 |
 |
|
|
____________________________________________________________________________________________ |
||
|
Westminster Theatre - Charlotte Chapel, Palace Street, London
|
||
|
Above - The Charlotte Chapel, built in 1776, on the site of the Westminster Theatre.
It was re-fronted and altered to be used as a cinema in 1924. In 1931 it was radically altered and converted to a theatre. The theatre was again remodelled in 1966 and 1972. The theatre was destroyed by fire on 27th June 2002. (Shown Right) All but the dressing rooms was destroyed.
|
||
|
Above - Westminster Theatre auditorium before the
fire
Following the fire at the Westminster Theatre in June 2002, the theatre is now being demolished. Below is a history of the long fight to save it. |
||
|
Bid to save theatre from demolition
Michael Armstrong will meet the theatre's owner, Yolanda Ltd, next week to discuss his plan to buy the 586-seat venue, which also boasts a 100-seat studio space, and transform it into a permanent repertory theatre for the capital.
Although the proposal to replace the theatre would include a theatre space, the plan has attracted criticism from some of Theatreland's aristocracy, including Sir Donald Sinden and Corin Redgrave, who both wrote letters of protest to Westminster council. Mr Armstrong, whose company Armstrong Arts is performing Strindberg's Miss Julie at the theatre, explained his ambitions for the venue. "We want to form a repertory theatre in the true sense of the word. "The old type of rep was a working group who did all the plays and technical work themselves. The younger members would learn the theatrical skills from the older ones."
The proposed development will be considered for the second time by Westminster council later this month. Associated Newspapers Ltd., 17 August 2001 Left - What's left of the entrance to the Theatre Save the Westminster An act of theatrical vandalism has been arranged. Unelected arts bureaucrats, businessmen, indifferent Westminster councillors and a Theatres Trust that disgracefully refuses to protect enough theatres bear the responsibility. The Westminster, a fine, forgotten playhouse near Buckingham Palace that boasts an important theatrical history, a beautiful red-and-gold art deco interior with an elegant dome, excellent sightlines, ideal dressingroom facilities and a stage in easy relationship with the auditorium, is set to be razed to the ground. Since the theatre, for unexplained reasons, has been refused the protection of a listed building, nothing can be done to save it.
I know the Westminster well. I think its obliteration is financially wasteful, unnecessary and destructive. There are few playhouses of its size in London (560 seats and 100 in the studio). It's ideal for new plays. There are not many medium-sized theatres in the West End suitable for straight plays. But the Westminster is. It would have immense value for London theatre audiences and our leading companies if restored.
The process by which the Westminster's demise has been planned turns out to be one by which a theatre can be refused listing status by unnamed civil servants making reports whose contents are never revealed to the public. In this instance a certificate of immunity from listing was first given to the Westminster in 1992 by the then Conservative government and again in 1997 when Labour returned to power. The certificate is a government waiver that gives potential developers of a building or site plenty of time to gain planning consent for their redevelopments. Why the decision to leave a potentially valuable and workable theatre to the mercies of business was made is a question to which no one seems to know the answer The planned destruction of the Westminster Theatre conflicts with Westminster Council's own recent policy statement that it will protect theatres in its purview. "Planning permission will not be granted for a change of use of buildings built, or previously used as theatres ... other than to a theatre use." Only in "very exceptional circumstances" would it agree to redevelopment. Why the Westminster should be so categorised has not been revealed.
The Westminster has an ugly facade and drifted off the theatrical map because it was bought up by the Moral Rearmament Organisation in the late 1940s to put on its ghastly propaganda plays. The organisation kept its hold on the place for two decades before finally selling it. It has a splendid history. Originally a chapel, converted to a cinema in 1924 and reopened as a theatre in 1931, it at once became a centre for exciting new plays, players and directors. Auden's controversial early verse plays, Dance of Death, The Dog Beneath the Skin, The Ascent of F6 and On the Frontier, were all premiered at the Westminster. Eugene O'Neill, when still regarded as fast and decadent, found a place here too: Anna Christie, Mourning Becomes Electra and Desire Under the Elms received their first or early London performances here.
At a time when so many excellent Government-funded theatre companies are in need of a regular London space for their best productions, what could be better than to refurbish the Westminster and allow it to fulfil such a popular function?
Michael Armstrong Armstrong, whose production of Miss Julie opens tomorrow, has expressed eagerness to buy up the theatre and restore it to the fashionable life it enjoyed in the past. No proposal for the Westminster could be better for theatre-goers in London.
