relevant appendix. The combined evidence base is sufficient to support the main report's conclusions.

FE evidence behind the main report's conclusions on provision breadth, operational feasibility, pilot scope and programme footprint. Draws on 17 completed FE returns and roundtable evidence.

B.1 FE provision: grouped categories

B.2 FE evidence themes

B.3 Capacity implications for programme footprint

Provision breadth supports a multi-strand pilot. Multi-site coordination, staffing pressures and travel logistics are the key operational conditions the pilot must address from the outset.

Full student-focused dataset behind the main report's conclusions. Reported at college level, 17 responses.

C.1 Anchor preference (college level)

C.2 Barriers to participation

Respondents selected up to 2 options. Totals may exceed n=17 as multiple responses were permitted.

C.3 Practical fixes

Respondents selected up to 2 options. Totals may exceed n=17 as multiple responses were permitted.

This appendix sets out the proposed structure for student voice representation across the participating colleges and provides the full college-by-college strand allocation table. The allocation was designed to be fair, transparent and operationally workable: colleges indicated first, second and third subject-area preferences, and allocations honoured those preferences as closely as possible. All 17 allocations fell within first or second preference, with 65% allocated at first preference. No college was allocated a strand outside its stated preferences.

The discipline summary in D.1 shows that Visual Arts carries the largest share of allocations (4 colleges), reflecting its breadth of provision across the network. Screen, Music and Sound, and Fashion and Textiles each carry 3 colleges. The spread across 7 disciplines supports a genuinely multi-strand pilot while keeping each strand to a manageable scale. The detailed college-by-college allocation in D.2 provides the operational basis for Phase 2 curation planning and should be used as the starting point for college communication and nomination processes.

D.1 Allocation by discipline

D.2 College-by-college allocation

The final column shows first and second preferences as originally submitted. "-" indicates where the actual submitted subject area and standardised allocation match directly.

This allocation table should be carried into Phase 2 as a starting point for curation planning, providing a fair and transparent basis for college-level representation. Three colleges were allocated at second preference, Bath College (Music and Sound), Exeter College (Design) and SGS College (Performing Arts). For these three, Phase 2 should confirm that the allocated strand remains workable and that the college is satisfied with the basis for representation. Where a college's first preference could not be accommodated, the reason was strand balance rather than a judgement on the quality of provision, and that should be communicated clearly. The 14 colleges allocated at first preference should receive formal confirmation of their strand alongside the nomination process timeline.

Full stakeholder survey and discussion material. 25 survey returns, major stakeholder meeting, and targeted partner discussions.

E.1 Anchor preference

E.2 Likelihood of engagement

E.3 Most valuable elements

Stakeholders ranked elements in order of importance. Rank 1 = highest priority, rank 6 = lowest priority. Average rank shown.

E.4 Contribution types

E.5 Organisation-level contribution detail

E.6 Greatest regional impact

Bristol leads anchor preference (68%). Engagement intent is strong (88% likely or very likely). Strongest contributions: programme input, satellite hosting and mentoring.

This appendix brings together the FE evidence, Student Voice evidence and stakeholder evidence and shows how the study moved from separate datasets to a combined recommendation. Its purpose is not to repeat the main report, but to make the logic of the recommendation fully visible: what each dataset showed, where the strongest points of alignment sit, where the tensions were, and how those were resolved in the final model.

The recommendation is strongest where all three strands align. FE evidence clarifies operational realism, Student Voice clarifies access and learner value, and stakeholder evidence clarifies external credibility, likely contribution and regional relevance.

F.1 Cross-dataset Synthesis Table

F.2 Anchor preference and access: the key synthesis point

The most important synthesis point is that Bristol emerges as the strongest anchor signal, but access remains the decisive condition. Student Voice and stakeholder evidence both point strongly to Bristol. However, the wider evidence changes the interpretation: travel cost is the strongest participation barrier, access and logistics are material feasibility issues, and stakeholders are clear that satellites must carry real programme value. The synthesis therefore does not support a Bristol-only conclusion. It supports a Bristol-anchor conclusion within a genuinely regional model with meaningful satellites, access planning, a proportionate bursary model and regionally credible audience design.

