Memorandum submitted by the Theatres Trust
INTRODUCTION
1. The Theatres Trust welcomes this opportunity
to submit evidence to the inquiry. We are particularly pleased
that your terms of reference include specific mention of theatre
buildings. Theatre, which is the art form for which Britain is
best known throughout the world, does to a large extent rely on
the existence of theatre buildings. Those buildings have a crucial
role in providing appropriate conditions to encourage new audiences
and to retain existing ones, and also because of the way in which
a well-designed theatre building can enhance the essential process
of communication between performers and their audiences. It is
also no less important that those who work in theatres should
enjoy decent conditions that enable them to operate more effectively.
2. We have three main causes of concern.
Firstly there is a continuing need to maintain the protection
given to theatre buildings under the planning system, particularly
at a time when it is undergoing radical changes. Secondly there
is an urgent need to establish an effective programme of capital
investment in improving existing theatre buildings. Finally, we
believe that it is essential to consider the needs of theatre
buildings of all types as a whole, whether they be in the commercial
sector, local authority owned, amateur run or in the independent
and largely subsidised sector.
By way of further introduction, members may
find it useful to know a little more about the Trust.
THE THEATRES
TRUST—PROTECTING
OUR THEATRES—AND
MAKING THEM
BETTER
3. The Theatres Trust was established by
Acts of Parliament in 1976 and 1978 to protect theatre buildings.
Although it is classified by the DCMS as an advisory NDPB and
the Secretary of State appoints its 15 Trustees, it is effectively
an independent body and the small grant that it now receives from
the Government via English Heritage only covers around one-seventh
of its operating costs. However an undertaking was given to Parliament
when the Trust was set up that all planning authorities would
be required to consult the Trust on any planning applications
that affect land on which there is a theatre. This requirement
extends to all theatres, old and new, listed or unlisted, and
regardless of whether the buildings are still in use.
4. Today the Trust's role ranges far more
widely. It provides advice on theatre building related matters
to owners, operators, campaigning groups and to expert bodies,
and it also runs an information service. The Trust is emphatically
not a preservation body, for it has always recognised that theatre
buildings need to adapt and to be renewed and replaced. It works
to promote the cause of theatre buildings generally. In effect
we see ourselves as a bridge between theatre operators and the
worlds of property, planning and architecture. Our Trustees, who
give freely of their time, include experienced theatre professionals
and performers, architects, property and planning experts, and
parliamentarians. Unusually, the Trust's remit covers the whole
of the UK.
THE CONTINUING
NEED FOR
PROTECTION
5. A hundred years ago, putting up a theatre
was a good way of making money. Promoters could afford to buy
key sites, even in central London, confident that the returns
on their investment would enable them to rebuild or improve when
necessary. Today, theatre buildings are valuable only if the land
on which they stand can be redeveloped for some other purpose.
Over 85% of the theatres that stood at the beginning of the first
World War had been lost by the 1970s, torn down or irrevocably
altered, to be replaced by other more lucrative uses. Theatre
operation is a fickle business and if it had been left to market
forces alone there would probably now be no theatre buildings
left anywhere. There are very few theatre buildings that have
not had to close through financial difficulties or for some other
reason at one time or another. Fortunately there is now a system
of protection that prevents theatres that have closed from immediately
being torn down and their sites redeveloped.
6. Over the last 50 years a significant
proportion of theatre buildings have been taken into public ownership
of one form or another. But many others are still owned and operated
by the private sector. In some instances the freeholds are still
held by organisations who have no direct interest in the theatre
business and who may well simply be waiting for the opportunity
to realise a capital gain and redevelop the site. During the last
10 years we have seen this process at The Westminster Theatre
and The Mermaid here in London, and elsewhere at such places as
Scarborough's Royal Opera House and Doncaster's Grand Theatre.
7. It is no part of the Trusts' brief to
suggest that every theatre that ever stood or may now lie empty
or in another use should be saved and reopened. But it is only
thanks to the protection given by successive governments and local
planning authorities, and the work of the Trust and countless
individuals and organisations across the UK, such as the Save
London's Theatres Campaign, that buildings like The Lyceum, Dominion
and Playhouse in London's West End are now back in use. No fewer
than 15 of the theatres in London's West End including the Dominion,
Shaftesbury, and Lyceum have been earmarked for demolition since
1950, whilst six others were actually lost. Outside central London
theatres like Sheffield's Lyceum, Blackpool's Grand and The Hackney
Empire have all faced destruction at one time or another. The
list of "sleeping beauties" that have been revived now
totals some three dozen. We are aware of many others that are
still sleeping, some of which could undoubtedly still serve a
useful theatrical purpose. Yet others may well be capable of beneficial
use for other purposes.
8. Many a theatre that is in use today has
been "saved" by a period in a "soft use" like
bingo or as a cinema, where the capital values did not rise appreciably.
