Tunbridge Wells Kent
4th December 2017
Civic Centre Development
Dear Councillor, As a councillor, I know you want to do the right thing for the residents of the Borough of Tunbridge Wells, and your constituents in your ward, and I thought it would be useful to highlight a few points that you may not be aware of.
Do Residents Want A New Theatre? Over the last few months, we have repeatedly been told that the “silent majority” want a new theatre, and the noisy minority against the Civic Centre Development should be ignored. The “silent majority” has been busy signing the “Support 4 TW Civic Centre” petition that has been circulating on Facebook, Twitter and e-mail. As of this morning, the “silent majority” number 94 people, and that number has not changed for several days. Meanwhile the “Save Our Park” petition that opposes this development has passed 2,200 signatures and continues to rise. A Residents' Survey undertaken by TWBC in September to October 2015 shows this is not true. The introductory paragraph says:
“The Residents Survey helps us to better understand our residents and understand their views of local priorities and their satisfaction with the services we deliver.” On page 53 of the Residents Survey, the following question was asked:
“Would you be willing to pay a bit more in Council Tax (for example £10 a year or 19p a week) if this would allow us to deliver a significant project such as a new theatre worthy of the Borough?” 55% answered “No” 32% answered “Yes”
This survey can still be found on the council's website at http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.ukcouncil/haveyour-say/residents-survey Combine the above survey with the surveys run by Councillor Frank Williams' in Sherwood and Councillor Joe Simmons' in Southborough North and you have a very clear picture of how much the residents across the Borough of Tunbridge Wells want the new theatre and Civic Complex.
Councillor Tracy Moore's enthusiastic stories about how much residents want the new theatre are not true. All evidence says Councillor Moore is wrong and is caught up in her own enthusiasm for the hugely expensive project and her role on Cabinet to sell the project to the residents of Tunbridge Wells. The feedback I have had from presentations and events Councillor Moore has run has been that the response has been mixed, and definitely not largely positive, as Councillor Moore always reports. Councillor Moore visited three schools to present the Civic Complex, I spoke to a teacher who sat at the back of one of the presentations and when asked about the balance of opinion, the teacher responded that it “was not too clear�. That does not sound like the resounding support that Councillor Moore tells us about. Does the Civic Centre Development still sound like a good idea? How much research have you done on this project? Surely it's a no-brainer? Will residents remember how you voted on this project at future elections? Read on for more information...
Can We Afford The Civic Complex? The Marlowe Theatre in Canterbury, which is repeatedly used as a model of what a new theatre could do for Royal Tunbridge Wells, is not as financially sound as we have all been led to believe. The theatre in Canterbury has required massive financial support for the last few years, averaging £1 million pounds for the last 3, significantly more than the current Assembly Hall Theatre subsidy of £250,000, or the subsidy that has been put in the budget for the new theatre, £350,000 per year. If the Marlowe Theatre is profitable, why is Canterbury Council handing it over to a charitable trust rather than using the profits to benefit residents? Marlowe Theatre, Canterbury Year
Loss
2013/14
£622,491
2014/15
£916,330
2015/16
£1,127,060
2016/17
£951,963
2017/18
£904,595
The full details can be found here: https://www2.canterbury.gov.uk/your-council/budgets-finance/thebudget/ Where is our council going to find another £650,000 (or more) per year for the additional subsidy that has not been included in the budget for the project? A number of theatre producers do not believe this theatre will ever be able to break even, especially when top shows will take 75% to 80% of the ticket sales, and some productions will insist on a fixed fee for each performance plus a proportion of the ticket sales, putting all the financial risk on the theatre. Not only is the subsidy likely to be much larger than expected, but also the cost of the theatre is more than £60 million when you take into account public realm work, inflation, consultancy costs, and the need to provide a replacement car park. £60 million is more than twice the cost of the Marlow Theatre, which cost £26 million. And we are told that is it cheaper to build a new theatre than to redevelop the existing Assembly Hall Theatre building, for this development, it is clearly not true.
Boost to the Local Economy The Shellard Formula has often been quoted to tell us how a new theatre will boost the local economy by £14 million or more, but a more realistic figure is estimated at £4 million. The Shellard Formula is flawed and has been strongly criticised by the Arts Council, and is certainly not valid for a receiving theatre that will mainly be showing West End touring shows. Have you tried running some numbers through a calculator? The numbers do not make any sense, and even less so when most of the ticket sale proceeds are going to a theatre company based in London, or elsewhere. The massive boost to the local economy is a myth.
