Rules relaxed for revamp of theatreland

New laws will aim to strike a "proper balance" between protecting the historic buildings but also allowing their commercial development.

Theatre owners have complained that restrictions on listed buildings make them too expensive to modernise.

But ministers are now proposing to simplify the rules so it is less expensive to get consent for changes. They also want a more "imaginative approach" to the implementation of the rules.

At an arts debate in the Lords last night, culture spokesman Lord Davies of Oldham said: "We are looking for a much more constructive debate in partnership between local authorities, English Heritage and the owners of these buildings so that we can make progress."

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport insisted that the shake-up would not lessen protection for listed buildings. A spokesman added: "These partnerships will lighten the burden on owners by allowing works to proceed without repetitive consent applications. The best way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings is to keep them in use and in the future, as now, the aim will be to strike a balance between the need to ensure that these theatres can be modernised, whilst still preserving their historic and architectural special interest."

Some theatres owners still remain to be convinced that the reforms will help.

However, Baroness Valentine, Chief Executive of London First, described them as "good news". She added: "Theatres add a great deal to Londoners' quality of life and contribute £1.5 billion a year to our economy."

The red tape surrounding listed buildings makes it impossible to run Britain's ageing theatre stock profitably, Andrew Lloyd Webber has told the House of Lords.

The composer, theatre owner and peer suggested the restrictions might be streamlined so theatres could be run more commercially.

"Ownership of a listed building imposes on the owner a kind of involuntary trusteeship of what is deemed to be part of our national heritage. But buildings that are in living use cannot be treated as if they are museum assets," he said.

"English Heritage is reasonably flexible in its demands when listed buildings are refurbished. But the demands are there. And meeting them can be very costly indeed."

To install air conditioning in the Theatre Royal Drury Lane would cost up £15 million because of the heritage requirements instead of £1-2 million if it was not listed.

Most of Britain's Edwardian and Victorian theatres were built when audience expectations were different, he said. People were smaller and there was less demand for bars and toilets. For many, being seen was more important than being able to see.

He contrasted this with today. "The modern audience expects modern facilities. Decent sight lines are paramount. No-one wants to sit behind a pillar all evening."

He wanted to flag up the problems but said: "I am not proposing the wholesale demolition of London's West End, nor am I suggesting that the taxpayer suddenly is faced with a huge bill."

It has been suggested bodies like the London Development Agency could contribute to the huge cost of refurbishing West End theatres because of their importance to London's tourism economy.