But once consent has been given for a change of use to a pub or
restaurant the land value will have increased to the extent that
any return to theatre use would be out of the question. It does
seem to us that when the potential for theatre use on a site is
lost and the land value increases, there a case for an appropriate
payment of part of that increase in value to help create or improve
other existing theatre buildings in the vicinity. Some local authorities
have planning policies which seek to protect theatre use and even
require theatres (and other cultural facilities) to be replaced
in such circumstances.
9. An important part of the Trust's work
at the moment is to help persuade planning authorities to retain
or strengthen such policies in their new Local Development Frameworks.
Unfortunately in spite of our best efforts and, it would appear,
those of the DCMS, we have been unable to persuade the ODPM to
include appropriate reference to cultural activity in the guidance
documents that have recently been issued to planning authorities.
In the meantime we are updating the Advice Note that we will be
issuing to all planning authorities and which sets out recommended
policies to help protect and enhance cultural provision.
10. One key part of the protection given
to theatres is the fact that theatres in use are regarded as "sui
generis" in planning terms, so that any change of use
needs planning consent. It is often this that triggers the requirement
to consult the Trust in its role as statutory consultee. We were
relieved to learn that the ODPM has decided not to change the
"sui generis" status given to theatres, and that
the Trust is to retain its status as a statutory consultee with
clearer guidance being given to local authorities on when it is
appropriate to consult us.
11. The other thing that has undoubtedly
saved many theatre buildings is the fact that a significant proportion
of them are now listed buildings. Listing is however a double-edged
sword for it is widely perceived to make it harder to effect physical
alterations. In our experience English Heritage and most planning
authorities take a commendably pragmatic view when considering
carefully thought-out proposals for changes that are necessary
to enable a building to continue in use. Nor should it be imagined
that the act of listing a building precludes its demolition—in
our experience 10 years of wilful neglect by a determined landlord
can all too easily bring a once fine building to the point that
demolition is the only realistic course of action. Unfortunately
the sanctions available to a local authority, which may ultimately
include the power of compulsory purchase, carry such cost and
risks that few are prepared to go down that route. This is something
we hope the Government's reviews of heritage protection and of
the powers of compulsory purchase will eventually remedy.
12. In practice the major part of the Trust's
work involves helping theatres that are still in use. Our latest
Annual Report has already been circulated to members of the Committee,
and copies of chapters Two and Three, which illustrate the range
of our work, are enclosed with this Memorandum. It is perhaps
worth noting in this context that the obligation on planning authorities
to consult the Trust relates to any development that affects a
theatre, rather than simply alterations to or a change of use
of the theatre building itself. Increasingly as city centres are
intensely redeveloped we find that works adjacent to a theatre
are inadvertently affecting such essential aspects as car parking
and vehicle access for loading, or precluding a theatre's own
scope for redevelopment. When money is increasingly needed to
help improve existing theatre buildings we are always keen for
local authorities to consider demanding financial contributions,
ideally by way of a Section 106 agreement with the developers
concerned. But for this to be enforceable, theatres will clearly
have to be identified as a priority in a Council's new Local Development
Framework.
13. In essence, although we may have the
best system for protecting theatre buildings and the potential
for theatre use in the world, it will still be of little benefit
unless it is backed with appropriate financial resources.
THE NEED
FOR INCREASED
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
14. In 1959 and 1961 two Arts Council Reports
for the Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded that even then it
was no longer realistic for the UK to rely on the continued availability
of a network of commercially owned theatre buildings. They recommended
that key buildings (including some in London's West End) should
be taken into public ownership, and that some protection was also
necessary through the planning system. The Council also called
for a programme of public investment in theatre buildings, not
only to modernise what already existed, but also to create new
ones. Apart from a mini-boom in London's West End from 1924 to
1937, theatre building across the UK declined sharply after 1914,
although many of the new large cinemas were given stage facilities.
There had been no significant theatre building anywhere since
1939.
15. The first new theatres started to open
from around 1957 and this process was considerably boosted by
the creation of the Arts Council's Housing The Arts scheme which
ran from 1965 until 1990. Many former commercial theatres were
acquired by local authorities, sometimes with help from the Arts
Council, and then either directly run or let out to independent
charitable trusts. Capital funding from the Arts Council was augmented
with money from local authorities, public appeals and, later,
from development agencies and Europe. Later still, a scheme funded
jointly by the Government and the Wolfson Foundation made useful
progress in some quarters. At the request of the then government,
The Theatres Trust commissioned a Fabric Study on a selected number
of theatres in England. This was published in 1992 and showed
that despite the considerable investment since the 1960s more
than 40% of theatre buildings were felt to be in only fair to
poor condition, expenditure and maintenance were far too low,
and a significant number of buildings were nor being regularly
surveyed. Interestingly, many of the buildings that had been put
up in the 1970s came in for the greatest criticism, possibly because
they had been subjected to cutbacks in standards to fit within
tight budgets during a period of high inflation.
