APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by Councillor Michael
Crutchley, Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council
PROPOSED RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROYAL SHAKESPEARE
THEATRE AT STRATFORD-UPON-AVON
I write to you in the capacity of spokesperson
for an informal group of individuals, comprising towns people
and theatregoers, who have banded together to oppose the demolition
of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre building and the development
of an adjacent area in Stratford-upon-Avon. I am also a sitting
member of the Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council.
Our campaign to save the Theatre is styled HOOT
(Hands Off Our Theatre). As yet there is no formal structure but
it is hoped to create one very shortly.
Our position is broadly as follows:
1. Whilst it would appear that some form
of re-development has been in planning for probably two years
or so, the first intimations that something radical was afoot
only became public knowledge in October 2001. HOOT came into existence
shortly after.
2. Jonathan Pope, representing the protagonists
for the proposals, was invited to explain the intentions at a
public meeting, organised by HOOT, at Stratford-upon-Avon Town
Hall on 11 December 2001. While he was eulogistic and long on
describing his perceptions of the values of the re-development
he advised the meeting that he was in no position to disclose
any specific plans because such plans did not exist. Clearly this
was disingenuous and unsatisfactory given that the Royal Shakespeare
Company has provided evidence to you this week in order to obtain
public funding. Members of the public are being kept in the dark
as to what is really going on.
Briefly, HOOT's opposition to demolition is
based on the premises set out as follows:
(a) In the 1870s Charles Edward Flower gifted
about two acres of land, adjacent to the River Avon, to the "Corporation
of Stratford-upon-Avon" (not the Stratford-upon-Avon District
Council) specifically as a site for a theatre to honour William
Shakespeare. Mr Flower and other like-minded benefactors then
banded together to raise the necessary finance to build the Shakespeare
Memorial Theatre. Following the fire in 1926, Archie Flower was
the prime mover in literally trawling the world to raise funds,
from individuals and institutions with an abiding desire to restore
the memorial to William Shakespeare. It is believed that these
multiple acts of generosity and endeavour created a trust, either
actual or implied, the beneficiaries of which are, joint and severally,
the people of Stratford-upon-Avon and lovers of the works of William
Shakespeare world-wide, in perpetuity. To destroy the memorial
as it is today, as planned, would be a breach of that trust.
(b) The Royal Shakespeare Theatre (the name
was changed from the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in the 1960s)
is a grade II* listed building. A copy of the full listing, provided
by English Heritage, is enclosed with this letter. Like it or
loathe it, and there are disparate views on the aesthetics of
the theatre complex, it is acknowledged as a gemstone of British
Architecture of the Art Deco period. The building is part of the
national and local heritage and to assist its destruction using
public money appears to me to be manifestly wrong.
(c) It is accepted that the extant Theatre
building has certain limitations and, furthermore, it will have
to meet the requirements of legislation/regulation. However, these
sorts of problem are not uncommon with many theatres, notably
in London, but such difficulties are being overcome by adaptation
and not total destruction. Always provided that the requisite
thought is given, in an objective fashion, it is contended that
the existing problems can be eliminated at significantly lower
cost than that implicit in demolition and re-build.
(d) From the outline details, in the public
domain, the "new theatre" would have approximately the
same seating capacity at the present building and therefore it
cannot be argued that a bigger audience value could be generated
by such vast expenditure.
(e) The proposals, insofar as they are known,
contain absolutely no provision for competitive design. This runs
counter to the process adopted for both the 1880s theatre and
the re-build after the fire of 1926. There appears to be a crass
attempt to foist the values of the few, on the many, using public
money.
(f) Demolition presupposes that consent to
do so would be given by the Secretary of State, as a result of
a public enquiry. An enquiry has yet to take place. In addition,
the proposals anticipate that the necessary consents would also
be available from the Stratford on Avon District Council. Based
on preliminary soundings this is not a foregone conclusion because
although the ideas are alleged to have the support of certain
key officials there has only been very limited exposure to the
public. To ignore public opinion on such seemingly radical proposals
is manifestly wrong and probably in defiance of the rights of
the people of Stratford-upon-Avon.
I hope what I have written illustrates the contentious
nature of what the Committee is being asked to consider. Under
the circumstances could I respectfully ask that the Committee
postpones any response to the request for public funding until
such time as the key issues are resolved and full exposure to
the public has taken place.
A Petition started by ourselves against the
demolition of the Theatre is gaining momentum. Signatures from
all parts of this country have been received and we are now receiving
completed forms from the continent of Europe. (I enclose forms
received from Germany) [not printed]. Other forms have
been requested from the United States of America and Canada.
Thank you for reading this letter and for considering
the contents. In the event that evidence is required, by means
of a personal appearance before you, then one of my group will
certainly be available.
9 January 2002
|
