The Planet Reigate Podcast
73a: *Extra Episode - Harlequin '£10m decision' at RBBC council meeting 30.01.25
Sat, 01 Feb 2025
73a: *Extra Episode - Harlequin '£10m decision' at RBBC council meeting 30.01.25Funding has been earmarked for Redhill's Harlequin theatre which was shut in September 2023 due to unstable concrete in its building.On Thursday evening 30 January 2025,, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council agreed to allocate up to £10m for the theatre and "cultural offerings" in the borough.This is a full report on the meeting including clips from the discussion and background commentary.To read the full 38-page ‘Harlequin Options Analysis and Next Steps’ report that the council was discussing, go to the link in our show notes: https://tinyurl.com/prp73Harlrpt If you get value from The Planet Reigate Podcast, please give us value back in return; click here to support us with a small donation: www.buymeacoffee.com/theplanetreigatepodcast or share us with your colleagues. A list of ‘the best of the guests’, and a link to hear each one, is on this Facebook post: https://tinyurl.com/prpbestThe seven-note Planet Reigate Theme is ©Peter StewartListen: https://linktr.ee/PlanetReigatePodcastWeb: www.ThePlanetReigatePodcast.comFacebook: www.Facebook.com/ThePlanetReigatePodcastInsta: theplanetreigatepodcastX (Twitter): https://twitter.com/PlanetReigateEmail: [email protected] Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This is the Planet Reigate Podcast.
Hello, I'm Peter Stewart. Welcome to our special edition of the Planet Reigate Podcast. And over the course of the next hour, we'll hear more about a big series of decisions which was made on the Harlequin on the night of Thursday, the 30th of January. A meeting of Reigate and Banstead Borough Councillors which went on for two hours discussing various recommendations made by the Council staff.
Over the course of the next hour, you will hear a cut down version of some of the comments, the questions, the debate, the discussions and sometimes the disagreements as well amongst various councillors and the council leader. And also you'll hear from council staff too. You'll hear the results of what they voted on and also the background as well.
Not all of the questions, not all of the answers. I've taken out all of the boring bits, but also given you a commentary explainer as we go through, so you know the background to the discussion taking place and the decisions that were made.
This is the Planet Reigate podcast with Peter Stewart.
So thank you very much indeed for listening to this special edition of the show. OK, so this is what they were voting on. And this is what they actually ended up voting through. I mean, you probably know the results by now. So hopefully this isn't too much of a spoiler for you.
To support groups that previously hired the Harlequin with alternative rehearsal performance spaces through small grants. To expand arts opportunities in Redhill and Boroughwide. To keep the Harlequin services net revenue budget for 25-26 at £360,000.
to agree to allocate up to £10 million for what they call the Harlequin Theatre and cultural offering in the borough, to get another report, another one, on the future of the Harlequin in June. So this one will be around getting approval for the budget and then getting authority to appoint a design team for new Harlequin plans.
to agree costs and responsibilities with the head leaseholder of the Warwick Quadrant and sort out a time frame as well. And also, in June, the Council will get another report on the detailed costed feasibility and potential for a 200-seater performance venue in Redhill. while the Harlequin is being rebuilt. Now, that would cater for commercial and community hirers.
In total, eight different items they were being asked to vote on. And you'll hear the full list of those towards the end of the programme when they actually vote on those. So, that's what happened on the night of Thursday, the 30th of January, 2025. Now... That part of the council meeting started around five to eight. It went on until five to ten.
So obviously it was a really big commitment to sit through it all, either online or in person. But you know what? You don't have to because I did it for you. We now present the edited highlights from the council meeting with explainer commentary. It's what you need to know without the boring bits in the next dramatic act of our much loved beleaguered theatre space.
So that council meeting was about what they called the future service delivery of arts and culture in the borough. It's because, of course, of that crumbly concrete rack which has forced the closure of the building since September 2023.
You'll remember temporary facilities were put in place for that year's pantomime and also more recently a pop-up space in the Belfry as well, plus other spaces across Red Hill and also in the castle grounds in Reigate too.
And there have been promises for months of more spaces that will be opened up for the various groups, meetings, rehearsals and some shows that are still missing out on a place to call home. And while this main production of the drama of the Harlequin limps on...
centre stage joining the set from stage left a report this week that puts the harlequin on a new theatres at risk list for the very first time and you can hear more about that in episode 73 of the planet reigate podcast
OK, so let's hear the discussion the councillors had when they came to their conclusions, the to's and fro's, the argument and counter-argument, and you can make up your own mind if what was decided was right or not. Now, to read the full 38-page Harlequin Options Analysis and Next Step report that the council was discussing, go to the link in our show notes.
Now, look, council meetings are almost by necessity rather boring and dull. We don't actually want them to be exciting, do we? Councillors may or may not do a good job. That's up to you to decide. And there's a lot of protocol and repetition in such meetings. Not everyone who spoke or every question is included and members of the public were not invited to contribute.
I've done my best to cut out the boring bits and so edit down the discussion, but I've included an explainer commentary, so you can follow more clearly what it is that's happening. But if you want to hear the full discussion, you can do that via the Council website.
However, I should say that the Council website from which this audio comes is only available for six months, so the Planet Reigate podcast is the only place after that time that you will be able to hear this audio. And also, no other local media is covering this story as we are here at the Planet Reigate podcast. You will not hear much or indeed any of this audio anywhere else.
But we are committed to following this story and we are committed to this area, the Planet Reigate podcast. Now, you'll hear from elected councillors as well as a few council members of staff The meeting is chaired by Council Leader Richard Biggs. Now, this is what he sounds like, so you'll be able to identify him during the rest of the meeting.
Item 5, the Harlequin Theatre.
And if you appreciate the not inconsiderable work that has gone into producing this special edition of the Planet Rygate podcast, you can show your appreciation via... buymeacoffee.com slash theplanetreigatepodcast. And there, especially if you log on on your phone, you'll be able to send me a small tip as a show of your appreciation, just a few pounds.
