UNIT 512THESIS

Msc HISTORIC BUILDING CONSERVATIONSTUDENT no. 48554111th SEPTEMBER 2014

Restoration, Preservation and the Developmentof Fire Safety Legislation in British Theatres.

Key Words: Theatre, Fire, Restoration, Fire Safety Legislation, New Theatre Royal

i

AUTHOR DECLARATION

UNIT 512/THESIS

RESTORATION, PRESERVATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIRE SAFETY LEGISLATION IN BRITISH THEATRES

11th SEPTEMBER 2014

I affirm that this Assignment, together with any supporting artefact, is offered for assessment as my original and unaidedwork, except insofar as any advice and/or assistance from any other person in preparing it, and any quotation used from written sources are dully and appropriately acknowledged.

ii

Olivia Mayell

11th September 2014

ACKNOWELEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my Masters tutor Dr Karen Fielder for her support and constant positivity throughout the year. She

iii

always had the answers and helped me over every obstacle in myway.

With out the New Theatre Royal team I would not have had a paper, or the inspiration and drive for most of the year. I particularly must thank Dom Hart for always being willing to answer every question and offering to share all his knowledge and insights.

ABSTRACT

iv

Although fires in Britain's theatres are less common than theywere in the 19th and early 20th century, they still present the same problem, what does one do with a theatre gutted by fire? This paper researches into the common courses of action after a theatre has been damages by fire and weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of each. It also produces a clearlinear timeline of the development of fire safety legislation in relation to British theatres and links real fire incidents into why some of the legislation was written. Using New Theatre Royal, Southsea, as a case study the paper presents a live restoration and rebuild project.

v

Contents

Authors Declaration ii

Acknowledgments iii

Abstract iv

Contents v

List of Illustrations vi

Introduction 1

Chapter One Restoration and Preservation 5

Restoration 6

Preservation 8

After a Fire 10

Chapter Two Fire Safety Development in British Theatres

16Manual of Safety Requirements in Theatres and Other Places of

Entertainment 19

Post 1940 22

Chapter Three New Theatre Royal 26

The Restoration of the New Theatre Royal 30

Restored and Reinstated 31

Conclusion 39

vi

Bibliography 44

Sources of Illustrations 48

Appendices 49

List of Illustrations

Figure 1 Notre Dame, prior to restoration

Figure 2 Notre Dame, after restoration

Figure 3 Theatre Royal, Norwich, 1930's

Figure 4 Theatre Royal, Norwich, 1935

Figure 5 Volunteers digging out orchestra pit

Figure 6 Current Box Office

Figure 7 Original brass rods on each step

Figure 8 Brass rods now missing from stairs

Figure 9 Orchestra Rail – Edwin Showell & Co Trade Catalogue

[from: theatresearch archive]

Figure 10 NTR three tier auditorium

Figure 11 Matcham box frontages

Figure 12 Pit bar ceiling

Figure 13 Pit bar, Victorian tiles

Figure 14 Briggs' Panic Bar - Advertisement from an Edwin

Showell‟s 1890s Trade Catalogue

[from: theatresearch archive]

vii

viii

Introduction

1

Considering the beauty and quiet mystery of our historic

theatres the idea of losing such things to the ravages of a

fire is unthinkable. This was however, once a common

occurrence and although safety regulations have developed to

prevent this from happening so often, a study in 1982 by

Curtains!!! or A New Life for Old Theatres revealed the bleak reality of

our historic theatres. The territory of research that this

paper is looking at overall is British Theatre building,

specifically looking at fire in these buildings and how it

affects its future. Previous research into Britain's theatres

is mostly carried out by The Theatre Trust, who hold archives

on the history of over 1400 theatres in Britain (Theatre

Trust, 2014) and also publish a quarterly magazine discussing

developments, reports and articles.

The aim of this paper is to research two main points,

both surrounding British historic theatres. The first is the

process of what can be done with a theatre that has suffered

fire damage by considering the philosophical approaches to

restoration and preservation and rationalising this in a

practical approach. The second is Britain's fire safety

regulations in relation to theatres. When did legislation

concerning theatres first begin to emerge and what was the

2

reasoning behind the developing legislation? Were these stable

door legislations or did they simply evolve from other

building regulations? A case study will also be researched at

the end of this paper, the New Theatre Royal in Southsea,

Portsmouth. This theatre was recently awarded a Heritage

Lottery Fund grant that is now being used, in conjunction with

funding from the University of Portsmouth, to rebuild a part

of the theatre that burnt down, add a large new addition and

restore the interior of the historic theatre.

This paper hopes to uncover a linear evolution around

theatre legislation and the reasons behind why the regulations

have evolved in the way they have. Although databases such as

Fire.Net have tried to create an overall development of fire

safety in British legislation, there is no specific look at

types of buildings such as theatres or how and why these

regulations came into place. By exploring each major piece of

legislation that relates to theatres, the expectation is to

uncover the relative thinking of those in charge and if

British officials are learning from past events. Although

there is plenty of literature surrounding the original

philosophical reasoning of preservation of buildings, there is

little exploring the beginnings of restoration. There is also

no solid research into what happens to historic theatres after

they have been damaged by fire, possibly because it is now

less likely for an event like this to occur and cause the same

level of damage fires once did. However this research expects

to cover this, while also exploring the advantages and

disadvantages of options such as rebuilding a pastiche, or

3

designing a new theatre. Lastly by choosing a case study that

is currently a live project, the New Theatre Royal, the

research into the projects progress and decisions will be the

first to be written and will allow for further study after the

project's completion. It is a unique project with two strong

but very different elements and while only one, restoration,

will be covered in this paper, the foundations will be laid

for the possibility of further research.

The research for this paper will be gathered through

secondary sources from online databases, such as the Theatre

Trust and Fire.Net but also through printed sources including,

but certainly not limited to; The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Uppark

Restored and Frank Matcham, Theatre Architect. Portsmouth City Councils

Records Office also holds a large amount of information on the

New Theatre Royal, however most research into the case study

will be primary, gathered from site visits over a 6 month

period, interviews and conversations with members of the

Theatre's staff and photographs of the developing project.

The layout of this paper will follow a similar structure

to the one above, beginning with the study into the

philosophical schools of restoration and preservation leading

into what happens after a theatre fire using the theory to

explain the advantages and disadvantages. After this will be

the chapter laying out and exploring Britain's fire safety

legislation and regulations, followed by the case study on

NTR, introducing a brief history of the building, the new

project, what is being restored/reinstated and what is new to

the historic theatre.

4

5

Chapter OneRestoration and Preservation

6

"Whatever is good in its kinde out to be preserved in respect for antiguity, as well asour present advantage, for destruction can be profitable to none but such as live by

it" -Nicholas Hawksmoor, 17 Feb 1715

Restoration

The origins of restoration of historic buildings came

from the original growing need to preserve. Up until the end

of the eighteenth century there was only one wholly

encapsulating idea to preserve historic buildings, however the

practical way in which this was done began to drift in two

very different directions. By the mid nineteenth century there

7

were two clear and different philosophical schools of thought,

to restore buildings in their most "perfect" form or to

preserve what was inherited from past generations. The most

notable original restorers were the leading church architects

of the 19th century which include Eugène-Emanel Viollet-le-Duc

and Sir George Gilbert Scott (Earl, 1996), both of whom were

criticised as vandals of their time. In their eyes,

preservation was deemed not enough to save many of the

eighteenth century churches, especially in Britain, that had

been left to rot and decay. Preservation here, as in so many

cases, had failed to work and so a more active approach had to

be taken in order to save the buildings from total ruin.

Although restoration is now seen as a more positive thing for

historic buildings than it was in the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries, care must still be taken as to the

extent of restoration and not to strip the building of its

historical fabric and identity.

As argued by Rowell and Robinson in their study on the

restoration of Uppark " It is difficult to argue that a

twentieth-century copy of an eighteenth-century ceiling is

different in kind from, say, a Victorian renewal of an

eighteenth-century red flock paper. In a slowly evolving and

changing entity..later decoration and restoration work is

surely as much a part of the history of the building as

anything that went before".

Sir George Gilbert Scott and Viollet-le-Duc

8

At its height between 1840 and 1873, over 7,000 churches

had been restored all over the British Isles. Two of the most

prolific architects involved in this surge in restoration, one

in Britain, the other on the continent were Scott (1811-78)

and Viollet-le-Duc (1814-79). Although they were known for

removing later features of notable architecture and

constructing their own, often in the Gothic Revival style the

two spearheaded the campaign for restoration. Troubled and

deeply resented for the best part of a century, without their

determination, restoration may never have become what it is

today, a positive and controlled way of returning the decayed

remnants of our built history back to what it once was.

It is forgotten by Purists that these architects and others

like them were restoring these buildings to prevent total

loss, and the conditions they created then are now seen as the

admirable norm (Earl,1996,p.57).

Ely Cathedral, Cambridgeshire

Due to several rebuilds by medieval craftsmen, problems

in the structure of Ely Cathedral meant that by the Victorian

era much work was needed if the cathedral was to survive. The

repairs and additions made by Scott were extensive, including

huge repairs to the West tower, the moving of the choir stalls

into their current position and the total rebuild of the

Chapel of St.

Catherine near the

west entrance

(Pevsner,1970).

9

Although he repeated the use of stone and lime mortar, Scott

also introduced new materials such as new gilded iron,

Victorian clay tiles and stained glass, something that now

would not be done in a restoration project.

Notre-Dame, Paris

Viollet-le-Duc studied in depth the philosophy behind the

Gothic style rationalising it as a type of skeletal form

designed to bear the weight of tall vaults. He used this

understanding to inform his restoration work of the Gothic

churches in Paris. His Notre Dame project, in 1844, was the

first to see this

applied to his

physical work. His

restoration neither

revived its

twentieth-century

appearance nor

restored the building

back to its original

form. Instead it became a re-imagined form from Viollet-le-

Duc's own head, a form of the building that had never existed

before.

