Issue - meetings

The Cabinet Member for Culture, Economy and Skills Labour introduced the report.

The report referred to the closure of the Corn Exchange and Guildhall from December 2026 as part of the approved Civic Quarter Programme. The report sought approval to progress the temporary venue option to planning and preparatory procurement only. It is estimated that c£60,000 of costs ahead of any final decision will be incurred covering legal, planning and specialist venue and sound consultants.

In response to questions from Cabinet Members and those Councillors present, the Cabinet Member Culture, Economy and Skills Labour, the Leader and Director of Communities said:

      i.         Welcomed the comment a pragmatic approach had been taken to retain and provide consistency for the staff at the Corn Exchange which was an important message to communicate.

    ii.         As options for a temporary venue continued to be explored, consideration would be given to how the venue would be publicised, how people would access it, and the implications of locating it outside the city centre.

   iii.         Welcomed the comment there was a strong value‑for‑money case. Noting that the value derived not only from maintaining cultural events for the public but also from retaining and utilising the skilled staff and sustaining key relationships with agents who booked the venue. This continuity was considered critical to ensuring that once the Corn Exchange reopened audience levels could be rebuilt if not increased beyond current levels.

  iv.         In terms of reputational damage, the temporary venue(s) was identified as risk‑mitigation measure linked to the Civic Quarter business case, not a discretionary cultural add‑on. Doing nothing posed the highest financial and reputational risk, including audit concerns, promoter disengagement, and a 12–24‑month delay in recovery.

    v.         The temporary venue(s) would protect the Council’s investment, the city’s cultural ecosystem, and significant associated economic activity. Although some risk remained, inaction would carry greater reputational consequences and believed audiences would understand the reasoning.

  vi.         Officers had visited Orchard West in Dartford, where a temporary venue had been constructed, and had used this to inform adjustments to the Council’s modelling. The projected 50–60% level was based not only on reduced capacity which was lower than the Corn Exchange’s current 1,600 seats, but also on programming limitations. It would not be possible for any temporary venue to equal the full programme delivered across the Guildhall and the Corn Exchange. The figure therefore reflected both capacity and programming assumptions, supported by the performance of a comparable venue.

 vii.         Noted further comments made by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats:

·    The group remained sceptical about the proposal and believed the evidence presented was insufficient to justify progressing to a planning application or incurring the associated costs.

·    Emphasised the primary priority for the Civic Quarter project should be reducing overall costs and improving the financial payback. It was not proven that adding an additional £1 million to an already expensive scheme would reduce risk but might increase it.

·    Alternative, less costly and less risky options could be explored to mitigate any delays to reopening and audience recovery.

·    The proposal felt premature and it was important to recognise that the sum in question would be in addition to the existing high project cost. This was not being debated as million pounds, but a million pounds on top of an already expensive project; the cost should be reduced and the payback increased.

viii.         Important to note that while the financial case centred on enabling the Corn Exchange to reopen at pace and return to full, potentially higher capacity, the Council also had responsibilities to its staff and to the wider local economy. These objectives needed to be balanced and did not consider the proposal premature, if the Council wished to proceed, it would need to bring it forward quickly given the Civic Quarter project timelines.

  ix.         £1 million referenced was an already‑approved earmarked reserve within the 2026–27 budget and therefore did not represent an additional cost. The substantive decision would come forward in September; the current request was to authorise the initial £60,000 within that provision.

 Cabinet unanimously resolved to:

      i.         Approve progression to planning submission for a temporary performance and events venue to support the transition period during the closure of the Corn Exchange and Guildhall, subject to statutory processes and continued engagement.

    ii.         Note that preliminary expenditure within the £1million approved provision will be incurred prior to a planning application and September Cabinet decision on the Civic Quarter project.

   iii.         Approve progression to procurement of required venue infrastructure, equipment, and ancillary services, in preparation for a final decision in September.

  iv.         Note the indicative programme and key delivery milestones.

    v.         Note that alternative transition options have been considered and assessed.