So again, buymeacoffee.com slash theplanetreigatepodcast. And thank you in advance for your appreciation and generosity. A reminder that the Planet Reigate podcast is independent and non-political.
This is the Planet Reigate podcast with Peter Stewart.
So, that having been said, let's move on to the debates and discussions about the Harlequin Theatre in Redhill. Now, we said earlier on that that £10 million is only earmarked to be spent on a refurbished or rebuilt Harlequin. Why isn't that an actual cast iron copper bottom promise?
It can't be put in the capital programme. until the actual amount is known and a lot more work's got to go on before that, which is why it's an allocation rather than that.
So Richard Biggs seems to be saying that more work needs to be done both on exactly how much of that building needs to be replaced or refurbished, the timescale over which that'll happen, and also who is going to pay for what. Then they'll have a sum... and then that potentially will be signed off. But they do have that £10 million budget.
Now, Richard Biggs also made another comment regarding a picture that has appeared in some documents of what a future building may look like.
Some may have seen a sketch in there of a potential layout to Unit 5, which is literally an artist's impression. I've been asked by Surrey County Council to highlight the fact that although the picture showed the word library on it, there is no intention of the library moving from where they're rebuilding it to this unit. So it was a little bit of artist's...
interpretation and a bit of license from the artist. So I just wanted to put that on record. The work continues from the conversation I had with the portfolio holder today. The work continues on the library site. So I just wanted to clarify that.
And if you're wondering what he's referring to when he says Unit 5, well, this is the potential location for a kind of semi-medium term pop-up theatre, an open space that could be used while the Harlequin is being rebuilt. Unit 5 is actually in The Rise. The Rise is the relatively new building, which is next to The Light in the middle of Red Hill.
And we'll hear more about Unit 5 a little bit later on. Now, over the course of the council meeting, obviously various councillors were speaking. This question was posed by Councillor Hannah Avery, who wondered why we still had to wait quite a while until that Unit 5 was opened.
Six months seems like a very long way away still from this point. So I was wondering if there was any possibility that we could have a look at shifting or possibly bringing forward that timeframe with a bit more information. Like I say, six months is still a very long time to be without even a temporary facility.
I'll go to Councillor Moses to answer that first.
Yeah, I fully do understand the frustration. Officers are working as fast as possible. It is really, really complex. You've got to look at the procurement side of things, the legislation, detailed planning.
As well as councillors speaking, sometimes you're also going to be hearing from council staff members, like Daniel Jones, who also contributed to the answer to that question. Daniel Jones is not a councillor. He's a paid member of staff from Rygate and Banstead Borough Council, and he's their property services manager.
We've been working with our selected partners, the architects and design teams and also set of cost consultants to develop the scheme to a good level. We're very fortunate in the fact that the architects have been on board with hitting each one of those deadlines accordingly and have provided sufficient information for us to bring forward.
We are bound by our contract procedure rules and our procurement frameworks that we go to. We'll be working very closely with the procurement team to make sure we hit the deadlines as quick as we can. We can't promise June, but we will try our best to bring those deadlines forward.
So if Unit 5 is going to be there up and running with about 200 seats in it while the Harlequin is being rebuilt and refurbished, what happens when the Harlequin reopens its doors in maybe five years' time? Here's Councillor Baker with that question.
When the rebuild of the Harlequin is complete, Do we intend to keep Unit 5 as an additional performance venue?
The answer came from Councillor Nadine Moses again.
I'm keen to continue with the operation even after the Harlequin gets rebuilt. There's no stopping it from carrying on. I think it would be fantastic if this is what happens, if this is what the public want. Yeah, hopefully it will be really successful. and attract our local residents to enjoy it.
So it does sound, doesn't it, that actually in five or six years' time when the Harlequin reopens its doors, we may actually have more space with the continuation of that area still in the rise. Council Leader Richard Biggs had more to say on this.
The level of interest we've had for the smaller space and the potential of it wiping its face as a facility means that there's every chance that we can continue it long after the Harlequin is reopened and we then end up with the potential of two performance spaces. which will cater for even more opportunities. So whether that's comedy or music or performance arts in one way, shape or form.
So I think it's really promising and I hope that we can do it. It's certainly, I think, the ambition of this council to do that.
I'm sure we're going to be hearing a bit more about the rise a little bit later on in our special report. But one other area that had been highlighted to have a temporary pop-up area was the site on Gloucester Road, which is currently a car park. Now, that was mentioned, but only very, very briefly in the council notes going forward ahead of this meeting.
And Councillor Michalowski wondered why that was.
The Gloucester Road proposal was put forward by the Harlequin Support Group was circulated prior to the ONS meeting earlier in the month, and yet in this paper there's very little detail on why it was discounted or was being discounted. I'd like to understand a little bit more why that is.
Councillor Nadine Moses again.
I do understand the strength of the Harlequin Support Group to see the temporary 500 seats of venue established on Gloucester Road car park. It's not possible for this to happen, firstly due to the contractual commitments from the council relating to maintaining the car park provisions across the town centre.
Additionally, the site is designed with a local plan, development management plan, allocated for residents and office and residents only.
So they are already bound by contracts and agreements. They've already got to keep that car park area as a car park area. So that's why the Gloucester Road car park cannot have a semi-temporary structure built on it at this stage.
Now, if you're wondering why it is that I'm cutting down an awful lot of the council meeting, it's because sometimes we come across phrases like this, and I'm taking all these out for you and explaining everything as simply and straightforwardly as I can.
Whilst the temporary performance space may not prevent this policy allocated from coming forward at some future date, it may take... make it less certain an additional complex in the delivery of performance space through the need of securing a non-policy compliant planning.
Yeah, nothing against Councillor Nadine Moses there, but that is council or corporate speak for you.
This is the Planet Reigate podcast with Peter Stewart.