16. By the time the National Lottery came
on stream 10 years ago there was indeed a serious backlog of work
needing to be done to bring theatre buildings across the UK up
to appropriate standards. That need also extended to museums and
galleries, as well as to other aspects of the built and natural
heritage and to sports facilities.
17. This is probably not the place to attempt
a detailed analysis of the record of the National Lottery in relation
to theatre buildings. A huge amount has been achieved, and Committee
members may be interested to see the article written by the Trust's
Director in the December issue of our magazine, Theatres.
A copy is appended to this. In passing, it is worth noting that
there is in Britain a very considerable expertise in theatre design
and planning with our theatre consultants in demand all over the
world. The Association of British Theatre Technicians has done
much to raise awareness and set standards. Unfortunately after
about five years Arts Council England decided to reduce dramatically
the proportion of its lottery budget allocated to theatre and
arts building schemes. Although there are some significant projects
where commitments have been made and which are still in the pipeline,
the number and size of new commitments to maintain or enhance
existing theatre buildings has now dropped to a trickle. The most
recent, and apparently final, set of announcements from the Arts
Council a year ago revealed only three awards for existing theatre
buildings, and that the 33 recipients were outnumbered four to
one by 132 who had been rejected. The total demand for grants
had amounted to £255 million, four times the amount eventually
made available. In theory that amounted to an average "spend"
on capital projects of all types of just over £20 million
per year. Apart from five schemes (which included one theatre)
which received a maximum award of £5 million, the average
allocation for the others was only £1.28 million.
18. Were it not for the fact that the Heritage
Lottery Fund has been able to support the heritage related aspects
of some theatre schemes it is unlikely that buildings like The
Hackney Empire or The London Coliseum would have been refurbished.
The grade 1 listed Theatre Royals at Richmond, Yorkshire and Bury
St Edmunds in Suffolk were among many that failed to obtain any
capital funding from the Arts Council, but these two were able
to succeed with the HLF. Many others including London's Old Vic
and Wilton's Music Hall also seem likely to have to go down the
heritage route if they are to stand any prospect of securing lottery
funding. These are all important listed buildings, and it is indeed
fortunate that there is a significant heritage context in the
works that need to be done, but there is no reason why the HLF
should be expected to pay for essential works backstage or to
create new facilities. In any case the HLF has maintained a full
capital programme and is continuing its task of renovating and
improving the UK's stock of museum and gallery buildings. Without
accurate figures it is only possible to generalise, but the HLF
is clearly devoting significantly more money to improving museum
and gallery buildings than Arts Council England is to arts buildings.
However both the HLF and the Arts Council are now understandably
wary of making big new commitments of any kind, until they know
whether they will still be in business as lottery distributors
after 2009 when the current licences expire.
19. In the meantime we at the Trust undertook
a simple survey of 200 theatre buildings across the UK to assess
their perceived needs. Of the 160 responses, 42% claim already
to have received a lottery capital award, but 76% stated they
wished to make a lottery bid during the next five years, and only
34% reckoned their buildings were in good condition. Some 72%
receive regular complaints about heating, ventilation and air
conditioning, 42% receive complaints about seating, and 37% on
toilet provision. Apart from improvements to public facilities,
much needs to be done to meet the technical demands of modern
production methods and to keep up with the changing requirements
of health and safety regulations. It is also important to have
smaller and more flexible spaces in which to present new work.
20. On a very rough basis we have calculated
that around £1,000 million still needs to be spent to bring
the UK's stock of theatre buildings of all types (including those
in London's West End) to an appropriate standard. We are hoping
to do more work and to refine our survey over the coming months.
Suffice it to say that at the current rate of lottery expenditure
and assuming matching funds from other sources, it could well
take 100 years to remedy this backlog. This of course assumes
no further deterioration in the condition of the buildings concerned
and no inflation over that period!
21. One area where the needs have been more
closely examined and where significant progress is being made
is on the 40 or so commercially owned theatres in London's West
End. The Trust's Report Act Now! published in October 2003
followed a two year study working closely with the Society of
London Theatre and its members. Our findings and the recommendation
that a total of £250 million at 2003 prices would need to
be spent over a 15 year period has received support from the media,
the public, and across the political spectrum. The Trust is now
working closely with the Society and the DCMS to secure a solution
and we are in discussion with potential funding partners. Ideally
a solution would recognise the important role played by these
buildings, not only in terms of the arts but also their heritage
interest and their considerable benefit to the UK's economy. We
have seen and fully endorse the evidence that SOLT/TMA has given
to you on the follow-up to the Act Now! Report as well
as on the wider economic benefit of the theatre industry.
