Record of Meetings with Tunbridge Wells Council - August 24th 2010
and subsequent updates
Impact of Town Hall site redevelopment on Assembly Hall
updates in December 2010 and March 2011
Present:
Representatives of RTWSO
Roy Dunstall and Trevor Hurrell representing RTWCS
Councillor Bullock
Councillor Hall
Councillor Rusbridge
Introductory Background:
- Councillor Bullock explained at length the reasons that had led the Council to conclude that more commercial real-estate attractive to large retailers is needed in the centre of TW, if growth in the economy and in employment is to be assured.
- Since no central government funds are available to finance such development, the Council has had to find its own sources of finance.
- Some prior negative experiences had led the Council to conclude that the right approach this time is a strategic partnership with a major developer.
- Following the European Procurement Programme the Council had selected John Laing as its partner, and has identified 38 sites in the Borough which will be included in the partnership.
Current Status:
- A Local Development Framework was set out as long ago as 2006, and a Core Strategy agreed.
- One part of the LDF is the Town Centre Area Action Plan (TCAAP) and this is the subject of current consultation (until August 30th 2010).
- This consultation is on the general wider issues of the TCAAP, rather than to the more specific development of the Town Hall site itself.
- So far approx 400 representations have been received in consultation.
- Under the TCAAP Laing is currently studying all 38 sites – of which the Town Hall site is one - to determine their development potential, in order to propose an optimum viable development plan for each site.
Next steps:
- John Laing is to submit its proposals for an optimum detailed plan for the development of the site to the Council by end September/early October.
- Since part of the site does not belong to TWBC, but to other parties such as KCC (for example the Library and the Police Station), one aspect of this analysis will be discussion with these other parties as to whether they wish to put their own parts of the site into a combined project.
- One of the criteria used to determine the viability of the proposed plan will be its contribution to the cultural life of the Town.
- If the Council decides to consider the plan submitted, this plan will then go into a consultation period – which will probably open in October 2010, and typically last 6 weeks.
- Councillor Bullock proposed a further meeting of the same participants in 3 months time (i.e. November 2010).
Thereafter:
- IF, after consultation, a plan is adopted which would result in the loss of the Assembly Hall, Councillor Bullock indicated that there would be a strong likelihood that a new alternative “live performance venue” could be built and that Council funding might be available to support local Societies whose existence depend on the use of such facilities to help them meet their losses during a transitional period.
- As to overall timing, Councillor Bullock indicated that the Council’s final decision on a site development plan will be unlikely before summer 2011, and that actual work would be unlikely to begin before 2013.
Commentary:
- Councillor Bullock was very clear that the pressure of development needs combined with less available finance in the years to come means that change in many areas is unavoidable.
- The Council’s approach is therefore to examine with great care how existing facilities such as the Museum, and Library, can be re-configured to take into account evolving needs and modern technology in a way that provides an adequate (and maybe better) service at a lower costs.
- A similar approach will govern reflections as to the best way of continuing to provide adequate opportunities for all kinds of live performances: and such reflection may will also take into account the kind of events provided today at Trinity.
- The least likely outcome of the present exercise is that the Assembly Hall will be preserved in its present format totally unchanged.
- But we took away from the meeting the clear impression that the Council is willing to consider very seriously the provision of an alternative “live performance venue” – its actual configuration and location being completely open at this point.
- The very fact that Councillor Bullock indicated a willingness to give financial support to organisations such as our own during a “transitional period” is an indication that he expects there to be something new to “transition” to.
- Our view is that the Society should carefully cultivate constructive working relationships with the key people involved on the Council (elected and official), and make our best efforts to ensure that – if in the end the Assembly Hall is lost - any replacement facility be as suitable as possible for our longer term needs, and conceivably even a better facility for us than the existing Assembly Hall.
- Of course, when the Consultation period does open on the specific plans for the site, the Society will make suitable representations through the appropriate channels and encourage its members to do the same.