Preservation

The popularity of Architectural preservation began

officially in the eighteenth century as a response to the

10

Figure 2 Notre Dame, after restoration

Figure 1 Notre Dame, prior to restoration

growing modernism movement. The leading art critic of the

nineteenth century John Ruskin, first stood up and voiced his

opinion on what he saw as mindless and irreversible

destruction, however it was not until William Morris formed

the SPAB that the preservation school of thought began to make

its mark.

The Seven Lamps of Architecture

One of the first pieces of literature written concerning

the negative effect of restoration was by Ruskin in 1849.

Widely considered the father of anti restoration Ruskin firmly

believed that to restore was to destroy, buildings were not

something to be repaired but to be cared for, thus first

introducing the idea of "stewardship" or "trusteeship". Ruskin

conveys the idea that buildings partly belong to those who

built it and partly to every generation to come, and so we are

to care for them until the time comes to part with them. The

passing down or passing on of a building is something to be

honoured and treasured, the next generation has the same right

to a building that we have had and therefore we must pass them

on in the condition that we were given them.

"For indeed, the greatest glory of a building is not in

its stones, nor in its gold. Its glory is in its Age...we feel

in the walls that have long been washed by the passing waves

of humanity....the decline and birth of dynasties, and the

changing of the face of the earth.." (Ruskin, 1849,p.243.) He

poetically describes the way in which buildings stand over us,

11

watching and withstanding, only to be changed by humanity

naturally and over a lengthy period of time. Ruskin describes

at length the idea of memories being attached to buildings,

that they hold the echoes of the past. By changing the fabric

of the building so that it could no longer be recognisable to

those who first experienced it, then those memories must

surely disappear with the material, a brick or door in a

Victorian house can look the same when replaced but it does

not experience what its predecessor did. Within this same

chapter Ruskin lays out his opinion on restoration, "It means

the total destruction which a building can suffer: a

destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered.."

(Ruskin,1849.p.252) a blunt and clear statement that resonates

with many others throughout history. Later he explains this

opinion "that spirit which is given only by the hand and eye

of the workman, never can be recalled" (Ruskin,1849,p.253)

meaning that when new work is done on a building to "restore"

it a new spirit is imprinted on to the building but the old is

lost. Although his opinion is brutal it is not without

reasoning when he goes on to explain his belief that copying

architecture is utterly impossible. To copy a historic wall

that has experienced many centuries of wear resulting in a

loss of depth or colour is counterproductive, either one

copies the wall but attempts to restore, in which case this is

a speculation on what was once there, or one copies exactly

what is there now and in that case what has been achieved, why

is the copy better than the original?

12

SPAB

The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

(SPAB) is an organisation that since its conception in 1877

has been against the destructive restoration of historic

buildings. Set up by William Morris and other members of the

Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood in the wake of a deep concern that

the historic fabric of buildings was being scraped away by the

overzealous attempts of architects to restore them

(SPAB,2009). The SPAB manifesto, as with the Seven Lamps of

Architecture, does not dance around the subject of restoration

but pounces upon it and rips it apart labelling it "a feeble

and lifeless forgery". This importance of the document goes

beyond the contents but to its physical form. This was the

first time the basic ideals that guide modern conservation

principles had been set down. The modern day society still

adheres to these beliefs with their principal concern being

the nature of restoration and repair works because of the

potentially damaging effect they can have. They encourage the

mending of historic fabric and state on their website that

"Old buildings cannot be preserved by making them new."

The problem with SPAB teachings arise when studying

a building that has reached beyond the point of simple repair

work and the theory of preservation will no longer save it. If

we are to comply with their guidelines then these buildings

will be lost, as to interfere with their fate would go against

the manifesto. But what of the importance of these buildings,

they could be the last of their kind and therefore hugely

13

significant on a national scale, or important historically on

a local scale, how does one justify the loss of said buildings

simply because of an idea not to interfere.

After a Fire

There are three main options available to those who wish

to rebuild a theatre after it has been destroyed by fire,

although thankfully this is a much rarer occurrence than it

once was. The decision of which course of action to take is

greatly influenced by how damaged the building has been and

how much of the original is left. For the chosen case study

New Theatre Royal, which is studied in greater depth in

chapter three, much time had passed since the fire which

destroyed all of its backstage, so a modern part rebuild and

internal restoration plan was the obvious choice for this

Grade II listed theatre. Complete new build

The most likely result

for a theatre that has caught

fire has sadly always been

either total destruction or a

gutted shell of what once was.

For these theatres and the

people involved in their care

and stewardship, the decision is often a complete modern

rebuild, to reflect the current times and not to try and

14

Figure 3 Theatre Royal, Norwich. 1930's

replace what ha s been lost. An example of this was the fire

in the Theatre Royal in Norwich in 1934, which gutted the

entrie building and left it structurally unsafe, unable to be

saved. The decision was made to completely rebuild the theatre

as a new faience-front, Art Deco style building,(fig.4) a

architectural style that was at the height of popularity

during the 1930's.

The benefits of a complete modern

rebuild are down to the opportunity in

internally redesign, be that a more

spacious theatre with a more

agreeable, open feel, or the chance to

employ the most modern theatre

technology. Compare trying to add this

new technology in to an existing

historical theatre, where there are

many restrictions on modifications due

to grade listings. Having the opportunity to create this all

from new, down to lighting and sound is extremely beneficial,

both financially and in the prospected life of the theatre. As

well as internally, the external appearance of the theatre is

just as important in a modern design, owing to its influence

in its local context. The original context or streetscape may

have totally changed around the theatre and so a new build has

the ability to be designed to fit more comfortably into its

new and current surroundings.

On the other hand the negatives of a modern rebuild

revolve around the loss and impact on the public who knew and

15

Figure 4 Theatre Royal,

used the old theatre. Although the original fabric will have

already been lost in the fire, the visual aspects of losing

the theatre if it is not to be rebuilt in the same fashion

have a lasting impact on the retelling of the past. The

history of the building that once stood can be retold to a

certain degree but there is something lasting about seeing

what one is learning about in order to fully understand it. If

said theatre was the last of its kind, a greater sense of loss

will be associated with it compared to a twentieth century

terraced house burning down. Historic buildings, including

theatres, are irreplaceable pieces of history that are not

repeated or mass produced. Statistics presented by TheatreSearch

state that a 1982 survey showed 85% of the 1000 Theatre

Royals, Grands, Alhambras and Empires had been destroyed or

irretrievably altered and only a tenth are still in use as

theatres. Another shock statistic to discourage the idea of

complete demolition from TheatreSearch is the number of remaining

listed theatres; only ten Grade I listed theatres and just 44

remaining of Grade II* listed description.

(TheatreSearch,2011. Mackintosh & Sell, 1982)

Partial Rebuild

In several cases in the history of British theatres some

have managed to escape only partly damaged, mostly thanks to

the efficiency of the fire protection in place and the quick

thinking of the theatres staff. Examples of these included New

Theatre Royal, Southsea and Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, both of

16

which had fires which started backstage and fire safety

curtains that dropped, saving the rest of the theatre from any

damage.

The advantages of partially rebuilding a theatre depend

upon the part of the theatre being rebuilt. In most cases

theatre fires start backstage, in which case there is

potential for modern, technical improvements. As with a

complete modern rebuild, a huge advantage of rebuilding this

particular section of a theatre is the chance to improve the

technical performance that can be achieved on stage by

enlarging fly towers, lifts and mechanisms and creating a much

more spacious backstage that will positively impact on the

performance of the building. Building upon this point the

potential of added space, depending on the amount of

surrounding land, can lead to increases in profits due to

interests of bigger shows and theatre companies. In fact the

SPAB at one time (now deleted) added a note to their manifesto

in 1924 in favour of this type of modern addition explaining

that "A modest addition is not opposed to the principles of

the Society provided....that the new work is in the natural

manner of today, subordinate to the old and not a reproduction

of any past style."

However the disadvantages of rebuilding part of a theatre

are many and concentrate mainly on difficulty with design and

harmony. Firstly a historic theatre is likely to be listed

which throws into light how much can be done to the building;

the argument to build additional space onto a historic

building must be a sturdy and persuasive one. The design of

17

this added piece of architecture splits those concerned into

two camps, a stark modern contrast so as to show the time

difference between the old and new, which could try so hard to

differ from the original that the harmony of the finished

building could turn into a competition between old and new. On

the side a subtle design just different enough to acknowledge

the distinction which could threaten to be so successful that

the lines between old and new are blurred and disturb any

historical record of the theatre. As explained "..no matter

how carefully designed and executed, must to some degree

interfere with the appreciation of the thing preserved."(Earl,

1996,p.113)

Rebuild/Restore

The most famous of theatres in British history was, and

thanks to a twenty-three year long project, still is the Globe

Theatre. Its reconstruction began in 1993 and can only be

described as painstakingly accurate. After three and a half

years of construction the Globe was finished, arguably the

most important and successful theatre reconstruction project

ever completed. This type of project is extreme and requires

complete faith and dedication to the original theatre. As well

as complete rebuilds, internal rebuilds and/or restorations

are also commonly necessary when confronted with a theatre

that has been gutted internally. The Savoy Theatre in London

is an example of this as in 1990 while restoring the theatre

the inside was completely gutted by a fire. Thankfully the

18

original drawings survived and an accurate restoration was

completed in three years.

There are several advantages to rebuilding and/or

restoring a theatre back to its original appearance. The

theoretical approach behind restoration is to bring a building

back to its former, more desirable state (Earl, 1996). This is

certainly true in public buildings such as theatres as the

memories of those who know it are much easier to recollect in

a theatre; that appears the same, once this is gone those

memories fade and distort without something to anchor them to.

