Trust in Southern Water amongst Hastings Borough Councillors has plunged to a new low in the wake of last month’s town centre flooding. At a simmering meeting of the full council last Wednesday (22 November) to discuss an updated report looking into the performance of the privatised water company, councillors of all political persuasions vented their anger and frustration at the poor levels of service experienced by local residents over recent years.

Andy Patmore, the Leader of the Conservative Group, was brutal in his assessment of Southern Water. He referenced the recently published Ardent Report into January’s flooding of the town centre, saying it was a “pile of rubbish” and he lambasted the company’s “lack of honesty” and its “failure to feed into the report process”.

Paul Barnett, the Labour Leader of the Hastings BC, said he too had been “horrified” at Southern Water’s record of failure. He said he was highly critical of the company’s inability to work out what was needed to fix problems and to come up with long term solutions, preferring instead to adopt short-term fixes even when they have been advised that those solutions are not adequate. He pointed to the new flooding of the town centre last month as a prime example of this attitude.

However, the Council Leader said he had “detected a new awareness” from the senior management of Southern Water in the wake of last month’s flooding “to take responsibility for the problems” and that “at last” they were beginning to understand that the level of service they were providing was just not good enough.

He reaffirmed the Council’s threat to take legal action against Southern Water if the privatised water company was not able to convince him and his colleagues of their commitment to improving the levels of service. He did indicate, though, that he would prefer not to go down the road of suing the company because of time and cost considerations. He said he was still awaiting Southern Water’s formal response to his letter threatening legal action and would not comment any further until they did so.

Labour’s Mike Turner summed up the frustrations of many of his colleagues when he said he “had lost all trust in Southern Water” and did “not believe a word they say”. He urged the council to join with other similarly affected local authorities along the south coast to take legal action against the company. “They have trashed our town,” he said.

The construction of a Premier Inn hotel on the former Cornwallis Street car park site owned by Hastings Borough Council (HBC), politically controversial since it was first mooted in 2019, has run into major budgeting problems. A report to cabinet issued by the council’s Chief Executive Jane Hartnell has recommended that its capital programme budget be increased to over £13.6m to fund the development – almost double the budget initially considered, and around £4.6m above the figure suggested in February this year when the cabinet was previewing the programme for the financial year ahead.

After an interruption to negotiations during the onset of the Covid pandemic, HBC concluded an agreement with Whitbread, owners of the Premier Inn brand, in January 2021 under which the council would build the 80-bed hotel complex, then lease it to them for a term of 25 years. The financial details of the contract have never been revealed, the terms being classed as “commercially sensitive”. However, it is clear that the council took on the risk that the building costs might escalate 

According to Ms Hartnell, the then cabinet led by Cllr Kim Forward were warned that, once the deal was signed, they would be committed to delivering the hotel building no matter what extra costs might arise. She reports that external advice at the time was that “costs had not increased significantly”, though one might think it should have been apparent by January 2021that this was a likely economic repercussion of the pandemic.

In fact, the pandemic experience seems to have been a determinative factor. Efforts were required, Ms Hartnell recalls, “to ensure the rapid transformation of the town centre and enhancement of its sustainability…The post-pandemic environment made this even more important to do at pace”.

PLANNING AND TENDERING

Planning consent was self-granted in August 2022 against the opposition of both opposition politicians and some local residents. Two initial tender exercises were then undertaken. The first resulted in tenders in excess of the budget and were “not suitable”, according to Ms Hartnell. The second “identified a preferred contractor, with experience of developing to the hotel operator’s specification, but at a cost that exceeds the budget in the capital programme.”

Adding to the costs are updated building regulations, which now require the building to reduce its carbon emissions and incorporate low energy measures. 

Ms Hartnell reports that Whitbread have agreed an “improved offer”, including higher rent, a reduced rent-free period and an extension to the build end-date – but of course these don’t mitigate the increase in the council’s upfront costs to be reflected in its capital programme budget. In order to proceed with this, full council approval will need to be secured at its next meeting on 20 September.

POLITICAL OPPOSITION

There’s no doubt that the proposal to increase the budget will run into political flak on that occasion. Tory opposition leader Cllr Andy Patmore used his column in the Hastings Observer last week to castigate the Labour administration for indulging in a risky commercial undertaking rather than using the site and money to build residential homes. Cllr Matthew Beaver, fellow-Conservative, had argued already at the planning committee meeting that the preference for hotel rooms over permanent housing was “absurd”.

Green party leader Cllr Julia Hilton said this week: “Our councillors have spoken out against this hotel since 2021 when I was elected as the first Green councillor. We tried to get it removed from the Corporate Plan in 2022 but were told then that we were contractually obliged to build the hotel, whether it was profitable for the council or not. We have now been told that the council has to approve the additional cost or the council would be in breach of contract and liable to many millions of pounds of damages. This is not a project we feel is in the best interest of the people of the town but we are being pressured by the senior management team to vote for it due to penalties in the contract that they will not disclose and that only Labour are responsible for.”