22. As far as helping to meet the on-going
capital needs of theatre buildings across the rest of the UK is
concerned, the solution seems to us commendably simple. The Government
should immediately give the arts and heritage lottery distributors
the assurances that they need, namely that they will still be
in business after 2009, and it should request the Arts Council
to reinstate its capital programme at a realistic level which
will enable it to address the needs of theatres and other arts
buildings of all types regardless of whether or not they happen
to be run by bodies in the subsidised sector.
A LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD
23. An important part of our Act Now!
study was to commission an independent assessment of the economics
of theatre ownership (as opposed to management or the production
of shows). This demonstrated that the returns on capital invested
in theatre buildings today simply do not justify in commercial
terms the sort of investment now needed for improvements and renewal.
It is now well-known that the lottery grant given to upgrade the
subsidised 400 seat Royal Court Theatre exceeded the profits made
by all four commercial playhouses on Shaftesbury Avenue since
the second World War. The fact that Sir Cameron Mackintosh has
just spent £8 million of his own personal fortune on updating
the Prince of Wales Theatre and promises to do more elsewhere
represents an unparalled act of personal generosity, but in commercial
terms it will hardly have increased the capital value of the theatres
concerned. Fortunately he did not have to rely on theatre ownership
to make his fortune, which resulted from his perseverance and
success as a commercial producer mainly in musical theatre.
24. Outside the West End, commercial ownership
and operation of theatre buildings is now mainly in the hands
of a couple of major operators who derive some economies of scale
in consequence. Where commercial operators run a theatre on behalf
of a local authority owner they usually receive a fee or a subsidy
for doing so. Those theatres that are directly run by local authorities
are invariably subsidised, as of course are those that produce
their own work—indeed those producing companies often receive
subsidy towards their operational costs from the Arts Council,
as well as from local sources.
25. The level of subsidy available for what
are generally known as receiving theatres varies widely. In one
city where the major theatre is owned and run by commercial organisation
it may receive no revenue subsidy at all (although some of the
visiting shows may well have been subsidised at source) and will
never have had any external help with capital works. A comparable
theatre owned and run by its local authority could well be receiving
a revenue subsidy of up to £1 million per annum, and have
been extensively modernised with substantial help from the National
Lottery and other public sources. It is hardly surprising therefore
that facilities for audiences and working conditions can vary
enormously from theatre to theatre. In Portsmouth the 1,200 seat
Kings Theatre at Southsea, hardly changed since it was opened
in 1907, is actually owned by the City Council which provides
a minimal subsidy so that the operation of the building relies
on a tiny handful of paid staff augmented by a huge input of volunteer
labour. Because it is not seen as a priority by the Arts Council
it is unlikely ever to receive lottery funding. Similarly, we
were told that because the Theatre Royal in Norwich, which does
operate most successfully on a fully professional basis and a
minimal local authority subsidy, is not regarded as a priority
for the Arts Council and is thus also unable to secure capital
funding through the Regional Development Agency. Nevertheless
theatres such as these provide essential links in the network
of places where subsidised touring shows can be seen by audiences
outside London.
26. Nor should one forget that theatres
in the UK include the important amateur sector. The 95 members
of The Little Theatre Guild, who own and run their own theatre
buildings, and the members of the National Operatic and Dramatic
Association provide a significant contribution to the theatrical
life of the UK as a whole. Theatre going for many other members
of the public may simply amount to an annual trip to the pantomime
put on by a commercial producer at the local civic theatre, or
perhaps taking in a summer show. We would not for one moment suggest
that such activities should be subsidised by an Arts Council on
a revenue basis. However, as the Secretary of State has suggested
that lottery money is not Government money, but the people's money,
it does seem strange that it should be denied to those theatre
buildings that are used and enjoyed by the majority of the public.
The need for capital investment and improvements and for proper
working conditions is no less simply because a theatre building
happens to be commercially or municipally owned, or providing
popular entertainment. At the risk of extending the comparison
with the way in which lottery funding has been applied to museums
and galleries, it is as if the 1,000 museums in the independent
sector had been denied capital support from the Heritage Lottery.
27. In the longer term it may well be inevitable
that more theatre buildings will have to be transferred to the
public sector if they are to survive. Some will be seen to be
redundant or beyond economic repair. New ones will need to be
created that do not echo the social habits or theatrical conventions
of the Victorian/Edwardian era. It will be even more essential
that ways be found to entice new audiences into those buildings
that already exist and that we cannot afford to replace, as well
as to the shiny new ones. Above all, the supply and demand for
theatre buildings and their physical conditions does need to be
addressed across the board and regardless of any historical accidents
of ownership or of the current pattern of management.
Attachments: (not printed)
1. Chapters 2 and 3 from the Annual Report
2003-04.
2. Extract from Theatres Magazine
2004 "Ten Years Down, Fifteen to Go".
January 2005
| 
