APPENDIX 3
NOTE ON WEDDING RECEPTION AT KENWOOD HOUSE,
JULY 1999 (PAC 99-00/225A)
Memorandum of reply from the Chief Executive,
English Heritage
The Committee has asked a number of supplementary
questions about the wedding reception held at Kenwood House in
July 1999. This note sets out the arrangements, answering the
detailed questions under the headings given.
INTRODUCTION
1. English Heritage has long believed that
special events, re-enactments, third party events, filming and
photography can greatly increase the number of visitors to our
sites and enhance visitors' enjoyment of them, generating income
and significantly raising the profile of individual properties,
particularly our houses, and of English Heritage as a whole. Many
of our 409 historic sites have been used for a very wide range
of such activities, including weddings and wedding receptions
and hiring to private and corporate clients.
2. English Heritage Hospitality was introduced
in London in 1998 specifically to ensure a consistent, expert
and high quality approach to functions at our key houses, such
as drinks receptions, dinners, dinner-dances, wedding receptions
and meetings.
3. In December 1998 English Heritage was
approached about the possibility of making Kenwood House and grounds
available for the wedding reception for the daughter of the ex-King
of Greece, a local resident of Hampstead, in July 1999. We were
told that the proposed event was likely to be extremely large
and high profile; the total number of guests were estimated to
be between 1,000 and 1,400; and they were likely to include a
very substantial number of royal guests, including Her Majesty
The Queen. Given the security needs for such an event, we were
advised by the event organisers, Party Planners, that Kenwood
House and the grounds would need to be closed. We were later able
to agree with the Metropolitan Police's Royal Security Officers
that half of the estate could remain open to the public.
4. The closure of the House and the grounds
are matters which we take very seriously and were weighed against
the benefits of the event. We took legal advice about our powers
in relation to Kenwood House and the grounds and sought the views
of our Commission who decided, as Trustee of the Iveagh Bequest,
that we should host the event. We judged that the prestigious
nature of the event would bring very significant international,
national and local publicity for Kenwood House and the Iveagh
Bequest at a time when we were planning a substantial investment
in refurbishing key rooms to re-present the internationally important
art collection and intended to offer Kenwood House as a high-quality
hospitality venue from April 2000. We gave priority to minimising
disruption to the public in arranging the event and made provision
for widespread public information, both of which increased costs
significantly. These and other English Heritage costs attributable
to this event were recovered under the written contract entered
into with Party Planners.
5. The event took place successfully on
9 July 1999. The royal guests included Her Majesty The Queen and
Prince Philip, two Kings, one ex-King, six Queens, 26 Princes,
33 Princesses and a Grand Duchess. The closure for one day of
the house and half of the grounds, following a very detailed security
sweep on the night preceding the event, was advertised in advance
of the event. The event was attended by press from across Europe
and it gained significant and positive international, national
and local media coverage for Kenwood House.
FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
AND COSTS
6. Until April 2000 we had no formal schedule
of charges or specific arrangements for hiring out Kenwood House.
The rates and conditions in force from May 2000 follow our complete
refurbishment of the key rooms at Kenwood House housing the major
art collection. During our first meeting with Party Planners at
Kenwood in January 1999 we indicated, on the basis of our knowledge
of the market for corporate and private hospitality, that an event
of this type might cost £25,000. In the event English Heritage
received just over £39,000.
7. Party Planners felt that their client
would wish to pay any costs as part of a donation to Kenwood House
rather than a fee and a note of this meeting therefore refers
to a possible £25,000 donation, a sum which was intended
to refer to all the money receivable from the hirer. A copy of
this reference is attached at annex A.
8. Given the risk of higher than usual costs
for hosting such a complex event we required Party Planners to
sign a client booking agreement, a written contract to recover
all the costs to English Heritage of the event. We expected this
to be supplemented by an additional donation. By definition no
legal agreement could exist for such a voluntary payment. Whilst
we did not know what the value of any donation might be, we understood
that this was likely to be affected by the total costs of the
wedding reception, which in the event were considerably higher
than initially estimated. It became clear during the final arrangements
that had we set a fee based on our initial estimate of a charge
for the event (£25,000) we would not have recovered our own
costs.
9. In the period between March and August
we wrote to Party Planners on a number of separate occasions detailing
the costs, which increased as the complexity of the event emerged:
— On the basis of Party Planners' proposals
for a set-up and take-down period covering a maximum of seven
days, working eight hour days, our first estimate in March 1999
covered staffing costs of £5,065. This figure did not include
an estimate of other costs such as publicity for closure of the
estate, lost earnings from our shop and minor repairs.