Update - 7th December 2010
Officers of the Society have now had 2 meetings with the Leader of the Council, and with other Councillors involved with the Tunbridge Wells Regeneration Company - the joint venture between TWBC and John Laing. In the course of these meetings we received a number of assurances as follows: - no decision has been made to re-development the Civic Centre site, although a number of projects are under consideration - if such a decision is made at some point in the future, the Council is committed to providing a replacement theatre at least as good as the AH - if such a decision is made, the Council undertakes to provide a suitable alternative facility during the period between the decommissioning of existing AH, and the completion of the replacement. - the Council will carry out extensive consultation both before and after any possible regeneration plans for the Civic Centre.
The Council seems to have been taken aback by the strength of feeling that has been generated by the way in which they have handled information on this entire subject. As a result they have recently taken decided to engage M&N Communications - a communications firm specialising in "property, regeneration and the built environment" - with the mission, on behalf of TWBC, of "launching a large inclusive consultation on the future of the Civic Complex". Officers of your Society will be meeting later this month with M&N Communications to make very clear the needs and expectations of the Society in any future plan. In addition we would like to draw the attention of all members to the web-site which has been set up by M&N, which explains in detail how the consultation will be carried out, how people who wish to can get involved, and outlines the various ways in which anyone may express their views. This can be found at: http://www.tunbridgewellsregenerationco.org.
Update March 2011
As you are all aware, ever since the rather alarming rumours about the AH began circulating in the 1st half of 2010, we have been in close contact with various elected representatives and officials concerned within TWBC. You have already had reports of our 2 meetings with the Council in 2010: - August 24th and November 2nd. Both of these meetings were chaired by Roy Bullock, the then Leader of the Council - who was subsequently ousted by a vote of "no confidence" [largely of a result of his handling of the TW redevelopment issue). By late 2010 the Council recognised that it handled very ineptly the "consultation" issue over re-development, and appointed a PR firm - M&N Communications - in a belated attempt to put things back on the rails. At the beginning of 2011, M&N Communications approached us, along with a number of other local bodies, to ensure that we were given a further full opportunity to make our input on the impact on our Society of possible re-development plans for the Assembly Hall. This meeting took place on January 27th: - RTWCS participants were Suzie, Michael and myself - Other participants were: - a representative of John Laing, TWBC's partners in the 50/50 JV (Tunbridge Wells Regeneration Company Ltd) - the TWBC Director of Regeneration and Sustainability - and of course the M&N representatives. Interestingly enough not a single "policitician" was present, but the meeting was taking place in the midst of the palace revolution, so not all together surprising.
I won't try to summarise the exchanges, since the Minutes below are a faithful record of our exchanges. If you are short of time, the last paragraph "Conclusion" is the best quick read. These official Minutes of the Meeting have taken a long time to finalise, since all parties present had to be given an opportunity to approve the minutes before publication:
Trevor Hurrell - General Secretary
Minutes from meeting with stakeholder group 
meeting: Royal Tunbridge Wells Choral Society
date: |
7pm, 27 January 2010 |
location: |
Committee Room A, Tunbridge Wells Town Hall |
attendees: |
Trevor Hurrell – General Secretary, Choral Society (TH) |
Suzie Duke – Librarian & Deputy Chair, Choral Society (SD) |
|
Stuart Yeatman – John Laing/TWRC (SY) |
|
Michael Selway – Treasurer, Choral Society (MS) |
|
| Jonathan MacDonald– Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (JM) |
|
Natalie Moorse – M&N Communications (NM) |
|
| Jo Sistern – M&N Communications (JS) |
JS introduced the team from TWRC and TWBC. There then followed a group discussion of the issues associated with the civic complex and consultation exercise:
1.0 Group discussion
1.1 SY stated that the consultation process remained very similar to the process Cllr Bullock outlined in 2010 i.e. a broad consultation across the whole Borough that would help the Council make an informed decision about whether to proceed to instruct TWRC to draw up more detailed proposals.
1.2 TH asked whether consultation was taking place prior to any options being presented and SY confirmed that it was. SY confirmed that TWRC had undertaken some initial exploratory studies (looking at the heritage issues and the Assembly Hall) but had not got to the stage where options had been drawn up.
