The Prince Charles Cinema (PCC) in Leicester Square is on the brink of closure as it engages in heated negotiations with its landlords, Zedwell LSQ Ltd, and their parent company, Criterion Capital. The cinema has accused these entities of demanding exorbitantly high rents and insisting on the inclusion of a break clause in the lease, which could allow for the cinema's termination with just six months’ notice. This clause, if enacted, would place the beloved cinema under the persistent threat of imminent closure, something its management deems utterly unreasonable.
Set to have its current lease expire in September 2025, the cinema is not only at risk of losing its venue but also jeopardizing the unique movie experiences it offers. The PCC, which hosts over 850 events annually—including themed screenings and all-nighters—has become known as London’s haven for film enthusiasts, celebrated for its eclectic programming of classic, cult, and independent films.
‘We are beyond disappointed by our landlords’ demands,’ expressed the cinema’s management. ‘This could leave us homeless with only 6 months’ notice should they receive planning permission to develop the cinema.’ The potential redevelopment has raised alarms within the arts community and among loyal patrons, many of whom regard the cinema as more than just a place to watch films but as part of London’s cultural fabric.
On January 28, 2025, the PCC launched an online petition to garner public support to counter the proposed changes to their lease. Within the first hour, the petition received over 10,000 signatures, and as of the time of writing, it had reached 40,000 signatures, far exceeding its initial target. Supporters argue this isn’t just about protecting one venue; it’s about preserving independent cinemas across the city as rising rent prices and redevelopment projects threaten their existence.
The cinema's leaders expressed hope: ‘We believe these tactics amount to intimidation, disregarding our legal rights under the existing tenant laws. Losing the Prince Charles Cinema would not only strip the West End of one of its last independent theatres, but it would also remove an institution where hundreds of thousands of people gather for the love of film each year.’ The PCC has hosted audiences upwards of 250,000 annually, proving its worth as both a cultural and economic asset to the area.
Despite the cinema’s passionate pleas, Criterion Capital has reiterated its stance, stating, ‘We operate within the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and deny any allegations of intimidation. A break clause is standard commercial practice. Our expectations for rent reflect realistic market conditions.’ The company's intent emphasizes negotiations tied to long-term property planning, which they claim is necessary for financial sustainability.
The dispute highlights not only the immediate struggles of the Prince Charles Cinema but raises broader issues facing independent venues across urban London. With property prices soaring and corporate venues monopolizing the entertainment scene, local businesses are often the first to feel the squeeze.
Phil Clapp, the chief executive of the UK Cinema Association, weighed in, stating, ‘The Prince Charles is unique for its programming and cultural relevance. Its loss would be felt deeply not just by those who visit, but by the collective identity of our cinema community.’ This sentiment resonates widely, as the PCC garners support from industry giants like Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, both of whom have lauded the cinema for its contributions to film culture.
With negotiations still underway and uncertainty surrounding the PCC’s future, advocates for the cinema continue to rally support, vying for the future of this cherished venue. The petition and public outcry speak to the greater need for preserving independent spaces, which often provide alternative cultural expressions and enrich the community.
For many Londoners, the Prince Charles Cinema is more than just screens and seats; it’s where memories are made and film lovers find their homes. The fight to keep the PCC alive is not merely about commercial viability but about ensuring the survival of cultural institutions rooted deeply within the heart of London’s artistic narrative. This is only the beginning, as the community gathers to put pressure on the landlords to reconsider their demands. Only time will tell if the calls for action are heard, but the resolve of the city’s film enthusiasts remains stolid.