— Between March and May it became clear
that the set-up and take-down period would take 18 days, that
more staff would be required and that the working day for our
staff during this period would be significantly longer than originally
suggested. We wrote to Party Planners in May identifying that
the staff costs would be £24,394. In addition we identified
a further £600 for maintenance and repair, £800 for
lost revenue for the shop, and identified the need to cover a
further cost for publicity about closure of the estate.
— We wrote to Party Planners on 7 July
1999 identifying all the costs with the exception of recompense
for any repairs.
— Having costed minor repairs following
the event, we wrote in August 1999 with the final costs for the
event, as follows:
| Staffing | 24,394.00
| |
| Maintenance | 600.00 |
|
| Shop loss of revenue | 800.00
| |
| Publicising closure of the estate | 2,000.00
| |
| External repairs to turf etc | 1,218.19
| |
| Total | 29,012.19 | + vat
|
| Total with vat | 34,089.32 |
|
10. The figure for staffing included those additional
staff costs directly attributable to the wedding reception. It
is not our policy to charge a management overhead for central
staff and senior officers' time was therefore not charged for
those staff based at our Savile Row headquarters.
11. Like all Government Departments and NDPBs, English
Heritage does not normally take out commercial insurance because
the Government can cover its risks more cost-effectively from
within its own resources. However, exceptions are allowed, including
in relation to income-generating activities.
12. We do not believe that it is cost-effective to seek
to insure high value contents such as our collections commercially.
Rather, we manage risk through a combination of risk assessment,
trained staff, electronic and other security measures and disaster
response planning. In addition, all but one of the items on loan
at Kenwood House are covered by the Government Indemnity Scheme.
We do, however, take out an annual policy to provide buildings
and public liability insurance for income-generating activities
and events at all our London Heritage Hospitality properties.
This insurance policy also covers hirers for their risks to third
parties, including English Heritage.
13. It was standard practice at Chiswick House under
English Heritage Hospitality to make a nominal charge of £100
for this insurance. This charging practice had not been introduced
at Kenwood at the time of the wedding reception and although we
decided to extend our Heritage Hospitality insurance policy to
cover other London properties, including Kenwood House, shortly
before the wedding reception, we felt it would be unreasonable
to introduce this new charge at such a late stage. The client
booking agreement contained a clause indemnifying English Heritage,
amongst other things, for repairs, breakages, losses and damages.
14. We received Party Planners' payment of £25,500
on 28 October 1999 and the balance of £8,589.32 on 4 January
2000. When the invoice had been fully paid in January 2000, the
Director of Finance raised the fact that no additional donation
had been received. Our then Chairman, Sir Jocelyn Stevens, explained
that he had pursued the donation orally but it appeared that,
because the overall costs of the event were much higher than originally
suggested, this would not be forthcoming. The Director of Finance
reported this to the Chief Executive who sought advice as to whether
a letter pressing for a donation would be likely to be productive.
Sir Jocelyn Stevens confirmed in writing to her on 27 March 2000
that we would be unable to secure a donation beyond the amount
received to cover our costs. The Chief Executive wrote to Party
Planners on 8 June 2000 pointing out that either the production
of our Annual Report and Accounts for 1999-2000 or the forthcoming
PAC hearing might draw attention to this matter. A donation for
£5,000 was received on 15 June 2000 from Sir Jocelyn Stevens
on behalf of the ex-King of Greece and this was followed by a
letter from Lady Anson of Party Planners to the Chief Executive
to say that in her experience this was "a most generous donation
especially since all the costs were paid in full."
PUBLICITY
15. In common with the normal practice of organisations
hiring out venues, we do not commission our own photographs of
private functions for sale to the press nor become party to publicity
negotiations between the media and those hiring the venue; nor
do we seek to retain the copyright of photographs of such private
events. In the case of the wedding reception at Kenwood, therefore,
we neither sought nor received any payment from Hello Magazine
and have no knowledge of what arrangement was made. We were clear
that this private event would attract free and valuable national
and international publicity for Kenwood House.
16. Given the range and frequency of media events with
which we are involved, we engage three companies to monitor national
press, regional press and broadcasting on a daily basis. We were,
therefore, able to judge that the coverage of the event in Britain
was extensive and almost universally favourable. Because of the
excellence of the reports we did not feel it would be cost effective
to commission a valuation of the press coverage associated with
the wedding reception. However, in the light of the Public Accounts
Committee's specific interest, we have now commissioned reports
from the Central Office of Information and from commercial media
consultants Echo which fully confirm our views. The latter concluded
that Kenwood House received significant publicity as a direct
result of the event, with a known audience based on monitored
reports of 11.9 million people; they valued the media coverage
at around £790,000. Whilst it was not possible to analyse
all media coverage from across Europe, they estimate, on the basis
of the press known to have attended the event, that there was
a potential audience of some 54 million people which they value
at at least £2 million.
17. We strongly believe that the publicity has contributed
to a significant increase in the number of people visiting Kenwood.
