APPENDIX 51
Memorandum submitted by Mr Peter Longman,
Director of the Theatres Trust
ARTS REDEVELOPMENT
Thank you for your letter of 23 January 2002.
We spoke about this and I explained that the Theatres Trust have
had very little involvement in the proposals for the South Bank.
Although the Royal Festival Hall and the Queen
Elizabeth Hall have both been used as theatres, they are primarily
concert halls and as such it could be argued that they fall outside
The Theatre's Trust remit. Lambeth Borough Council has not referred
the planning application to us, although I note that it has been
with them for a considerable time. However they have also failed
to refer applications relating to Royal National Theatre, which
are clearly covered by the requirement in the General Development
Orders that the Theatres Trust be consulted on planning applications
which affect on which there is a theatre.
You may certainly take it that my Trustees would
share the general concern over the time it is taking to effect
major improvements to the buildings on the South Bank and to enhance
the surrounding area. Clearly it is right that an internationally
important complex of arts buildings such as this be kept up to
date and refurbished, and it is entirely appropriate that "public"
funding (albeit in this instance of a hybrid nature from the National
Lottery) should be made available for that purpose.
It may be that the overall development plans
are too ambitious and that part of the problems now being encountered
results from the need to seek an unrealistic proportion of the
total costs from "commercial" and property related developments.
It may also be that the scope and importance of this project is
such that it is unfortunate that the planning decision has to
rest with a borough council that is in the middle of revising
its local plan.
I am sure my Trustees would urge the Committee
to do all that it can to expedite matters. The suggestions made
at Section 8 of the 10 January briefing paper submitted by the
South Bank Centre seem to be sensible.
I have prepared a separate note on the Royal
Shakespeare Theatre at Stratford upon Avon, where the Trust has
been closely involved and I feel able to offer a personal statement.
As I explained, the situation there is still evolving and in some
way it is too early to give definitive answers to the questions
you have asked, but I have done my best.
THE ROYAL
SHAKESPEARE COMPANY'S
PROPOSALS FOR
STRATFORD UPON
AVON
1. The Theatres Trust was established by
Act of Parliament in 1976 to help protect theatres. Its fifteen
Trustees are appointed by the Government and it receives a small
Government grant channelled through English Heritage, although
its remit now covers the whole of the United Kingdom. The Trust
is not a preservation body, but has recognised from the outset
that theatres need to be adapted and improved if they are to continue
to attract audiences and operate efficiently. As theatre use is
rarely viable in strictly commercial terms without subsidy, much
of the Trust's work has been in defending theatre sites from redevelopment
for other more lucrative purposes. It was in part for this reason
that theatre use is regarded as sui generis in planning terms
and that the Trust was made a statutory consultee on planning
application which affect land on which there is a theatre. The
Trust also provides advice to Lottery distributors and helps theatre
owners, operators and local groups.
2. I have been the Director of The Theatres
Trust since 1996 and was for five years prior to that one of its
Trustees. My career has spanned the arts and heritage, including
eleven years as Director of the former Museums & Galleries
Commission (now part of Re:source) and nine years from 1969 running
the Arts Council of Great Britain's Housing the Arts Scheme during
the last arts building boom. I have also twice acted as client
for building schemes and, on a voluntary basis, have advised English
National Opera and the Chichester Festival Theatre on their redevelopment
proposals. The Theatres Trust is well aware of the Royal Shakespeare
Company's (RSC) development proposals for Stratford upon Avon
and its officers have been providing advice on them since 1998.
3. The relationship between audience and
performer is probably the single most important factor in the
success of any theatre building. At the Royal Shakespeare Theatre
in Stratford upon Avon they got it wrong in 1932. Successive directors
and designers have tinkered with the problem, but the distance
between performers and audience is too great, the structural width
of the proscenium arch opening is too narrow, and the confrontational
fan-shaped auditorium prevents the sort of relationship whereby
audiences embrace each other and those on the stage. These fundamental
flaws have been evident since the day that the theatre opened.
To quote Iain Mackintosh, Britain's foremost theatre consultant
(and now a member of the RSC team), the design was almost universally
praised by architects and almost universally condemned by the
theatre world.
4. In addition the building now shows signs
of its age and of how fashions and needs have changed since 1932.
As early as 1936 it was found necessary to create additional space
for audiences by extending out over the river. Additional seating
capacity in the balcony exacerbated the distance from the stage
and the unfortunate legacy from Victorian theatre whereby part
of the audience were treated as second class citizens and entered
through a side door. By today's standards the building falls well
short in terms of access and audience facilities and working conditions.
5. Historically, theatres were not built
to last and until seventy years ago the economics of theatre ownership
and production were such that owners and managers could afford
to rebuild or remodel every twenty years or so. Frequent fires
often speeded the natural process of regeneration. The use of
steel and concrete and stricter building controls, increased building
costs, the decline in demand for theatre buildings, and (more
recently) listing and other planning controls, halted this continual
process of theatrical renewal.
6. I have little doubt that if money were
no object and planning and listing controls did not exist the
simplest solution now would be to demolish the whole of the 1932
building and start again. Even within the normal constraints imposed
by listing but taking account of theatrical precedents elsewhere,
the whole of the present auditorium and everything between the
front foyer and the rear stage could probably be sacrificed without
undue difficulty. In our experience English Heritage has always
taken a commendably understanding attitude to the particular needs
of theatres.
