One of the recurrent themes of the past few years has been the indecision and obscurantism which surrounds the plans for the derelict EMD Cinema in Hoe Street.

I have blogged about this before. Basically we have a cinema building which is of some historic interest and which has a fine interior going to seed. No-one is able to use it due to a planning impasse, and the various groups interested in its fate either don't have the money or don't want to spend it in order to bring about their desired ends, or, their desired ends are such that they can't legally carry them out without sitting down and compromising. Positions are complicated and entrenched.

This is not surprising. The building, for some people, is an icon from their youth. For others it is a cultural symbol and amenity. For others still it is a potential spiritual opportunity. Some see pound signs, some see souls and others, political careers.

It is one of those issues which everyone in local politics has to have, or pretend to have, a strong opinion about; wishing to be at the vanguard of whatever finally happens but not wanting to take the risk of voicing their positions in such a manner as to be on the wrong side of the public if it all goes pear-shaped.

The Leader of the Council, Mr Clyde Loakes who wishes for more wiggle-room than he has, I expect, is a little compromised by a bold statment which he once made. It is coming back to haunt him, as he made it in a letter to one of the interested parties. This is a group called the McGuffin Society, who want the whole building restored and used as a cinema in the style it was in its heyday. They have recently put the letter, dated 10 November 2004, up on their website, quoting the offending passage:

"..The Council is committed to seeing the EMD Cinema coming back into use provinding it can be developed as a viable entity. It will use its CPO powers to purchase the building should this become necessary.

This is apparently seen as a copper-bottomed guarantee by the McGuffins. If they can get a developer with enough purchase money, funds for the restoration, operating capital and a business plan to run the cinema to make an offer, the Council have promised to provide the shotgun to force the sale of the premises. On the face of things, the McGuffins have a powerful argument that this letter obliges the Council to act if such a White Knight steps forward. What it does not do is provide the White Knight.

Nor does the letter guarantee that the Council would agree that any particular business plan would create what they suggest has to be a 'viable entity'. My cynic's hat does notice that the wily Mr. Loakes used language in his letter which rings alarm bells for contract lawyers. To contract lawyers the word 'will' in an offer is not usually seen as having the legally binding force that the word 'shall' would have. The offer was also clearly contingent. It required on the existence of a 'viable entity', to own (or lease) and operate the building as a cinema, something which was only theoretical in 2004 and has not eventuated yet. The length of time the offer was made for is not stated, again, something which is normally a fatal failing in most commercial negotiations. Mr Loakes, still the Leader of Council, and presumably an older and wiser man, is keeping very quiet on the EMD issue four and half years later.

More up to date, we now also have the interventions of one Stella Creasy, a woman who holds no elected office in the neighbourhood, but who wishes to summons all parties to a meeting to discuss matters, according to her website. Stella is the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party should Gordon Brown ever permit an election. She is also hedging her bets, with a fine sounding phrase which, like Mr Loakes's may not quite hold up to close examination:

She declares her position thus:

"Like many local people I'm keen to see cinema brought back to Walthamstow - and also to see this important Walthamstow landmark building really is open for the use of all the local community"

You will see from this that she wants a cinema, which is what most people claim they want when asked. The borough does not actually have one, despite there being a quarter of a million people who live here. Most people have to go to Stratford's modern and comfortable cinema or into town to see a flick.

What you won't see from this statement is that she has commited herself to wanting this cinema, as in the Walthamstow EMD Cinema on Hoe Street, designed by Cecil Masey with fine Art Deco interiors in the Moorish style by Theodore Komisarjevsky and resplendent with a Christie organ. What she says about this cinema, is that she would also want "to see this important Walthamstow landmark building really is open for the use of all the local community". Well, sorry, but Stella's deceptive little politician's phrase "open for the use of all the local community" is not exactly the same as having a cinema as envisaged by the McGuffins, ie the EMD restored in all its glory and showing flicks in the main hall in all its glory.

What is being offered by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG), and which has apparently been their hope all along, is a church and conference centre. UCKG have claimed that this will be open to the community, (as indeed all churches are, for that matter). As such, their existing offer could technically fit Stella's criteria if there was a cinema somewhere else. But what UKCG are offering is only the use of part of the building to show films in, a space which would also double as a theatre and a conference centre. They do not intend the main auditrorium to be used for films.

So what of the other local politicians? James O'Rourke has put his head above the parapet to inspect the building and bring out in the open the news that other as yet unidentified Councillors have been having talks in some kind of informal process expected to smoke out a solid planning application from the UCKG in due course.

James O'Rourke has cautiously welcomed the UKCG trying to make progress, and has suggested to some he is willing to back some sort of compromise, with shared use of the building. Like Ms Cressy, he also is asking for a public meeting, which as the elected councillor, seems to be a legitimate political activity, seeing as he will need to know what the public thinks in order to carry out the duties that the electorate has entrusted him with.

He and Councillor Johar Khan (Liaquat Ali, the other ward councillor, seems to have run a mile from the issue) were recently briefed by the church on their plans. He reports that UKCG have plans for a 250 seat auditorium which could have dual purpose for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screening, with two meeting rooms and a gallery all on the upper level. The entrance lobby and pub next to the cinema would be transformed into a cafe, the adjacent carpet shop converted to training rooms with a youth club above. The main auditorium would be restored to its former glory and used by the Church.

Cllrs O’Rourke and Khan gave a cautious welcome to the proposals saying:

“This building has served the community of Walthamstow for the last 80 years and must continue to do so. We will work to ensure the promises of community access are honoured.”

That welcome was on 5th February. Since then, Mr O’Rourke has reiterated that:

“I have long maintained the only way progress can be made on this issue is to have full and frank disclosure of plans to both councillors and local residents, and the offer I made three weeks ago for the UKCG to present their proposals to residents at a public meeting still stands.”

“A lot of opinions have already been voiced about the future of the site, its owners and the role of the Council and it is obvious that there is, understandably, a lot of strong feeling regarding the building.”

“I am always prepared to meet with residents to discuss their concerns and hear their views on this issue. I strongly believe the only way to reach a resolution in this case is for all parties, including both residents and owners, to engage with each other and not simply dismiss each other’s interests and concerns.”
In a reference to a now dead-in-the water plan for the nearby Arcade site, which also had a cinema mooted among the lies (made by a cabal of Labour Councillors) which the residents were fed about it, O'Rourke also comments:

“It is certainly true that the pledges to include a cinema as part of the Arcade development, which were made before the last local elections in 2006, considerably damaged the chances of the EMD reopening as a cinema.”

“However, whatever residents’ opinions on the future of the building, I think we all agree that enough is enough. For far too long High Street ward has been a hub of derelict buildings and empty construction sites, and that simply isn’t good enough.”

I have some sympathy with James O'Rourke , a first term councillor, who apparently has received hate-mail from fans of the EMD for daring to try to make some progress on the issue. That he is seen by some as a Bad-guy in all this may be unfair - there were definitely other councillors who were discussing the issue - what was said will never we know - with the UKCG, well before James O'Rourke wised up to it and let the cat out of the bag. Now the public has wind of it, those mysterious folk are nowhere to be seen.

UKCG hope to submit a planning application in the near future.