Our visitor figures for 1999-2000 at Kenwood House at 150,655
are 4 per cent above those for the previous year despite the closure
of two wings of the house for four months in the Autumn of 1999
for a major refurbishment scheme.
ACCESS FOR
THE PUBLIC
18. Kenwood House opens free of charge for 363 days per
year and the estate for 365 days per year. Opening hours of Kenwood
House are 1 April to 30 September, 10 am—6 pm; 1 to 31 October,
10 am—5 pm; 1 November to 31 March, 10 am—4 pm. The
house closes on 24 and 25 December.
19. The estate opens 365 days per year from 8 am with
closing times depending upon the time of year (eg 5 pm in December
and January, through to 8.30 pm from April—August).
20. Kenwood House costs English Heritage over £1
million per annum to run and in addition we invest significantly
in improvements to the house and estate for our visitors. In the
past two years we have spent a substantial sum on improvements
to the visitor toilets, cafe garden area and on security, and
have recently completed a major scheme to redecorate and re-present
the dining room and music room suites, the setting for the major
art collection of international importance. Despite these costs,
we continue to maintain free access to the house and estate all
the year round, although under the terms of the Iveagh Bequest
we would be able to impose charges on two days per week.
21. Over many years English Heritage has developed and
encouraged third party events at our properties. Our policy has
been to minimise disruption to the public wherever possible. However,
exceptions to the general rule are anticipated. This particular
reception was discussed by our Commission, in the light of legal
advice. They agreed as Trustee of the Iveagh Bequest to the closure
of the house and part of the estate.
22. Kenwood House and approximately half of the estate
was closed to the public on 9 July 1999. The areas of closure
were determined as a direct result of detailed discussion with
the police and Royalty Protection Officers. During the 18 day
period of set-up and take-down which commenced on 26 June the
flower garden, lying directly to the west of the house, was progressively
removed from public access. Public access to the flower garden
area was fully restored on 14 July 1999.
23. We met with the Friends of Kenwood and with the Kenwood
Landscape Forum (itself made up of a number of local amenity groups)
to give them information about the proposals and our approach
to minimising disruption to the public and to the house and estate
generally. We arranged specific meetings and entered into correspondence
with those individuals and organisations which had raised concerns
relating to the event. We discussed the event with Camden Council
and wrote to the Chief Executives of Camden and Barnet Councils
about the event. We also wrote to Lord Iveagh in advance explaining
the proposals and received from him a response expressing pleasure
that Kenwood was "such a popular venue for all sorts of events".
24. We took out advertisements giving details of the
closure on 9 July in the local press (paid for by Party Planners),
and information was placed on the English Heritage web-site and
in the June 1999 edition of our members' magazine Heritage
Today. In addition, notices explaining the closure were displayed
in the house and on the estate during the two weeks prior to the
event. We also maintained a staffed public information desk on
the forecourt adjacent to the flower garden from 8 am-8.30 pm
throughout the set-up and take-down period of the event in order
to give information and answer queries relating to the event.
This too was paid for by Party Planners.
25. The wedding guests did not have general access to
the House and its art collection; they passed through the Orangery
to collect name badges and moved immediately outside to the marquee
to await the wedding party. The wedding party used parts of the
ground floor of the house for drinks and photographs before moving
outside to the marquee for the reception. While the house was
in use, our normal electronic and physical security measures were
in place and an experienced team of custodians were on duty, supported
by curatorial staff. Our national security advisor liaised with
the very strong police and security presence throughout the day.
NOTTING HILL
26. People are attracted to and gain particular enjoyment
from properties which have appeared in popular films—so
much so that this was a specific theme of ours in 1999-2000 and
is identified in our Visitors' Handbook.
27. Filming for the film "Notting Hill" took
place in the grounds of Kenwood House on 17-20 May 1998. Drawing
on the advice of our external consultant on filming and photography
on market rates English Heritage charged a location fee of £18,940
(£22,254.50 including vat) which more than covered the costs
to English Heritage of around £4,000.
ENGLISH HERITAGE
HOSPITALITY
28. It is not possible to prepare a comprehensive list
of the very many different events and functions which have taken
place in our properties since English Heritage came into being
in 1984. A list of all functions held under English Heritage Hospitality
since its launch in April 1998 is being prepared.
Annex A
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF MEETING BETWEEN ENGLISH HERITAGE
AND PARTY PLANNERS, 21 JANUARY 1999
THE FEE
As discussed on the phone Alice did mention the fee to the
Chairman before the clients arrived. The Chairman informed us
that the client was not expecting to pay a fee, but would not
expect English Heritage to incur any costs from holding the event
at Kenwood. Alice suggested that the clients made a donation to
Kenwood. The Chairman agreed and thought that this idea was a
more dignified way of approaching the subject of payment. The
Chairman made the suggestion to Lady Anson who agreed that this
was the correct approach. Lady Anson and the Chairman did push
Alice for a figure. Alice advised the Chairman that the fee would
be in the region of £25,000, however at this point we did
not know the full scale of the event. At the end of the meeting
Alice further advised Lady Anson that the event was much larger
than envisaged and that there were other factors to take into
account particularly if the House and Estate would have to close.
