SOUTHAMPTON's regional arts cinema is to re-open its doors in just nine days' time.
Waterfront film theatre Harbour Lights will open to a full programme on October 22 - provided a deal with arts house cinema chain City Screen is agreed by the city council.
Councillors will be asked tomorrow to give the cinema a headstart subsidy of around £26,920 a year for three years, to pay for rent and services.
The cash will come out of a fund of £78,000 set aside for the cinema in last year's budget.
More money could be required to pay for an education officer at the cinema, which could be as much as £20,000 a year - though negotiations are still under way on this.
Leisure officer Simon Hardy said: "It's a good deal for the city."
It looks set to win the council's approval, though opposition members are still sceptical about City Screen's request for public funding.
Tory John Hannides has demanded proof that the cinema won't come back with a begging bowl for more cash in three years' time.
"The strain on the city's resources is too great to justify public money going into an arts cinema on an indefinite basis," he said.
And Lib Dem leisure spokesman George Melrose said: "I am concerned that the council feels a need to subsidise a private company though I realise we are stuck with this Labour white elephant.
"I'm not sure more taxpayers' money should be spent on this enterprise."
The previous operators, Southampton Film Company Ltd, run by one-time Labour leisure chief Wyn Jeffrey, collapsed in January this year after the council refused to bail it out.
The cinema had already swallowed up some £2 million of public funds in its four-year history.
The assets of the cinema have now been sold to City Screen. While other grant givers have given up recouping money they are owed by the previous management, the city council is still fighting to re-coup some of its cash, around £190,000.
And former employees have mounted a legal action against City Screen who, they claim, owe them wages under legislation that makes a company responsible for money which should have been paid by its predecessor.
Converted for the new archive on 25 January 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article