7. In heritage terms it seems generally
agreed that the original facade and the main foyer and staircase
are by far the most important and best elements of what is now
a Grade II* listed building. Irrespective of the theatrical needs
of the RSC, particularly forceful arguments would have to be made
in order to justify the demolition of these elements. Three questions
must immediately be answered. Is it possible to meet the RSC's
brief within the curtilage of the present building without its
total demolition; is it possible to do so elsewhere within the
town; and whether in that event an alternative use might be found
for the present theatre?
8. To my mind the answers to these three
questions are inter-related. The sheer size and volume of a purpose-built
theatre including the fly-tower are unlikely to be acceptable
or feasible elsewhere in the town. Extensive studies by the theatre
company seem to demonstrate that the present site is the only
and for many reasons the best option. The auditorium and stage
of the existing theatre could readily be remodelled and improved
for continued theatre use, but not necessarily to meet in full
the brief of the RSC. However, the theatre seems unlikely to lend
itself for any other economic use such as a pub, club, church,
cinema or bingo hall—uses that have kept other large listed
former theatre buildings in beneficial use elsewhere. In short
it seems most unlikely that the RSC's brief for the RSC for its
main theatre building could be accommodated in full on this site
without demolishing totally the 1932 building.
9. Two further issues may then need to be
considered.
10. The first is the extent to which the
RSC may be able to afford its full brief. This entails a new theatre,
upgrading the very successful Swan Theatre, creating an academy,
and putting up a new larger adaptable space on the site of The
Other Place. All of these objectives are clearly desirable, as
are the intention to enhance the surrounding areas to create a
theatre village and improve traffic congestion. A major redevelopment
on these lines would seem entirely appropriate for the birthplace
of the world's greatest playwright, and the base of one of the
world's greatest theatre companies, and one of the United Kingdom's
most important tourist centres. But this will not come cheap.
Furthermore there is the added complication that the theatre company
and the town (the economy of which so greatly depends on the existence
of the theatre and its success) simply cannot afford a total closure
during a re-building programme.
11. The contribution of £50 million
from the Arts Council of England is entirely appropriate in the
context of other grants given by the National Lottery for cultural
flagships. Indeed it could be argued that more might have been
justified, but the RSC is better placed than many other arts organisations
to raise money from other sources. Nevertheless the total budget
of £100 million must be tight for what is intended. The drastic
reduction in the Arts Council of England's lottery funding for
building projects (with a maximum now of £5 million for any
one scheme) has come about since the RSC award was announced and
has caused severe problems across the country. The Theatres Trust
is extremely concerned at the backlog of work still needing to
be done to many of our theatre buildings. But that should not
be a reason for reneging on this commitment. Of course the RSC
may come to the position when it has to cut its cloth to match
the total funding likely to be available. In the first instance
this should be reflected in revisions to the brief. Questions
like the extent to which all the accommodation needs to be fitted
into a new building on the present theatre site will inevitably
be raised.
12. The second issue relates to the design
as well as to the brief. The brief calls for the theatre to be
adaptable to encompass two different forms of auditorium. The
first of these is the traditional proscenium arch whereby (in
essence) the audience look through a picture frame onto the stage.
This form (unknown in Shakespeare's day and badly exemplified
in the present building) is the form now prevalent in the large
theatres throughout the United Kingdom where the RSC may expect
to tour its shows. The other form, an open or thrust stage, would
have been recognisable to Shakespeare and has the audience partly
encircling the action. In architectural terms the two forms are
almost totally incompatible, at least at the large scale envisaged
here. There is no evidence in the feasibility study reports that
the distinguished architects and theatre consultants engaged have
yet resolved this. The RSC team are confident that they can, but
unless and until they do there must be risk that one unsatisfactory
auditorium built in 1932 will simply be replaced by another 75
years later. However it does seem quite likely that any auditorium
which did successfully combine both formats in a readily adaptable
manner would need considerably more space than one that simply
accommodated either the one or the other. To my mind this aspect
of the brief may be the one most likely to determine whether or
not the whole of the 1932 theatre has to be demolished or whether
its foyer and facade can be retained and incorporated into a new
design.
13. The Theatres Trust's Trustees have already
indicated that they would, if appropriate, be prepared to support
the RSC in proposals that would result in the loss of the whole
of the 1932 building. The Trust was set up to protect theatre
use, not to preserve buildings. In the context of theatre evolution
over the centuries, 70 years is a very long time for a theatre
that was fundamentally flawed to have survived. But we all have
to work within the constraints of planning law and government
policies relating to listed buildings. The RSC may yet discover
that its brief has to be tailored for budgetary or practical reasons,
or that it is simply not able or no longer needs to make a sufficiently
strong case to justify the total loss of Elizabeth Scott's 1932
theatre. It has recently commissioned independent experts to look
carefully at these and other issues in the light of planning and
listed building law. It would be premature to speculate further
until that study is ready in April.
14. The RSC is well advised and has been
undertaking the necessary research and planning processes in a
responsible and careful manner as befits the importance and significance
of this venture. The Arts Council of England deserves praise for
its willingness to support them. The Theatres Trust will continue
to monitor the situation and to fulfil its roles as a statutory
consultee and an advisory body, and to urge that the best possible
solution be achieved for the theatre and for theatregoers in the
21st century.
4 February 2002
| 