OK, let's get a little bit more detail on that Gloucester Road agreement, just so we're fully across it. And here is Lucinda Mould. She's the director of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.
We have contractual obligations with other people within the town to maintain a volume of parking to support the night time activity which as people will be aware beyond the Harlequin was quite limited previously and we've worked hard to increase that night time activity. and some consistency around parking is part of that. In addition, it is a commercial asset for the council.
Income from our car park is an important component of what we do. As Council Moses has set out, it does have a local plan allocation. That isn't an insurmountable blocker, as we all know. Plan permissions can be considered on their merits. The policy context is one factor within that. However, it does add to that complexity of how we might consider bringing forward a site.
It's subject to that planning consideration. So, again, it's that element of risking a scheme and a project and the time taken that might be abortive and the costs associated with that.
So it's all of this range of factors which, with compared to some of the other schemes, which might, in particular Unit 5, which allow us that investment to have longevity should it prove financially secure and balanced, that feels like a preference.
OK, sorry for the drop out at the end of that. I was obviously monitoring this council meeting online and it just kind of dropped out, possibly to do with a connection or maybe the microphone in the council building. But let's unpick what Lucy Mould was saying there. There seems to be various reasons, doesn't there, about why you can't build on the Gloucester Road car park site even temporarily.
First of all, because they've got agreements with other local businesses. that it should be kept as a car park so they would have a problem unpicking all of that secondly if they did put a building on that even temporarily then where are the cars going to go for people who are attending events in that building because you've just built on the car park
would they be allowed to put a building on that car park site? Well, perhaps they could apply to the council for permission. Well, they are the council, so it's not insurmountable, but it would cause another particular problem. Plus, of course, the car park is bringing in revenue for the council, and if there's a building on it, people can't park there, people aren't paying for their tickets.
So therefore, the council is going to be losing money. Now, balance that up with that unit in the rise, which is already there, and they can move in almost immediately. It seems quite a straightforward decision to make. But of course, that was up to the councillors to vote on later on in the evening.
And then council leader Richard Biggs jumped in with more reasons about why the Gloucester Road site has been dismissed.
We have got a limited team as well, and so I really want them concentrating on getting the 200, which is already built, the 200 potential CETA there, and getting the Harlequin back on its feet as quickly as possible. And there's every chance that if we're focused, that five years, which I always said was worst case scenario, could be four years or three years.
But let's concentrate on the things that we can do quickly and efficiently and not be distracted by something else that, as we've already said, the actual site that was looked at and potential actually doesn't work for a number of reasons.
Okay, let's go back to Councillor Michalowski with another question.
It's good to see there's a £30,000 proposal for a fund as a grant-giving fund for use of the Harlequin. Is that a one-off fund? Because I struggle to understand whether it is an annual allocation we're looking to. And also perhaps if officers could tell us what has already happened in terms of helping existing users.
I would think as it's financed, that would be Councillor Lewinsky that would answer that one.
The fund will initially be a pilot. We'll see whether there's any positive impact from that fund. If so, we are aiming to extend it for about three to five years regarding the £30,000. Once again, it will be subject to the Council's annual budget every year. In terms of your second question, the leader has personally approached groups to try and find different facilities.
I think it's different schools, Regent Hall, Hall E, Community Centre, etc., ahead of the Unit 5 coming online.
The next question came from Councillor James King.
The figure of £10 million that we're looking to allocate here is obviously not an exact cost at this stage. I'd like to understand if we've got a... suitable contingency buffer in that figure.
So that's the £10 million that has been, inverted commas, earmarked to spend on the Harlequin building. Councillor Lewanski responded.
There is no contingency set as yet, but within the £10 million allocation, there is a degree of flexibility built within that. But until we get the final project cost, we don't really know what that contingency level is going to be.
You're listening to the Planet Rygate podcast and a special report on the future of the Harlequin building. Councillor Michalowski also then went on to ask about staffing costs. Now, as we know already, some staff at the Harlequin were maybe understandably let go several months after the building closed. So why is there an increased budget for staff?
The service budget for the Harlequin of £360,000, I'm keen to understand whether that might include the arts development role that's also discussed or has been discussed?
Our intention is that the expanded arts development offer will be funded from the £360,000 budget that's already been allocated. So I think the indicative cost of this will be between about £30,000 to £70,000 depending on whether the potential additional role is full or part-time.
So more money for more staffing to help promote arts and culture across the borough of Reigate and Banstead over the course of the Harlequin refurb and rebuild. Now, not all of the questions, or indeed all of the answers, are included in this special edition of the Planet Reigate podcast. If you'd like to hear the whole of the debate, you can do so via the council website.
But there was another question that was asked, and it's similar to a question that was asked previously at the meeting, the public meeting, which was held at Carrington School several weeks ago. And that was run by the Reigate and Redhill Society. And it was... whether the council have considered trying to get some funding for the rebuild and refurb of the Harlequin from other sources.
For example, as Councillor Tarry asked, maybe from the National Lottery. Have you tried that? Councillor Lowansky again.
We are considering all alternative funding routes for this. We are looking, for example, from the Arts Council. We're trying to find out whether we can receive any funding from them. We've also recently engaged with Theatres Trust, also with regards to additional funding.
OK, let's move on to a slightly different subject here, but it's all concerned with the Harlequin and redevelopment, and also specifically not only with Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, but all of the councils across Surrey. Now, did you know, we've mentioned it on the Planet Reigate podcast before,
that there is a big reorganisation of local councils which is being floated at the moment by central government. That could mean that Surrey County Council manages many more responsibilities across a local level. That could mean that Reigate and Banstead Borough Council is broken up. It may mean that it joins together with maybe Tandridge and Epsom and Ewell, or maybe Mole Valley Council.
And money is then given to, and decisions taken by, Surrey County Council. So, Reigate and Banstead Council leader Richard Biggs says it's important to put into place things now that will continue into the future. because otherwise if decisions aren't made locally soon, they may not be able to be made by another authority which is looking county-wide rather than borough-wide.
