Intimate Theatre: Theatres advisory body not satisfied by updated planning application

Full text of letter from the Theatres Trust

03 March 2022

Gideon Whittingham
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield
EN1 3XA

Site: St Monicas Hall 521 Green Lanes London N13 4DH

Proposal: Redevelopment of site involving demolition of existing building and ancillary structures and erection of part 2, part 3 storey building with basement level to provide new church hall with parish community facilities and 6 x 2 bed self contained flats with associated landscaping.

Remit:

The Theatres Trust is the national advisory public body for theatres. We were established through the Theatres Trust Act 1976 'to promote the better protection of theatres' and provide statutory planning advice on theatre buildings and theatre use in England through The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, requiring the Trust to be consulted by local authorities on planning applications which include 'development involving any land on which there is a theatre'.

Comment:

Thank you for informing Theatres Trust of updated plans and documents which have been supplied by the applicant following the deferral of a decision on this application at Planning Committee on 18^th January 2022. These set out plans for a demountable stage in order to facilitate continued theatre provision within the new development. Having reviewed these documents we maintain our objection to the granting of planning permission.

The scheme requires a more fundamental re-design in order to accommodate theatre facilities and use which is more practical for the needs of local audiences and performers, rather than just putting forward indicative insertion of a demountable stage. Whilst we remain opposed to loss of the existing building for reasons set out previously, it is also regrettable that greater inclusion of theatre provision within the replacement building has only come about at a late stage following the comments of Committee. Had there been more positive engagement with us earlier and had our comments been acted on it is quite possible the scheme being presented may at least have minimised loss of existing function and grounds for our objection.

We have identified a number of deficiencies with the demountable stage proposal and these are set out subsequently along with other matters to assist the Council’s decision making and ensure appropriate safeguarding of an important use within the local area.

Demountable stage

A temporary stage such as has been put forward by the applicant is a possible compromise which they suggest could maintain theatre use within the replacement hall but it must be acknowledged and understood this comes with extreme limitations and will offer a substantially reduced standard of provision compared to that currently in place. The design option as shown is very basic and we do not consider it to be workable for many of the Intimate’s regular users, for example local amateur and community groups with larger casts. We have grave concerns regarding the actual audience view of the stage and have identified challenges and deficiencies in the design and layout which we have laid out below and would need to be addressed through proper and full redesign of the space.

• The plans show the temporary stage construction to be very low (it appears to be little more than step) with a short ramp to make it accessible. The ramp blocks a door to a store which opens inward so it could be accessed but the ramp presents a trip hazard. The door to the other store is likewise blocked by the stage.
• The stage is small and there appears to be no provision for tab tracks or lighting bars both of which would be needed to host many live performances, particularly of the type performed by Intimate’s users in the past.
• ‘Wing space’ is suggested by a curtained off area to either side of the stage but this is impractical being on a lower level and with no access except through the external escape door or through the audience. Overall it would be impractical to put any set on the stage or to be able to change any set on the stage. It is our view that the provision as shown would not provide adequate re-provision, and would certainly not allow the staging of a musical or pantomime which have been important shows for the Intimate and the local groups who have performed there.
• To the stage left ‘wing space’ there is an escape door. We question whether the fire safety strategy will indeed allow this door to be blocked by wing space use (curtain, props and scenery etc) and we refer the applicant to the Technical Standards for Places of Entertainment, section C1.
• There are two WCs one of which is accessible off the stage left ‘wing space’. The removal of this as a usable facility for audiences means ground floor toilet provision would fall below regulations for the audience capacity suggested. If they were kept in audience use the area cannot be considered or used as wing space. In addition audience use during a performance would interrupt any activity on stage from audiences accessing and entering them and through noise of toilet flushes and hand-driers.
• The seating layout for 156 does not include wheelchair spaces so the actual capacity would be further reduced. Furthermore any production requiring a band or orchestra will reduce seating capacity further making it impractical for amateur groups who have cited similar difficulties with regards to capacity at the Dugdale Centre and other spaces within the wider area.
• Views of the stage from the rear seating as per the imagery in the supporting documentation appears to be taken from standing height (with one even appearing to be taken from even higher) rather than sitting. Another of the views is from the central aisle. This provides a disingenuous impression of realistic sightlines. The extremely low height of the stage (which appears to be little more than 1 step high) combined with flat floor seating exacerbates limitations on the sightlines of audiences even from forward rows. This means that audience members will have extreme difficulty in viewing any activity on the stage particularly from several rows back.
• The images of other temporary stages illustrate that such facilities can be successfully implemented, but also serves to illustrate that for theatre performance this does require tiered seating – for example the Alexandra Palace example given. It also relies on dedicated theatre facilities such as dressing rooms and other back of house spaces as well as lighting and sound systems. The examples of Exeter Cathedral and St Marks Church, whilst not known to us, appear to be church dais’ rather than theatre performance stages and therefore have different criteria for sightlines and support spaces.
• There is no indication of what back of house facilities will be offered, for example dressing rooms, toilet and shower facilities for performers, and areas for storage of costumes, sets and equipment. Safeguarding of children also needs to be taken into account with separate dressing room and dedicated toilet facilities allowed for. The current building has four or five dressing rooms dependent on set up. If the intention is to utilise the first floor meeting room facilities as dressing room space there will be important considerations regarding cross over of uses, storage of costumes and practicalities of furniture arrangement in the space. The child safeguarding issues would still apply; such areas would need to be protected. A ‘quick change’ area will also be required which needs to be adjacent to the stage and provide privacy for the actors getting changed.
• There is no dedicated entrance to the stage other than through the audience. This is impractical for cast members.
• The issue of lighting bars and tabs has been addressed in the first point, but it is important to stress that these need to be provided. Also to note, amateur groups will also often have a sound desk which will be located at the rear of the auditorium. This is not shown on the plans and will reduce audience capacity further.