She also pointed out that Ms Hartnell’s report failed to make any calculation of lost parking revenue “which has been around £100,000 per annum. If this is multiplied by the 25-year lease, that is £2.5 million in lost parking fees that need to be set against any potential income.

“So now the council is hunting round for assets to sell to reduce the borrowing requirement and is selling off two bits of housing land that could have provided 54 homes for social rent. We are told the council can’t afford to borrow the roughly £4 million that would be required to build the homes at Bexhill Road, yet we are committed to borrowing much more than that to build a hotel on a site that was also originally allocated for 20 units of housing including a pocket park and play area.”

CABINET ENTHUSIASM

At the cabinet meeting on Monday night, council leader Paul Barnett refused to be the least discouraged by the increased cost figures disclosed by Ms Hartnell. “I wish to express my delight that this report has come forward”, he said. “What’s changed since 2021 is buildings regulations, and that’s in a good way.” The specification, he argued, is now tougher on carbon emissions and conserves energy better. 

He was also pleased that Whitbread had responded positively by improving their offer.

Cllrs Andy Batsford and Maya Evans spoke with equal enthusiasm. Cllr Batsford said: “This about a large hotel chain wanting to be in Hastings – it’s a signal that this is a town to invest in”. Cllr Evans pointed out that the building of the hotel would coincide with the advent of the Garden Town development of adjacent streets as a key feature of the Town Deal investment. “In the next five years we’ll see the town centre dramatically transformed”, she said. 

The financial details were not, however, discussed in public session – nor was it clear to what extent they will be disclosed to the full council when the matter is put before them on 20 September.

Clear majority of full council rejects football stadium move

The projected move of Hastings United football club from Pilot Field to Tilekiln playing fields in Hollington is dead. It was given last rites at a meeting of the full Hastings Borough Council (HBC) last Wednesday. The council owns the freehold of both sites, and a report prepared by its Chief Executive Jane Hartnell, which was presented to cabinet on 5 June, had declared the move as “unviable”. Councillors from all sides of the political spectrum approved this conclusion.

The rejection was not universal. Conservative leader Cllr Andy Patmore argued that the borough’s need for housing was paramount and that Pilot Field was “probably a good place to put it”. In 2018 the then majority Labour council had voted in principle to allow house development there when the club’s proposal was to move to a new stadium at Bulverhythe. 

But both Baird ward councillors, Rob Cooke (Conservative) and Mike Turner (Labour) argued that Pilot Field was not a suitable place to build houses on. Cllr Cooke complained that the club had not entered into any consultation with the residents of “the most deprived area in the town”. Cllr Mike Turner accused the club’s directors, who have a professional background in housing development, of “trying to get a prime site…[so as] to make as much money as they can”. 

Cllr Lucien Fernando (UK Reform) questioned the sense of building a replacement stadium at Tilekiln with a capacity of only 1,950, less than half that of Pilot Field. He also claimed that the Pilot Field had originally been gifted to the council in 1922 for “recreational purposes” before being leased to the club. It should now be required to put the stadium there back in good repair in accordance with its lease obligations. 

Labour cabinet member Cllr Andy Batsford admitted that the cabinet had originally expressed support for a new stadium at Tilekiln, but said that no sustainable business plan had been produced by the club. 

Conservative councillor Matthew Beaver said that he was the only one of nine members of the council’s planning committee who had voted against granting outline planning for the development of Pilot Field in June last year, and was concerned that the club might still use this permission to pursue development interests. 

Cllr Simon Willis, summing up for Labour, suggested that wasn’t a serious issue while the council retained its freehold interest. It had set the club four core terms in order to take its proposal forward: community consultation; a “sustainable and believable business case”; agreement of heads of terms; and the payment of a financial bond to safeguard the interests of the council and the people of Hastings – “Not one of those four was met”, he declared. 

A full meeting of Hastings Borough Council (HBC) on 15 December last year resolved that Jane Hartnell, the council’s managing director, prepare a report to cabinet “at the earliest opportunity” regarding the proposed relocation of Hastings United football club from Pilot Field to Tilekiln. 

The resolution directed Ms Hartnell “in the spirit of openness and honesty” to “set out the current situation with [the club]” and report on whether or not the scheme to develop the sites “is viable to recommend to Council”; also to “set out what alternative provision is available to allow Hastings United to remain in Hastings”.

Five months later, no such report has emerged. 

At the most recent full council meeting on 26 April, Conservative leader Cllr Andy Patmore, who had tabled the motion which led to the December resolution, asked council leader Paul Barnett why the report had been delayed. Cllr Barnett did not answer this question directly but said merely “I haven’t yet seen it, I’m waiting for a draft .“ 

Some of the delay has been ascribed by a council officer to HBC’s budget difficulties and “other legalities” taking precedence, which the football club’s directors say they have accepted. However, on 10 May the directors sent an open letter to Ms Hartnell describing the continued delay as “unacceptable… especially as no explanation has been offered or update provided”. 

Council meetings

They referred to “previous assurances” being given that the report had been prepared in time for a cabinet meeting due to be held on 2 May, but noted that this meeting was cancelled, the next would not be until 5 June, and the next full council meeting after that not scheduled until 19 July. They requested a fresh assurance that the report would be presented to cabinet on 5 June and that an extraordinary council meeting then be convened the following week (beginning 12 June).

Up to the time of going to press Ms Hartnell has not made any public response, and the council has declined to make any comment. 

But the news of the club’s CEO Billy Wood resigning last week, following the departure a few days earlier of its successful management team (see page 23), has come amidst rumours that the directors – who have never hidden their career profiles as property developers – are in serious negotiation to sell their majority shares to prospective new owners. It seems reasonable to speculate that they have lost patience, and with it the momentum to pursue the relocation scheme further. 

Leader’s opposition

Outline planning permission was granted in June 2022 to build 86 dwellings on the current stadium site of Pilot Field, along with full permission, subject to conditions, to build a new stadium and other sports facilities at Tilekiln playing fields in Hollington. However, both freehold sites remain in HBC’s ownership, and it’s no secret that Cllr Paul Barnett has opposed the move from the outset of his becoming council leader last spring. 

Under the previous leadership of Cllr Kim Forward the council (then controlled by a Labour majority) seemed to favour the ideas behind the relocation – release of land for residential building whilst providing enhanced sports facilities within the borough. The club’s directors clearly felt sufficiently encouraged to pursue their planning applications, reputed to have cost up to £200,000 in consultancy fees and other expenditure. But by the time that positive planning outcomes were achieved, Cllr Barnett made clear his opposition.

“The world has moved on since we started talking about this four years ago”, he announced in March 2022. “Our priority now has to be to protect and invest in our green spaces, and wherever possible re-use existing buildings rather than build new ones. This means ensuring that Tilekiln, a well-used and popular community facility, is preserved for the people of Hollington.”

That might well have been the end of the matter if Cllr Barnett’s administration had retained its party majority in the borough election of May 2022. But it didn’t. So when at the December meeting, Conservative opposition leader Cllr Andy Patmore introduced his motion calling for the stadium report, the somewhat unlikely combination of Greens and Conservatives was able to constitute a majority in favour. Faced with potential defeat in a contested vote, the Labour cabinet and councillors preferred to show support, and the motion was duly passed by 29 votes for to 1 against. 

It would be idle to speculate how the report will be framed when (or to the extent that) it is eventually released. However, whatever the contents, it seems unlikely to shift the attitude of Cllr Barnett. In a self-review of his year as council leader issued as a press release last Friday, he made no mention of issues over sports facilities but expressed optimism that “we have started to focus on our top priorities”, one of which is “protecting our green spaces”.

Hastings Borough Council (HBC) agreed to raise the local council tax by the maximum amount allowed without holding a local referendum at a fiery meeting of the full council at Muriel Matters House last Wednesday (15 February). The proposed 2.99% increase in council tax was part of a series of controversial measures aimed at securing the Council’s 2023-24 annual budget.

The Council is currently run by a minority Labour administration after last year’s post-election cooperation alliance with the Greens was ended in the autumn. The vote on the annual budget was, therefore, the first major test of the Labour group’s authority; and Council Leader Paul Barnett will be pleased with the outcome despite having to take “some very difficult funding decisions”.

The budget proposed savings of more than £1.4 million with a further £2.5 million drawn down from council reserves.

Capital spending

A key plank of Labour’s budget is its capital expenditure plans. The spiralling costs of providing temporary accommodation for homeless households in recent years has seen the council adopt a Housing Acquisition Programme which will see it acquire up to 50 properties to provide temporary housing for local residents who need somewhere safe and stable to live. The net cost of providing temporary accommodation just two years ago was £731,706; this figure is set to increase to £3,892,758 in 2023-24. Officers have advised that such increases are unsustainable and, if left unchecked, threatened HBC’s financial stability. 

The acquisition programme, which was passed by the Council the previous week, will see a net spend of £11.866m over the coming years of which £5.933m is expected to be spent in 2023-24. The redevelopment of the Cornwallis Street car park for a hotel will cost the council an additional £8.4 million over the next year. Labour is confident, however, that the new 84-bedroom hotel, which will be let to Premier Inn, will help regenerate the town centre, as well as providing much needed overnight accommodation, and secure new jobs in the area.

Simon Willis, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Equalities, said that other savings would be made following the Council’s Review and Reduce Programme, which would see some voluntary staff redundancies and the deletion of vacant posts from the council’s budgets. Council support for the Hastings Contemporary art gallery and the Hastings Museum will also be cut and there will be additional savings from cuts to the maintenance of decorative lights and from ending support for the annual town crier’s competition. 