We've just started on local government reform, and we don't know in three years' time what the priorities will be of a potential unitary authority. So our job as a council at the moment is to try and secure as much of the non-statutory services that we provide, as Rygate and Vance did, for long into the future.
Absolutely, as a council we would support, but long term we must make sure that it's there as long as it can be, and that means making it as self-sufficient as possible, which then takes away any potential risk. So that's where my ambition is, it certainly won't be guaranteed, three, four, five years time, we need to make sure that it's not coming up on the radar of any future unitary authority.
So they're talking about both the Harlequin and the potential ongoing use of the RISE. And, of course, the whole situation comes down at the end of the day to rack that dodgy, crumbly concrete that's been found across most of the panels in the roof space of the Harlequin.
And that is different from the library where rack was also found because, of course, inevitably, their span of ceiling or roof is not as extensive as that in the Harlequin. And rack is what Councillor Stephen McKenna wanted to talk about in his next question at the meeting.
The distinction between repairing the Harley Quinn and or removing all of the rack, because if we remove it, my question would be, does that afford us an opportunity to do it quicker, to lift the roof potentially so we've got a more lightweight structure so we can actually get more seating in,
have a higher fly tower, for instance, and make a genuinely bigger, more attractive theatre in the future. I don't know what the distinction might be in terms of costings, but if the differential is not too great between repairing and replacing, then it might well be that other members would like to see, I'm sure, comparisons that look at replacing as well.
It's a similar question that you often ask at home, isn't it? Do you make good? While you're doing that, do you spend a little bit more and actually improve on what you had in the first place? Council Leader Richard Biggs on this.
It's a rebuilding process that we've got to go through. My personal view is, yeah, if we can make it bigger, better, stronger and still keep the timelines that we're aiming for and costs that we're aiming for, then obviously that probably adds some advantage to the flexibility of the space and therefore the potential of income generation as well.
But I think it would probably be better if I asked Dan Jones to give a more detailed answer to that.
You'll remember that Dan Jones is the property services manager for Rygate and Banstead Borough Council. Before we hear from him, there's another comment that is useful to know about from Richard Biggs, and it's how the council meeting is broken into two parts.
I would ask all visiting members just to be conscious that some questions could be regarded as part two exempt. So I would ask you very carefully to consider your question before you ask it.
So what Richard Biggs means by that is that the council meeting was in two parts. This is not unusual. Part one is what we are hearing and is what has been published online. and is what people in the building were able to hear as well, at least public members in the building, part one.
Part two is when the website is closed down, members of the public are asked to leave the council chamber, and only the councillors hear and discuss what is being said. What's the reason behind that? Well, the reason is that That part, too, includes sensitive information about costs and contracts which aren't in the public domain.
And the reason behind that is that if those costs and contracts were heard by other people, it may put some businesses at an advantage and some local businesses or national businesses at a disadvantage. OK, now let's hear from Dan, Dan Jones.
We're in in-depth discussions about that. We've come a long way down the line. We're looking at the costs associated with each proposal and we'll be outlining that in the near future about our recommendation for a way forward. And certainly there has to be a forward look on longevity of the building.
We know that the rack is 40 years old, so we've taken every consideration to hopefully inform a full response later today.
Okay, now let's hear from Lucy Mould. We've heard from her already. Remember, she's the Director of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. So, repair, rebuild or improve?
We are still considering our options, as you rightly described, Leader. A fundamental part of this will be, for us, what we can gain public liability insurance for. Because whilst there might be technical points that might allow us to remediate the racket, whether or not we want to retain racking our assets for its longevity... but also in terms of it being a space to welcome the public into.
So that's sort of most in our considerations at this time.
Lucy Mould joining remotely herself, so there was obviously a bit of a problem with that connection and with her microphone from home.
This is the Planet Rygate podcast with Peter Stewart.
Councillor Sam Walsh asked about what happens about that timeline, specifically over the next six months or so. Daniel Jones again.
We have a designated project manager that coordinates a group of officers from the council that have been working in the background to obtain what we feel we know should be a brief and that needs to be developed further. We're working on that at the moment. In terms of a Gantt chart or a programme, we absolutely have a draft programme together.
We can't produce that in full at the moment until we have some further information. In terms of reporting, I think that Gantt chart will be available in the future, so we can see the timelines, but that is very much in its first phase at the moment. We need, obviously, the decisions to be taken on our next steps, and then we'll produce forward from there.
Now, what they're talking about is a Gantt chart, which is G-A-N-T-T. I hadn't actually heard of this before, but essentially it's a way to visualise projects and workflows and timelines and put it all together and so on. So what Daniel Jones seems to be saying there is they've done as much as they can with the timeline.
However, they need the council to take a decision about what's going to happen and how much rebuilding needs to be done. before they can go further on that workflow situation. Now, as is inevitable in a meeting, in a debate, in this kind of situation, the topic kind of dodges around and sometimes comes back full circle and sometimes topics are repeated and so on.
And that is the case with this next question. Councillor Neha Baghani asked it. Not a criticism of the councillor, but obviously something has just occurred to her and she wanted to ask it. It's about the cost of Unit 5 in the rise. Has that been detailed anywhere?
We discussed looking at the Unit 5 rise as a temporary venue, music venue. So I just want to know, what is the ballpark cost figure for this?
I think it depends on the layout that is approved, which we can't do until this meeting has agreed whether that's the right way forward. Is that correct?
That's correct. We've got an indicative layout which has been produced. It's subject to, is there a reconfiguration of the layout that we could change? Do we want to go to the full scope of work required? The cost of which we haven't produced yet, but we are working very closely with the architects to look at those costs.
But as we work up that model over the coming weeks, we'll be able to produce a detailed cost plan for the delivery of Unit 5.
