British Theatre Guide logo
 
News

 

Links

Articles

News

Reviews

Amateur Theatre

Contact

Other Resources

Bookstore

Forum

Search the Site

 

Dateline: 24th March, 2003

The Mermaid Theatre - a Statement from the Theatres Trust

The Theatres Trust issues a statement about its actions over the matter of the demolition of the Mermaid Theatre in Puddle Dock, Blackfriars, in the City of London.

The Theatres Trust has received a great many messages expressing concern about the loss of the Mermaid Theatre. Unfortunately it is not feasible for us to reply to everyone individually. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a widespread misunderstanding of the nature of the Trust's role and of its involvement in this matter. We have therefore decided to set the record straight, and to explain why the Trust has given the advice that it has.

We have been considering planning applications in respect of the Mermaid Theatre over the last three years, and have held many meetings with the City Corporation and the developers (Blackfriars), as well as with the Save London's Theatres Campaign and others who have been working to save the theatre.

The Trust was set up by Parliament to promote the protection of theatres. It also has a statutory role in advising on planning applications which affect theatre buildings. It is primarily in this latter capacity that it has become involved with the Mermaid. Our advice to local authorities has to be given within the context of planning law and policies, and it has to relate to the planning applications submitted to us, whether we like them or not. We have to consider the application in front of us - not the one that we would like to have seen! The Trust has never sought to ensure that every theatre building that ever stood should be protected and maintained in perpetuity. Nor is the Trust a preservation body. Trustees have always recognised that throughout history theatre buildings have constantly been replaced or altered, new ones created, and others lost. It considers each planning application on its merits, taking account of the legal and planning constraints, as well as such factors as demand, financial viability, and the condition of the building concerned.

In considering the Mermaid application, Trustees had to take account of the following facts.

  1. The City Corporation's planning policy, against which any application has to be considered, does not demand that when a theatre is lost it should automatically be replaced. It is significantly different to that of Westminster City Council in this regard.
  2. There is no legal impediment to the developers demolishing the theatre at any time, for it is not listed, nor is it in a conservation area.
  3. The building's owners have never sought to run it as a theatre, and paid the City Corporation, which is the freeholder of the site, a considerable sum of money so that they would not have to abide by the terms in the lease, whereby it had previously been run as a theatre.
  4. Although this does not prevent the Mermaid from still being regarded as a theatre in use class and planning terms, it has nevertheless seriously compromised the Corporation's ability, as planning authority, to enforce a theatre use.
  5. The Trust has never accepted the developer's argument that a theatre use in the present building or in a replacement theatre on the site could not be viable. And we recognise that the present building, although in need of improvements and no longer in possession of a theatre licence, does have many fine qualities.
  6. Nevertheless, there is a strong belief that the attractiveness of the Mermaid and its location were severely compromised by the 1982 alterations, which enlarged the auditorium and surrounded the theatre by roads and distanced it from the river.
  7. There is no political will within the City Corporation to see a new theatre on the site; the present building is regarded as a blot on the landscape, and a prime target for redevelopment. The City Corporation has consistently maintained that the Barbican Centre has in effect replaced the Mermaid in terms of theatrical provision. The fact that there is no political will within the City Corporation to maintain a theatrical presence is a significant obstacle.
  8. The developers have chosen not to incorporate a replacement theatre in their proposals, and there is no absolute requirement in planning terms for them to do otherwise.
  9. Instead they have offered a sum of money (originally £1 million and then increased at the Trust's insistence in negotiation to £3 million, £5 million and finally £6 million) in lieu of any obligation to replace the theatre. This money is to be offered to the City Corporation, on the understanding that it will be used to help create new or improve existing theatre buildings within the City of London or its immediate surroundings.

It was against this background that the Trust agreed, with considerable reluctance, to advise in principle that the City Corporation should grant consent. However at their meeting on 11 March Trustees reiterated two significant caveats. We needed to ensure that the money was received as soon as possible, and that it was spent on the purposes intended. Fifteen months ago, when Trustees were not satisfied with the detailed arrangements being proposed in respect of the previous application, we objected to it and were instrumental in persuading members of the Planning Committee to overrule the advice they had been given, and to refer the application back for further consideration.

Contrary to the impression sometimes given, the £6 million has not been offered to The Theatres Trust. However we have now secured an agreement by the City Corporation that the Trust will be consulted on its distribution, and that decisions will be made by the full Planning Committee and in a transparent way. This should avoid any possible conflict of interest on the part of the City Corporation, which is of course in this instance the planning authority as well as the owner of a potentially very valuable development site.

However, at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 March, the Trust's request that the payment should be made on the granting of consent was dismissed on the grounds that it was not the City Corporation's normal policy to demand payment until works start on site. We do not accept this, for the application itself falls outside the Corporation's normal planning policy, and we have been advised that there is no legal reason in such circumstances why the Corporation should not demand payment on the granting of consent. We are now discussing with other interested parties how payment up front can best be achieved. If necessary, we will again demand that the application be called in for decision at a Planning Inquiry.

Throughout this process, we have encouraged the Save London's Theatres Campaign and others to lobby for the retention of the theatre or a replacement, and their efforts have undoubtedly contributed to the readiness of the City Corporation and the developers to consider this matter seriously. We cannot pretend to be in complete agreement with the Campaign, as our roles and responsibilities are different, but ultimately both bodies are doing what they consider to be best for the long term good of theatre.

Throughout the last three years, the Trust has worked continuously to secure the best outcome possible for theatre, taking into account the circumstances of the case and what is achieveable in the context of planning law. To have done otherwise would have been outside its terms of reference and would have compromised its role as a Statutory Consultee. Trustees are firmly of the view that in these circumstances the acceptance of a significant sum of money under a planning obligation (this is not a planning gain), which can be used to create or secure the future of other theatre buildings, is the best outcome that can be achieved. They regret the fact that neither the developers nor the City Corporation were willing to encourage a continued theatre use on the site. The Trust will use every reasonable means at its disposal to ensure that the £6 million is made available, and on satisfactory terms, so that if the Mermaid is lost, there will be a lasting benefit to other theatre buildings.

21 March 2003

|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|R|S|T|U|V|W|X|Y|Z|

News Archive A-L
News Archive M-Z
Production News Archive

Please note that all three Archive indices are very long and will therefore take some time to download.

 

 

©Peter Lathan 2003