The Hastings Museum has recently secured funding of £450,000 over the next three years from Arts Council England’s National Portfolio.

The spending plans will also see substantial cuts to the tourism marketing budget. This will include a saving of up to £15,000 from closing the tourist information centre at Sussex Coast College and £50,000 from withdrawing from the 1066 Country tourism campaign.

Greens put climate first

In its original budget plans, Labour had also set out a proposed £5,000 cut to the Community Safety budget, but this was removed following talks with the Green Party. Claire Carr, the party’s lead on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, was critical of the proposal, arguing that it was a “false economy”. She said that, with “a 7% rise in crime over the last year and sexual offences at their highest rate ever, now is not the time to be cutting this area of the budget.”

Julia Hilton, the leader of the Greens, said her party had tabled 21 “radical and imaginative” amendments to tackle the budget crisis and claimed that all had been accepted by the Labour administration. She was particularly pleased at those that “put climate change front and centre”. However, her party would not vote to approve the budget as “we want to be clear that Greens are not willing to share responsibility for the cuts it would deliver, which come after a decade of Labour administrations failing to make sufficiently radical and imaginative decisions to tackle the crisis caused by years of cuts to council funding by central government”.

The Conservatives voted against the budget. Group leader Andy Patmore said the proposals were “not radical enough”. He warned that there was now a very real danger that the council may not be able to balance its budget and would be issued with a Section 114 Notice by the Government to avoid becoming bankrupt. (Under this section of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the council would find itself disentitled to incur any new expenditure except for safeguarding of vulnerable people and provision of statutory services).

Cllr Patmore was scathing of the plans to cut the tourism marketing budget, arguing that these would harm the council’s reputation and threaten the town’s tourism income. He also dismissed Labour’s hotel-building project as unaffordable.

However, Labour councillors cheered Maya Evans, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Chair of the Housing and Community Development Committee, when she launched a blistering attack on the Conservative Government’s record of cuts to local government funding over the last 13 years. She said government ministers were directly to blame for the budget crisis in Hastings and in local authorities across the country.

Since 2013, HBC’s government grant had been cut from £15 million to £1.5 million; this year alone, the cut was 10%. In stark contrast, the government had spent around £15 billion on unused or unusable PPE since 2020.

The council’s spending plans were approved by 13 Labour votes in favour with 10 Conservatives against. The five Green councillors abstained. As a result, local council taxpayers will see the HBC element of their bills increase by £8.42 next year on an average band D property.

On the other hand East Sussex County Council has also agreed a combined 4.99% rise in its council tax element plus adult social care precept for next year (see adjacent column), East Sussex Fire Authority has voted for a 5% increase, and the Sussex Police and Crime Panel has agreed a 7% increase. Composite council tax bills on an average band D property will thus rise altogether by over £60 for the year.

​Corporate plan:​ ​greens abstain

​Councillors had begun their​ ​evening with a discussion on​ ​proposals to update HBC’s​ ​Corporate Plan. Paul Barnett​ ​said the plan had identified​ ​two key priorities for the​ ​Council over the coming year.​ ​These were tackling the housing crisis and addressing the​ ​climate emergency. He said​ ​his group had accepted a number of amendments to the​ ​original plan in a spirit of​ ​cooperation with other parties. These included the creation of a levy on car parking​ ​charges to fund active travel​ ​schemes and requiring developers to​ ​carry whole life-cycle​ ​carbon assessments on their​ ​buildings.​ ​

The new Corporate Plan​ ​was adopted by the council​ ​with 14 Labour votes in favour, 10​ ​Conservatives against​ ​and the five Greens all abstaining.

County council tax hike

​East Sussex County Council, which has a built-in Conservative majority, has approved its 2023/24 budget, which includes payment for road upkeep and support for vulnerable adults and children. It will not entail any new spending cuts. However, what it refers to as “a significant increase in service demand”, as well as rising costs, will mean a hike in tax bills by 2.99% plus a 2% increase for adult social care.

The full Council also approved a capital programme which includes investment in road improvements, school places and SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) provision, as well as further supporting the council’s commitment to reduce its carbon footprint from its operations.

Cllr Nick Bennett, deputy leader and lead member for resources and climate change, said: “We know that some residents are finding it difficult to make ends meet and asking people to pay more is never a decision we take lightly, but it is more important than ever that the services the public are increasingly relying upon are safeguarded.”

Despite an outcry by Hastings Borough councillors and more muted objections from within the local medical community, the Conquest Hospital is to lose its in-patient cardiac facilities including the capacity to treat emergency cases. Within the domain of the East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (ESHT), stretching along the South Coast from Camber to Seaford, anyone who in future suffers an acute heart attack and needs immediate life-saving surgery in the form of an angioplasty will have to be brought by ambulance (or otherwise) to Eastbourne District General Hospital (EDGH). Under plans approved last month at a meeting of the East Sussex Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC), cardiology consultations and non-emergency out-patient treatments will still be offered at the Conquest, and a Cardiac Response Team will remain there primed to carry out urgent assessments. But they will no longer have the facilities – in particular a catheterisation laboratory (cath lab) where angiograms, angioplasties and pacemaker operations can be carried out – to undertake surgery where needed. The surgery team would be concentrated solely at EDGH, likewise beds for cardiac in-patients.

The plans are intended to be put into effect as soon as government funds are made available to develop additional space at Eastbourne for transfer of the existing Hastings cath lab and establishment of additional in-patient wards there.

Hastings versus Eastbourne

The idea of combining acute cardiology services in a single hospital within the Trust’s domain has been floated for many years. Senior clinicians have agreed that the specialised nature of emergency heart surgery requires the establishment of a team of quality and experience, equipped with the best technological support. A national NHS improvement programme recommended in 2020 that trusts across the country should consolidate these services at a single location. After some delay caused by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, lengthy consultation was undertaken up to March last year which endorsed this principle. But choice of the location remained to be decided – should it be Hastings or Eastbourne?

Medical practitioners in Hastings, both in the cardiology department and in primary care, seem to have assumed that the geography of East Sussex and its socio-economic demographics would be seen as overwhelming factors in preferring the Conquest to the EDGH.

There is common acceptance that in cases of heart attacks there is a critical time between the onset of chest pain and the implementation of angioplasty procedures (“call to balloon”) which should not exceed a maximum of two and a half hours. But this includes the time the ambulance team takes to arrive and the immediate assessment process they need to undertake on arrival. The further travel time that the ambulance team must then incur to deliver the patient to the doors of the hospital should clearly be minimised.

If ESHT chose the Conquest as their single emergency site, patients suffering a heart attack at a location west of Eastbourne could be taken in emergency to Brighton, where full angioplasty facilities are also available. But if Eastbourne were the chosen site, patients from Rye or other locations east or north of Hastings would have little choice but to endure the additional drive, ironically with the ambulance passing the entrance to the Conquest on its route west.

Historically, moreover, while EDGH has run a slightly bigger cardiology department and, for instance, fits more pacemakers than the Conquest (there is also rather more opportunity to augment salaries with fees from private patients in Eastbourne), Hastings has generated a higher proportion of angioplasty cases. That’s the result of almost double rates of cigarette smoking, present or past, amongst its population, associated in turn with other indices of social deprivation. Preference for the Conquest in these circumstances would seem to accord with the government’s claimed ‘levelling up’ policy.

How the decision was made

However, it was apparent from early in the decision-making process that both senior clinicians and others involved in the provision of cardiology services might have their own personal reasons for preferring one site rather than the other. The Trust engaged an external consultancy – an “independently facilitated site panel” – to review the arguments on either side in an effort to arrive at an objective decision. But HIP has learnt that the crucial meeting conducted by this external panel, held on 12 September last year, was attended by seven cardiologists either currently or formerly based at EDGH, led by the Trust’s Deputy Chief of Medicine Professor Nik Patel, compared to only one based at the Conquest. Two other senior consultants from the Conquest were not invited because they are locums, even though both have been working there for several years.

When the meeting was convened, some financial projections were presented on screen, without any supporting documentation, apparently showing that transfer of facilities from Eastbourne to Hastings would be more expensive than vice versa; there were also calculations suggesting that ongoing maintenance costs would be higher, again unexplained. Problems of relative patient accessibility were downplayed from a Hastings perspective.

The process was in due course determined by a series of votes of the attendees, recorded confidentially, on parameters measuring projected outcomes for either location, including financial implications. The panel announced that on all counts Eastbourne was the favoured site.

The decision has subsequently been ratified by an ESHT Board meeting held on 11 October and approved by the East Sussex HOSC on 15 December. At the latter meeting Cllr Sorrell Marlow-Eastwood, who is the ward councilor for St Helens and Silverhill on East Sussex County Council, and Cllr Mike Turner, representing Hastings Borough Council, raised pertinent questions concerning the extent of travel times from Hastings to Eastbourne and the comparatively greater neediness of the Hastings population. But these were batted away by Professor Patel, to whom the committee deferred as the clinician in charge. He maintained that, while prompt delivery to hospital was important, “door to balloon” times (measured from when patients arrive at the door of the hospital) were best minimised by having a top quality response team assembled in readiness.

Political intervention

Hastings councillors are far from satisfied at the result. Labour party leader Cllr Paul Barnett has written an open letter to the Health Minister Steve Barclay, co-signed by Cllrs Andy Patmore for the Conservatives and Julia Hilton for the Greens, describing Hastings as having “the worst health and highest deprivation in the south of England” and claiming that removal of heart surgery facilities would be “very harmful” for patients.

“1,500 residents a year will be forced to travel 20 miles (and public transport makes this a long and very difficult journey for early morning surgery appointments), and many will as a result not follow through on this critical treatment.

“This comes after other services have been moved, such as stroke services, and capital investment here is scheduled to be far below Eastbourne. It feels as if our hospital is being downgraded.”

He referred to the potential for legal action in the form of a judicial review. “However, I would much prefer for you to help us ask the new Trust to review and change this proposal”, he wrote. “Hastings needs a first-class hospital or our residents’ health will continue to lag well behind where it should be.” No response is yet known to have been received from Mr Barclay.

As reported in our last issue, HBC owns the freehold of both venues, and Hastings council leader Paul Barnett, who heads the minority Labour administration, has been blocking the relocation. This is despite planning permissions having been approved, both for redevelopment of Pilot Field as an 86-unit housing estate and for the building of a new stadium and other football facilities at Tilekiln.

In response, the club’s owners Darren Burney and Peter Sherlock have threatened to move it out of the town altogether. They claim that ground maintenance problems at Pilot Field, in particular the parlous state of the main stand, make it financially unsustainable, and that their only practicable alternative recourse is to abandon it and share a ground and facilities with Eastbourne Borough FC for the foreseeable future. 

This proposal was greeted with dismay and some anger at a meeting with supporters on 24 November. However, the threat was renewed in a fresh statement issued by Hastings United CEO Billy Wood on 9 December.

“No alternatives”

Wood confirmed that “to protect our Isthmian League status” (clubs in this league must demonstrate the capacity to seat at least 250 spectators in one or more stands at all home matches) United had signed a ground-sharing agreement with Eastbourne Borough to take effect in the 2023/24 season. He declared that the club would prefer “to remain at the Pilot Field in the short term and not have to move away from Hastings, but there are no alternatives available within the Hastings area, nor are there sufficient pitches to continue with our Academy programme.” Only the proposed move to Tilekiln would resolve these issues. 

The club has, he disclosed, a contingency plan to erect two temporary stands at Pilot Field containing 500 seats between them to replace the main stand seating. These new stands could be in place for the 2023/24 season “subject to a planning consent being issued in a timely manner by the Local Authority to allow these works to be done during the close season” (a dig at previous delays in the HBC planning process). 

However, the club could only meet the cost of installing the stands if “absorbed within the Tilekiln development” – they could in due course be relocated there, but current expenditure on them would be dependent on an assurance of the relocation proceeding.

Council meeting

Wood referred to a public petition backing the Tilekiln venture which had attracted 1,848 signatures in support. He then went on to point to the council meeting due to take place last night as a forum at which councillors could reverse Cllr Barnett’s stance before it was too late. He called upon the council “to agree on Thursday 15 December that Tilekiln can progress as originally agreed”.

Those maintaining opposition to the move to Tilekiln have pointed out that there has never been an agreement to approve it, whatever levels of enthusiasm have been expressed by individual councillors in early stages of discussion. They contend that the club jumped the gun in proceeding with their planning applications. However, it seems that Wood and/or the club’s owners have been priming councillors outside Cllr Barnett’s minority cabinet to argue their case this week. 

Leader of the Conservative opposition, Cllr Andy Patmore, has tabled a motion for debate proposing “in the spirit of openness and transparency” that the council’s managing director (Jane Hartnell) prepare a report to cabinet “at the earliest opportunity” on whether the relocation scheme is “viable to recommend to Council”, and “to set out what alternative provision is available to allow Hastings United to remain in Hastings.”

If Green party councillors voted en bloc with their Conservative counterparts this week they could push Cllr Patmore’s (or similar) motion through, even if there were no Labour party dissenters to join them. The Green party were intending to meet themselves on Tuesday evening of this week (after HIP has gone to press) to decide what stance they should take in the debate. Party leader Julia Hilton was unwilling to make any prediction in advance of this meeting, but appeared personally supportive. 

“I do agree that such an important decision about the future location of our local football club and all the related women’s and junior teams should be one made by full council and not at the whim of the Labour leader,” she said. “Therefore, I welcome the impulse to get all relevant information into the public domain, including what, if any, alternative options there are, so councillors can make an informed decision.”

New Hastings Borough Council (HBC) cabinet portfolio holders and their areas of responsibility have been named as follows:-

Cllr Kim Forward (leader): Strategy and Partnership Working
Cllr Colin Fitzgerald (deputy leader): Regeneration, Culture and Tourism
Cllr Peter Chowney: Financial Management and Estates
Cllr Judy Rogers: Equalities, Organisational Well-Being & Performance
Cllr Paul Barnett: Urban Environment and Community Safety
Cllr Maya Evans: Natural Environment and Leisure
Cllr Andy Batsford: Housing and Homelessness
Cllr Margi O’Callaghan: Chair of the Charity Committee.