Council Rod Ashford asked whether someone's actually gone into the old Harlequin building to take out anything that they can, which could be reused in Unit 5 of the rise, and so it doesn't have to be bought again.
Have we looked at the potential for what we can actually salvage out of a building that was perfectly feasible when we locked the doors and move across the road into the building? There must be lighting, seating, all sorts of stuff that's actually fairly new, certainly the wall of cinemas. was only refurbished a few years ago. So I'm thinking on terms of timescale rather than actual budget.
I know some of the equipment has already gone out and is being used in different areas across the borough, and I would hope that we would be very wise and very prudent in using that equipment in any temporary space that we did, providing it's safe to remove it from the building.
We don't want to buy new if we're going to throw away perfectly good stuff that's already sitting either in the weller or in the main theatre, for example, or the foyer or anything else.
Dwayne Kirkland is the head of Green Spaces Leisure and Culture and he chipped in with his response to this as well.
A significant chunk of the hardware and technical equipment is already out of the building. One of the things that my team and I did in the very early stages was remove as much of the non-fixed equipment as we possibly could. That's allowed us to ensure that we've been able to continue to use that equipment and support some activities around the borough.
There is an enormous amount of fixed equipment in the venue and we will have to balance the safety of officers going in to remove that along with our sustainability responsibilities because clearly we don't want to buy what we already own and it's going to be really important that we continue to reuse the elements of our technical and non-technical equipment where we can.
It is absolutely in hand and once decisions are taken about the direction that we're going in we can really start to look at what we will need to salvage compared against what we already have out of the building that will be used.
Well, up till now, many of the councillors, when they've spoken, have been seeking information. That's not such the case with Councillor Andrew Proudfoot, who had a lengthy comment and a whole series of questions to ask the council leader.
How can we explain to our residents, after a delay of over a year and then three surveys delivered in November and December... why it will take another five months for further reports before we agree to proceed. Assuming this work is done by experienced professionals, how can that report possibly take 800 working hours to prepare?
Does this report unequivocally commit the executive to reopen the Harlequin? No. Has the executive, in their lack of urgency, appreciated and quantified the damage to wellbeing and to the local economy created by every month of delay? No. The uncertainties of the impending local government reorganisation present us with another risk.
Is the executive taking action now to avoid reorganisation reducing the chances of success? No. Secondly, the seven-year gap in provision of a local theatre from when the theatre was closed in September 2023 is a devastating blow to our residents. Taking the example of our young people, seven years represents an entire educational generation.
It is incumbent on us all to provide our residents with a temporary facility that maintains the best possible provision at closure. We need to move quickly at pace. The report recommends an option which can only address the needs of around a quarter of users.
We understand that a 400-plus capacity alternative has the potential to cover the majority of users and generate around two-thirds of the previous income. The incomplete and unquantified analysis in the report fails to provide any cost-benefit comparison of different interim options. A big theatre requires an equally big temporary venue.
We therefore call on the Executive as a matter of urgency to make an unequivocal commitment to reopen the Harlequin. To insist that further reports are produced in weeks, not months. To provide a temporary theatre that meets the needs of the majority of users and rebuilds an audience before the refurbished Harlequin reopens.
Finally, to set a summer deadline for completion of a 400-capacity temporary theatre so that a full programme, including a pantomime, can begin before year's end.
Council Leader Richard Biggs responded.
I think we've addressed an awful lot of what you've brought up already this evening. We've also addressed the fact of the temporary theatre and let's be honest, we've mentioned two or three times in the past about the cost of the temporary theatre and the plans that I've seen had about £2.8 million to put it up, £400,000 to run it each year and no guarantee of...
input on that and no cost for taking it down and restoring wherever it was put afterwards. So there was a lot of elements within that that I think would have taken our eye off the ball and I'm not sure how many times we have to say we are going to rebuild the Harlequin before someone says, oh, you actually said you're going to rebuild the Harlequin.
I feel that I've been saying it constantly for months and months and months, and it appears to have fallen on deaf ears because people are still telling me we're not committing to it. We have process. I have to say on the report, the report I know that Dan Jones will work extremely hard and quickly with the team that he's already put in place to provide that report.
It then has to go through the procurement process. And the procurement process for a local government, just in case you're not aware, takes a minimum of 12 weeks. So that's three months. So we can't do much about that figure because that's set as a process that local government has to go through. So by the time you take that out, we're actually only giving Dan and his team...
about six or eight weeks, about 240 hours, to produce a very complicated brief, ready for getting the right people in to rebuild the Harlequin, which we've said we want to do.
Did I notice a very slight hint of polite frustration there from the council leader? He also asked Dan Jones, property services manager, if there was anything he wanted to add.
We're entering into what is potentially a £10 million project. It's enormous. It needs to be run properly. It needs to be run professionally. We're accountable for the whole process of managing a project and we want to deliver it in the right way for the future.
With that comes obviously the due diligence that goes behind and making sure we get the building right and fit for purpose for the future. and appointing the design teams associated with that project to deliver it can be time-consuming as well, but we'll be working really hard subject to this meeting, and tomorrow we'll be working hard to make sure we try and hit those deadlines.
Someone else that wanted to speak was Councillor Jonathan Essex.
Peter, just like you've said, you've been saying for many months since the start of December that you're committed to the money for a new fish. I think that's welcome. We still haven't heard when...
apart from sort of three to five years, but more importantly, I think others have said to you that also many times, and maybe equally, the hearing doesn't seem to go in the other direction, that a full-size theatre, and it's the only one of that size in the whole of Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge, needs an equivalent temporary space.
The music performance venue, which is highlighted in the papers, with no racked seating, sorry, that's probably the wrong phrase to use, isn't it? Raked seating is probably not the ideal space for a theatre. It looks like it's trying to put a theatre in a non-theatre space. And clearly what your survey of all existing buildings has shown is that the Harlequin is unique in the local area.