F.3 Model assessment synthesis

FE evidence supports a multi-strand but controlled pilot. Student Voice supports a model that feels visible and worthwhile but not one that depends on unrealistic travel burden. Stakeholders place greatest value on the anchor event and satellite activity together. The extreme options are therefore weaker: a single-site model would be too narrow on access and regional legitimacy; a highly distributed model would be too demanding for a first pilot and risk uneven quality. The synthesis supports the middle route, one visible regional anchor supported by meaningful distributed activity, which is why Anchor and Satellite emerges as the strongest route through the evidence rather than simply as a design preference.

F.4 Progression and professional value

FE evidence positions the festival as a bridge between learning and a more visible external platform. Student Voice shows that what makes the proposal worthwhile is the quality of the environment, the chance to be seen, and the sense of professional connection. Stakeholder evidence places greatest value where the proposal is linked to skills, workforce pathways and education-industry relationships. The festival is not strengthened by being framed as a celebration alone. It is strengthened by being framed as a progression-led regional platform.

F.5 Partnership and funding realism

Stakeholders are more willing to contribute through defined roles than undefined endorsement. Colleges are operating under real delivery pressure. Learners will judge the project by whether it supports participation credibly. Partnership realism and access realism are therefore linked. The strongest route is to convert interest in principle into specific roles, written commitments and a realistic funding proposition, which is why Phase 2 is framed as a securing stage, not a continuation of concept development.

F.6 Appendix conclusion

The FE evidence defines the practical shape of what is deliverable. Student Voice defines the conditions under which students can participate meaningfully. Stakeholder evidence defines what external credibility and contribution could realistically look like. The recommendation is where those three lines of evidence meet. That is why the report can move forward with confidence: not because every question is closed, but because the strongest route through the evidence is now clear.

Delivery-model and anchor-scenario assessment that informed the recommendation. All models were tested against regional credibility, access, quality, progression value and operational deliverability.

G.1 Comparative anchor scenarios

G.2 Recommended anchor caps by public strand

The Anchor and Satellite model was the only option satisfying the full assessment. The recommended caps protect curation quality while keeping the first pilot manageable.

This appendix sets out the wider cultural landscape and partner ecology considered through the feasibility study. Its purpose is to show that the recommended model is grounded in a real regional context. The South West already contains significant cultural infrastructure, festival identity, production capability and youth-facing activity. The feasibility question was not whether an ecology exists, but how a festival model could connect FE students into it in a way that is visible, credible and regionally meaningful.

The mapping shows that the region has the infrastructure to support a credible pilot, contains multiple partner types able to support hosting, mentoring, public programme and progression, and that place remains a central design issue because infrastructure and access are unevenly distributed across the South West.

H.1 Regional Venue and Partner Ecology

This mapping does not imply confirmed partnerships. It shows the regional ecology from which a credible pilot network could be built if the model is appropriately scoped and sequenced.

Supporting governance, curation and delivery material. Shows how decisions would be made, fairness protected and standards maintained across the model.

I.1 Governance structure

I.2 Curation and selection stages

I.3 Conflict-management process

I.4 Delivery roles

I.5 Technical red lines

I.6 Anchor caps by strand

Governance must be established before curation begins. Criteria, conflict-management policy and panel structure should all be confirmed and published in Phase 2.

Supporting detail behind the report's access and participation logic. Access is the condition that determines whether the pilot is viable at all.

J.1 Minimum access offer components

J.2 Travel bursary planning figures

Formula: Weighted share = Remaining pot × [(0.65 × Distance Weight) + (0.35 × Student Weight)]. Distance Weight = college travel distance to anchor ÷ total. Student Weight = approved travelling students from college ÷ total. Satellites are the primary mechanism for widening access beyond the anchor allocation.

Supporting detail behind the report's partnership logic. Named organisations are interested or supportive in principle, not confirmed delivery partners unless evidenced in writing.

K.1 Priority partnership functions

K.2 Phase 2 asks by type

Phase 2 should convert broad support into defined, realistic and bounded contribution. The strongest next step is sharper asks, clearer role definitions and written commitment.

Principal external reports, policy sources and comparator models used in the feasibility study.

L.1 National creative-policy and skills

L.2 Regional skills and local planning

L.3 Place, geography and creative economy

L.4 Participation, inclusion and youth opportunity

L.5 Comparator and model references

This appendix summarises the professional background of the two authors, in support of the credibility of the feasibility work and the methodological choices made.

Corrina Cooper, FE-Facing Strand Lead

Current roles: Head of Department for Digital and Creative, City of Bristol College; Founder, The Creative Strategy House (independent consultancy, from September 2025).

Education: MA Education: Leadership and Management, Oxford Brookes University (Merit); PGCE Post-Compulsory Education (Merit); BA (Hons) Fine Art, University of Lincoln (2:1); QTLS; Women Leading Change, University of Cambridge Institute of Sustainability Leadership (Distinction, 2023).

Relevant experience: Over a decade of FE curriculum leadership across quality assurance, employer engagement and creative provision. Previous roles at Yeovil College, Wiltshire College and Milton Keynes College. Led the End of Year Creative Festival at Yeovil College, achieving Grade 1 SAR validation and strong external stakeholder recognition. Built a regional creative and digital skills pipeline with NHS Yeovil and the Open University to respond to workforce needs. Currently building partnerships with Bristol Beacon, Knowle West Media Centre and ACE (Aspiration, Creation, Elevation). Active creative practitioner. Facilitator of the South West Creative Heads termly forum, supported by Arts Council England.

Anna McGuire, Cultural and Strategic Strand Lead

Current role: Head of Charity Projects and Campaigns, Glastonbury Festival.

Relevant experience: Extensive experience in arts strategy, place-based cultural development and large-scale partnership management within the festival and cultural sector. Deep knowledge of audience development, cultural infrastructure and the relationship between festival ecology and community benefit. On this project, led the cultural and strategic strand: stakeholder engagement across the South West, cultural landscape analysis, partnership logic and delivery model development. Brought direct knowledge of how major festivals operate and create meaningful progression opportunities for young creative people.

Combined Rationale

The two-author structure directly reflects the two evidence strands the study required. Corrina Cooper brought FE curriculum leadership, sector networks and operational feasibility expertise. Anna McGuire brought festival industry knowledge, cultural partnership experience and strategic development capability. The combination meant each strand of evidence could be gathered and interpreted by someone with direct professional fluency in that domain.

National Policy and Creative Industries

Regional Skills and Local Planning

Place, Geography and Creative Economy

Participation, Inclusion and Youth Opportunity

Comparator Models

Image Credits

All photographs used in this report are copyright-free images sourced from Unsplash (unsplash.com) and used under the Unsplash Licence, which permits free use for commercial and non-commercial purposes. All images are presented in greyscale. Full licence terms at unsplash.com/license.

Image references: unsplash.com/p1531 · p1533 · p1605 · p1558 · p1640 · p1700 · p1545s · p1628 · pprem · p1565 · p1545b · p1608 · p1763 · photo-1557337061 · photo-1765278537074 · photo-1636014488398 · photo-1577899637520 · photo-1553321326 · photo-1742509220749 · photo-1682616443593 · p1612 · p1719 · p1582

This feasibility study was made possible through the generosity, expertise and commitment of a wide range of individuals and organisations across the South West. Phase 1 involved 17 further education colleges, 37 stakeholder engagements and direct input from students across the region. None of it would have been possible without the people named and acknowledged below, and we are deeply grateful for their time and trust in this work.

Funder

This work was supported by Arts Council England. Their investment in Phase 1 made it possible to conduct the breadth of research, engagement and analysis that underpins this report. We are grateful for their confidence in the project and their ongoing commitment to creative education, cultural opportunity and the development of the South West's creative ecology.

Participating FE Colleges

The following 17 further education colleges participated in the feasibility study, contributing survey evidence, student voice data, college-level engagement and in several cases individual meetings and roundtable discussions. Each college gave significant time and thought to the questions this study was trying to answer. The quality and credibility of the findings depend entirely on their willingness to engage honestly and generously with the process.

Stakeholders and Sector Partners

We also thank the students across the South West whose views are represented in the Student Voice evidence. Their willingness to engage, despite having no guaranteed personal benefit from the project, strengthens the independence of that evidence strand. Their voices are at the heart of what this project is trying to achieve.

We are grateful to the 37 individuals and organisations across the South West who gave their time to the stakeholder survey, individual meetings and roundtable discussions. Your expertise, candour and commitment to the idea of a fairer creative future for young people in the South West shaped both the evidence base and the confidence with which we make our recommendations. We look forward to continuing these conversations in Phase 2.