Can Residents Afford The Financial Pressures Of This Project? There are many other financial pressures that will impact the council and residents over the next few years,
making the funding of this large project a massive strain on the council and ultimately on residents: • TWBC's central government funding is being cut every year and will become a “negative grant” in 2020 when TWBC will have to pay £610,000 back to central government, requiring more service cuts and increasing costs of other services. • Average wages will be under continued pressure for years to come, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies - average wages will be £730 less in 2022/3 than they were in 2007/8 – leaving many residents struggling to make ends meet as their wages stagnate or reduce and the costs of council services increase. Less well off residents are likely to be hurt the most. • We must not forget the cutbacks to services and community organisations, the Citizens Advice Bureau being one, that provide invaluable support to people, particularly those who are less well off. Should we really be cutting important services to help fund a project that some are calling a vanity project, and that will only be enjoyed by the few who can afford to go to the theatre? A number of community organisations that currently receive funding from TWBC will have their support reduced or totally cut. Reduction in support of some important community organisations could have a major impact on the lives of some residents of the borough. Some of the organisations that may lose support are: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
TW Citizens Advice Bureaux IMAGO Community Shopmobility Relate West & Mid Kent Upz and Downz CIC West Kent Mediation Paddock Wood Community Advice Centre Number One Community Trust Trinity Theatre Horsmonden Cricket Club Sissinghurst Cricket Club Goudhurst Scout Group Cranbrook Museum Trinity Theatre Civic Society The Forum TW International Music Festival TW International Young Concert Artists Local & Live Forum Music & Arts CIC Tunbridge Wells Scouts Association Tunbridge Wells Sea Cadets
Lack of Consultation TWBC tell us that consultation on the Civic Complex has been extensive. It is true that many consultation meetings took place with Paddy Dillon, the excellent architect. Paddy made many changes to the massing and shape of the buildings within the selected site. However, the most important decision in the project, the site selection, was not consulted on, we only received a presentation, and questions on the selection process and the selected site were never answered. In fact, it has never been clear how or why this site was selected. This lack of consultation on the key decision and the rushed retrospective updating of planning documents to make the planning application legal has alienated your residents, particularly those that have been involved in the meetings over the last 2
years.
TWBC Running a Major Development? Moving on to the construction and running of the project to build the £90 million development, does TWBC have the expertise to run the Civic Centre Development project? We can be fairly certain the answer is “No”, as no similar projects have been run by TWBC. Someone, or several people, will need to be hired to manage the project for TWBC with experience in overseeing large development projects, managing developers and ensuring the scope of the project does not creep and run over schedule, incurring massive additional costs for TWBC and the residents who end up footing the bill. Hiring in expertise to run projects like this does not come cheap. I do not recall seeing any mention of any additional TWBC staff for the project. Naturally, this will be an additional cost for the duration of the project.
CPOs - £4 million or much more? How much will the CPOs cost? £4 million has been put aside for compensation according to the figures I have seen. Hoopers say their business will be existentially damaged by this project, not just their Royal Tunbridge Wells department store with the head office, but their whole department store business, with 4 large stores around the country, could go out of business. If Hoopers truly believe this, they will fight to the bitter end. Failing to get access through Hoopers' car park will stop this project as a theatre without access to deliver sets is even worse than a theatre with a limited backstage. Hoopers is not the only CPO that is required. There are several more.
Overlooked Options The council say they do not want to have a period where the large theatre in town is closed. Has a temporary theatre been considered? Have many other opportunities and options been overlooked?
This is a 1,118 seat temporary theatre that is currently being used in Geneva during a major refurbishment
I believe much better options have been ignored in the rush to select a site with no consultation, until after the site was selected. The existing Town Hall and Assembly Hall theatre would make a wonderful renewed Town Hall and modern theatre with the right investment, and could even attract Heritage Lottery Fund support, reducing the cost to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. In 2015 this was the plan! Just take a look at what Hammersmith & Fulham Council are planning to do with their 1930s Town Hall in Hammersmith after a previous project was stopped because it was no longer financially viable. Now they are looking to revitalise their Town Hall, an iconic building from the 1930s, much like ours, and provide
many different uses in the larger space they are creating.
