Sir, - Catching up with local news since returning from a holiday I have been both concerned and puzzled by the content of your report on January 26: "Waverley and NFRC at odds over cost of restoring Redgrave".
A substantial amount of money, mostly from public donations, went into the development of the theatre. It is a publicly owned building and presumably Waverley are its custodians so one must wonder how has it been allowed to deteriorate so seriously in the short time since it last staged a public performance?
How has it become what Steve Tilbury described as 'a shell' and what has happened to all the fittings if it will now "need everything to fit it out as a functioning theatre".
And what has happened to the original "everything that would be necessary to bring (it) up to health, safety and hygiene standards", including the adequate emergency lighting system, if these will now need installing again? Have they all been stripped out?
With regard to the possible requirements for safety systems: rather than being "a new business", a re-opened theatre will be a continuation of an existing use. But in any case, to say that "a new business (or any business for that matter) is subject to the letter of the law in terms of fire regulations" is an over-simplification of the true situation.
Whether new or old, any business must provide an environment for its workers and patrons that will ensure, within reason, that all can escape safely when danger threatens. A 'proven track record' cannot justify 'some leniency' as has been suggested. The building which has not had a fire in 50 years is 50 years closer to its first one.
Safety systems requirements are based on officially published technical guidance which sets out in general terms the measures which will normally achieve an acceptable level of safety, but the extent to which the guidance needs to be followed in each particular case is largely a matter of professional judgement.
The way in which the work likely to be needed to satisfy legislative and licensing conditions has been described to your reporter gives little indication that Waverley has anybody competent to make such a judgement.
The first licensing requirements for the Redgrave in 1974 would have been based upon the technical regulations of the Surrey County Council (then the licensing authority). Although some modification of existing fire warning and emergency lighting systems might well be necessary, in other respects the technical standards then applied were not materially different to those in use now.
Wheelchair access to the theatre was probably provided voluntarily in the past but if this is to be overtaken by new legislation the requirements are seldom as draconian as many would have us believe.
For far too many years I have heard the plea of 'fire regulations' used as an excuse by people in control of public and commercial buildings when they donÕt want to do something, for example, to let wheelchair users in.
To see a local authority trying the same ploy saddens me. Waverley appear to have got themselves in a fix over this sorry saga. Surely it is time for some constructive dialogue.
A J Gatfield
Lower Weybourne Lane
Farnham