And unless there's a temporary theatre venue, then something like three quarters of the audience and three quarters of the money And therefore, the most significant local performance arts community will be going elsewhere for the foreseeable future, serving other audiences in other places and potentially denuding themselves of where they're at. So I guess three different things I would be asking.
Firstly, in terms of the cost commitment, I think it's clearly tied to time. Because if we pass the date when This becomes a shadow authority and the unit your authority is in the making across Surrey.
You'll remember I mentioned this a short while ago.
And we don't have a significant sized temporary theatre venue rather than fairly small music performance space in existence. And we haven't let the contract and started repairing the Harlequin. I fear that without that, time scale, we risk a new set of councillors covering a different geography with respect to you, Richard, leader, sorry, with respect to what your commitment now.
We want that commitment to be honoured by others too. So I think we really need to expedite this process at pace in a way that it hasn't been going for the last 16 months. And if we need to have a special council meeting to approve it on April the 17th or whatever, because that's when it's ready. Why don't we just bring it forward as soon as we can?
And if we can share the terms of reference cross-party to get things agreed informally, rather than wait to the last minute. Now, we want to move quickly on this. My concern is, if you wait till June, then we're not going to get a temporary theatre up and running until sometime after we've agreed that we want one.
So why not separate the timing for the temporary venue from the timing of the permanent venue? Have a separate team working on the the permanent reconstruction to the temporary venue and have that temporary venue built around the arts and getting it back to go.
In terms of the temporary venue locations, I think you've dismissed Gloucester Road car park, but I haven't seen any other proposals or any really element of the report that discusses alternative locations for a full-sized temporary venue. And I was here in 2014 when the temporary use of the whole car park for Sainsbury's during their long build program was considered.
It was supported by significant car park capacity analysis. Well if we could do that then, and we moved mountains for Sainsbury's, why can't we move the same kind of mountains for our theater goers?
A lengthy series of comments and questions from Councillor Jonathan Essex there.
Maybe I should stop there and let you come back.
Which he seemed to understand.
I do feel, Councillor Essex, you probably answered your same question there. Apart from throw loads of resources and get a second team, all the time we're actually focusing on sorting out... a temporary venue, we're not concentrating on getting the harlequin back.
And with the threat of local government reorganisation coming up in two or three years time, the last thing I want to do is spend money and time doing a temporary venue and we get to the point where the minister has locked the safe and we can't deliver the theatre that I've promised.
I think that's probably the quote of the whole meeting, to be honest. And if you've got a podcast player that you're listening to this on, which can skip back, go back about 30, 40 seconds and hear council leader Richard Biggs explain the situation again, which I think he made it really, really clear.
And I want to keep to my promises. I try to keep to them all the time. And therefore, I think our focus must be... particularly as as you said we don't know under a shadow authority and everything else what potentially can happen so we need to make sure that we've done everything possible to keep our eye on the goal really which is to reopen the Harlequin Theatre.
That's what we said right at the beginning we would aim to do and that's what I want to do. But I'm certainly happy to sit down and talk the options through but I genuinely do not want our team directed the wrong way when we have a goal. We need to meet that goal and everybody I've spoken to right from the early days of closing it has been quite clear
that their aim, what they want us to do, is reopen the Harlequin. So now, I've said we'll reopen the Harlequin, and we've put 10 million pounds in, they've now said, oh, now we want a three million pound temporary venue. You know, the focus has always been on getting the Harlequin reopened. That's where I've asked the officers to concentrate.
We have got the potential of doing a temporary option that could well become an additional performance space for the borough going forward. So I think there's a lot of positives in this and I really feel that this is constant on the temporary. We are looking at other options. We've already We've found another option for a 300 seat performance space that groups have been invited to.
Unfortunately, they haven't been able to make the visits that we've put on so far, but we'll continue to do that, and we will continue to investigate other options, but investing Two, three, four million pounds over two, three, four years when our actual aim is to deliver the Harlequin again seems to me to be taking our eye off the ball somewhat and I don't want to do that.
So I have been listening but I also listened to what people were telling me at the public consultation and well before. They want their Harlequin back. So that's what we will be concentrating on doing.
This is the Planet Reigate podcast with Peter Stewart.
Well, we have in the past, during the course of this extra special podcast from the Planet Reigate podcast, been addressing the questions of what happens in the future, the ongoing timeline. Councillor Victoria Chester was concerned about the past timeline, what's already happened and what happened and when it happened.
Can you just clarify when the first ideas about a temporary venue were scoped out and agreed and when... that initial design work was commissioned. I still don't understand why we're having to wait until June for the next set of costs and design specifications for that. As we had the initial designs back in July 2024, why has that cost in work, why was that not started back in the summer?
Why is it only being looked at now?
We hadn't had all the surveys done in the summer of 24. They weren't done until September, October 24. But I think the other two questions, and I think we've touched on it about procurement procedures, but I will ask Dan if he could just come in and clarify it.
We were looking at schemes, previously temporary venues, what the best options were, the team of officers working around
around the borough to look at what would be the best fit obviously we're trying to get specifications and input from from the public to utilize those spaces as well so we could meet those needs in the background we were working for the area in unit five towards the end of the summer and beyond and that scheme was developed shortly after that period
And as you know, it was one of the options that was thrown into a number of options for consideration. For Unit 5 option, we'll, obviously subject to any approvals at this meeting, we'll be working up the detailed design. We'll be looking for, obviously, to bring that forward for a full brief and go through the procurement exercise for contractors and delivery.
We need to just check with the in-house officers about the reporting lines for when we bring forward the approvals for the spend. and we'll be looking potentially for a contract completion in the early part of next year.
Another series of questions from Councillor Jonathan Essex now.
You've made a commitment that there's money available for the refurbishment of the Harlequin. Can you commit that we will sign the deal before we enter it into a shadow unitary so that there is no risk that the commitment made here today will unravel in the future? and then on the temporary venue.
