Civic Hall meeting
22nd May 2003
Tuition House

Panellists:
Andrew Judge – Leader of the Council
Robert Hobbs – Director of Community and Cultural Services
Stephen Ashcroft – Chair of the Wimbledon Community Association
David McAlpine – author of the feasibility study prepared recently

Chaired by Marcus Beale

This was a well attended meeting with over 35 attendees with another 10 representations by email, on the bulletin board and by telephone.

Andrew Judge stated that this was a longstanding concern within the borough. There is clearly a need to have a large seating capacity hall with good acoustics, the old hall being sold off to make way for the shopping centre. “Art and community activities are central to community life and we need buildings to put these activities in. It is our intention to ring fence money from other facilities and put these into the new civic hall”

It was recognised that the council cannot build and manage such a hall and so only through partnership and with a strong sense of consensus within the community can it be achieved.

The Wimbledon Community Association has been approached to be a partner and have been given assurances by LBM that their existing premises will not be sold without their express permission. Stephen asked for 2 issues to be carefully considered:-
1. if there is a need to sell some facilities to build this new one that there will be a net gain for all concerned ie 3 halls of 100 – 200 seats sold does not equal 1 hall of 600 seats – they will have different uses for different groups of people.
2. Ensure that we are not merely centralising resources – people in the outskirts of the borough need local facilities of their own.

David McAlpine outlined the brief for the basis of the report and the findings of the report.

Questions from the floor
There are three organisations not catered for within Merton presently – The Wimbledon Choral Society, The Merton Music Foundation and Wimbledon Symphony Orchestra. It is assumed that as the requirement of these organisations will be a large venue on a bi-annual basis their current needs will not be met by the proposed facility.
The capital values of sites P3 and P4 were requested. No figures were given but it was stated that the value of P3 was 2.5 times more valuable than P4 – including the parking continuation. The question was raised as to whether it was the right decision to sell one of the most valuable sites in central Wimbledon to a large developer for retail use etc rather than use for the community.

Terry Pawson, an internationally renowned and local architect, was introduced and asked to comment from his experience. He stated that there was a reasonable chance that the P4 site is large enough to develop into a 600 seater hall. It would be a mistake not to build right up to the Wimbledon Theatre and it would be a challenge to the architect from the urban design perspective to make it as imposing as the Wimbledon Theatre approach and entrance.

The site has two frontages with a wraparound and it may augment audiences to have two ‘theatrical’ venues within Wimbledon – reference was made to the Orange Suite theatre in Richmond. There was a request that the theatre must have a car park and escalator/lift access. It was confirmed that there will be a car park with similar if not enhanced levels of parking available.

Stephen Ashworth is a manager of 2 smaller halls and reminded the meeting that both these halls the demand exceeded availability – it is difficult to find a hall that is not being used. He feels the new hall needs to be of a 450 – 600 capacity to fill the current gap and not to create another hall at a different level.

Concerns were raised over the management of the hall, particularly if Wimbledon Theatre jointly manages it, there was speculation this may lead to the hall being made available more for commercial use rather than community use. However it must not be forgotten that joint management would lead to substantial cost savings and the council would have a high involvement.

There may be a possibility of importing other community organisations to hold their events within Wimbledon if there is the right venue – more research would have to be done on this.

A general appeal was made to not call it a civic hall – as it may not attract Arts Council funding for example – more likely to get support for a new auditorium – the language used is important.

An architectural competition was discussed and there was discussion about how this would occur and would the architects get a fee. It was confirmed that this was the intention of the Council and that there would be a fee for all applicants to ensure that it was open to all and not just those that could afford to spend time drafting proposals. A planning brief is being drawn up at present and will be published this summer.

Funding of the hall was discussed. Roger Casale mentioned (by email) the possibility of a public subscription which prompted further discussion about a local lottery. Either of these would indicate local support for the hall and give it authority as a community venue and a sense of global ownership.

Andrew Judge was interested in these views and reminded the meeting that County Hall was built partly from public subscription. If Wimbledon Park Hall is sold to developers then the money raised from this would be ring fenced for this project.
The possibility of the council borrowing money for the project was raised and would be beneficial at today’s low interest rates. There was also discussion about a sinking fund to allow for an annual deficit of £100,000. It was reiterated that LBM has no funds for development and cannot subsidise this project.

The meeting came to a close with the following conclusion. We now have a practical proposal, which has a lot of potential. LBM support the proposal and it appears to have cross party support. Consensus needs to be built within the community and participation should be encouraged by all. The meeting showed that consensus can be built and we all need to ‘spread the word’ that this is a positive proposal.