Another reason is due to the value and importance of the

theatre, the complete loss of any historical theatre is

irreversible, architecturally, historically and socially .

Lastly rebuilding or restoring a theatre using its original

materials requires the skills of craftsmen, these are now few

and far between and so the importance of supporting them is

invaluable, if these building traditions are to continue. A

report published by English Heritage in 2005, estimated that

the built heritage workforce would have to rise by 3,420 in

the following 12 months to almost 90,000. The lessening

interest in this field of construction is an area that must be

addressed, by working on local buildings, interest in learning

about these skills may begin to rise.

Based upon a Puritanism belief any such attempt to

rebuild a historic building would be a "pastiche" or a "fake".

The belief that "If something is damaged or destroyed, they

consider that it should not be repaired or copied, but swept

away" (Rowell&Robinson, 1996,p.37) is shared by many and to

19

oppose this could create strong feelings that may cause

problems for a rebuild project. Another problem that groups

such as SPAB use as an argument against such a project is the

evidence of what once was. Following the total loss of a

building, evidence for reconstruction may be very hard to come

by, many theatres store the history of the building including

plans in the theatre itself. After destruction any attempt to

rebuild the theatre is seen as speculation on what was once

there, the argument being if one cannot rebuild it exactly,

then why rebuild at all.

When faced with a damaged historic theatre the decision

as to which philosophical school of thought is most suitable

appears overwhelming and impossible. The draw of preservation

is its clear: arguments by famous architects and the creation

of a society with the once sole purpose of preventing the

destruction of restoration. Although it was once the more

widely accepted school of thought this may well have changed

in more recent years. The rapid decay in our historic built

environment has meant that the efforts of just preservation

are often no longer enough. Historic buildings damaged by

events such as fires are sometimes the last remaining example

of an architect's work or style of architecture and therefore

the loss of such a building is hard to justify. Hence

restoration is becoming a more common and therefore more

developed way of caring for a historic building.

The likelihood of a destructive fire within our historic

theatres is thankfully becoming a much rarer event, however

20

the decision on what will happen to the building after this is

still as complex, if not more so. The public attachment to

buildings such as these means that by demolishing the remains

of a theatre, one could be faced with public anger. Therefore

the options available must be carefully weighed up,

considering the advantages and disadvantages previously

discussed. Unfortunately decisions such as these are never

simple and the financial benefits of a decision such as this

normally over rule any other factors. As the famous Greek

tragedian Sophocles wrote in his tragedy Antigone, "Surely

there never was so evil a thing as money, which maketh cities

into ruinous heaps, and banisheth men from their houses, and

turneth their thoughts from good unto evil."

21

Chapter TwoFire Safety Development in British Theatres

"Man is the only creature that dares to light a fire and live with it. The reason? Because he alone has learn to put it out." Henry Jack Vandyke Jr

22

The development of fire safety in Britain is complex and

was slow to progress into what it is today. The threat of fire

in theatres was present from the early 19th century when the

use of naked gas flames was introduced into all British

theatres. The use of gas lighting in theatres had become a

potent sign of technological advances; however it was not

without its dangers. From the beginning of the 1800's to the

mid 1900's a number of major fires caused the deaths of over

1000 people. Called for by a Select Committee in 1886, Captain

Shaw of the London Fire Brigade listed fifty fires in London's

Theatres that had occurred in the previous thirty-three years

as well as twenty-six in the provinces (Booth,1995). These

fires resulted in "stable door" legislation as a result of

public enquiries and a home office investigation.

The first step taken in the prevention of fires in

theatres was after the old Drury Lane Theatre was demolished

to make way for a more modern design that incorporated new

fire prevention innovations. The most essential of these was

the introduction of the iron safety curtain, which later

became mandatory in all large theatres in Britain, and a large

water tank incorporated into the ceiling of the auditorium.

Despite these innovations the theatre caught fire in 1809,

23

caused it is believed, by the gas lighting, which was the

cause of almost all theatre fires until electric lighting was

introduced (Wright, 2007). Although fire resistant scenery

was introduced along with these, the curtain and upholstery

were extremely flammable and onstage lighting was positioned

too close to most stage curtains.

The Exeter Theatre Royal fire in 1887 is the most studied

and worst theatre fire in British history due to the death of

186 people. It was the second theatre fire that caused

considerable change within the legislation to protect

audiences and theatres. It brought to light the lack of safe

routes out of theatres in case of a fire and also the

overcrowding that often occurred in stalls of theatres. Over

capacity in theatres was a danger in its self but paired with

a lack of emergency exit routes proved fatal. In the stalls of

the Theatre Royal the exits were located at the back of the

theatre, those seated in the front rows became trapped between

the fire and a mass of people trying to escape. Most of the

dead were seated on the upper gallery where there was but a

single exit (Anderson, 2002) and panic caused many of the

audience members to throw themselves out of the windows onto

the street below. This accident led to a report which aided

in the passage of Section 36 of the Public Health Acts

Amendment Act of 1890 which outlines that "Every building

which, after the adoption of this part of this Act in any

urban district, is used as a place of public resort, shall, to

the satisfaction of the urban authority, be substantially

constructed and supplied with ample, safe, and convenient

24

means of ingress and egress for the use of the public, regard

being had to the purposes for which such building is intended

to be used, and to the number of persons likely to be

assembled at any one time therein". This was a positive

development in the fire safety of British theatres; it was the

first acknowledgement that fire exits were imperative to

saving lives in the event of a fire and was the first

government act that required London and other urban Theatres

to have means of escape that met a certain standard. These

standards were however set very low and separate councils were

not required to comply. A separate bill introduced to allow

county councils the power to engage inspectors and insist on

fire escapes and fire alarms was not passed, seeming to

suggest that the main focus was inner cities, and theatres in

other areas of the country were not seen as at risk or as

important.

In 1905 London County Council was given powers to

facilitate means of escape through the London Buildings Act

(Amendment) Act. This built upon a previous act from 1894;

however it now laid out what was accepted as "proper means of

escape". Two problems immediately arise from reading through

the act its self, the first was the act made it very clear

that it was for London only. It is correct that theatre fires

at the time were far more common in London than anywhere else

in the country but it is not to say that they did not occur in

any other city. In fact those fires during the 19th century

and early 20th century that led to deaths or complete

destruction of buildings were located in cities outside of the

25

capital. The second problem of the 1905 act was that it was to

be enforced upon "new buildings" which was defined within the

act as a building that was started after the commencement of

the act on the 1st January. Therefore any building already

standing or one which had began to be constructed before the

act commenced did not have to conform to this act, no means of

escape was necessary. The act did include a new schedule of

fire-resisting materials which was the first time a list of

this kind was available.

A fire in 1911 dictated the evacuation time in all public

buildings including offices, right up until modern day. This

fire was at the Empire Palace Theatre in Edinburgh. The French

illusionist, The Great Lafayette was halfway through his

performance when a lamp at the back of the stage caught fire

and set the whole stage alight. During this time it was

traditional for the orchestra to play the National Anthem

during breaks between performances. On realising that they

were in danger, the audience made a rush for the doors but the

threat of a stampede was believed to have been prevented by

the playing of the National Anthem by the orchestra. By the

time they had finished playing, which was 2.5 minutes, the

whole audience of about 3000 had been safely evacuated from

the building (Stollard,1991). On studying the fire precautions

that the theatre had in place it was a coincidence that

playing the National Anthem allowed the safe escape and not

that it kept the audience calm. The Empire Palace Theatre had

been built with ample exits from the building that were

designed to allow full escape in three minutes (Fernandez,

26

2011). The theatre was also equipped with a mandatory fire

safety curtain, which was lowered as soon as the outbreak of

the fire was discovered, however it jammed. The employees of

the theatre had been trained by the London fire department and

practised monthly fire drills, 10 years previously this would

never have been done. Through this training they knew to use

the fire extinguishing equipment and water to put out the

flames on the curtain. Altogether, this had so far been the

most competent reaction to a fire in a theatre that had ever

occurred and the quick reactions and well planned fire exits

had no doubt saved the lives of the audience members.

Manual of Safety Requirements in Theatres and Other Places of

Entertainment

As a result of several very public theatre fires in

Britain, the Home Office introduced its "Manual of Safety

requirements in theatres and other places of public

entertainment" in 1934. This manual was split up into sections

that focused on objects/areas within a theatre and places of

public entertainment that required special attention when it

came to fire prevention. The introduction states that

"although in some of the larger towns considerable attention

has been given...other areas where...public performances are

given in buildings which do not afford the necessary

protection against fire"(p.1) As mentioned before, the London

Buildings Act (Amendment) Act had really only influenced

theatres in London and here it was recognised that other

27

cities were not up to similar standards. From the beginning,

the manual highlights nine fires that directly influenced the

creation of the document and that every precaution advised is

a direct result of lessons learnt by one of the following

disasters: -Ring Theatre Vienna where 620-850 people died (1881)

-Exeter fire where 186 people died (1887)

-Paris Charity Bazaar where 124 died (1897)

-The Iroquois Theatre Chicago where 566 people died (1903)

-The Empire Palace Theatre Edinburgh (1911)

-The Grand Assembly Rooms Leeds (1923);

-Drumcollogher Co Limerick where 50 people died out of a total

of 150 (1926)

-The Glen Cinema Paisley where 70 children were suffocated and

crushed (1929)

-Coventry (1931)

Each of the fires in which people died led to either

experiments that increased the knowledge of fire safety areas

(Vienna, value of roof vents and different types of safety

curtains) or resulted in complete legislation overhauls

(Exeter, Iroquios, Paisley and Paris). Those fires that

actually resulted in no deaths were mentioned because the home

office believed that thanks to "the steadiness and courage of

the audience, aided in many cases by praiseworthy action on

the part of management and staff"(p.4) the prevention of any

loss of life was worth mentioning. This can be analysed as

28

Z x Floor Area in Square feetA= E x B x C x D

either an increase in training and education on how to prevent

fires, how to fight them (Empire Palace and Grand Assembly) or

the understanding that everyone would escape unhurt if they

just remained calm and left the building one at a time (Empire

Palace and Coventry).