And this is where things start to get a little bit complicated. Jonathan Essex, as other councillors have suggested during the course of the meeting as well, was very concerned about when different options were actually published and made available for discussion previously. Here's the thrust of his argument.
I understood. Until January 9th, which was a little while after we discussed this in August last year, Most of us in the room that aren't on the executive might have thought that all the alternatives which were being considered were alternative theatre options for the Harlequin, such that it would be an alternative option leading to the new theatre.
And we discovered at the overview and scrutiny that
actually a full size temporary option wasn't even on the long list so it's only really been considered in the last couple of weeks it's not in the long it wasn't in the long list on january the 9th it might be might have slipped in now in the last couple of weeks but it wasn't in the long list previously it said it was discounted and didn't make the long list and it's not clear that we've had any proper analysis of alternative parking potential in red hill
It definitely was on the long list, Jonathan, sorry. It was on the long list, I'm sure.
I'll have to look very carefully at ONS papers. It wasn't clear that it was there when we discussed it at ONS. Maybe it's there now, which is great. It's been added on the last couple of weeks.
No, no, no, no. The long list was produced.
Things were checked and there was a reassurance that it had been included and it had been discussed and considered, although no specific size of an alternative venue had been mentioned in that previous paperwork. So money has been put aside. Money has been earmarked. Why is that not a specific promise? We've touched on this before, but Councillor Biggs wanted to mention it again.
You asked us to commit. Always committing to me sounds like a promise. And the only thing I can say is we will do our absolute best. The LGR decision on whether Surrey are in the first phase, which will be rushed through, or the second phase.
Councillor Biggs there talking about the local government reform and whether Reigate and Banstead is going to be included in the first wave of changes or whether those changes will happen later on in the year. And of course that is important.
Because, of course, that timeline, which we've already mentioned previously earlier on in this podcast, about how soon they have to ensure that that money is earmarked, put aside or indeed promised for the rebuild, refurb of the Harlequin. Or there may be a danger that it's taken away. Will be made on Monday. That's Monday, the 3rd of February, 2025.
So perhaps on Tuesday I can come back to you and tell you the likelihood of doing that. But we will do our absolute best. That's all I can say at the moment to make sure everything's signed up and running before any sign of a shadow authority because we want to get it open.
Councillor Essex then coming back and standing his ground and trying to make it clear that as far as he was concerned, information which he'd been told had been published to councillors before, had not.
For clarity that I'm not intending to mislead or confuse, the appendix to January the 19th talked about an arts festival, a theatre bus, a 100-seat venue, a 150-seat venue, a 200-seat venue. a temporary performance space in the summer, a temporary performance space only at Christmas, and then use of existing spaces in schools and colleges. That was the long list.
There was no temporary theatre option there. And wherever numbers of audience were mentioned, it says 100, 150, and 200. If there was an intention in the long list to have a higher number, then surely it would have been included the longest. It might have slipped into the more recent one, but in terms of what's been in the public domain and open to scrutiny by councillors, there was no £400
500-seater option considered at ONS. Otherwise, surely it would have been in the ONS papers.
We said a performance space at Christmas. I think we did a big top the year before that was, I can't remember the total number. So if we were talking about a temporary performance space for the winter, that would have been around those numbers.
It says Christmas only and summer only, not a temporary performance space.
We are rather getting into the long grass here, but it was obviously important to Councillor Essex and Councillor Nick Harrison try to help.
If I can just read from our minutes of Moaness, and this is in relation to an advance question rather than in the papers, but I'll read it. Following on from advance question 16, a member asked whether a temporary performance space with up to 500 seats was being ruled out. The leader stated that the likelihood was that no temporary venue of that size would be available in the borough.
I mean, that's the minutes.
Thank you very much, Councillor Harrison. So I take on board what you're saying, that the number wasn't in there, but the performance space that we'd already done before for the Panto was an option and was considered.
And it was immediately confirmed that the number of seats for the Big Top in Memorial Park was 500.
I appreciate and take on board the fact that the figure wasn't actually in there, but we would have assumed that.
because of the previous one that we'd already invested in sorry with respect i wasn't talking about the figure i was talking about the time the only temporary spaces in that long list are for christmas panto and for the summer there isn't a temporary full-size theater option considered in the long list and i don't think i need to do fact shaming in a council chamber because honesty is one of the seven principles of public life i'm just saying look at that time you did not consider a temporary
That would mean having a temporary venue so that all the year-round programs of the Harlequin can be used on a temporary basis, not just when it comes back. A Christmas only and a summer only as two separate options in a list of a long list is not a full-size temporary venue. That's what it says.
All we know is that in January the 9th, there wasn't a temporary option considered in all the work that happened from July 1st through to January. The fact that it started to be considered in the last couple of weeks, and you recognise that's been considered as an option now, great. But what I'm saying is it hasn't been given the same amount of focus as the other options.
And in the same way as you've said, you've repeated 10 million lots of times. You may have heard, since we've been allowed to start scrutinising this in January, although we requested it back in August, that phrase temporary theatre venue mentioned because actually it's quite important to people and that's why we've mentioned it here tonight.
Councillor Essex I apologise when you listed 150, 200, 250 I thought your focus was on the numbers. I didn't realise your focus was actually on the all year round so I apologise for my interpretation of your comment. With respect it's both.
That's what we mean a temporary theatre venue to replace what the Harlequin is now. I mean, it's not difficult, what I'm trying to suggest. Look, if you want to retain the theatre programme year round and build up to it, build back better was a phrase in COVID. You know, you build back up to what you've got before. You need it all year round.
I appreciate what you're saying. I think, you know, we need to move this on. We have a lot to do tonight. We've already said that I'm happy to talk to people about the temporary, but at this stage and at this meeting, that is not an option on the table. So I think, you know, it's been mentioned many, many times, we've put in lots of other options within this paper to try and...
help as many of the groups as possible and as I've said and repeated I really want to concentrate on getting the main theatre done and I do not want anybody distracted from that.