As already noted, the performances put on by the groups that have used the theatre in the past include scenery, props and dedicated costumes. All require storage for the length of the performance run and also in the weeks leading up to the final performance, particularly for dress rehearsals and technical rehearsals and during the set building process. The stage would also need to be a permanent feature during this period as dismantling would not be practical. We have already stated that lack of dedicated dressing room space and inadequacy of wing space poses a problem for the actual staging of a performance. However, wider regard and recognition needs to be given to the actual timescales and spatial requirements which will be required by groups for the entire performance run and weeks leading up to this. Dismantling stage, sets and taking home props and costumes each day would not be acceptable or practical, thereby diminishing the facility’s function.

Use Class

As articulated at the previous Committee and in previous correspondence, we believe the stated use class of this building to be incorrect. Rather than F2(b) this should be a mixed use community facility including theatre (Sui Generis). We have sought legal opinion on this which has concurred with our understanding; furthermore a second legal opinion coincidentally commissioned by a community campaign group for a similar facility elsewhere has also concluded the same. In turn this limits the extent to which the applicant could lawfully vary the use of the building without appropriate planning permission. As such paragraph 4.13 of the report to Committee should be clarified. Furthermore it is also important to advise Members that the permission referenced in paragraph 4.11 did not result in a smaller theatre.

Conditions (Heritage)

If permission for demolition is to be granted, we welcome that the retention and display of original features is to be explored through Condition 4 however we are sceptical as to whether historic features could be realistically retained and reused without a more fundamental re-design of the scheme. Nonetheless we urge that the condition is broadened, or a new one added, which requires provision of a detailed programme of photographic and written recording with approval of Theatres Trust obtained prior to discharge.

Conditions (Availability to the community)

We welcome Condition 29 in principle, on the premise it forms part of a safeguarding of theatre use. However we consider this condition should be more robust in giving assurance of theatre re-provision, for example ‘Details of availability of the hall to the wider community including theatre users’ and ‘details of theatrical infrastructure such as sound and lighting bars’. The Section 106 agreement will need to mandate an appropriate level of theatre use to compel the applicant/future operator to make the facility available and safeguard theatre use in the spirit of addressing the concerns of ourselves, the local community and Members. This will need to be robustly drafted to avoid the risk of future enforcement issues and/or loss of a facility to the community as has been experienced in the case of Golders Green Hippodrome, London Borough of Barnet. We urge the involvement and agreement with Theatres Trust in the drafting and agreement of conditions and Section 106, as has been the case with other cases involving re-provision.

Conclusion

Overall, we continue to maintain that alternative options exist for this site which would broadly maintain the existing nature and scale of theatre provision, reduce the negative environmental sustainability impacts of demolition and redevelopment and preserve valued local heritage whilst better meeting the wider needs of the parish. As such our existing objections stand. Whilst these additional documents make at least some attempt at compromise in relation to better safeguarding theatre use, for the reasons set out above we consider it to be impractical and inadequate without a more fundamental revision to plans. Therefore we maintain that planning permission must be refused.

If Committee are minded to vote in favour of the officer recommendation we urge that our comments are reflected on with robust conditions in place to ensure the future hall is fit-for­purpose in its design and that availability for theatre groups and performances is safeguarded. We also urge extension of conditions related to heritage to include submission of a programme of recording.

Irrespective of Committee’s decision we remain keen to engage positively with both the applicant and the Council to find a solution which meets the needs of the whole community, including being consulted on the discharge of various conditions and the content of the Section 106 agreement.

Tom Clarke MRTPI

National Planning Adviser