Although proper means of escape had been touched upon

before in the London Buildings Act (Amendment) Act they had

never been set out in such terms until the manual. Due to the

lessons learned from the Exeter Theatre Fire the manual set

out a formula to calculate the total width of exits required

from each portion of a building. The value of each can be

found in Appendix A

A theatre could have all the fire exits that were required of

it, but as proved by the fire in the Paris Bazaar and the

Iroquois Theatre, without proper signage, these escape routes

would be invisible in the panic of fire. By using fire exits,

audiences can be trained to use all exits not just the main

entrance, as by using just the main route all calculations as

to the time of clearing become useless. On a purely

psychological level one cannot over estimate the importance of

well located fire exits to keep an audience feeling secure and

calm in the event of a fire.

The Manual introduced the importance of the route of

escape for the first time. This highlighted the danger of

29

moveable seats and stated that all seats should be fixed to

the ground with no less than 12 inches between the rows.

Gangways were noted as an important part of the route of

escape and so the width was set down as a minimum of 44

inches, although this was to be for new builds only, which

begins to bring into question the safety of the existing

buildings and why these strict new guidelines were not the

same. As a result of a fire in Laurier Palace Theatre,

Montreal in 1927 and the death of 80 people the width of

escape routes had to be the same the entire way including

corridors and stairways. The final and arguably most important

part to these escape route were the fire doors, which up until

the report was written had no standard codes or requirements.

The escape doors in the case of Iroquois were locked from the

outside and could not be opened from the inside, a point which

is made clear in the report could not happen again. Many

designers and builders had begun to design fire doors with

ways of opening them from the inside quickly.

The second important section within this manual was "Part

V" p.40, on fire prevention including the fire curtains,

drenchers and roof vents, all features that became mandatory

for larger theatres. After the fire in Vienna, experiments

began on different types and grades of fire safety curtains,

depending on the size and age of the theatre. The most common

at the time that are described within the report were rigid

one, two and three piece curtains. The grade of the curtain

required depended upon which class the theatre was given and

this class depended on the seating capacity and overall size

30

of the auditorium. (Appendix B) As well as specification on

the type of curtain and the material it should be made from,

the manual also included that there must be no scenery

obstructions such as at Iroquois, where an on stage spotlight

blocked the dropping of the safety curtain. Finally there

could not be any delay between the discovery of a fire and the

dropping of the curtain, something that today seems

unthinkable however, in several cases in the 1900's the delay

of the fire curtain being dropped led to disasters such as in

Exeter. The value of drenches over these safety curtains was

seen as immeasurable, with evidence from the Empire Palace

theatre when the staff wetted the curtain themselves to save

the audience. Modern theatres are not required to have

drenchers with their safety curtains as the quality of modern

day fire safety curtains is much greater than their Victorian

counter parts, thanks greatly to the early developments in

Vienna. In modern day health and safety, particular attention

is paid to smoke inhalation as several studies, including one

by John R. Hall, Jr, written in 2011 in which he states "As of

1999 and later years, the smoke inhalation to burns ratio has

been about 2-to-1", show that smoke inhalation is more likely

to be a cause of death. Although this was not so much the case

in the 1900's as poorly chosen building materials and fire

exits caused more deaths by burns, a large number of the

deaths in Exeter were caused by people choking to death in the

gallery because of the smoke. As with the safety curtains the

types of roof vent that the report deemed necessary were split

into categories depending on the capacity. (Appendix C)

31

The 1934 manual was the largest and most detailed that

had ever been written and fire safety regulations today take

many of their major points from it. By studying the most

devastating fires, those responsible for the new legislation

could learn from the mistakes made and the most common factors

that led to deaths in these theatres. This manual does not

however attempt to talk about the structural issues that led

to many theatre fires such as building materials and the

prevention of a building collapsing due to fire damage.

Post 1940

The safety of the structure of theatres was first

reviewed by a joint committee of the building research board

and the fire offices committee (FOC) in 1946 when they

released their first report, 8 years after they were first

established. Following this report the Joint Fire Research

Organisation was established, this was a specially formed

group who became responsible for the research into all aspects

of fire prevention (BRE, 2014). For the first time a

professional research board had been set up with the equipment

and resources to methodically reassess how the building

structures of the time were performing. Although the JFRO was

later amalgamated into the Building Research Establishment the

organisation was the first to test and consciously seek to

improve building materials in a bid to ensure better fire

resistance in buildings.

32

Until 1961, every local authority in the country had the

legal right to create building bylaws, resulting in over 1400

unregulated bylaws across the country before the Public Health

Act of 1961. This act first introduced the idea of one set of

building regulations that would cover the entire country, a

more straightforward way of regulating safety in buildings in

the whole country and a huge step forward in the safety in

theatres.

In addition to one set of building regulations introduced

to the whole country, the Fire Precautions Act 1971 set out

additional legislation to regulate every authority and every

building within those authorities. One of these that hugely

impacted British theatres was one that would become standard

in public buildings today, the Fire Certificate. As set out in

the Act this certificate was, and still is, issued under the

act by the fire authority and section 1 (2) (c) "Use for

purposes of entertainment, recreation or instruction or for

purposes of any club, society or association ;" outlined that

theatres were one of the public buildings that required this

certificate. Each building had to submit details of the use of

the building, plans of each floor of said building and what

the fire authority would have been most interested in, the

building's means of escape in case of fire and the warning

system the building had in place. Fire inspectors were also

granted maximum powers for the first time after having been

rejected several years previous. Inspectors now "may do

anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out this

33

Act...namely to enter any such premises...and to inspect the

whole.."

Fire safety regulations have been instrumental in

increasing the safety within British Theatres. Destructive

fires such as those in the eighteenth and nineteenth century

are no longer a common occurrence as they once were. The sad

but true reality is that without fires such as at Exeter,

Iroquois, Vienna or Empire Palace, the painstakingly detailed

regulations in place today may not have existed. It is only by

experiencing and learning from these tragedies that officials

could collect vital information from consequent investigations

that led to stable door legislation. The Theatre Royal fire in

Exeter led to a complete over haul of the then existing

regulations in London and many other provincial cities and the

creation of the Section 36 of the Public Health Acts

Amendment Act of 1890. The most instrumental and detailed

legislation to be published on fire regulations in British

theatres was the Manual of Safety Requirements in Theatres and

Other Places of Entertainment which took into account nine

incidents involving fires in four theatres and two cinemas

around the world. Each fire informed officials of certain weak

aspects such as fire exits, signage and fire fighting

equipment that were then investigated and the minimal

requirements specified. This highly detailed and specific

report still influences all modern regulations and is

invaluable in the improvement of public safety and fire

prevention in Britain's theatres.

34

35

36

Chapter ThreeNew Theatre Royal

"Les longs souvenirs font les grands peuples." - Montalambart, c 1830

Long memories make great people.

37

The New Theatre Royal has a complex history of

redevelopment, destruction and controversy. The site was

originally Landport hall, used as a racquet court before being

bought by Mr Henry Rutley in 1854. Rutley also purchased Swan

Tavern (The White Swan) and used the two venues as music halls

until he applied for a license to covert the hall into a

theatre two years later. The license was granted on the

condition that the adjoining door between the two was blocked

up ( Stephen, 2011, p. 6) and on the 29th of September 1856

the Theatre Royal opened. The theatre changed hands after

Rutley died in 1874 being run temporarily by Portsmouth and

Southsea Assembly rooms and Theatres Limited until Mr John

Waters Boughton bought the theatre and surrounding land.

There is no doubt that this change of hands and subsequent

land purchase made a positive and long lasting impact on the

fate of the Theatre. The historical link to the land behind

the Theatre and The White Swan has meant that project

architects Penoyre & Prasad have been able to make full use of

the empty land on Exchange Road.

38

On the 19th May 1884, two years after his purchase,

Boughton employed C.J.Phipps to expand and remodel the entire

Theatre. By rebuilding the new theatre within the shell of the

old Phipps was able to finish this project in 3 months,

reducing the financial impact on the Theatre. He created three

balconies, with three boxes on either side of the stage, one

at each level as well as two additional boxes and the rear of

the dress circle (first balcony) (Theatres Trust,

2013).Boughton continued to buy up land and in 1900 employed

Frank Matcham to enlarge the Theatre. There is no doubt that

this decision was in direct consequence of the growing

popularity of the Theatre and his recent success allowed

Matcham to make a number of large alterations as well as the

enlarged auditorium, including the large projecting enclosed

iron and glass balcony on Phipps' original façade. The largest

alteration inside was the auditorium its self, with the stage

being absorbed back into the ground floor seating and the

addition of Matcham's steel cantilever balconies. This

innovation in Theatre construction was one of Matcham's

greatest achievements, eradicating the need for structural

columns that often hindered the view of the audience.

By 1932 the decline of the Theatre and the introduction

and popularity of the cinema forced the NTR into becoming a

cinema with a projector and screen added to the auditorium. In

1948 it became a theatre again showing mainly Variety shows

before being closed for the first time. Hector Ross repertory

company occupied the building for a couple of years before

being closed again only to be reopened as a bingo hall. This

39

turbulent time for the Theatre reflects the uncertain times of

British theatre with many in London such as the Alhanbra in

Leister Square and The Empire Palace Theatre, Portsmouth. The

NTR can be said to have reached the end of its "natural life"

(Earl, 2001). The natural flow of the Theatre would have been

to either stay as a theatre or close permanently having served

the purpose for which it was built. However by forcing extra

life into the building, using it for activities that it was

not designed for, the Theatre suffered damage not only to its

fabric but to its reputation as well.

