In a statement responding to the latest decision surrounding the theatres she said:
"London Borough of Sutton's Environment & Neighbourhoods committee met on 6
th Nov. We were expecting to hear a decision from them on outline proposals to take over running of the Secombe &/or Charles Cryer Theatres. The committee reported that they received four bids from three organisations - one split bid for both theatres & two bids for the Charles Cryer. They recommended that all three organisations be invited to proceed to full business case development for further consideration, deadline 12 th Dec, with a final decision at the E&N meeting on 15th Jan. The evaluation group, comprising officers from Asset Mgt, E&N, Finance, Legal & Chief Execs office 4th Nov and evaluated the bids against following criteria:
Financial & stability 60%,
Social value & artistic offer 10%,
Track record & know-how 20%,
Constitution & governance 10%
"I do wonder whether the scoring on social value & artistic offer should have been given a higher percentage as this is what will make a difference to the community the theatres serve. I would also ask who on that team has the knowledge & experience required to score artistic value appropriately? How does one score the value of the arts to 180,000 nhabitants? We had previously been told at the 15th Sep E&N meeting that there would be consultation with the Theatres Trust on the artistic value of bids at this stage.
"I’ve confirmed that this has now taken place with Rebecca Morland, from the Theatres Trust, who adds “It’s very healthy that four bids have been submitted & even more encouraging that none of them have been ruled out. This is all very positive.”
"So far so good, however there is one concern I have - by their own admission, the Council are not best placed to run theatres so I wonder how the council can be best placed to evaluate ALL angles of these bids themselves? I would ask the Council to confirm in writing that for the crucial next stage they will consult with the Theatres Trust on ALL aspects of the four bids.
"There is also the as yet unanswered question on market value/rent. I imagine that placing a value on theatre buildings/land would be a matter for a specialist surveyor. For proposers to submit a full business case they need some indication of the figures the Council will be looking for to be able to negotiate. The report mentions ‘Undervalue’. Part of the Local Govt Act 2003, s123, states that a Council has an obligation to secure the best consideration obtainable – ie the Act requires the Council to achieve market value in transactions involving land.
"However, there are circumstances where the Council can dispose of land for less than the best consideration under
the heading of General Disposal Consent 2003 & so long as the difference – the undervalue - is less than £2million. They can use this power where they consider that the purpose of the land to be disposed of is likely to contribute to achieving any one or more of the Council’s well-being duties & its One Planet living principles.
"Simply meaning that where a proposal can demonstrate strong quantifiable benefits to economy, social & environmental well-being, the Council could in fact accept a lower market value/rent. Bear in mind that none of the bids offered a capital receipt or a market rent at the outline stage.
"According to the report there is social value in every bid, 2 of them in particular were very well developed on the community side. The Council will now email proposers asking for further details & full business cases to be submitted by 12th Dec bringing the total number of weeks to submit proposals to 13 weeks. A decision is due on 15th Jan and the Council still state that they will remain flexible, by a few months, on the final transfer date. In the meantime I wonder how this affects the morale of the staff, the future planning of the theatre users who have bookings after April 1st & the livelihood of the tenants at the Charles Cryer - all of whom remain in limbo.
"