Supported by
An open letter to the Mayor of Watford concerning Watford Borough Council’s plans for the renovation and management of Watford Colosseum and the future of Watford Concerts
Correspondence arising:
The Mayor's first response (unedited), 18 November 2009
dear All
stunned and shocked by such a purely partisan and ill informed response.
Bottom line we too care about the acoustics and have taken steps to ensure
that all is well in that area. We want classical concerts to continue in the
venue and they will. Not sure how many different ways the council can say
this.
The people of Watford want a commercial operator who can bring them a wide
variety of music and performance; what you are saying is an insult to a well
established and successful company not to mention council officers who have
spent many long days working on this project.The model is NOT the same as has
already failed twice , hence my misinformed comment I could go on
...............
sincerely
Dorothy
Mayor of Watford.
Jonathan Brett's comment, 18 November 2009
I find it really depressing
that she is unable to see that I am actually trying to help and that being
able to say "I told you so" in a few years time has no appeal at all. If my
attititude is "ill-informed" it merely indicates that an appropriate level of
consultation has not been undertaken: if the council or new operator has
made effective provision for professional concerts (other than BBC
promotions), how come I am unaware of this? I have been ready for positive
discussion for a long time now - what possible motivation I could have for
being difficult about this? So far as I can see, by showing unwillingness to
play with the council's ball, I have nothing to win at all and potentially
much to lose - being Public Enemy #1 was never one of my life-goals, whatever
Watford Councillors may think! In any case, I only proposed a debate - if the
council really believed in its proposals this suggestion would have been
accepted on the grounds that the arguments could be won but instead we just
get defensive, meaningless soundbites.
I am sure everyone reading
will make their own judgement on the basis of what has been said so far but,
to take the points arising:
- If the council really cares about the acoustics, why has the choice of consultant not been discussed with CCT, with CTS-Lansdowne (who invested heavily in the hall and brought the Lord of the Rings recording to it) or any other local body or person with an interest and expertise? Such arrogance is breathtaking when there are people who, without demanding the consultancy fees the council is so keen to pay to anyone else who does anything, will simply help? Why no involvement with renovation plans in any way?
- If the council wants concerts to continue, why no requirement within the "vision" that the acoustic actually be used for the purpose for which its acoustic qualitites have a value? Why no clear provision for the financial consequences within the grants system? Why no response to my letter to the council about this?
- "Tthe people of Watford want a commercial operatior...." is such a weak comment: in any case the business plan I have been promoting would have to take account of the need for variety of output - but would do so in a context of greater sustainability and better value for local taxpayers as well as artistic potential. If they were in possession of the full facts I do not believe for one instant that the people of Watford would demand their money be used to support commercial operation of the hall - indeed I find the suggestion preposterous.
It looks as though
there is no way forwards from this impasse despite my attempt to offer one.
I have held my tongue for
years now, having been assured that, despite all evidence to the contrary,
the council knows what it is doing. The only positive point one can make is
that during this time the hall has been run well by council managers, which
makes the headlong rush to adopt an alternative solution still more baffling
to all cognisant of the situation. In the circumstances I think it
only right to publish many more details in due course: I suspect that the
council has not grasped that we are now in the information age and full
details of the missed opportunity will be made available and remain
available on an indefinite basis. If I am proved right about issues arising
then the responsibility will be clear and no excuses possible - but this
will be of no comfort to those who care about artistic development at the
hall and value for money for local taxpayers.
Incidentally, I have
not at any point intended to imply that HQ Theatres is not a capable
company. What I am saying is that the council has started from the wrong
place - a weak vision - then chosen the wrong business model and finally
selected operators who have managed the transition process and renovation
issues poorly through lack of consultation. In view of the fact that, so
far as I am aware, they only manage buildings which are, by design, theatres
(or multi-purpose) and have neither experience nor expertise in dealing with
a hall of such musical significance, this is not wholly surprising - it just
makes their lack of interest to engage with those who do have some knowledge
about the hall less easy to understand.
I hope this clarifies
some of the issues. Not sure where we can go from here since its clear
that, as has been the case all the way along, there is no interest in
actually addressing concerns in any meaningful way. If anyone has any bright
ideas do let me know.
Jonathan
The Mayor's second response, 20 November 2009
Dear Jonathan
I am concerned that you are scaremongering and passing on
incorrect information. It is upsetting staff involved as well as HQ
theatres. I would be grateful if you would post this response alongside your
open letter on your website, and circulate it to your e-news group.
Watford residents and
council tax-payers have told the me they would like to see a wide ranging
programme of acts at the Colosseum. This will also give the Colosseum the best
possible chance to be financially viable in the future.