From the September 1997 Issue of
Simultaneously reports were circulating that the Group was in discussions with developers who were considering demolishing the building to build a block of flats. At their meeting on 17 June our Trustees were very keen that the Westminster should not be lost in this way, especially as it has not been as unsuccessful a venue in the past as some reports have suggested. One of the problems is that there is actually more space in the complex than would be needed for a straight theatre and it could be difficult to divide the building into two separate, self-contained units on an economic basis. The Trust will continue to monitor the situation.
From the September 1999 Issue of IN THE NEWS, MAIN STORIES In the months following the sale of the Westminster Theatre by its owners, the Moral Rearmament Group the Trust has been in discussion with a number of interested parties, including agents for the developers and City of Westminster planning officers. Whilst we are not in principle opposed to the demolition of the existing venue, we are clear in our view that an adequate replacement theatre space must be provided within any housing or office redevelopment. However, recent plans submitted for approval by BBA Architects on behalf of developers, Yolanda Ltd were seen to be totally inadequate. Proposals were for the present 585-seat auditorium, with stage, front and back-of-house facilities, and get-in to be replaced by a single storey room reached by a narrow passageway, with very little ancillary space of any kind. In fact the space created could not be described as a theatre at all. The Trust has successfully urged Westminster City Council to refuse permission. From the June 2000 Issue of
The new owner’s initial plans were thought to be totally inadequate as far as the theatre provision was concerned and we voiced our concern to the planning department at the City of Westminster. It was our view that the best possible solution would be to find a potential resident theatre company who could then work with the developers and ensure thereby that there is a guaranteed end user for the theatre. During 1999, Talawa Theatre Company, who had for some time desired a permanent base within Westminster, were brought on board. The Trust has since been working with Talawa, and their architects and theatre consultants, and has also been involved in negotiations with the developers and their agents who are trying to obtain a planning consent. Revised plans have now been submitted which appear to meet Talawa’s brief and we are awaiting formal consultation from the planning department.
From the September 2000 Issue of
For years I have been of the school that believed that to demolish a theatre without replacing it was an act of barbarism on a par with book burning. It is as if we had to keep them at any cost. I believe this attitude must change. There are more theatres out there than we need. I am not thinking of obliterating functioning theatres but of allowing those sites that have ceased to be of use to die gracefully. For many years I was instrumental in finding product to fill a West End venue - the Westminster Theatre. Externally it is a fairly unlovable building at the back door of Buckingham Palace. Internally it is a comfortable 584-seater with a small stage, limited wing space and an electrics system that, when I last visited, would be the envy of an Atlanta capital punishment supporter. It was closed for over five years in the nineties but has recently enjoyed a little flutter of life with a temporary management, Show Cast. Its fate now lies in the hands of a developer now that the previous owners, The Oxford Group, have sold it. It is probably to be turned into flats with a passing nod to preserving its theatrical tradition by the inclusion of a 170-seater within the complex. When the theatre was open it was difficult to sell. Producers had to be persuaded that it was a viable house because it is off the beaten track, without an imposing frontage and, in terms of size the stage was too small and the seating capacity was not sufficient to enable it to be commercially viable. We did have our hits. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe did tremendous business but it was the exception not the rule. Close shaves or failures were the norm. Why therefore, was the theatre kept open? Because the owning company was Moral Re-armament (MRA) who wanted to use the venue to promote its particular line in spiritual evangelism. Now that MRA has left there is no reasonable argument to keep the place going. It has served its purpose and is no longer required as a theatre. Sentimental as I am I cannot really justify to myself any reason to keep a theatre just because there has been one on the site since 1929. It should also be mentioned that the Westminster was not a purpose built theatre but a conversion. The building was originally a chapel, a sorting office and cinema (albeit designed by J Stanley Beard). How many other theatre buildings are there that have reached the end of their lives and should be allowed to disappear? I would conjecture that there are hundreds. Think of all those bingo halls throughout the country that were once theatrical venues. When Bingo finally meets its demise what will happen to them? Will they be pickled and kept as exhibits in some vast building museum? I suspect not. There will be a local campaign to