A consequence of the NTR being empty and without purpose

for the years before 1972 meant that several threatening

planning applications were submitted between 1963 and 1970,

all of which proposed the demolition of the Theatre. The

first, in 1963 was submitted in April by a development company

that wished to demolish the entire building and redevelop the

site as a dance hall, new theatre and a large block of flats

(Planning Portal, 2014). The second application came in 1966

and was the closest to being granted with just 5 votes to 3.

This was submitted by a London development company, Norman

Bruce Ltd (p.159, CMP,2011) As well as the demolition of NTR

it also included the complete demolition of the White Swan. A

ten story hotel was proposed along with 36 car parking spaces,

and was greeted with a lot of support from locals. They argued

the need for a large hotel in the area to attract business and

also pointed out that the NTR could only be used for stage

performances when permission was granted from the owner of the

Kings Theatre. The third planning application that could have

40

affected the future of NTR was submitted in 1969 and detailed

the erection of a block comprising of offices with flats,

however this too was rejected along with the last application

in 1970 that included of the demolition of the whole site.

In 1972 disaster struck the Theatre. It is believed that

children broke into the building and set off fireworks

backstage, causing the fly tower, stage and all of backstage

to catch fire (Offord, 1995). The historically significant

auditorium was only saved because the safety curtain,

redesigned after the Manual for Safety Requirements and Other Places of

Entertainment made it mandatory, fell protecting it from the

blaze that destroyed everything behind it. Compared to other

theatre fires such as the Theatre Royal in Covent Garden or

The Empire Palace Theatre in Edinburgh, both of which were

completely destroyed, the damage to NTR could hardly be called

monumental. In fact square footage wise it was only a fraction

of the Theatre, never the less the anti "Theatre Royalists"

used this to their advantage arguing that the most expensive

part of the Theatre had been lost. Following the fire the

Theatre was boarded up, however the interior was subject to

vandalism, much of the plaster work was smashed as were the

stained glass windows on the first floor bar. A direct

reaction of this was the formation of The New Theatre Royal

Trustees (Portsmouth) Ltd (Arts Council, 2014) and in 1980

enough funds were raised to buy the freehold (Theatres Trust,

2013). This purchase was significant to the future of the

Theatre; it saved the building from the possibility of

demolition by the council or a change of use which would have

41

been permanent and irreversible. However it has meant that the

Theatre is run as a charity, with no private funding except

from donations from the public and the money made from ticket

sales. If the Theatre had been bought by a private company or

individual then it could have been rebuilt much sooner and the

link now being formed with Portsmouth University would have

been unlikely.

Once the Trust had secured

purchase of the Theatre work

began on clearing the debris left

by the fire. The route taken by

the Trust was initially

conservation, with a great deal

of damage in the auditorium it

became the number one priority

for the Trust and the volunteers to quickly begin to conserve

what still remained intact in the Theatre. A lack of funding

resulted in any restoration work of plaster work and soft

furnishings left until money was raised. One of the first

courses of action was to dig out the orchestra pit (fig.5) to

allow for the temporary thrust stage to be put in place. The

history of the building tells us that the Theatre could not

have survived vacant any longer than it already had been, as

the threat of demolition was still high, so by repairing the

auditorium as quickly as possible the Trust could begin

earning money and in turn repairing more of the building.

Consequently in 1984 the plasterwork in the auditorium was

42

Figure 5 Volunteers digging out orchestra pit

also repaired as much as possible with anything removed that

was beyond saving. A year later offices for the Trust were set

up in the Upper Dress Circle bar, the reduced capacity (320)

meant that the bar space that remained on the Dress Circle and

Stall levels allowed for a comfortable amount of space for the

audience to use during the performances. In 1995 Roderick Ham

was employed and introduced a phased scheme of repairs to the

NTR. The focus of these repairs was the restoration of the

iron balcony and major work to the auditorium. Modern work to

the inside of the Theatre has proven to be less than

satisfactory with a new Box Office counter(fig.6) added in

2008 now top of the Theatres list to be removed and

potentially repositioned. The

location is untrue to the

original and the design is

proving too small for the

capacity they hope to achieve

after the new build and re-

opening.

In 2012 the Theatre was

granted a Heritage Lottery Grant of £939,900 to fund their

exciting project of expanding the current Theatre with a

modern extension. Design by Penoyre & Prasad, this new

addition is in collaboration with the University of Portsmouth

with part of the extension being used by the University's

drama department. The Anthony Minghella Creative Learning

Space will be a "unique creative learning space"(New Theatre

Royal [NTR], 2013). Caroline Sharman, the Theatre's Director,

43

Figure 6 Current Box Office

wishes to create a "made in Portsmouth" stamp as there is"an

urge to engage in detail with the working practices and

creative priorities of theatre makers." (Tompkins,Todd, 2007)

For the Theatre a new state of the art fly tower and back of

house facilities have been incorporated into the new design,

elements that have been missing from the Theatre since 1972

and have limited the Theatres capability to their own

productions.

The Restoration of New Theatre Royal

NTR has a unique history of evolution that tells the

story of Victorian theatre Architecture. The Conservation

Management Plan supplied by TheatreSearch in 2011 lays

emphasis on this fact and highlights the importance of layers

within the architecture. The scars on the building made by

unnecessary alterations, actions and events are a part of the

Theatres history and form an essential part of its identity.

Thus the direction that has been chosen by the Theatre and

encouraged by relevant authorities is one of a light touch to

preserve, conserve and celebrate all that the Theatre is.

The relative sensitivity analysis completed in the CMP

makes clear that there is little in the building of low

interest and the "whole building is highly sensitive to

change" (CMP, p.88, 2011). Set out in three colour categories,

red, purple and green as expected the entire outer shell of

the Theatre is highlighted in red along with many of the

internal walls also in either red or purple. The exception

44

being stud walls that are in place within the auditorium such

as the rear stalls wall and the temporary stage. The two most

important sections for understanding the plan for the

restoration of the Theatre are the Heritage Opportunity

Assessment followed by the Conservation and Restoration Key

Priorities. The first of these, the Heritage Opportunity

Assessment, details the history of the area and its

significance to the Theatre with an example being the

Exterior: Main Elevation described as the oldest part of the

building largely untouched from Phipps, with a "roof line that

tells an important story about the building's evolution" (CMP,

p.95, 2011). The opportunities that these areas present are

then briefly outlined with space for any additional comments.

The Conservation and Restoration Key Priorities table splits

the areas down even further and also prioritises these as

either high, medium or low with the Narrative bullet pointing

what will happen with each of these areas.

Restored and Reinstated

The fire in 1972 and the subsequent abandonment of the

building for a short time after this caused irreversible

damage to many of the unique features of the Theatre. A main

objective set out by the conservation management plan is the

restoration of the features that survive today and to

reinstate as much as possible that which was vandalised after

1972. An important outline set out in the management plan is

that "full, pure restoration would deprive the building of its

45

own life story" (p.103, C.M.P, 2011). In many cases the purist

approach can be the direction that should be taken in order to

save the historical fabric of a building, when that building

has gone through only one phase of development and therefore

only has one period of time that it can be restored back to.

However in the case of NTR the building has seen over 200

years of alterations, some such as Matcham's were positive as

it allowed the building to expand and included important

safety additions. On the other hand additions such as stud

walls and the "floating" stage were necessary at the time, but

if left in place would have a negative impact on not only the

historic fabric but the aesthetics of the Theatre. SPAB states

that "every change, whatever history it destroyed, left

history in the gap, and was alive with the spirit of the deeds

done midst its fashioning"(SPAB, 1877). Taken from the 1877

manifesto, it strengthens the decision made by NTR not to

strip back all of the additions made to Theatre.

Brassware

The brassware in the NTR was a

significant addition by Matcham when he

altered the Theatre in 1900 (CMP,

2011), it is one of the signature

features that he used in all of his

theatres but unfortunately most of it

has now been removed from NTR along

with the electric light fittings.

46

The Conservation Management Plan highlights several

areas where Matcham's brassware should be reinstated the first

of which being the external doors. These were remodelled in

1900, but are now missing the brass

handles, push-plates and crash-bars

that would have originally all been in

place.(CMP,2011) As an element of the

main external façade the replacement of

this brassware is of high priority for

the Theatre.

Matcham's main staircase up to the

dress circle once featured original

brass stair rods on each step over the

original carpets.(fig.7) It can be assumed that along with the

other brass fittings that were once

present in the Theatre, the stair rods

were taken in 1966 when the Theatre was looted and vandalised

while it was vacant.

As with the main external doors,

all internal doors also contained brass

fittings and fixtures designed by

Matcham and these too have been removed.

Matcham's brassware was supplied by

Edwin Showell & Co. whose trade

catalogue has survived and some of these

missing fittings can now be reproduced and used in restoration

projects such as this.

47

Figure 7 Original brass rodson each step

Figure 8 Brass rods now missing from stairs

Figure 9 Orchestra Rail

Finally the orchestra pit rail, which although has been

classed as a low priority for the NTR's restoration, the

patterns for re-casting are available from the Edwin & Showell

& Co. catalogue (fig.9) and therefore could be reinstated. It

is important to keep consistency with restoration projects

such as this and if brassware is being reinstated in other

locations around the building such as the doors and the main

staircase then the orchestra pit should also be included. The

rail as a physical element is also significant as it creates a

dividing element between the orchestra and the front row

stalls. (CMP, 2011)

Electric Light Fittings

The Conservation Management Plan highlights the

importance of the original light fittings, all of which have

been replaced since they were designed and installed by

Matcham. Particular emphasis has been put on reinstating these

in the main foyer as these "form essential elements of

Matcham's atmospheric foyer entrances." (p.113,CMP,2011) The

priority level for reinstating these original light fittings

has been listed as medium, along with the other locations that

lighting has been mentioned as important, including the main

staircase, stalls and the auditorium ceiling. The original

location and principles of Matcham's house lighting is

currently unknown to the Theatre, however it is hoped that

after more research they can be reinstated into the auditorium

along with the introduction of LED technology.

