I would like to protest in the strongest possible terms about the council's decision to cut the grant to the Swan Theatre to such a level as to force its closure.

The grounds for opposition to this cut are many, but presumably the main concern is financial. On financial grounds alone this is clearly an extremely short-sighted decision, as anyone who spent five minutes thinking about it would realise.

- Have they considered the financial cost due to the loss of around 30 jobs at the theatre (cleaners, stage managers, cooks, directors)?

- The money spent by visitors to the theatre, both from Worcester and beyond?

- The income to other local businesses (restaurants, hotels, shops) from out-of-town visitors?

- The income to local business from visiting theatre companies, especially accommodation?

- The recirculation of this income, which is generally spent by local people within Worcester?

- The indirect income to Worcester due to the profile given to it by the theatre?

There is a common and oft-repeated misconception that theatres are a drain on taxpayers. It has been proved by numerous studies that they in fact generate more money than they receive, and are of particular net benefit to a city like Worcester, which has only one theatre. The savings of one financial year would quickly be lost in future years, by which time the cost of opening a new performing arts venue would be prohibitive.

These are just some of the financial reasons that your decision is wrong. I would argue that the cultural benefits to the people of Worcester (and not just those who actually go to the theatre) are even greater. However, I don't imagine you care much for those, so I will not go in to them here.

I urge the council to reconsider this so-called money-saving decision.

SIMON GROVER,

London N16