Theatre Royal: Four options for councillors as decision looms
Saturday, 13 July 2024
When councillors meet to decide the future of a proposed $57 million redevelopment of Timaru’s Theatre Royal and a new Heritage Hub, they will have four options to choose from.
Timaru District Council chief executive Nigel Trainor said those would include an option to continue with the proposed plan, which had come in on budget; a new idea submitted by two parties to build a multi-use facility on the town’s library site; reducing the scope of the proposed plan to include only a refurbishment of the theatre; or scrapping the project altogether.
Trainor said there would be two papers presented during Tuesday’s meeting, one would be in the public part of the meeting, and the other public excluded. He said fixed price costings from for the Stafford St site would be presented behind closed doors.
Trainor was tasked with seeking out an alternative option for the controversial project in May following a plea from the South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce to do so during Long-Term Plan hearings.
Chamber representatives urged the council to reconsider the project and suggested an alternative could be done for a third of the price.
Earlier this month, Trainor confirmed no such alternative had been identified.
The options to be presented on Tuesday would either cost $57.1m or more, or see a significant reduction in the scope of the project.
In his report, to be tabled on Tuesday, Trainor said councillors attended a public excluded workshop earlier this month, to discuss two new options submitted by members of the public to build on the Timaru Library site.
“This concept could house the library, museum, an auditorium style theatre and council and public meeting spaces.”
Those submissions were being considered as Option 2 on Tuesday, with estimated overall costs “similar or slightly higher” than Option 1 - the proposed redevelopment of the Theatre Royal and Heritage Hub.
The detailed design plans and costings for Option 1 had been completed, and while council would discuss those with the public excluded, the “project is within the agreed budget and in line with all council resolutions”.
“Council has a choice to accept the offer of a fixed sum from Southbase Construction or decline and look at other options.
“Southbase Construction are no longer in contract with the TDC unless the council chooses to accept the offer and proceed to construction.
“All designs and information are the property of TDC, who are free to use that information as they see fit,” Trainor said.
Option 3 would reduce the project’s scope to refurbish the existing Theatre Royal only, and if pursued, could see council “plan for a new build in the future to house the library and museum”.
The final option would scrap the project altogether, and a new strategy for council’s buildings would be considered.
Trainor said the councillors should consider whether the council was investing in the right location and if the “strategic vision of previous elected members” still had merit.
He said they should also consider whether any better ideas had been highlighted and whether another location should be considered.
“This discussion is important and offers the opportunity for a reset on the future strategy for the town centre and of significant spend, it rightly tests the validity of the current status quo to invest in South Stafford St.”
How will councillors vote?
The final decision on Tuesday would see mayor Nigel Bowen excuse himself from the vote, having indicated in February his intention to do so citing a perceived conflict of interest.
At the time, Bowen, who with his wife owned hospitality businesses near the project site, also told councillors he had not voted in the original decision.
Bowen had, however, voted at other stages of the project – including in November, when councillors decided to take the project to the next stage by five votes to four, and in December 2022, when he voted to progress the project.
In November, councillors Peter Burt, Owen Jackson, Scott Shannon and Michelle Pye joined Bowen in voting in favour of progressing the project, with councillors Allan Booth, Stu Piddington, Stacey Scott and Gavin Oliver voting against it. Councillor Sally Parker was not at the meeting.
In December 2022, councillors supported a move to go ahead with the $57.1m budget for the project seven votes to three following public submissions on the project which garnered 632 responses. Bowen, Jackson, Burt, Pye, Scott, Shannon and Parker voted in favour – if the project was kept within the $57.1m budget. Booth, Piddington and Oliver voted against it.
Given documents to be tabled at the meeting on Tuesday showed that plan, although slightly revised, was still within the $57.1m budget. The question now was did they still feel the same as they did 18 months ago?
How did we get here?
The report to the council, to be tabled at the meeting, outlined the Theatre Royal and Heritage Facility project, and gave a detailed background of the project to date.
“The refurbishment of the Theatre Royal and the co-location of the South Canterbury Museum … was to be the catalyst for the precinct and bookend for the future development of Stafford St as a whole.
“The genesis for the idea … came from one of council’s sister cities, Orange, NSW.”
It was first consulted on as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan, with council setting a “strategic direction to develop the South Stafford St area” - and was referred to as the Heritage Precinct.
Work was done to develop that idea, and a concept plan was designed by Christchurch-based architectural firm, Architectus.
As the work progressed, council was “aware of the land development at the Showgrounds” and the public debate regarding the impact it would have on the town centre.
“The unease by the public to the public to the Showgrounds development was the impetus to develop a strategy to rejuvenate the entire town centre.”
This, coupled with the need for infrastructure work to replace pipes in the CBD, led to the development of the City Hub Strategy in September 2021.
As the two projects progressed over time, “the public interest in costs associated with each project, and in what has been achieved, grew”.
“Each project has supporters and opponents, both resulting in correspondence over the last three years including submissions to the 2024-24 Long Term Plan.
“The plan for the next 10 years of council spend has been shadowed by the aftermath of Covid and a negative economic climate with cost-of-living pressures on ratepayers in the district.
“Further pressure on spend has resulted from the council’s debt position, and discussions regarding debt cap levels and how much debt council should carry, and the general cost of running services.”