1.3 TH stated that as a Society their only brief was to ensure the cultural provision in Royal Tunbridge Wells, but as individuals they had views and wished to make separate representations on other issues.
1.4 JS stated that M&N had been appointed to undertake a Borough-wide consultation on how people used the current facilities on the civic complex and across the town centre, and whether they would like to see some of the facilities improved or not. She confirmed that M&N had undertaken many activities including drop in sessions, workshops, stakeholder meetings, vox pops etc to gain qualitative feedback and had re-delivered the consultation questionnaire to households across the Borough to gain some quantitative feedback. JS stated that at the end of the process, M&N would publish a publically accessible report, which would endeavour to assess whether there was an appetite amongst the people of Tunbridge Wells to explore the issue in more detail – if so further consultation would follow.
1.5 TH asked whether the consultation was looking just at the civic complex or the wider town centre. JS responded that they were primarily looking at the civic complex, but given its position it could not be looked at in isolation and TWRC needed to understand the complex’s role within the town.
1.6 TH asked whether TWODS (Tunbridge Wells Operatic & Dramatic Society) had been engaged. NM responded that M&N had contacted the Chair of TWODS numerous times since December 2010 to offer the Society a meeting but had received no response.
1.7 SD asked about the deadline for the consultation. JS responded that M&N was aiming to have most of the questionnaires returned by Monday 14 February.
1.8 JS stated that prior to being included in the report, minutes of this meeting would be circulated to the Choral Society for approval. All the raw data would go into the report, which would then be published and available for public scrutiny. M&N would promote the availability of the report via the media and other channels.
1.9 TH asked about the stages following the report’s publication. SY responded that after the report is published, the Council would take a view as to whether to progress to the next stage. He confirmed that once TWRC had seen the report, they would write to the Council giving its views. The Council would then consider all the representations made and members would vote yes or no to further exploration. If the response is to proceed, TWRC would then work up tangible options which would then be consulted on.
1.10 TH asked about the timeframes for the project if it goes ahead and whether the Council would deliberate the proposals prior to public consultation. SY responded that in theory, if they were instructed to do so, TWRC could work up proposals this summer and could consult on them in the autumn. JM added that any decision the Council would make in April wouldn’t prejudice its role as a planning authority. He continued that if a planning application were to be submitted a formal statutory consultation would again follow as even if there was an ‘appetite’ to explore things further there would still be a formal process to follow. SY continued to say that Greg Clark MP’s Localism Bill would have some impact on the process but that as the civic complex consultation process was fully transparent he considered this impact would be minimal.
1.11 TH stated that the hall was the only viable performance venue for the Choral Society in the vicinity. However he said that the Society’s initial reaction to the examination of the civic complex was that it could be an opportunity to update the Assembly Hall. He confirmed that a more modern facility with better lighting, acoustics and seating would be welcomed.
1.12 MS stated that the Choral Society has two big concerts a year (with summer and Christmas breaks). He said as the biggest Choral Society in a 30 mile radius, the group had approximately 200 members from across the town and the Borough – with130 of the most active members attending 40 weeks of the year.
1.13 SD added that the Society held smaller concerts throughout the year in other local venues; churches etc.
1.14 MS commented that they would like to increase to three big concerts per year from 2012 if possible. He also stated that on occasions the Society hadn’t been able to use the Assembly Hall and have had to look for an alternative venue, e.g. in Croydon or at Rochester Cathedral. He expressed their concern that the audience tended to reduce as the travel time was increased.
1.15 SY stated that they’d been told by other theatre operators that the thresholds tended to be around 800 or 1,200 seats for a theatre to be viable. MS responded that the Choral Society had yet to fill the Assembly Hall as they have had to take out the first seven/eight rows of seats to fit in the 80 piece orchestra. He continued to say that sometimes with visiting choirs however, there was a need for more stage/orchestra space. He said that the size had worked with the 700 or 800 attendees the Society tended to attract but ideally they felt they should be looking to attract more.
1.16 SD commented that the Society was working with local schools such as Skinners Academy and the Girls Grammar School to nurture new talent – when holding events with young people, these tended to attract larger audiences (family members etc).
