Decision details

Hertford Theatre Growth and Legacy Scheme

Decision Maker: Council

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Councillor Buckmaster submitted a report on the progress of the theatre expansion work and business plan for the Hertford Theatre Growth and Legacy Scheme.  The report requested additional funding of £6.4mn for the delivery of the scheme. 

 

Councillor Buckmaster drew Members’ attention to the detailed explanation for the additional funding as set out in the report, which included for structural reasons replacing the existing building.  Additional funding of £6.4m was sought.  Councillor Buckmaster explained that following analysis of the original costs and additional information arising from a more comprehensive understanding of the design and build requirements, the existing building structure and external market information and influences, a number of revised cost requirements, over and above those captured in the £13.5mn figure for the original design, had been identified.  He said whilst the additional costs of £6.4m were a significant increase on the agreed funding, the business case demonstrated a strong return on investment.  On completion, Hertford Theatre would deliver an operational result of £1,244,372m per year, and after support service costs and the increased capital charges, the Theatre would operate with a surplus and would bring a contribution to the Council of + £110,201 per year.

 

Councillor Buckmaster proposed recommendation (A) in the report, and subject to the consent of his seconder, and the consent of the meeting, said he now proposed an additional recommendation (B), “to provide the range of good value and free activities for vulnerable and hard to reach audiences, and ensures a pricing structure that was reflective of the new and expanded offer and endeavoured to keep price increases to a minimum”. 

 

Councillor G Williamson gave his consent to the alteration of the motion to support the recommendation, as seconder.

 

The Chairman asked for the meeting to signify consent to the alteration, which was given.

 

Councillor Redfern asked a question regarding the ability to use royalties.

 

Rhys Thomas said amended royalty rights were measured against the capacity of the auditorium. 

 

Councillor S Bell sought an explanation regarding the alteration of the motion. 

 

The Democratic Services Manager said the Council's standing orders provided that a Member could alter the wording of his or her motion with the consent of the seconder and the consent of the meeting. 

 

Councillor G Williamson, as seconder, said he supported this project. 

 

Councillor A Curtis said Members should bear in mind the cultural enhancement the project would bring. 

 

Councillor S Bell proposed an amendment to the recommendation.   She said this project sought to provide a valuable community asset, and this development should have the ethos of a project that was delivered ultimately to benefit the residents of Hertford and the surrounding area.  In order to ensure the Council recognised the importance of amateur and not for profit groups within the community and to ensure that the Theatre remained affordable and accessible to those groups following its refurbishment, she proposed that the motion be amended to add the following wording as recommendation (B):  “The higher rates for all amateur and not for profit groups who wish to use the Theatre will be capped at the current rate and will only increase in line with inflation”. 

 

Councillor J Dumont seconded the amendment. 

 

Councillor J Wyllie sought clarification of the intention regarding whether the rates would or would not be capped. 

 

Councillor Bell said she proposed the only increase would be that caused by inflation. 

 

Councillor Buckmaster said his recommendation took account of the current ethos, and the amateur dramatic groups were thriving with the help of the Theatre.  He was content that his additional recommendation addressed this point, and did not consider the amendment now proposed added any merit.

 

Councillor M Goldspink said whilst she welcomed the additional recommendation put forward by Councillor Buckmaster, it was not strong enough.  All Members wanted to provide a good theatre for Hertford, but this was a community project and it should be available for community groups and amateur performers.   

 

Rhys Thomas said community groups were prioritised and the organisations would be able to book space in the auditorium, whilst smaller performances could take place in the studio theatre. 

 

Members debated the amendment at length. 

 

Councillor J Dumont as seconder said he supported the comments made by Councillor M Goldspink although he noted protection would be given to smaller groups. 

 

Councillor M Brady questioned how the Council would repay the debt, as she was concerned this debt would impact on other essential services.

 

Councillor Buckmaster said the report set out a good business model and he was confident it would be sustainable.  The Council had a low interest rate over that period. 

 

Councillor C Redfern expressed concerns and questioned why there seemed to have been no consultation on this or the original plan. 

 

Councillor Buckmaster reminded all that the debate should focus on the proposed amendment. 

 

Members continued to debate the motion and issues referred to in the report.  The Chairman reminded all Members to speak to the amendment currently under debate. 

 

In response to a question regarding the wording of the amendment, Councillor Bell said she was content that the wording “would be capped at the current rate” would be deleted. 

 

Councillor E Buckmaster, opposing the amendment, said it was necessary to be adaptable and flexible. 

 

The Chairman read out the amendment, as proposed by Councillor S Bell and seconded by Councillor J Dumont, as follows: “The hire rates for all amateur and not for profit groups who wish to use the Theatre would only rise in line with inflation.”

 

A vote being taken, the amendment was declared LOST. 

 

Members continued to debate the substantive motion.  Councillor C Redfern said many of the residents of Hertford felt they were not consulted.  She had been unable to attend the presentation on 8 October, and the information at that meeting had been confidential until publication of the agenda.  She asked where parking for the Theatre would be sited, and questioned why cinema screens needed to be part of the Theatre.  She proposed that the request for additional funding be delayed until the December Council meeting.

 

Councillor M Brady seconded the amendment.

 

Members debated the matter further, raising aspects such as the forecast net contribution of £110k for the proposals, and the intention that the facilities were not only for Hertford, but for residents across the District. 

 

Further points were raised, including what assurances could be given that the figures were correct; what headroom was factored in for any further costs increases and whether instead of aiming to make a profit, the approach should be to provide subsidies. 

 

Councillor E Buckmaster responded to the various points made.  He said consultation had taken place in the public domain for over a year; the Council was exploring options for parking and public transport; this was a discrete project and the money could not necessarily be allocated to other purposes.  A new theatre would provide for the residents provided for under the District Plan.  The project was good value.  He provided assurance as to the process for costing which was driven by three factors, cost, inflation and the previous feasibility study, which did not include inflation.  A robust approach had been taken and inflation had now been built into the calculations through until completion.  Councillor Buckmaster summarised further factors taken into account regarding the evolution of the brief. 

 

Councillor L Haysey said, in further response to points which had been made, that she had been an Executive Member at the time the Theatre had been built, and the Council had transformed Castle Hall into the Theatre.  The new Theatre had been accepted as an asset, despite at the time similar doubts and questions having been raised.  The use of the space which was now proposed had been fully explained.  Without investing in the Theatre as a legacy project, it would go downhill, and this was an opportunity to recreate a regional centre for excellence.

 

The amendment to defer the request for additional funding as proposed by Councillor C Redfern and seconded by Councillor M Brady being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, the amendment was declared LOST. 

 

Councillor E Buckmaster spoke to the substantive motion, which he then proposed.  The motion being put the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED. 

 

RESOLVED that (A) the additional funding of £6.4m be approved for the delivery of the Hertford Theatre Growth and Legacy scheme (subject to planning approval); and

 

(B) The Hertford Theatre continue to provide the range of good value and free activities for vulnerable and hard to reach audiences and ensure the pricing structure that is reflective of the new and expanded offer and endeavours to keep price increases to a minimum.

 

 

Report author: Jess Khanom-Metaman

Publication date: 11/11/2019

Date of decision: 23/10/2019

Decided at meeting: 23/10/2019 - Council

Accompanying Documents: