Fairground Plans Spark Criticism of Foreshore Trust
By Emma Harwood
The Foreshore Trust – the charity which manages land from Rock-a-Nore to Bulverhythe on behalf of the public- has come under heavy criticism over its handling of controversial plans to develop and extend the amusement park on the Stade.
Michael Lee who owns Flamingo Park Ltd., wants to extend the area, building a second storey on top of the main amusement building whilst extending the enclosed area by half its size again.
Further proposals include the building of a new boathouse and jetty with a café and a pirate ship.
Mr. Lee leases the land under a sub-tenancy agreement -which does not expire until 2032 –from Luxury Leisure, which runs the amusement arcade and leases the entire area from The Foreshore Trust.
But despite a petition of over 1000 signatures and objections from Hastings and St Leonards Coastal Users Group (CUG) the plans were set for approval by the council, which then delayed a decision due to an inaccuracy in the application at its planning meeting last Wednesday.
Opponents of the scheme argue that the plans represent ‘a land grab’- essentially development by stealth- of public land which was left by Queen Victoria in 1893 to the council to hold in trust “for the the common use, benefit and enjoyment of all Her Majesty’s subjects of the public for the time being and forever.”
They say that therefore, by right of the Foreshore Trust deed, the public are entitled to access the entire area. If the scheme is approved, the extension of the amusement area will mean a larger area is enclosed which will encroach upon the existing footpath – forcing it to be almost half the width, and less visible.
In 2010 East Sussex County Council refused to designate the path, which currently runs across the site from East Beach Street by the listed bus shelter south of the beach side path, as a right of way, because, it said, under the terms of the Trust the public had a right to access the entire site and that designating a footpath would limit these rights.
“The public are granted permission to pass and re-pass over the land but not to occupy the land. It has remained as one single piece of land that is to be enjoyed by the public.”
The Foreshore Trust – which nets an annual £1.4 million in revenue from parking charges and other rental streams – is supposed to act independently of the council and heed the advice of the Coastal User’s Group. It is formed of three executive councillors and an independent protector who “acts as whistleblower and watchdog against the Council acting in breach of trust and to guard against situations where a conflict of interest is not being managed properly.”
But among the many objections to the scheme there was just one letter of support –from Councillor Sue Beaney– who failed to declare that she is also Chair of the Foreshore Trust. She said the proposed designs would enhance the area, adding: ‘However, the right of the public to access the area and walk through it must be maintained. I would ask that if possible, a condition be added that the walk-through should be accessible at all times and that there should be no gate that should prevent this.”
The Foreshore Trust itself has made no official comment on the plans.
Earlier this year Mr Lee applied for a lawful development certificate which would have given him permission to build on the area surrounding the boating lake. This, however, was refused by HBC in April of this year.
But back in April 2017 an application for a similar certificate to develop the Go-Kart track was refused by HBC, but this decision was overturned by a planning inspector in March of this year following an appeal.
According to the Coastal User’s Group and the Old Town Protection Society Mr. Lee is now set to build a 22 metre-high Ferris Wheel on this plot and needs only ‘landlord’s consent’ from the Foreshore Trust to go ahead.
Anne Scott of Old Hastings Protection Society said: “Planning is one of the few powers that HBC have, even if it is eroded sometimes by Government directions. In the case of The Stade, it would be good if this was used for public benefit on public land, before being used for commercial advantage for just a few months of the year.
“However, the Foreshore Trust are not looking after the land for public benefit and are ignoring the advice of the CUG, which they are supposed to heed.”
Ms. Scott told the planning committee meeting on Wednesday 10 October: “Given the lack of concern shown by the Foreshore Trust over this application and its implications, we feel the Trust are unfit to protect our rights on the path. We depend on this committee here tonight to uphold the public benefit rights and safety over this land by refusing the application.
Green party spokesperson and fellow petitioner Julia Hilton said she believed the public had a right to see the terms of the lease between The Foreshore Trust and Luxury Leisure –and their implications for Mr Lee as a sub-tenant: “I have increasing concerns about the fact that the Foreshore Trust is really another branch of the council. Its only trustees are councillors and the only protection given to ensure its independence is a protector appointed by the Charities Commission who has not seen fit to comment on this particular issue, and doesn’t seem very easy to contact.”