restore them, a degree of support from The Theatres Trust and a developer waiting in the wings for the campaign to come to naught. However, if the theatre is saved the considerations of running it are huge. There will have to be funding sought to buy the property, to maintain it and product found to play in it and new audiences developed. We have to face the fact that there is neither funding, product nor audience readily available any more. I would advocate that rather than the industry having a blanket sentimental keep-any-theatre-open-no-matter-what attitude we should really face up to the fact that some theatres will have to be allowed to disappear. Call me a vandal but I fear that unless a sensible attitude is taken the artistic community will be lumbered with a building stock it can neither sustain nor justify. If that is at the expense of product funding then our priorities will be wrong. People go to see shows, not buildings. Howard Bird is Executive Director of the Association of British Theatre Technicians. The views expressed here are personal and not necessarily those of the Association, or The Theatres Trust. A counterblast is likely to appear in our next issue. HOWARD BIRD
I was actively involved with others in creating The Theatres Trust, in obtaining the freehold of the Lyceum Theatre to finance them, and fought to prevent its demolition when others like Mr. Bird were still alleging that London had too many large theatres. I now wish to contest his opinion abut the Westminster Theatre and what I see to be the Trust's dishonouring its duty to better protect all theatres on behalf of the nation. Mr. Bird describes the Westminster as 'fairly unlovable'. That is his prerogative. Admittedly, the slate exterior donated by individual voluntary contributions from Welsh miners is severe. He acknowledges, however, that the interior is comfortable. The warmth of one of J. Stanley Beard's finest auditoria would undoubtedly have obtained at least Grade II listing had not immunity been granted without protest. Our Campaign was not informed so we could not object. If the Trust were not informed, as the Act of Parliament requires, then they should be joining us in challenging the immunity, rather than playing the leading role in support of property developer, Yolanda. Mr. Bird may believe that a 586-seat theatre such as the Westminster can no longer be viable. If so, then so must the Almeida, Ambassadors, Collegiate, Criterion, Duchess, Fortune, Greenwich, Hammersmith Lyric, Mayfair, Mermaid, The Place, The Royal Court, Shaw, St. Martin's, and Stratford Theatre Royal, all of which have a smaller audience capacity. At least he admits that the 176-seat proposed replacement at the Westminster to be no more than a passing nod. He goes on to suggest that the Westminster has a cramped stage and with less than state of the art electrics, but so are many of the theatres listed above. He knows, however, that the dressing rooms are the best in the West End outside the National or the Royal Opera House, each with its own toilet and shower. The Westminster is further described as being 'off the beaten track'. Leaving aside the Barbican, it is no more than many of the above. So was the New London until Cats put it on the map. The Westminster had its long runs with Black Chiffon, Dial M. for Murder, An Inspector Calls, and Mr. Bird admits his own tremendous business with The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Freed from the restrictions of his landlord and with more vigorous promotion, the house could again be as commercial as some of the above. There may be a case to be made, however, for the need for some kind of public funding to replace that once provided by Moral Rearmament. The most important factor about the Westminster Theatre, that nobody but the Campaign seems to refer to, is the substantial space in the floors above the fine J. Stanley Beard auditorium that was once the production base for Moral Rearmament. Again, nobody reveals that Talawa Theatre only want a 100 seat performance space at most; too small to be even the token replacement demanded by Westminster City Council. The truth is concealed that this can better be found in the floors above the existing Westminster Theatre auditorium. Furthermore, Talawa Theatre is a publicly funded body that could provide the subsidy rental once given by Moral Rearmament that once made the small difference between profit and loss on the whole building. A great opportunity could exist to interact with the main theatre, possibly letting it to music or theatre groups with similar ethnic objectives. Surely this must be better for Talawa than being uneasy neighbours with 38 luxury apartment. I have to ask, what are The Theatres Trust up to when they appear to me,and possibly the Campaign, to cover for a property developer in promoting the destruction of a distinguished and historic theatre to house a theatre company in a luxury apartment building, rather than placing them in the upper floors in the existing theatre. Despite all his incorrect allegations Mr. Bird does sum up the basic situation accurately. People do go to see shows more than buildings, but without the buildings there would be no shows. More shows within the same building make that theatre more viable. MICHAEL EARL, an actor, is the Vice-Chair and a founder member of the Save London's Theatres Campaign, and a Friend of The Theatres Trust.
Howard Bird’s Opinion piece ‘Too Many Beauties’ in our last issue led to a further piece by him in the Stage Newspaper. In this issue, we have included a general response from the Save London’s Theatres Campaign and a defence of the Westminster Theatre from Michael Earl. The legal position is relatively clear. Unless a building has been statutorily listed for its architectural or historic interest or is in a conservation area, its owner is free to knock it down. There are exceptions - you cannot knock down your own home for instance. In practical terms, it doesn’t usually make sense to demolish a building until you are ready to replace it and have got planning permission to do so. But if the building concerned is unused or not bringing in a worthwhile income, an owner may do better to demolish it and seek to use the vacant space for car parking until he/she is ready to redevelop. This is what happened to the site of the former Hippodrome in Belfast. But although you may be free to knock down your building, you will need planning permission for its replacement, and that can take time. And if you want to build something different, consent may well be refused. The planning authority will look at the designs of your proposal as well as your intended use; changes of use normally need permission in their own right. So (for example) a site or a building that was previously designated for theatre use could not be used for offices or shops or flats or a pub without prior planning permission. The scope for such changes of use should be set out in the local authority’s development plan. In the case of theatres, most local authorities would expect a theatre in use to be replaced by a theatre in use. Westminster City Council recognises the importance of theatre to the economy and cultural life and are very strict in their requirement that if a theatre goes, it must be replaced by another. Nor would they normally allow permission for an existing theatre building to move into another use class. Similarly, the City Corporation have stated that if the present Mermaid Theatre were to go, there should be a replacement. But if theatre use has already ceased or been replaced with something different, or it can be proved that theatre use is no longer a realistic possibility, there may be a case for allowing a change of use. This applies whether or not the building is still standing, and whether or not it is listed. The Theatres Trust has to be consulted on all planning applications which affect theatre buildings whether they are in use or not, so there is an opportunity for us to assess the likelihood of a return to theatre use. If a building has been listed, there is a presumption that its originally intended use is still the most appropriate. Failing that, a use must be found that does not harm the special character or interest of the building concerned; any necessary physical alterations should be readily reversible. Many theatres are listed and The Theatres Trust has identified a small number which, although unlikely to be able to return in full to their original use, are nevertheless of such importance that they deserve to be preserved as examples of their type. Glasgow’s Britannia Music Hall, the Normansfield Theatre at Teddington and Morecambe’s Victoria Pavilion are obvious examples. No one has ever seriously suggested that all former theatre buildings should be kept standing in case they are needed. The new Theatres Trust Guide to British Theatres 1750-1950 has entries on over 650, of which probably one-third are in use as theatres. Many others are now cinemas, bingo halls or other types of entertainment venue. But there must be several hundred out there which are no longer in theatre use and have no prospect of returning to one. And there are many more of lesser interest that do not feature in the Guide. Most former theatres, whether protected by listing or not, are fulfilling perfectly useful roles as shops, churches, pubs, warehouses and even as a museum. Contrary to the impression given by Howard Bird, there is no need to knock them down! And if one day someone comes along with a realistic proposal to reinstate an arts use The Theatres Trust will be happy to support them. For several years we have followed with interest the efforts of the Bungay Arts and Theatre Society to create an arts centre in the town. It was a very happy coincidence that the building they decided to acquire, a former laundry, cinema and then store, had been built originally in 1828 as one of the Fisher circuit of theatres and used as such until 1844. But it was no part of our brief to suggest that the Georgian interior should be recreated. The building is listed and there is still evidence of the original layout, particularly in the basement. Provided that the evidence is properly recorded and respected, the Society should be free to create the space that they need. Theatre buildings have always been regularly adapted and improved. But whereas knocking a theatre down to replace it with something different or better was a relatively simple matter a hundred years ago, today it is difficult. The economics of the theatre business, the cost of demolition and rebuilding, the need to obtain planning consents, and the constraints imposed by listing all make it very unlikely that most people could even contemplate such an act without external (e.g. lottery) funding. So when an opportunity does come along to replace an existing theatre with something new, the Trust will want to assess the situation very carefully. In practice, such opportunities will increasingly involve other non-theatre parties and will form part of a larger development. In effect some of the profit on the rest of the development will be used to support the creation of the theatre space. In the last few months planning consents have been agreed in the London Boroughs of Kingston upon Thames and Islington, which will result in the creation of new theatre spaces as part of larger developments. One of them will be on the site of the former Collins’ Music Hall, while the planning history of the other can be traced back to the loss of the former Kingston Empire. The Westminster Theatre has had a chequered history in recent years. It has been regularly extended or altered over the years. No theatrical interests made an offer to buy it when it was for sale, and it forms part of a bigger building that in commercial terms is difficult to let or use. Its new owners acquired the site for development and are legally entitled to knock the building down, as it is not listed. However, they recognise the requirement to create a replacement theatre, and the Trust’s policy has