This would affect both the retail and catering income. Lady Anson
accepted this but made no commitment.
ENGLISH HERITAGE
HOSPITALITY EVENTS
Normal Times:
Receptions 6.30—8.30
Dinners 6.30—10.30
Dinner/dance 6.30—11.30
On occasion timings vary according to the nature of the event
DATE/DESCRIPTION
| April 1998—March 1999
| April 1999—March 2000
| April 2000—8 July 2000
|
| Chiswick House |
| | |
|
18 Apr
30 May
03 Jun
14 Jun
17 Jun
19 Jun
04 Jul
07 Jul
17 Jul
23 Jul
25 Jul
05 Sep
19 Sep
23 Sep
03 Oct
09 Oct
10 Oct
17 Dec
04 Feb
23 Feb
27 Feb
27 Mar
| Dinner x 150
Dinner/dance x 80
Dinner x 80
Dinner/dance x 100
Dinner x 20
Dinner x 120
Dinner/dance x 120
Dinner x 40
Reception x 60
Dinner/dance x 80
Dinner/dance x 150
Dinner/dance x 130
Dinner/dance x 80
Reception x 100
Dinner x 60
Dinner x 80
Dinner/dance x 200
Dinner/dance x 200
Dinner x 80
Lecture x 30
Dinner/dance x 150
Dinner/dance x 80
| 15 May
17 May
18 May
05 Jun
07 Jun
12 Jun
14 Jun
25 Jun
26 Jun
06 Jul
08 Jul
11 Sep
22 Sep
25 Sep
30 Oct
16 Nov
18 Nov
20 Nov
26 Nov
27 Nov
30 Nov
04 Dec
07 Dec
24 Mar
| Dinner/dance x 120
Dinner x 70
Buffet x 350
Dinner x 40
Dinner x 20
Dnner/dance x 250
Dinner x 200
Dinner x 40
Dinner x 40
Dinner x 40
Dinner x 80
Dinner x 80
Dinner x 20
Dinner/dance x 250
Dinner x 60
Dinner x 60
Dinner x 40
Dinner x 60
Dinner/dance x 100
Dinner/dance x 70
Dinner x 60
Reception x 40
Dinner x 50
Reception x 150
| 05 May
20 May
27 May
03 Jun
08 Jun
09 Jun
15 Jun
17 Jun
24 Jun
01 Jul
08 Jul
| Dinner/dance x 120
Dinner/dance x 120
Dinner/dance x 110
Dinner/dance x 120
Reception x 70
Reception x 50
Dinner/dance x 450
Dinner/dance x 220
Dinner/dance x 150
Dinner/dance x 120
Dinner/dance x 140
|
| Eltham Palace | 15 Jul
11 Sep
11 Nov
26 Nov
18 Dec
30 Jan
05 Feb
10 Feb
26 Feb
| Community event
Dinner x 30
Meeting x 25
Meeting x 15
Dinner/dance x 200
Promotional dinner x 16
Corporate visit x 50
Meeting x 40
Dinner/dance x 50
| 08 Apr
15 Apr
22 Apr
06 May
03 Jun
07 Jun
10 Jun
14 Jun
17 Jun
19 Jun
24 Jun
28 Jun
01 Jul
03 Jul
06 Jul
| Dinner/dance x 130
Dinner/dance x 150
Dinner/dance x 200
Dinner/dance x 180
Dinner/dance x 210
Dinner x 150
Dinner/dance x 120
Dinner x 80
Dinner/dance x 90
Lunch x 250
Dinner/dance x 120
Meeting x 20
Dinner/dance x 120
Dinner x 200
Dinner/dance x 200
|
| Kenwood House |
| | 16 Apr
26 Jun
| Reception x 400
Dinner x 24 |
ENGLISH HERITAGE HOSPITALITY EVENTS—NOTE ON INCOME
AND COSTS
Heritage Hospitality was launched in April 1998 at Chiswick
House; total income in that year from clients and commission from
suppliers was £82,546 against direct costs of £61,948.
It was extended to Eltham Palace in June 1999. The total income
for 1999-2000 was £121,559 against direct costs of £101,065.
The scheme was further extended to Kenwood House in March 2000
and income from clients so far this year amounts to £113,130
across the three houses. The income from commission and costs
for events in this financial year have not yet been finalised.
The costs cover those for the events themselves and for promotion
but do not include the central costs of developing the scheme.
English Heritage
10 July 2000
| 