48

Soft Furnishings

The reinstatement of the soft furnishings within the

Theatre are categorised as a high priority in the Conservation

Management Plan as, like the brassware, the soft furnishings

are a key detail that Matcham and Phipps both used to tie

together the interior of their Theatres. Phipps' soft

furnishing detail is described well in The Stage 1884, the

seating and curtains are described as crimson and the seating

on the Dress circle as maroon. Matcham's interior was the

opposite, cream, light terracotta and gold with the soft

furnishing in copper. Although a colour scheme has not been

decided yet, it is advisable for the Theatre to keep a

consistency to their restoration and conservation process,

therefore as the auditorium is being restored to Matcham's

design the colour scheme should be of that time as well.

Plaster

NTR has only some of the original

plaster that survives as most was

vandalised and destroyed after 1972.

The fibrous plaster work that is still

completely intact is located on the

front of the three tiers(fig.10), the

dress circle was altered by Matcham

and so dates to 1900 while the Upper

circle and Gods survive from

Phipps. The four boxes

(fig.11) also have decorated

49

Figure 10 NTR three tier auditorium

Figure 11 Matcham box frontages

plaster frontages, however these were damaged when they were

removed to allow the temporary stage to be installed, so have

been sent to Hayles and Howe, the plaster restoration company

that began the original repair of the plaster in the 1980's.

The fronts of the tiers are extremely important to the Theatre

as they are almost completely intact and are another element

of the Theatre that tells the story of its evolution and

adaptations.

Pit Bar

The Pit Bar located at basement level is an area of the

Theatre that has already begun to be restored. The room was

once the bar for those seated in the stalls, however it has

been decided that because of the tight size of the space its

future use will be as an over spill space from the new stalls

bar.

A vast amount of damage has been

done to this area of the Theatre,

mostly caused sometime between the

1920's and 1950's. The original room

was decorated with tiles but at a

later date these were painted over

gold. In addition wooden boards with

Art Deco paintings were screwed on to

the walls, causing damage to the

Victorian tiling. Furthermore the old

wiring and construction steels have

caused considerable damage to the

50

Figure 12 Pit bar ceiling

Figure 13 Pit bar, Victoriantiles

ceiling, meaning that the room had become unsafe. The

restoration progress began in January starting with the old

wiring being stripped from the room and the Art Deco boards

carefully being unscrewed from the walls. The ceiling render

has been completely removed in order to do this, leaving the

concrete bare.(fig.12) The Victorian tiles are the main focus

of the room as although some have been damaged by the screws,

the rest remain largely intact and the cleaning process is

well on its way to restoring their original colour.(fig.13)

The room still has a long way to go before it is finished and

has been delayed several times due to complications arising in

other areas of the Theatre.

Required Modern Additions

The Theatre will have to have many new additions in the

areas of Health and Safety, Access and Technology as the

standards of the old Theatre were well below what are now

legal requirements. Most of these additions are located in the

auditorium, the new rear stalls ramp that allows for

wheelchair access to the stalls bar and toilets has already

been built on the left of the stalls and modern radiators have

been added to the dress circle and upper circle.

Conversations with health and safety consultants and the local

council have highlighted the need for more ventilation into

the auditorium during shows. The area that has been settled

on, although no work has yet to begin, is through the North

East stalls entrance. A large hole would have to be punched

through the wall above the second set of doors in this

51

entrance corridor; however the lack of current structural

plans of the building could complicate this seemingly simple

alteration. It is unknown as to what complications, if any,

weakening this wall could do structurally to this part of the

Theatre, however what is clear is the loss of historic fabric

that the required new ventilation system will cause. Other

modern additions that are needed to bring the Theatre up to

today's standards for the public's comfort are modern kitchen

facilities in the dress circle bar and upgraded toilet

facilities throughout the Theatre. The kitchen area has

already had many alterations over several years and a modern

upgrade from the current 1970's style kitchen can only

described as positive.

Due to the importance of the New Theatre Royal not only

locally but on a national scale, the decisions made on the

restoration and conservation have had to comply with the

outlines set out by the Heritage

Lottery and the Conservation Management

Plan. In fact the Theatre is described

in The Theatres Trust Guide to British

Theatres 1750-1950 as of "special

note". (Earl & Sell, 2000) The

decision making process has been

created using all available authorities

including, but not limited to,

Portsmouth City Council, English

Heritage(Appendix F) and the Heritage

52

Figure 14 Brigg's Panic-bar

Lottery Fund. The main point set out in the plan that will

require the most consideration is the decision to "reverse

poor and unhelpful or insensitive interventions" (CMP, p.100,

2011) as to some extent this could be a personal opinion and

the process must be monitored carefully to avoid this.

An important part of any theatre is the interior

decoration; the details are all carefully designed to create

an atmosphere that is crucial to the visitors experience and

this is the reason why the Theatre has chosen to reinstate all

lost elements that can be such as the plaster work, soft

furnishings, brassware and sculptures. Another reason behind

some of the restoration decisions is the availability to

recreate what has been lost; examples of this are the main

facade exterior doors. These were remodelled by Matcham and so

the original design by Phipps has been lost, leading to the

decision to restore these to 1900. Matcham's doors are

described by many as a key element of his theatres, in fact

Matcham's chief engineer Robert Briggs was a patentee of an

emergency escape panic-bar (fig.14) that Matcham specified for

all of his theatres. These bars were made by Edwin Showell &

Son under the name Briggs' Patent Panic Bar, and the design of

these has been recorded by the manufacturer and is therefore

available for the Theatre to reinstate.

53

54

55

Conclusion

This thesis has researched into the philosophical schools

of thought concerning restoration and preservation along with

a more in-depth study of the development of fire safety

regulations concerning British theatres and the advantages and

disadvantages of three specific options one can take after a 56

theatre has suffered a fire concluding with a case study on

the New Theatre Royal, Portsmouth. A clear linear study has

been produced of the historical developments and influences

concerning British regulations for fire safety noting the

particular importance of the Manual of Safety Requirements in

Theatres and Other Places of Entertainment and its influence

in modern day legislation. A case study on the New Theatre

Royal in Portsmouth has also been included in this thesis to

enable the further study on a selected "after fire" option for

a theatre. By studying the progression of a current rebuild

and restoration project, along with the factors and history

that influenced the project, one can further understand the

advantages and disadvantages of this chosen path in real time.

The two philosophical schools of thought studied briefly

in the thesis are the split that appeared in the care of

historical buildings at the end of the eighteenth century

enabling the development of Restoration and Preservation as

two separate approaches. The abundance of writing in favour of

Preservation such as that of Ruskin and the manifesto of SPAB

meant that researching this school of thought through

secondary research was relatively informative. However the

lack of written material in favour of Restoration at the time

of the split meant that several architectural projects were

the only method of researching the beginnings of Restoration.

The main sections of this thesis concentrate on how to

ensure a theatre can continue working after a serious fire,

57

the development of fire regulations and the New Theatre Royal

as a case study.

Researching through secondary material, several theatres

that had suffered damage through fires informed the three main

options available for theatres after fires. However due to the

success of British fire regulations recent theatre fires are

far less common and therefore a detailed description of

projects involving theatres in the more common early twentieth

century proved more elusive.

The decision of how to reinstate a theatre after damage

depends almost completely on the extent of said damage, a

theatre totally gutted has no hope of a simple partial rebuild

and is more likely to survive after a large restoration or

rebuild project depending upon how much of the historic

structure and internal fabric remains. The advantages of a new

build over either of the other options brought to light

through research are intertwined with the reasoning behind any

other modern development; the introduction of beneficial new

technology. The disadvantages of a new build are heavily

weighed down by public sympathy for the lost historic building

and the loss of historic fabric. The reality is that historic

theatres cannot be underestimated in their importance. In

comparison to this, a partial rebuild is seen as a far less

drastic form of action, however does rely on the extent of the

damage to be fairly minimal or at least have a fair amount of

complete original fabric and structure intact. It builds upon

the idea of new technology, but depends on the original

location of the fire and therefore which section is rebuilt.

58

On the other hand the design of a partial rebuild is

scrutinised far more as it is seen as a delicate balancing

act; too much like the original building and the lines between

old and new could blur, but too new and modern and the old

could be overwhelmed. Lastly the third option, rebuild/and

restore and the value of the original historic theatre, which

according to the statistics from TheatreSearch is so great we

cannot afford to lose anymore. However the evidence or

information needed for total reconstruction may not be

available as is the case for many historic buildings, so any

attempt to recreate what once was is seen as speculation on

the original.

The research into the development of British fire safety

regulations involved reading through published legislation and

communications with the Theatre Trust based in London, some

original legislation has since been amended meaning the

original publications were hard and in some cases impossible

to find.