“No contact details are given for him on the Foreshore Trust part of the HBC website. The other ‘overseer’ body is the Coastal Users Group which is supposed to be consulted by the Trust on all decisions that affect any of the Foreshore Trust land. This failed to happen in this case, which is also worrying.”
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
How can the Foreshore Trust ‘act independently of the council’ when the three Trustees are in fact local councillors?
If the Protector is to act as ‘whistleblower and watchdog against the council acting in breach of trust and to guard against situations where a conflict of interest is not being properly managed’ where was he when so many residents were battling to oppose this planning application?
And what use is the Foreshore Trust if even the Chair cannot bring herself to make a statement on behalf of the Trustees? The entire structure of this Trust needs an overhaul in order that we may witness the appropriate protection for our Foreshore interests.
While in agreement with the comments here and the plethora of other observations people have made about this unpalatable set up this Foreshore Trust. To date not one public statement or comment from the Trust, the so called “Protector” or the council. I can only surmise they fully realise this is not an independent “democratic” Trust. It is not rocket science is it – three Labour councillors as Trustees representing a Labour controlled council. It should have never been allowed. I note in the Charity Commission operational guidance document ( while not quoting it ) they make it very clear how and why they would “not prefer” local authorities being “Trustees of Charities.”
Further to the Trust is my personal concern about the independence of this Coastal Users Group who the Trust is apparently supposed to consult. Here we have an advisory panel that is dominated by councillors and council employees – ten of them. And once again dominated by Labour councillors.
Of the council employees I note Kevin Boorman is on this panel. While this group has disapproved of the application I note this council man voicing his approval to this application. On 5th June part of what he wrote was ” I support the plans to improve the area.” This is the same man who thought ” The Bunker” building on Rocklands / Country Park was a spiffy development. Both the Trust and this panel needs to be entirely stripped of council involvement and influence. Another part of this I do not understand as trivial as it may be, is why none of these three councillors declare they are Trustees in their Declaration of Interests. They declare they are on the Charity Committee. That is not a Trust. Yet those who are Trustees of other charities declare them. Why is the Foreshore Trust excluded ?
The first commentor is right. But just to add to her comment, the entire structure of the council also needs overhauling. This council has claimed for many years to be “open and transparent” and invites Hastings taxpayers to “hold us to account” if we perceive that they may not be acting in that way. This is just one instance where councillors or planning officers have shown that the council is more generally covert and opaque. Yet the leader of HBC claims to be a Corbynista – i.e: for the many, not the few. Well, what does he have to say about these councillors’ behaviour then? They have shown that they have hidden conflicts of interests, yet they only have have their jobs because Hastings taxpayers pay their wages to represent our best interests. Could this be one demonstration of the “entrepreneurial socialism” that our he likes to talk about? One thing is for certain – it certainly isn’t democracy!
The trust and its trustees have no independence from HBC. The trust is simply an extension of HBC run by HBC officers with little or no supervision from the trustees.
The Trust has remained silent on this application and on 2 separate applications to enclose the amusement park. If the park is enclosed then Permitted develpment rights will apply and the owners will be able to do what they like without seeking further planning permission.
The chair of the trust Cllr Beaney has supported the application for the amusements (the only person to do so) – yet the trust has said nothing. This is a clear conflict of interest on Cllr Beaney’s part.
The trust has failed to conform with the requirements set down in the scheme of the trust granted by the Charity Commission in January 2011 which states that it must consult with a Coastal Advisory Group on matters and policies affecting the maintenance, use and disposal of the Foreshore and must have regard to the recommendations of the Group.
The trust has failed to consult with to the Coastal Users Group(who oppose the application) and have regard for their opinions.
This is not the first time the Trust has remained silent. The Trust had nothing to say on the Marina proposal although it involved use of their land. Despite requests from campaigners the Trust could not even be bothered to bring its meeting forward to discuss the sale of the pier prior to it being sold to Mr Gulzar.