• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

The newspaper has published a small acknowledgement that Opera Holland Park, on which the council allegedly “lost” £2.5m, has operated independent of council funding since 2015.

Photo of Opera Holland Park's work in primary schools
Opera Holland Park’s 'The Pirates of Penzance' Intergenerational Project

The Times newspaper has come under attack for a “disgraceful” and “uninformed” two-page spread suggesting Kensington and Chelsea Council (RBKC) made "a fortune" on social housing and wasted it on opera.

Written in the wake of the Grenfell Tower Fire, in which 79 people are thought to have died, the story claimed the council had “lost” £1.5m on staffing and operating Opera Holland Park (OHP) last year, and £1m in 2014-15, on projects “effectively subsidised by surpluses built up in other areas, including social housing”.

But OHP has strongly refuted the claim, calling alleged ‘losses’ a “cost subsidy” and pointing out that it has not received council funding since 2015.

“Opera Holland Park was granted a final settlement by RBKC in 2015. This was in part because of the increasing pressures on council funding,” an OHP statement reads. 

“Up until 2015, all permanent employees of OHP were council officers managing the service for RBKC. Those staff transferred to the new charity in October 2015.

It continues: “OHP has been directly affected by the Grenfell Tower fire, with one of our most valued and much loved staff members currently missing. Several of OHP’s staff are, and have historically been, residents of North Kensington. This tragedy has had a profound effect on the company and our thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected.”

Though the newspaper’s story remains online, it has updated this and published a short print correction on its Corrections and Clarifications page. This says: “Opera Holland Park has asked us to clarify that, while it was previously part of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s cultural portfolio, it has been a fully independent charity since October 2015 (News, June 19).”

Council subsidy

Published under the headline ‘Council made a fortune on social housing… and lost it on opera’, the story in the Times states: “The festival which last night showed a performance of Don Giovanni, and sells picnic hampers for £265, takes place in Holland Park, a green space whose neighbours include some of the country’s richest people, including David Beckham.”

Kensington and Chelsea Council’s accounts show that £3.7m was spent on Opera Holland Park in 2015-16, and £2.1m was received in income. In 2014-15, the council spent £3.4m on OHP and received £2.3m in income – leading to so-called ‘losses’ in both years of £1.5m and £1m respectively.

Michael Volpe, General Director at OHP, clarified that the ‘losses’ were paid out to staff. "The subsidy - that is what it is - includes many central recharges too which get allocated across services and would be there whether we existed or not,” he told AP.

“I do not know the inclusions because we are now outside of the council. So £1.5m is a total cost for staff etc. It is not a 'loss' but a cost subsidy."

He added: “It is important to note that the £1.5m was in the 15/16 financial year and related to the summer 2015 season. The council's financial year runs until 30 September. At that point we became independent, so for the 2016 and 2017 seasons OHP was fully independent.”

‘Disgraceful demagoguery’

The Times story was criticised by cultural commentator Norman Lebrecht, who labelled it “disgraceful tabloid demagoguery”.

Writing on his website Slipped Disc, Lebrecht adds: “I have never seen Mr Beckham at the opera, or partaken of a £265 hamper, but I have seen lots of people watching opera at Holland Park who cannot afford the prices of any other summer opera.

“It is a very mixed audience and the council was right to support it with a modest amount of tax funds.

“The Times attack is both uninformed and unfounded.”

Several comments on the site agreed with this interpretation, saying the story was a “distortion and an extremely partial interpretation of funding”, and calling on Lebrecht to complain to the newspaper.

Author(s):