The first introduction of fire fighting equipment within

a British theatre was Drury Lane's Theatre Royal, a safety

curtain and water tank, which led to safety curtains being

mandatory in all large theatres however a preventative method

wasn't introduced until after the Theatre Royal fire in

Exeter. This led to Section 36 of the Public Health Acts

Amendment Act of 1890 and the inclusion of "Every building

which..is used as a place of public resort, shall, to the

satisfaction of the urban authority, be substantially

constructed and supplied with ample, safe, and convenient

59

means of ingress and egress for the use of the public ". This

is the first acknowledgment that fire exits had been

previously missing and that they were instrumental in the

prevention of loss of life in the case of a fire. Following

this the London Buildings Act (Amendment Act) of 1905 gave LCC

powers to enforce the need for means of escape, however for

the mean time this was a power limited to London and did not

extend to the rest of the country until the Manual of Safety

Requirements in Theatres and Other Places of Entertainment in

1934. This manual reflected upon nine specific fires; Ring

Theatre in Vienna, Theatre Royal Exeter, Paris Charity Bazaar,

The Iroquois Theatre Chicago, The Empire Palace Theatre

Edinburgh, The Grand Assembly Rooms Leeds, Drumcollogher Co

Limerick, The Glen Cinema and Coventry. From each fire lessons

were learnt, understood and then reinforced within sections of

the manual based around fire exits and fire prevention. The

manual covered all internal concerns but did not begin to

cover how the structure of a building could be affected by a

fire; this was first investigated and later reported on by a

joint committee of the building research board and the fire

offices committee (FOC) in 1946. The Public Health Act of 196

first introduced the idea of one set of building regulations

that would cover the entire country making it impossible for

theatres to avoid the 1934 manual. In 1971 fire inspectors

were granted powers to enter any theatre at anytime with the

intent to issue or cancel fire safety certificates.

The research into the case study, New Theatre Royal, was

largely primary research, collected over months of site

60

visits, photographs and interviews with the Theatres Director

and Operations Manager. The history of the theatre was

researched using material located in the Theatres archives,

the Portsmouth Records Office and informative online

databases; including that of the Theatres Trust.

The New Theatre Royal owes thanks to many of these

regulations as it would not have survived without the

mandatory safety curtain that prevented the destruction of

anything more than backstage during its fire in 1972. The fire

affected the section of the Theatre containing the majority of

its performance technology. As discussed in the first chapter

of this thesis this allows for the potential of either a

modern or pastiche partial rebuild with the newest available

technology for stage performances included. The decision made

by the NTR trust was a modern partial rebuild with a very

large extension including new facilities for the use of

University of Portsmouth, an investor in the project. This

thesis concentrates on the restoration of the NTR as it is

just as large a project, if not larger than the partial

rebuild. This is also the part of the project that the NTR

staff are most involved in themselves, the restoration and

reinstatement of what the Heritage Statement and Conservation

Statement deemed necessary for a sympathetic and authentic

restoration project. These include but may not be limited to;

brassware, electric light fittings, soft furnishings, plaster

and the pit bar.

61

The possibility of future research is definitely

available and it can be taken in several directions depending

upon which point from this thesis is taken forwards. The case

study of New Theatre Royal was hindered at the time because

the project has yet to be finished, however once it is a

completed a more in depth study on the project as a whole

would be beneficial because of the complex history of the

Theatre and the extremely ambitious and unique project they

have embarked on. This thesis has only mentioned the modern

partial rebuild by Penoyre & Prasad because of the slow

progression of the project, however much could be researched

into with this part of the project such as the design

influence and its impact on the historic theatre.

Research into British fire safety legislation and its

impact on Britain's theatres is another area that can be

expanded on. The Manual of safety requirements in theatres and

other places of entertainment is an extremely lengthy report

that is still influencing legislation today, the positives and

negatives of this could be researched as well as the potential

for further study into any other regulations or legislation

and the effect on historic theatres.

62

Bibliography

63

Aldous,T.(2002) Frank Matcham, Theatre Builder. History Today. London,United Kingdom: History Today Ltd

Anderson,D. (2002). The Exeter Theatre Fire. London: Entertainment Technology Press Ltd

Booth,M.(1995). Theatre in the Victorian Age. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Burman,P.(1995). A Question of Ethics. The Conservation and Repair of Ecclesiastical Buildings. Retrieved from http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/ethics/conservation_ethics.htm

Carson,L (1884) The Stage Guide 1884. London: The Stage

Carson, L. (1900) The Stage Guide 1900. London: The Stage

County Recreation Department (1976) The Theatre Royal An examination of its potential for restoration and development as a city and regional arts facility. Hampshire, United Kingdom

Earl,J. (1996). Building Conservation Philosophy. Dorset: Donhead Publishing.

64

Earl, John & Sell, Michael, (200), The Theatres Trust Guide to British Theatres 1750-1950. London: A&C Black.

Fernandez, B (2011).The Festival Theatre, Edinburgh.Retrieved from Arthur Lloyd's music hall and theatre history database: http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Edinburgh/Festival.htm

Fressoz,J.(2007). The Gas Lighting Controversy: Technological Risk, Expertise, and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century Paris and London. Journal of Urban History, 33. 729-755. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0096144207301418

Garrett,D. (2011).The New Theatre Royal, Guildhall Walk, Portsmouth. Retrieved from Arthur Lloyd's music hall and theatre history database: http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/PortsmouthTheatres.htm

Glasgow School of Art fire: Iconic library destroyed.(2014) Retrieved from BBCNews Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27556659

Hall, Jr.(2011). Fatal Effects of Fire. NFPA, index no. 1598

History of Fire Safety.(2009) Retrieved from FireNet database: http://www.fire.org.uk/history-of-fire-safety.html

Mackintosh, Iain & Sell, Michael, (1982), Curtains!!! or A New Life ForOld Theatres. Eastbourne:John Offord,

National Heritage Training Group. (2005). Traditional Building Craft Skills. English Heritage database: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/craftskillsreport.pdf

New Theatre Royal, Portsmouth.(2013). Retrieved from http://www.takeonebuilding.org.uk/buildings/new-theatre-royal-portsmouth

New Theatre Royal (Portsmouth),(2011) Retrieved from the Theatres Trust Theatres Database : http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/resources/theatres/show/983-new-theatre-royal-portsmouth

65

Offord,J (1995). New Theatre Royal Portsmouth. A short appreciation. Portsmouth, United Kingdom: Tabarts Productions

Our History. (2014). Retrieved from the BRE Database: http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1712

Pevsner, N.(1970) The Buildings of England: Cambridgeshire. (2nd ed.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Portsmouth City Council Planning Portal.(2014) Retrieved from the Portsmouth City Council Database : http://publicaccess.portsmouth.gov.uk/online-applications/

Rowell,C, Robinson,J.(1996). Uppark Restored. London: National Trust Enterprises Limited

Stephen, L. (2011). Heritage Statement: New Theatre Royal, Guildhall Walk, Portsmouth.(11/0153) M:\HC\Projects\Projects 101-200\11.0153 - New Theatre Royal, Portsmouth\Reports\2011.08.30_Heritage Assessment_NTR_Final.docx

Stollard, P.(1999). Fire From First Principles: A Design Guide to InternationalBuilding Fire Safety. (3rd ed) London: E & Fn Spon.

Strike,J. (1994). Architecture in Conservation Managing Development at Historic Sites. London: Routledge.

Theatres and Halls in Portsmouth, England.(2013) Retrieved from http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk /PortsmouthTheatres.htm#royal

Theatresearch, (2011). The New Theatre Royal, A Conservation Management Plan. North Yorkshire: Theatresearch

Theatresearch, (2011). The New Theatre Royal, A Conservation Statement. North Yorkshire: Theatresearch

The New Theatre Royal Trustees (Portsmouth) Ltd. Retrieved from the Arts Council Database: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/browse-regularly-funded-organisations/npo/new-theatre-royal-trustees-portsmouth-ltd/?minimal=true

66

Tompkins,S. Todd,A (2007) The Unfinished Theatre. Architectural Review. Issue No.1325.Northampton, United Kingdom: EMAP Publishing Limited

Walker,B.(1980) Frank Matcham. Belfast: Blackstaff Press

Williamson,K.(2010). Development and Design of Heritage Sensitive Site: Strategies for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. Oxon: Routledge.

Wright,P. (2007). Iron Curtain: From Stage to Cold War. New York: OxfordUniversity Press Inc.

University of Portsmouth New Theatre Royal.(2012). Retrieved from Penoyre & Prasad database : http://www.penoyreprasad.com/projects/university-of-portsmouth-new-theatre-royal/

67

Sources of Illustrations

Figure 1 Notre Dame, prior to restoration [Retrieved September2nd 2014: http://fr.academic.ru/dic.nsf/frwiki/568062]Figure 2 Notre Dame, after restoration [Retrieved September 2nd 2014:

http://www.saber.es/web/biblioteca/libros/catedral-de-leon-historia-y- restauracion/html/fotos/f016.htm]Figure 3 Theatre Royal, Norwich, 1930's [Retireved September 2nd 2014: https://secure.theatreroyalnorwich.co.uk/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScont

68

ent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::article_id=F1DCA31 C-5488-47B3-9480-99AF0226DD18]Figure 4 Theatre Royal, Norwich, 1935 [Retrieved September 2nd 2014

https://secure.theatreroyalnorwich.co.uk/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScont

ent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::article_id=F1DCA31 C-5488-47B3-9480-99AF0226DD18]Figure 5 Volunteers digging out orchestra pit [from: New Theatre Royal archive]Figure 6 Current Box Office [Authors own]Figure 7 Original brass rods on each step [Authors own]Figure 8 Brass rods now missing from stairs [Authors own]Figure 9 Orchestra Rail – Edwin Showell & Co Trade Catalogue [from: theatresearch archive]Figure 10 NTR three tier auditorium [Authors own]Figure 11 Matcham box frontages [Authors own]Figure 12 Pit bar ceiling [Authors own]Figure 13 Pit bar, Victorian tiles [Authors own]Figure 14 Briggs' Panic Bar - Advertisement from an Edwin Showell‟s 1890s Trade Catalogue[from: theatresearch archive]

69

Appendices

70

Appendix A - Fire exit formula

71

where:-A = a number of units of exits widths requiredone unit is 22 inches.Exits should be in multiples of this width, with no exit less than two units of this width.