Departed from cabinet, in addition to the pair of opposition councillors Rob Lee and Andy Patmore (see No Dissent), is Cllr Sue Beaney, former Charity chair.

Cllr Forward, in making the announcement, said:- “I have chosen a cabinet that I believe will best serve the needs of our cabinet and our town.” 

First meeting reviews Managing Director’s report

A first virtual meeting of the new team was convened with a public live stream last Monday 8th June. It started with discussion of a report prepared by Managing Director Jane Hartnell detailing the council’s performance in responding to the conditions of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The report referred to the services which had been suspended due to lockdown restrictions or to staff being reassigned to other priority areas, including closure of the cliff railways, all public conveniences, playgrounds, tennis courts, bowling greens, putting pitches, multi-use games areas and skate ramps. Work on the Country Park Visitor Centre had stopped. Pest control appointments were suspended. Some regeneration projects have paused.

However, the report centred on the community hub set up and operated by the council to address in particular increased “food poverty” – around 1,900 Hastings residents had been receiving direct food support, with a more than 50% increase of referrals to the food bank during April. Additional expenditure was being incurred in such areas as homelessness and Council Tax support. At the same time there has been a loss of income from, for example, car parks, licensing, planning fees, rentals, investment income and business rates. Ms Hartnell warned: “Should there be no further funding [from central government] the Council will inevitably face more challenging decisions on service levels and staff reductions, with a potential moratorium on spend.” 

The motion debated by the meeting was nevertheless upbeat, not to say self-congratulatory – that Cabinet welcome the contribution made by HBC staff, councillors and partners to meet the needs of the community during the pandemic, and recognise the progress, performance and potential next steps in this work.

Speaking in support, Cllr Forward told fellow cabinet members: “Our priority is the safety and wellbeing of our staff and residents”. She claimed credit for the council and its community hub partners in the contributions they were making. “We stand with the people of this town. This report is testament to that commitment.”

Cllr Andy Batsford, on the housing front, also saluted the council’s achievement, along with the Seaview Project, in getting 45 homeless people off the street and into safe accommodation – “massive thanks to volunteers and staff…It makes me very proud to be a Hastonian”.

Cllr Barnett congratulated the IT team at HBC in managing its virtual communications. But at just that point in the proceedings the live stream failed. Further discussion of the motion was abandoned for another day. 

Council votes funds for feasibility study

The Labour-controlled cabinet of Hastings Borough Council (HBC) voted on Monday evening to pursue a feasibility study for the development of a combined sporting and cultural centre in the White Rock area off Bohemia Road. The long term idea is to develop the area, branded as the Bohemia Quarter, as a distinct leisure and cultural ‘destination’. It is to be surrounded by new housing, one or more hotels and ‘revitalised’ gardens and other public spaces, but with a large leisure facility and performance venue at its heart. The first stage will be to spend up to £100,000 in commissioning feasibility studies that will determine its viability. 

The council’s Marketing and Major Projects Manager, Kevin Boorman, told cabinet members that both the Arts Council and Sport England were enthusiastic in their support.  The Arts Council has already offered a £10,000 grant towards this first stage and is “keen to become a partner in the project”. Officers of Sport England are “exploring external funding opportunities to contribute towards the cost”. HBC has budgeted up to £19,000 in the forthcoming year 2018/19 for an “approved growth item”. It would look for other external funders to cover at least part of the remaining shortfall, but in the alternative would implement cuts elsewhere in order to pursue this project.

Councillors in the Labour majority spoke in rhapsodic terms of the development potential. Cllr Kim Forward told her colleagues that it was “ a really exciting opportunity to think in creative terms”. Cllr Judy Rogers wanted to “integrate leisure with arts and music” in a way that would engage people of all ages “in an area of high deprivation…A small investment would bring massive return”. Cllr Andy Batsford claimed that Hastings already has a good track record in providing leisure facilities, now it could be “super-charged”.  

Leader of the council Peter Chowney endorsed the vision of a “combined multi-cultural performance venue and leisure centre”.  Summerfields and the White Rock Theatre were “not going to see us through much longer”. Doing nothing about it was not an option.

Conservative opposition councillor Rob Lee agreed that the council officers had put forward “an exciting piece of work’’ that could “transform” the local and neighbouring wards of the town. He also admitted that existing leisure facilities were “coming to the end of their best years”. But in his view the council simply could not afford it. There was no money in next year’s budget to raise the balance of the £100,000 required, and no immediate prospect of finding it. What about combining with Rother District Council council to develop a mutually serviceable leisure centre?

Cllr Chowney chided Cllr Lee’s objection as “short-sighted” Actually he had floated the idea of a combined leisure centre with Rother previously. “They weren’t interested”. But “…spend this money now, and we’ll get it back in the future”, he declared. “The idea is that it will be self-financing, with the potential to develop an income stream in the future”.