We have undertaken
an extensive procurement process to secure the best possible specialist
operator at the Colosseum. HQ Theatres has been selected as ‘preferred bidder’
precisely because they have agreed to provide a wide range of entertainment -
including classical musical provision. At two of their other venues
they run classical music series with the support of Orchestras Live.
We care about the acoustics
in our building and commissioned one of the country’s leading professional
acousticians, ‘Arup Acoustics’, to ensure that this is protected, and engaged
ARTS TEAM, one of the leading arts and theatre practices in the country, part
of architectural firm Renton Howard Wood Levin, to develop our plans to invest
in the Colosseum.
Watford Borough Council and
HQ Theatres have spoken with you, as one of the many users of the
Colosseum, about our plans for financial investment in the Colosseum and the
process for securing a commercial operator. Your organisation is only one of
the many, many groups that use the Colosseum. We will be continuing a
programme of classical music and we hope that you will continue to be part of
this, but we cannot treat you differently from any one else. Your organisation
will continue to be eligible for the discounted community hire rate.
You want the council to
subsidise your organisation by giving you a grant: Grant funding isn't a core
council service. It is a choice that politicians make as to whether a council
should fund a general grants programme or not. My budgets have so far meant
that Watford Borough Council is one of the most generous councils of its size
for grant funding. The council, of course, has an agreed and open process for
deciding grant funding - to be fair to all applicants. We have advised you
that any application for funding will be looked at on its merits. The council
cannot give any indication in advance as to whether your application in the
next funding round would be successful.
As Watford residents know,
we have continually kept them informed about the plans for investing in the
Colosseum and the appointment of an operator to provide wide-ranging
entertainment via our council magazine that gets distributed to every
household in the borough, as well as via our website. We are also delighted
that according to the largest ever nationwide survey of people's views on
public services, Watford residents are the most satisfied people in the
country with their leisure facilities.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Thornhill
Elected Mayor of Watford
Mayors Office: 01923
278371
Town Hall, Watford, WD17 3EX
Jonathan Brett's answer, 20 November 2009
Dear Dorothy
Thank you for
this reponse, I will undertake to ensure that it is distributed.
I think that you have failed to understand
that my issue does not arise from the issue of grants or continued operation
in Watford by CCT: it concerns the whole process which the council has
undertaken. For example if, as you indicate, HQ Theatres are planning
appropriate orchestral provision then there would be no need for CCT
involvement in any case. In such a circumstance, though, then after 12
seasons of investment by CCT I think the minimum courtesy would have been to
let us know and to discuss how to manage the transfer most effectively.
I am not trying to make anybody's life
difficult, only to ensure that the best possible decisions are made for the
hall and the local and wider population. Nothing said at any point has yet
convinced me of this and your response today makes assertions rather than
actually addressing any of the numerous questions in any credible detail.
You choose to take issue over the distribution of "incorrect
information" but actually appear to engage in just that: it is not a clear
statement but you imply that
Orchestras Live provide the subsidy for orchestral concerts in High Wycombe
Swan and Southend Cliffs Pavilion. Whilst they certainly contribute, it is
extremely hard to believe that they cover the full cost. At present
Orchestras Live provide £500 per concert in Watford and there is no basis
for assuming that HQ can negotiate any kind of special deal with them - and
in any case I imagine they would not be able work directly with a commercial
promoter. Stuart Bruce at Orchestras Live is away today so I am copying him
in on this in order that he can comment if relevant.
In both the venues you mention I think the
reality is that it is the local authority which is paying the lion's share
of cost for the classical music and that in neither case is HQ actually the
promoter of the concerts, hence my opinion that Watford Borough Council
needs to make provision in both regards. Given that HQ have indicated to
Watford Musical Heritage that they have no plans to subsidise orchestral
music and you have made clear that no formal provision for subsidy has been
made by the council, your assertion that the future of music is live and
well is difficult to believe. The only circumstance in which I can see this
being true is if the BBC Concert Orchestra is to be the sole provider, not
by any means an unreasonable solution for all concerned, but one which
should have been sought honestly and openly.
For a long time now I have been trying to
ensure numerous legitimate concerns are addressed effectively and
credibly. This was the reason for my proposition - which you have chosen
to ignore - that an open forum would be the best solution. If the council
and HQ Theatres wished to prevent the need to make concerns public, then
I have been open to discussion throughout the process. Not once, however,
has anyone initiated contact with me in order to resolve questions
concerning the hall's future, either from WBC or HQ. Despite my various
efforts to arrange a meeting with HQ, I heard nothing whatsoever from them
since May 13th.
If, in my efforts to ensure that issues are
addressed I have distributed incorrect information, I should be grateful for
clarification of the exact nature of this. I shall naturally continue to
extend you the same courtesy.
With best wishes
Jonathan