In existing buildings:-Doors 40 to 55 inches wide count as 2 units 56 to 75 inches wide count as 3 units 76 to 100 inches wide count as 4 units 101 to 125 inches wide count as 5 units

B = Construction of Buildings:"Class A" Buildings B=6"Class B" Buildings B=5"Class C " Buildings B=3

C= Arrangements and Protection of Stairs

For places not more than 21 inches above or below ground levelc=6stairs from places on a single floor not more than 5 feet above or below ground level c =5enclosed stairs from circle or gallery or stairs leading down to vestibule or direct to open air c=4stairs from circle or gallery unprotected and coming down into main floor of building ( Note- in such cases the exits from ground floor must be of sufficient width to handle persons from circle or gallery) c=3

D= Exposure HazardPlaces of public assembly will usually be rated as medium hazard This factor for high hazard is provided to cover a situation where exposure hazard may be serious (see list of risks below)high hazard d=1medium hazard d=2

proximity to premises of the following classes shall be held to constitute a high hazard: -

72

Accumulator makersAeroplane store and manufactures Artificial flowersArtificial Leatherbedding manufacturers brush makingcabinet making candle makingcardboard box makingcelluloidcellulose sprayingchemical workersconfectioners ( (manufacturing)cork. cotton wool.cotton clothingcotton waste. chemicalsdruggist (wholesale and manufacturing)dry cleaningfeathersfilm storage and handlingfireworksflanneletteflour and grist millgarageshay and straw dealershemp flax and juteIndian rubber making and treatinginsulating. material manufacturinglinoleum manufacturingmunitions makers and storesoil and colour merchantsoil and petrol stores (unless with underground tanks)oil refineriespaper bagspaper worksrag and waste dealerrag sortingrepositories( furniture) sawmillsships chandlersshoddystationers (manufacturing)

73

stablesstraw goodstoy shopsupholstererswood working

E= factor dependant upon height of floor above or below groundlevel

each circle, balcony or tier to be considered separately. if height or depth is intermediate take nearest figure when height is precisely between two values, take the lower value of the factor. hieght above ground level is to be taken as mean height of a circle, gallery, etc.

where height is 80 feet " E =260 70 =280 60 =310 50 =340 40 =370 30 =400 20 =440 10 =470

At ground level =500where depth = 5 =470

10 =440 15 =370 20 =340

Z= class of user of building:user for closely seated audience Z=50user as dance hall, restaurant, etc Z =30

74

75

Appendix B - Table showing different grades of safety curtains and which class of building they should be used in.

76

Taken from the Manual of Safety Requirements in Theatres and other places of entertainment.

Appendix C - Table showing different types of roof vents and which class of building they should be used in.

77

Taken from the Manual of Safety Requirements in Theatres and other places of entertainment.

78

Appendix D - English Heritage Listing Description of New Theatre Royal

Building Details: Building Name: THEATRE ROYAL Parish: PORTSMOUTH

79

District: PORTSMOUTH County: HAMPSHIRE Postcode: PO1 2DD Details: LBS Number: 474695 Grade: II* Date Listed: 30/10/1969 Date Delisted: NGR: SU6400200048 Listing Text: PORTSMOUTH SU6300 GUILDHALL WALK, Landport 774-1/8/270 (West side)30/10/69 Theatre Royal (Formerly Listed as: LANDPORT COMMERCIAL ROAD Theatre Royal)

GV II*

Theatre, formerly hall. Built as Landport Hall 1854, convertedto theatre 1856, substantially rebuilt 1884 by CJ Phipps, reconstructed 1900 by Frank Matcham, restoration work in progress from 1980. Grey and red brick in English bond, stone dressings and iron balcony. Welsh slated hipped roof. EXTERIOR: 3-storey facade with attic at centre. 5 bays. Acrossfront is a projecting 2-storey iron and glass shelter with curved ends, arcaded with 5 fretted round-arched openings, flanking paired and enriched iron Corinthian columns, basket arched opening at each end, moulded iron cornice. On first floor are 5 paired windows each with two 2-leaf fixed casements set under round iron arch with centre dividing column and flanking paired pilasters, ornate patterned aprons. On left and right return and to each of the recessed flanking curved wings is a similar round-headed casement with fretted iron balustraded balcony; band cornice and similar balustrade over with splayed rooflight over centre 3 bays. Ground floor facade is faced in black marble and has six 2-leaf entrance doors with fanlight; each leaf has 2 moulded lower panels, 2 oval middle panels and glazed upper panel. Plasterwork above imposts has decorated panels. First floor has rusticated stone quoin strips, moulded band then fluted stone Corinthian pilasters to quoins and flanking the centre 3 bays to second floor. On each side of iron

80

rooflight, high level first floor is a 2-leaf casement set under flat stone arch with flanking paired pilasters, moulded band, moulded stone head panel and second floor sillband between pilasters. Second floor has five 2-leaf 6-pane casements each with stone architrave and pediment. Entablature and moulded stoneeaves cornice. Centre 3 bays have facing stone dentilled pedimentwith relief carvings within tympanum and at centre is a half round fixed attic casement with moulded stone architrave and keystone. INTERIOR: decoration of 1900 is intact and unaltered with nautical theme having seafaring emblems such as ships prows between the boxes, Dolphin's anchors and mermaids, life belts andshells on the dress circle with military emblems on the upper circle. (Balfour A: Portsmouth: London: 1070-: 67; Lloyd DW: Buildings ofPortsmouth and its Environs: Portsmouth: 1974-: 109, 110, 111; The Buildings of England: Pevsner N & Lloyd DW: Hampshire and theIsle of Wight: Harmondsworth: 1967-: 460). Listing NGR: SU6401300094

81

Appendix E - The Theatre Trust NTR Record82

General Assessment:

In the 1840s a building called the Landport Hall was convertedfrom aracquets court attached to the Swan Tavern. In 1854, Henry Rutley, acircus proprietor, took over the tavern and applied for a licence to convertthe hall into a theatre, which opened in Sept 1856. Rutley died in 1874,and Boughton, who acquired the theatre in 1882, purchased adjoining land,

83

commissioning C J Phipps to build a larger theatre. This had threebalconies, and three boxes, one at each level, on either side as well as twoboxes at the rear of the first tier. Continuing to buy up land, Boughtondecided to enlarge the auditorium and improve the stage facilities,engaging Frank Matcham, with whom he had worked at the PrincesTheatre.Phipps' restrained but handsome pedimented classical façade of1884survived this reconstruction. Matcham did, however, make an additionwhich completely tranformed the appearance of the theatre - a projectingenclosed balcony of enriched iron and glass, supported by an arcade ofslender coupled colonnettes.Matcham built a new stage 19.8m (65ft) deep and enlarged Phipps'auditorium by absorbing part of the old stage 10.66m (35ft) deep within it,and building a range of four bow-fronted boxes on each side between thethe ends of the balconies and the new proscenium, which was 9.14m (30ft)wide. He also partly reconstructed the balconies themselves, althoughmaking use of Phipps' supporting iron columns.The lyre-shaped first balcony of six rows is pure Matcham and iscantilevered out from a line of columns which rise up to support the frontsof the two Phippsian horseshoe balconies above. The sides of the upperbalconies were altered to improve sightlines. The overall decorations (byDe Jong) are of an incredible richness. The boxes are framed by giantpolygonal columns and each upper box has an arched canopy which bellies

84

forward with a scrolled top above an oval panel. Linking the capitals of thecolumns on each side is a wide semi-circular arch, originally framing abust. The proscenium is flanked by niches, originally with statues.Surmounting the opening is a large flared painted panel with trumpetingTritons in plasterwork at its base.The whole is held together by a scheme of extremely detailed plasterworkwith a predominently nautical theme. The first tier panels aredecoratedwith naval symbols - mermaids, dolphins, anchors and shells. The secondtier honours the army; laurel wreathed lions spouting forth electric globeswhile between are draped guidons and colours. The third has continuousdeeply moulded Rococo acanthus motifs which gently emphasise itsearlier form. Most of the panel painting was lost in a thoroughlyinsensitive 1948 redecoration, although there does survive theexcellentlarge panel over the proscenium showing Thespis and boys at play.In 1959 the theatre became a bingo hall. In 1971 an application for listedbuilding consent to demolish was refused. The stage was destroyed by firein 1972 (children playing with fireworks; fortunately the firebrigadelowered the iron curtain) and the building was closed. Furthervandalismof the interior followed.Following this, members of the Theatre Royal Society worked atweekends to protect the building from decay and vandalism. TheNewTheatre Royal Trustees (Portsmouth) Ltd was formed and in 1980sufficient funds were raised to buy the freehold.

85

Despite the Trust's worthy efforts, the recovery of this superb theatreproceeded at an agonizingly slow pace. A phased scheme by Rod Ham ledto the restoration of the façade, improvements to front of house spaces,major repairs in the auditorium and the laying of the foundations for acompletely new dressing room and administration wing, but the rebuildingof the stage house is still awaited.The sightlines from the balconies are very good and allowed a forestage tobe built forward of the proscenium, enabling the splendid auditorium tofunction as a most exciting setting for drama. The comparatively largevolume, which does not detract at all from the intimacy of thetheatre, andthe unusual sloping angle of the ceiling, suggests a superb acoustic foropera and musical theatre, as well as for speech.Even in its incomplete form, the public face of the theatre was in excellentcondition and the building used for occasional performances (and regularlyas a shoppers' cafe rendezvous!), bringing confidence back to a part of theCity which had formerly seemed doomed to decay.Forty years since the fire, plans for the new stage house are finallyunderway, with reopening anticipated in 2013/14. With a potential capacityof 1,500 and an ability to arrange programming to complement that of theKing's, Southsea, the complete re-opening of this theatre is greatlyanticipated across the City, region and beyond.

86

Appendix F - English Heritage Consultation Response April 2011

87

88