Proposed redevelopment of the 1930s Hammersmith Town Hall
Stopping this Civic Centre Development is not anti-progress, it is about doing the right thing before it is too late. It is hugely expensive and many other better options have not been fully considered.
2018 Borough Council Elections If the council vote to proceed with the Civic Complex, there could be some major changes in the political landscape of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. The survey in 2015 and the surveys by run by Frank Williams and Joe Simmons, and the petitions give a good indication of what residents really think about the project. Residents will not have forgotten the Civic Complex in May and Tunbridge Wells Alliance are keen to see a change in the political landscape of the Borough of Tunbridge Wells and will be targeting seats at the election to push through change. Perhaps you might want to think about what your constituents think about this project, and how they will vote next May. There is little support for the civic centre and strong opposition to it.
Calverley Grounds As chairman of the Friends of Calverley Grounds, my initial concern was, and still is, the damage to a Grade II Listed park. 5% will be dug up for the underground car park and covered over again, over 2% will be built on with an office building that will mainly be let out for commercial use, 66 trees will be removed, and the western edge of Calverley Grounds will change from a soft green boundary to an edifice of glass and concrete. Initially, we were told the underground car park would not change the topology of Calverley Grounds, the park would be returned to the way it was, but now the land in the north west corner will be raised and the slope on the northern side of the valley will be much steeper than before. This is not the original promise. Additionally, if the council is going to take some land from the park have this negative impact, it should automatically have triggered some form of investment, as compensation, in the rest of the park. This should be included in the Civic Centre project budget. There are no plans to invest in the rest of the park, and, as an example, the bowling pavilion next to the new playground, which was due to be refurbished at the same
time as the community funded Calverley Adventure Grounds was built, has not happened. The tennis courts, the picnic area, the paths and much more need to be upgraded and improved. The park needs a masterplan, put together through public consultation meetings with the community and the Friends of Calverley Grounds, to help decide what work should take place (e.g. re-routing of paths, review of planting, upgrading of the tired sporting facilities) and a budget put aside to undertake this work. Without a budget set aside to improve the the rest of the park and the failure to refurbish the pavilion, how can we trust the council? Councillor Moore keeps mentioning a management plan, but this is only about the daily and seasonal tasks to look after the park, essentially part of the contract the council has with Sodexo. A management plan is an operational document. A masterplan is a strategic document. They are very two very different things.
Future of Friends of Calverley Grounds With the failure to properly consult with stakeholders over the site selection of the proposed Civic Centre and the retrospective updating of planning documents to clear the way for the planning application, the council has successfully lost the trust of many member of and the trustees of the Friends of Calverley Grounds (FoCG). As chairman of the FoCG, the committee and I are having to consider the future of the Friends of Calverley Grounds after a number of trustees have said they will resign or may resign if the Civic Centre is built. At the moment, the future is looking very precarious. Alienating the group of residents who ran the very successful project to raise £225,000 and build the Calverley Adventure Grounds community funded playground shows how badly the Civic Centre Development project has been run. The Calverley Adventure Grounds team worked with the council to get the playground project off the ground and during the fundraising and build phases of the project. The council needs residents and community groups who invest their time and energy into improving their neighbourhood and community. The playground project brought the council and the whole community together. This proposed development is pitting the council against the community to build something that few want.
Summary You might think I am anti-theatre and anti-progress. I am not. A better theatre would be wonderful for Tunbridge Wells, but what type of theatre and at what cost? £90 million is excessive for the Civic Complex and the theatre is a fixed seat 19th century design that offers no flexibility for future changes in theatre that new technologies are bringing in now, and will increasingly be used in live productions. With all the other reasons I have set out above, I strongly believe voting to approve the Civic Complex Development project to proceed to the next stage would be wrong. I strongly advise you to vote “No” to protect those most in need in the community, or, at least, to put forward a motion to put the project on hold until there is greater certainty about the future of the existing town hall, greater understanding of the real costs of the CPOs and a better understanding of the financing of the development and ongoing operational costs, and greater protection for the services that support the less well off in our borough. Yours sincerely Nicholas Pope