been to ensure that if a redevelopment does go ahead the replacement theatre should be viable and a different one to what already exists, complementing rather than attempting to compete with what already exists in and around the West End. However, the site is a difficult one with restrictions on the extent to which one can excavate or build upwards and there are other complex issues to be resolved before any planning permission is likely to be given. On the site of the Mermaid, where the scope for a substantial developer’s profit is considerably greater, we have simply stated that in principle we would be prepared to agree to a replacement theatre. However, we have yet to see any sensible proposals. So how do we decide when it is OK to allow someone to knock a theatre down? Clearly, if there is no legal impediment and the building has little intrinsic merit and has long been used for other purposes and the likely theatrical needs of the area have already been met, there is little point in objecting. Throughout its history the Trust has been agreeing to the loss of such theatres. But if there is a local demand to save a building and some prospect of it returning to use, the Trust will generally argue in support of retention. This may mean allowing the building to remain in a different use or even empty until an opportunity arises. If every theatre that ever went dark or through a difficult patch had been written off, we would have very few left today. Each case has to be looked at on its merits. The Tyne at Newcastle and the Tivoli in Aberdeen are both fine theatres and listed at grade I and category A respectively. Both are in significant centres of population and ought, given effective management and a fair wind, to be capable of a return to proper use whether professional or amateur. The Theatre Royal at Chatham is in far worse condition and had been practically written off by the compilers of Curtains!!! in 1982. But it is listed, occupies a prime site in an area which does not have a large-scale theatre, and is now strongly backed by an active body of supporters. It would appear to represent the best chance of getting a proper theatre in the locality. In Doncaster meanwhile the former Grand Theatre also has its supporters and is, undoubtedly, capable of being returned to use. But it probably could not meet the brief for a modern facility, there is little political support for its retention, and the local authority is backing a new building on a town centre site. If a new theatre can better meet the needs of the town is there any point in continuing to support the retention of the old one? Might it not be better to take a financial contribution from the developer and apply it to the costs of building a new one? In Ilfracombe, the Trust acquiesced in the loss of the former Victoria Pavilion as part of the agreement that led to the creation of the new Landmark Centre. We now review our lists of ‘sleeping beauty’ theatres each year, assessing their likelihood of a return to use. We are always happy to advise any would-be developer on whether an individual theatre should be kept intact or could be altered, and on whether we would resist an application for a change of use. And if it is suggested that a theatre should be demolished, we will have an opinion on whether (and under what terms), it should be replaced or perhaps a contribution be made to improving other facilities in the area. So I am afraid that there is no simple answer to the question posed at the beginning of this article. Our approach is always pragmatic and governed by the desire to make the best of any given situation. PETER LONGMAN
More than 60 firefighters and ten fire engines were called to the blaze in Palace Street, London, at 11.40pm. Crews took seven hours to bring the fire under control but not before substantial damage had been caused to 75 per cent of the three-storey West End venue which is currently being demolished. The cause of the fire is under investigation by Scotland Yard. The news comes as a further disappointment to campaigners who last month lost a six-year battle to save the historic theatre from being redeveloped. Demolition work began in February. An application to replace the venue with flats and a smaller theatre space is currently the subject of a public enquiry. Published 27 June 2002 © The Stage Newspaper Ltd |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
The
Westminster Theatre was originaly built as a chapel in 1766 - (Shown
above)
Mr
Armstrong's plan may be under threat, as Yolanda wants to demolish
the building and replace it with a block of flats. 
He
added: "This is one of the few theatres in London with sufficient
space to house a repertory group and I believe it is terribly important
to do so." 
A
proposal to replace the theatre with an eight-storey block of luxury
flats, including a token theatre in the bowels of the new building,
has been rejected. But a new scheme is due to be considered by Westminster
Council's planning department, with about 32 flats replacing the theatre
and a new playhouse again included in the proposals. Talawa Theatre
company, after being "put in touch" with the firm planning
to redevelop the site housing the Westminster, is eager to take possession
of a new theatre that the local council insists must be built within
the development. And Talawa has already been told by the Arts Council
that it is allocating £1.8 million to go towards equipping any
such theatre. 
Old
theatres can be old glories that should be cherished. They are the
only physical embodiment of perished things - great performances by
great actors, plays that change the course of theatrical history.
The Westminster, which has an entire arts centre contained within
its considerable interior, including a studio theatre, could simply
be restored and revived at no huge cost. To replace it with some little
dank modern theatre in a basement beneath luxury flats is a repellent,
philistine idea. But it will happen. 
Westminster's
planning sub-committee considered the redevelopment scheme on 20 November
2000. Council members devoted a full 10 minutes to reading more than
20 letters of protest, from the likes of Sir Donald Sinden, Corin
Redgrave and Hugh Manning, before approving the theatre's demolition,
asking for some "affordable housing" in the scheme and requiring
some minor alterations. 
TS
Eliot's The Family reunion with 
The
On
10 April the Theatre advertised in The Stage promoting it as a 'great
venue' (it is) with the possibility of use for 'Film or theatrical
productions, TV or radio broadcasts, commercials, pop promos, conferences,
presentations, photographic shoots or charity events'.