So I think I'd really like to move on from that because it's not on the option, it's not on these papers, it's not a recommendation and I think I've given visiting members quite a lot of latitude tonight because obviously of the importance And the fact that we have public guests here as well, I think I have given it quite a lot of latitude.
But I really think we need to move on because we're not going anywhere. We're going around in circles. So can I please move on now to part two?
And you'll remember part two is where the councillors, excluding the public, whether in person or online, discuss confidential business decisions.
It's now recommended that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business under section 100A, open brackets, four closed brackets, of the Local Government Act, 1972, on the grounds that one, it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph three of part one of schedule 12A of the Act, and two, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
At which point the feed online was turned off and the public were asked to leave the chamber while those other issues were discussed. And that period happened over the course of an hour. And then the vote came. So what the councillors are voting on is what you've heard and what you haven't heard.
So obviously I've had a cut down of the part one discussion and questions and debate that was going on. But what neither you nor I are privy to is what happened in part two, because that was what happened in camera, in secret, in private, in the council chamber with no access to the press or indeed the public. So the councillor's voting on a number of issues. There are eight in total.
You probably know the result by now. But let's hear that vote take place. And the result is just another couple of minutes on this special edition of the Planet Reigate podcast.
We're now back in part one, which is public. Because there's eight recommendations, I'm going to do them one at a time, just so that the executive are comfortable. So to the executive, recommendation number one.
And you can see a copy of all these recommendations, all these questions they're being asked to vote on. On the council website, and there's a link to the exact page you need to be looking at in our notes associated with this podcast. So if you scroll down to the podcast notes, you'll be able to see that link.
Click on it and you'll be taken through to what it is that has been discussed over the course of the last hour and what those councillors are voting on right now.
is support previous community hirers with alternative rehearsal performance space solutions where appropriate through small enabling grants subject to annual budget approval. Do we agree? Agree? Thank you very much.
Number two, to support the expansion of the council's existing arts development offer, supporting arts development opportunities in Redhill and Boroughwide subject to annual budget approval. Is that agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Agreed to maintain the Harlequin Services net revenue budget for 2526 at £360,000. Is that agreed? Thank you.
Agreed to allocate up to £10 million for the Harlequin Theatre and cultural offering in the borough. Is that agreed? Thank you. Agreed to receive a further report on the future of the Harlequin in the Warwick quadrant in June 2025 with the report seeking budgetary approval
and authority to appoint a client design team to work up costed implementation plans and delegating discussions with the head leaseholder of the Warwick quadrant in order to agree costs and responsibilities and timeline to the director, property services manager, legal services manager and chief finance officer in consultation with the leader of the council and the portfolio holder for finance and assets.
Is that agreed? Agree to receive a further report in June 2025 on the detailed costed feasibility and potential operator analysis for around 200-seater Redhill performance venue, which could cater for commercial and community hires, including capital and revenue budgetary recommendations. Is that agreed? Agreed, thank you.
To delegate decisions regarding the operational implications to the Strategic Head of Communities and Wellbeing and Head of Green Spaces, Leisure and Culture in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Leader of the Council, the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Sustainability and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets. Is that agreed?
And finally, number eight, that we note the motion that was deferred by executive at their meeting on the 15th of August, 2024, and conclude that where possible, the principles of the motion are being addressed in the recommendations set out in this report. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. Thank you. And thanks to visiting members for their input on that item.
It was important that we discussed it in depth. I move on to Item 6, Council Tax 2526, where Councillor Lewanski will be supported.
And so that is where we leave our very special report into what happened at the council meeting regarding the latest act in the future of the Harlequin Theatre in Redhill. What we've done there is cut down about an hour and a half of debates and questions and conjecture and clarification which went on.
at the Town Hall and their Executive Committee meeting, and also hopefully explained as we went through what it was that was being talked about at the time. Now, the Planet Reigate podcast is unique in our coverage of the ongoing saga and drama of the Harlequin Theatre in Redhill. No other local or national media have covered the different acts of the story as much as we have, whether it be...
Radio or TV or print or online? In episode 48 of the Planet Rygate podcast, you heard a breakdown of the reasons for the Harlequin closure in a kind of straightforward Q&A style. In episode 49, audio highlights of a council meeting decision on what was going to happen next at the time of recording. In episode 53, reaction from the Harlequin support group's Ali Bond.
In episode 57, we had the reaction of people leaving the first arts and culture consultation event run by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, which focused on the Harlequin. And in a special additional episode, which we called episode 64B, you heard part of the council meeting from November 2024, in which the public and councillors questioned the council leader about the Harlequin.
And in episode 64C, you can hear the questions posed to Council Leader Richard Biggs at a public event run by the Reigate and Red Hill Society on December 4th, 2024. I'm Peter Stewart. Thank you very much indeed for listening to this very special edition of the Planet Reigate podcast.
You can hear our regular, free, weekly editions of the podcast featuring events and guests across what we call the Planet Reigate area... of Reigate, Redhill and Merstham, Buckland, Betchworth and Brockham. We go down to Hawley and Hookwood and Charlwood. You can listen each week for free on your podcast player of choice. We're also available on Spotify and Smart Speaker.
Just ask for The Planet Reigate Podcast. And also you can hear our editions via theplanetreigatepodcast.com. Also, if you follow us on Facebook, you will get several messages during the course of the week. prompting you to listen to specific parts of the podcast that you may be interested in.
So you can follow us on Facebook, The Planet Rygate Podcast, and also log on to our page on the website, theplanetrygatepodcast.com. The Planet Reigate podcast is produced and presented by me, Peter Stewart. It's free and done in my own time. You don't have to pay for this and I don't get paid to do it. It's a service because we love living around here.
I hope you'll become regular listeners to our regular show. Once again, the Planet Reigate podcast.
This is the Planet Reigate podcast with Peter Stewart. Support us at buymeacoffee.com slash the Planet Reigate podcast.