The motion to proceed with the feasibility study was duly carried, with the Labour majority outvoting Tory councillors Lee and Andy Patmore. A consultant should be appointed within the next two months, to report with a proposal and outline business case for the centre by September.

West Marina
Earlier in the evening the cabinet had debated a petition submitted by the West Marina group of residents in response to the council’s notice of intended disposal of the former bathing pool site there (see HIP Issue 120). The council chamber was packed with around 70 of the group’s supporters, and their chair Virginia Vilela was given five minutes to address the councillors with their objections – principally that the council was disposing of the site to private developers without any proper consultation with the local community, and that the process had not been open or transparent.

In response Cllr Chowney insisted that development of the site was in accordance with the local plan, adopted in 2015, that earmarked it “for housing and leisure use”.  The intention is to make it a ‘destination’ point (clearly the buzzword of the evening) “spreading tourists and visitors along the seafront”. The precise terms of the deal had to be kept confidential until the approved developers County Gate/Sunley had signed up to a leasehold purchase. There would be a wide consultation at the planning stage.

The council then voted to proceed, only Cllr Patmore opposing.

Council Cabinet votes to demolish Harold Place loos despite Tory opposition

Hugh Sullivan reports

After acrimonious debate and rival accusations of political cynicism levelled from either side of the Council chamber, Hastings Council Cabinet voted on Monday evening to demolish the toilet block at Harold Place in the town centre. It was closed last year in order to save cleaning and maintenance costs and has been boarded up since then, awaiting further decision. 

The Council’s favoured option was, until the last hours before the meeting, to undertake an ambitious re-development of the site for letting as a restaurant, borrowing funds in excess of £800,000 in the expectation of a commercial return.  There was said to be a “relatively well-known, quality” national chain which was believed willing in principle to take a long lease of up to 15 years at a rent of not less than £60,000 per year.  But at the meeting it was admitted that this prospective taker had failed to come forward with any offer.  Council leader Peter Chowney urged that, after a full year of failed marketing, the only realistic alternative now was to raze the building, at least to ground level.  The expense of this had been costed at £105,000, with a further £55,000 to be spent on landscaping the empty site.  A third option, of the Council developing the site from its own resources as a cafe or restaurant, was regarded as too “risky” financially.

Conservative councillors Rob Lee and Andy Patmore tabled an opposition amendment: to re-open the toilets. They pointed out that the capital expenditure required for the  programme of extensive repairs and refurbishment that would be necessary for any re-opening, previously costed at £150,000, was actually £10,000 less than the aggregate cost of demolition and landscaping proposed by Mr Chowney.  Cllr Lee argued that annual spending on cleaning and maintenance could be defrayed by charging for use through a turnstile  – a suggested 20p per visit.  Cllr Andy Patmore suggested that there could also be a voucher system enabling users to recoup charges by getting credits at local shops.

Labour councillors closed ranks against them. Cllr Colin Fitzgerald referred to five new toilets available to the public on several floors of the refurbished central library in Claremont.  He accused the Tories of “naked opportunism”, purporting to favour retaining toilets while failing to show how they could be paid for. Cllr Andy Batsford was equally scathing, arguing that the Council had been forced into the cuts by “your government”.  (“Her Majesty’s Government”, Cllr Andy Patmore corrected him).
“This is what austerity looks like”, he said. Labour were making “tough, well-thought out choices”; the opposition were being “politically opportunistic”.

Cllr Andy Patmore retorted that it was Labour who were being cynical, since it would be cheaper to refurbish and re-open than demolish.  He reminded his political opponents that there had been an adverse reaction among locals in the town to the original closure, and that this remained an issue “on the doorstep” – a reminder of the forthcoming local elections in two months’ time. He also pointed out that if demolition was started in two or three months time, it would cause major disruption in the town centre “right in the middle of summer”.

The voting then proceeded on party lines: the Conservative amendment was defeated, and the decision made to demolish. Work will presumably commence in the coming weeks.

Heritage Strategy
The Council Cabinet had previously voted to approve a Heritage Strategy document put forward by Kevin Boorman, the Council’s Marketing and Major Projects Manager, following a 61-page report by “historic environment” consultants Drury McPherson which included a list of recommendations to protect and maximise the town’s “heritage assets”.  As Mr Chowney acknowledged, the Strategy document was couched in very general “over-arching” terms, and would need to be followed by a “fairly detailed action plan” to implement some of the recommendations. He also described a number as “ somewhat aspirational”, such as one to reduce parking on the sea-front. 

Although the Cabinet approval was unanimous, Cllr Lee stated that his own support was “not entirely whole-hearted”. He pointed out in particular that a recommendation to install a visitor hub in the town centre would be a reversal of the recent move from the Old Town Hall to Muriel Matters House.

We hope you have enjoyed reading this article from Hastings Independent Press. The future of this 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.