£1.2m price tag for former Hippodrome theatre 'unrealistic'
CAMPAIGNERS wanting to see the former Hippodrome restored as a theatre said its owner's demands for £1.2m to sell it are "unrealistic".
Christopher Anthony, owner of the Grade II-listed building in Green Lane, yesterday revealed in the Derby Telegraph that he planned to sell the former theatre for more than three times the £375,000 he paid for it two years ago.
But the move has frustrated supporters of the building who want to see it restored as a theatre.
They say the price is far too high considering the current state of the building which suffered serious damage to its roof and walls during work by Mr Anthony's contractors in March last year.
Mhora Samuel, director of The Theatres Trust, a national public advisory body on theatres, said: "I would question the £1.2m asking price for the theatre and any serious buyer should undertake their own valuation before putting in an offer. Our ideal buyer would be one that repairs the theatre and brings it back into use."
English Heritage agreed. A spokesman said: "English Heritage would expect the freehold of the building to be actively offered to the open market at a realistic price which reflects its condition and is a genuine attempt to find a new owner."
And Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Derby South Jack Perscke believes the building should be sold for £1.
On his website, he says: "In my view, Mr Anthony should sell it back to Derby City Council for £1 and accept that he's made a horrible mistake."
Joan Travis, chairman of the Hippodrome Restoration Fund, said she thought Mr Anthony should be repairing the building before selling it.
But Mr Anthony said he needed the £1.2m to clear debts he had accrued from remortgaging the building to cover the cost of work to it, including asbestos removal, architects' fees and interest payments.
He has a planning application lodged with Derby City Council for a multi-storey car park on the site which would involve retaining some facades of the existing building.
But he said he would walk away from that plan if people came forward with serious offers for the building.
The city council took Mr Anthony to the High Court in April last year to seek an injunction preventing him from touching the building after parts of the roof and walls collapsed during work the previous month.
The authority is now taking further legal action against Mr Anthony and his contractor, Wayne Watson, alleging they carried out unauthorised work on the listed building. Both men have pleaded not guilty to the charges and the case is due to be heard at crown court next year.
10 Comments
View all
by Penny, Strutt's Park
Thursday, December 03 2009, 3:21PM
“Regarding todays & yesterdays articles, Anthony refers to the building as a "nightmare¿ but he is the creator of that nightmare which has now turned out to be another nightmare for Derby. The Hippodrome was in wonderful condition until Anthony came along in 2007.
A theatre by its specialist nature & construction cannot be used for anything else but for theatrical entertainment. Walker¿s Bingo just used the auditorium & didn¿t destroy the building¿s fabric.
He all along had other intentions for the site i.e. re-development, all very well publicised at the time and therefore public knowledge. On the 28 March 2008 he very nearly got away with it! Please do not forget demolition vehicles appeared on site on the Tuesday evening preceding the fateful events on the Friday. These were not tools or machines to carry out repairs. Whatever they were doing on that day was inappropriate, disproportionate, completely uncalled for & done without consent for a listed building. They didn¿t even try to protect the building from damage or members of the public or nearby building & businesses.
It was a shambolic display of ineptitude.
He states ¿I have the bank breathing down my neck," & that ¿it is not really my building, it is the bank's and I can't sell it for less than I owe. This has put me in a really awkward position financially.¿
If the bank owns it then surely it is not Anthony¿s to sell?
He also said "I have spent so much on it. The majority has gone on asbestos removal, then repairs and liaising with the council."
REPAIRS what repairs? Am I missing something here? ¿Asbestos removal¿ What asbestos removal? One has to seek special permission & licence for its careful removal & disposal. Where is the evidence that it was carried out following Health & Safety?
Where was the asbestos exactly? Why would a responsible owner do that without having a plan of works drawn up? Perhaps it was then that the removal of the ornate plasterwork took place?
History of events so far tell us to be on the alert.”
by Penny, Strutt's Park
Thursday, December 03 2009, 3:15PM
“Re yesterdays article in the DT Anthony refers to the building as a "nightmare¿ I suggest he is the creator of that nightmare & that rather he has now turned out to be Derby¿s worst nightmare. The Hippodrome was in wonderful condition until he came along in 2007.
A theatre by its specialist nature & construction cannot be used for anything else but for theatrical entertainment. Walker¿s Bingo just used the auditorium & didn¿t destroy the building¿s fabric.
He all along had other intentions for the site i.e. re-development, all very well publicised at the time and therefore public knowledge. On the 28 March 2008 he very nearly got away with it! Please do not forget demolition vehicles appeared on site on the Tuesday evening preceding the fateful events on the Friday. These were not tools or machines to carry out repairs. Whatever they were doing on that day was inappropriate, disproportionate, completely uncalled for & done without consent for a listed building. They didn¿t even try to protect the building from damage or members of the public or nearby building & businesses.
It was a shambolic display of ineptitude.
He states ¿I have the bank breathing down my neck," & that ¿it is not really my building, it is the bank's and I can't sell it for less than I owe. This has put me in a really awkward position financially.¿
If the bank owns it then surely it is not Anthony¿s to sell?
He also said "I have spent so much on it. The majority has gone on asbestos removal, then repairs and liaising with the council."
REPAIRS what repairs? Am I missing something here? ¿Asbestos removal¿ What asbestos removal? One has to seek special permission & licence for its careful removal & disposal. Where is the evidence that it was carried out following Health & Safety?
Where was the asbestos exactly? Why would a responsible owner do that without having a plan of works drawn up? Perhaps it was then that the removal of the ornate plasterwork took place?
History of events so far tell us to be on the alert.”
by Dave, Blackpool
Thursday, December 03 2009, 2:42PM
“Kev
The protection of the building by the listing allows the council to make a compulsory purchase order for the sum of £1.
The problem is that various officers in the council are against doing this because as has been reported previously they want to spend £18 million on the Assembly Rooms. This is despite the fact that all versions of the Venue Survey paid for by the Arts Council and DCC reccomended that the Assembly Rooms should be demolished.”
by Kev, Derby
Thursday, December 03 2009, 1:31PM
“There is no way this guy would sell it for £1. However much we would all like this 'man' to walk away, and leave our fair City alone, I can't see it happening. Does anyone know what the rebuilding costs would be to return it to use in accordance with English Heritage? Presumably the Theatre Trust have some idea. Add that to the £1.2m purchase cost, and you suddenly have no buyers.”
by Chris, Derby
Thursday, December 03 2009, 11:30AM
“All comments have been deleted!”