|
Comments on the 17/10/2005 version of the 106 Policy Statement:
House on the Rock's Strategy for Use of Performing
Arts and by the Community
Page 1, Paragraph 1
For the purposes of this Strategy the term “House on the
Rock” shall be refer not only to the current applicants
but also to their successors in title.
Comment: This immediately points to the problem of individual
ownership, ie whatever agreements are made with HOTR would apply
to whoever they sold the property to, which potentially puts
the community’s interests at risk.
Page 1, Paragraphs 3 and 4
House on the Rock views itself as the steward of its premises,
held in trust for the benefit not solely of its attendees but
for the entire community…House on the Rock believes that
humankind is made in the image of God and that our creativity
is an expression of this.
Comment: We appreciated that acquiring the premises of St
Georges Church is part of HOTR’s mission to expand and
to impose its views on the community, so it’s idea of stewardship
is creating a community in its own image. This denies the needs
of the secular community, otherwise known as “civil society”
and indeed other church groups, to have community space available
to them where they can exercise their own judgement, within
the country’s and the borough’s legal frameworks,
about what is appropriate in terms of the style of activities
they engage in.
Page 1, Paragraph 6
Local schools and educational establishments;
Comment: This is arbitrary. Schools have their own premises,
people in the community do not. There is no reason why HOTR
needs to decide who to prioritise in any case, it should be
the decision of an outside body of people representing the community,
so that groups are not given preference or placed in competition
with each other.
“Recognised community groups and local performance groups
(including amateur and professional performing groups)”
Comment: Recognised by whom? This is ambiguous and appears
to allow some kind of loophole for certain individuals and/or
groups to be deemed by someone as yet unspecified as “not
recognised”. The word “recognised” should therefore
be deleted.
Page 1, Paragraph 8
“might make House on the Rock a party etc”
Comment: The problem with this is that it enables HOTR to
cause hassles and delays, which could in practice prevent performances
of something they don’t like, so it should simply be covered
by HOTR only being held responsible for their own activities
in the building and leaving it to another group to take responsibility
for the external activities.
Page 4, Paragraph 3
“Use for the performing arts is guaranteed to include one
consecutive 3 day period from Thursday to Saturday per month.
Only exceptional circumstances will be permitted to override
this commitment.
Comment: Given that Thursday, Fridays and Saturdays are said
to be available for Community this restriction is arbitrary
and insufficient. It is obviously designed to severely restrict
outside use of the venue as a theatre. Any serious production
is likely to run on consecutive days, and this will put local
groups into competition with each other.
Page 4, Paragraph 1
This statement sets out the expected availability of facilities
that House on the Rock makes available for performance use.
It is subject to review from time to time.
Comment: This is clearly a “let-out” clause enabling
HOTR to cancel availability of the premises for hire without
notice, the sentence “It is subject to review from time
to time” should be deleted as it is covered by other statements
about the regular review of arrangements.presumably HOTR will
be glad to use the income from community groups to support its
financial investment and if and when the community’s input
is no longer required if it becomes able to support its own
programme, it can simply terminate the arrangements.
Page 4, Paragraph 2
for a minimum of 10 days per month (to be reviewed once every
year for the first two years of hiring). These days will be
. . .
Comment: Having stated particular days of the week when the
main building is available for hire, there is no logic in then
stating a minimum number of days – do they mean a maximum?
This section should be deleted and replaced by “on”.
Page 4, Paragraph 4
The Directors of House on the Rock reserve the right to set
aside these commitments should the facility not be reserved
for such performances one month in advance.
Comment: Again, this provides a ready-made excuse for HOTR
to prevent the performance of genuine community theatre. Recent
experience was that some of the most successful and significant
major performances were put on a short notice, for example the
John Berger play "A day in the Life of a Dog" which
was moved from another premises at five days notice and still
filled the house.
Page 4, Paragraph 8
The Kitchen facility is available for hire only in conjunction
with the hire of the Main and/or Community Buildings.
Comment: Again, this is restrictive to the reasonable use
of the building for events of an intermediate size where catering
may be required.
Page 5, Paragraph 2
The Directors reserve the right to cancel the booking if exceptional
unforeseen circumstances arise.
Comment: This is a very useful get-out clause, which could
be used to cancel a performance any time HOTR wishes….
Page 5, Paragraph 3
In the event of the Directors cancelling the booking all fees
(including the deposit) paid by the Hirer shall be refunded.
In the event of such a cancellation the Hirer will be offered
the next available booking.
Comment: Again, this is a very useful get-out clause, which
could be used to cancel a performance any time HOTR wishes –
and where would the community go at short notice? It would only
take being let down as this scenario suggests on one or two
occasions for the community to withdraw from attempting to use
the space.
Page 6, Paragraph 7
The Hirer shall be responsible for making adequate arrangements
to insure against any third party claims that may lie against
the Hirer or his/her organisation whilst using the premises
for the sum of not less than £10,000,000 and at the request
of the Directors will produce to the Directors no later than
3 days prior to, or at any time during the period of hire evidence
of such policy.
Comment: This will be yet another disincentive to small organisatioins
hiring the space: in our opinion third Party Insurance should
be covered by House on the Rock.
Page 6, Paragraph 11
The Hirer acknowledges that refreshments may only be consumed
in the foyer area or other designated areas of the Community
Building. No food or drink or alcohol is to be taken into the
Main Building. No alcohol may be sold on the premises.
Comment: This is arbitrary and restrictive. It cuts out any
social events.
Page 6, Paragraph 12
The Hirer acknowledges that no sale or auction is to take place
on the premises other than the sale of tickets and programmes
(and any other items as approved by the Directors and comply
with Fair Trading Laws). Such activities are permitted in the
foyer space only.
Comment: This is arbitrary and restrictive: the sale of CD’s,
memorabilia, and other items normally associated with performance
should also be allowed. It cuts out any fairs and festivals,
and any fundraising activities by local groups.
Page 7, Paragraph 9
Fly Posting: The Hirer shall not carry out or permit fly posting
or any other form of authorised advertisements for any event
taking place at the Hall, and shall indemnify the Directors
accordingly against all action, claims and proceedings arising
from any breach of this condition.
Comment: Without authorised advertising there will be no
successful professional or community events at St George’s.
This paragraph must be removed or refer specifically to illegal
fly-posting.
Page 9, Fees
Comment: The prices quoted are beyond the means of most voluntary
groups, and are clearly designed for commercial users only,
even though a 100% reduction appears to be offered to some local
charity use. The scale of charges needs to be reconsidered in
line with other venues nearby, and a clear definition of charitable
use offered.
Overall Conclusion.
Having commented in detail, we do acknowledge that HOTR has
had to take financial risks to purchase the building, which
it was only able to do because of its strong hierarchical structure.
Our own community has been divided and unable hitherto to organise
itself in such a way as to make the purchase on its own account.
However, given the opposition which was expressed by many diverse
groups, we suggest that the best way forward is a restructuring
of the ownership into a mutual organisation held in common with
the community, allowing for ethical investment and grant funding
to replace the mortgage. The hiring policies would then much
be decided by a group directly representing all the users of
the building, without one particular group, just because they
have the major investment dominating the scene. NB We will need
to see a copy of a document including these and other requests
for amendments to be made, before making further comments.
Compiled by Mary Fee, at 23rd October 2005
Partnerships Consulting
12 Southcote Road, London N19 5BJ
tel 020-7607-7852 fax 020-7609-7112
www.partnershipsconsulting.co.uk
|