1.17 SD stated that one of the key strengths of the existing Assembly Hall was its visibility. MS added that they were concerned that a new ‘better’ facility could be out of the town centre and in the Society’s experience this would lead to a drop in audience numbers.
1.18 JS asked whether, to summarise, it would be fair to say that they were keen to see improvements to the venue but were concerned about ensuring the continuity of having a performance space for the Society. SD responded that that was correct.
1.19 SD confirmed that they had talked to Cllr Bullock about transitional arrangements. TH added that the Council had made a pledge to provide an interim facility for a two year period if development were to go ahead and asked whether the pledge still stood. JM responded to say that it would not have been a formal Council decision, but that TWBC had no intention of compromising the integrity or viability of the Choral Society and would explore all the different options at an appropriate time.
1.20 TH asked whether TWBC would financially compensate the society for any costs incurred as a result of a break in continuity. JM said that he was not in a position to commit to that however through phasing and interim facilities, continuity could well be possible. TH replied that the Society needed a black and white answer on the issue. JM responded that Cllr Bullock would have been speaking on behalf of the Council but as it was not a formal decision, that issue would need to be checked. TH asked whether the unconditional commitment still stood. JM replied to say that the Council certainly had the will to ensure the Choral Society was not harmed if development were to proceed but restated that no formal Council decision existed.
1.21 SY stated that TWRC welcomed the Society’s positive attitude to the consultation process and stated that if discussions progressed to the next stage, the company would look at the different options for phasing with them.
1.22 MS commented that the Society relied on the Assembly Hall’s mailing list and brochure which helped to drive ticket sales. He said that when concerts had been held in St John’s Church, the lack of publicity was a problem and suggested therefore that if a new facility were proposed some way of cross-promoting events would be beneficial. SY replied that on other projects promotion/publicity had formed part of John Laing’s offer so that could be explored. MS added that the Choral Society definitely needed support to reach a wider audience.
1.23 JS asked the group about the limitations of the current space. MS stated that the acoustics were not fantastic and TH added that performers found it hard to hear with an amount of ‘dead space’ inherent in the architecture meaning that sound didn’t project. SD commented that the Society found it difficult to manoeuvre in specialist equipment i.e. screens. TH added that it was also not equipped for media and the green room space was too small.
1.24 SD asked whether if things progressed to the next stage, TWRC would consult with theatre experts and users of the Assembly Hall to get their input into the design process. SY responded that they would.
1.25 MS stated that the Society also needed extra stage space – in the event of a full choir, soloists and an orchestra they needed to hire extra staging. SD added that a youth choir required even more space.
1.26 JS asked whether access was an issue. MS responded to say that whilst disabled access was not too bad, it was difficult when they had to carry instruments down steps.
1.27 SY asked whether there were any other venues the Society aspires to. TH responded that their musical director would be able to provide some examples – they would ask him to contact TWRC.
1.28 TH stated that there were shortcomings with the existing theatre and that they would be 100% behind a new facility.
1.29 MS commented that parking was an issue with members of the choir having had to pay for 6-8 hours if they were rehearsing followed by a performance as well as the audience. He said that there was plenty of parking provision but the cost was prohibitive.
1.30 JS asked about how people travelled to concerts. MS replied that it was probably a mix of car and public transport.
1.31 SD stated that the Society was already planning its 2013 programme so the issue of transitional venues was at the forefront of their minds. MS added that the uncertainty made planning very difficult.
1.32 JS asked whether the Choral Society held outdoor concerts. TH responded that they had not but that they may have done some small ad hoc events.
1.33 TH asked whether the Council’s five pledges on regenerations were still valid. JM replied that the principle was sound in that whilst it was ultimately a political matter, there was certainly a desire to attempt to see if facilities could be renewed/improved rather than taken away.
2.0 Conclusion
2.1 In summary, the Choral Society expressed a desire for new improved performance facilities and said they supported the idea of a new venue, on the provisio that full transitional arrangements could be put in place and the Society could continue to perform in another central location during any redevelopment work.
ENDS
[top]