The Stage

Independent expert to advise over Derby Hippodrome’s future

Published Thursday 10 April 2008 at 17:45 by Alistair Smith

Derby Hippodrome has been given a stay of execution after a High Court judge ruled that an independent expert would have to decide whether the historic theatre needed to be demolished on the grounds of public safety.

The venue’s owner, Christopher Anthony, had claimed that his advisors had warned him that following extensive damage to the building in recent weeks, it was now structurally unsound and a danger to both staff working on site and to members of the public. He had told Derby City Council that, because of this, he intended to undertake further work on the building, which could have led to its total demolition.

The council, which claims that Anthony had used inappropriate machinery during his initial ‘repair’ work on site and done so without prior agreement from them, had gone to the High Court in a bid to obtain an injunction preventing him from undertaking any further work on site.

While Mr Justice Saunders did not grant an injunction, he called on the two sides to allow an independent structural engineer to visit the Hippodrome to ascertain whether the building is unsafe - as Anthony claims - or not - as the council claims.

The independent expert is due to report back to the court later this month, after his assessment is complete on April 21.

A spokesperson for the council commented: “We would have preferred to get an injunction today, but because of conflicting expert evidence before him the judge was unable to make a decision.

“Therefore, as directed by the judge, we have agreed to appoint an independent expert to determine if any further immediate works is needed. The expert’s decision is binding to both parties. The council is confident this independent expert will concur with the council’s view.

“Today’s proceedings were purely about the current condition of the building and the health and safety of everyone including the public. There are matters that require further investigation. The council will progress this investigation with view to a possible prosecution proceeding.”

During his verdict, the judge stated that there was “clearly a triable issue between the parties” and noted that it was a criminal act to demolish a listed building. However, he stressed that it was not his responsibility to adjudicate on that at present.

He added: “The maintenance of public safety is, of course, paramount… the maintenance of this building cannot take precedence over public safety.”

He also ordered that the state of the building be kept under constant review until the court reconvened.