HUGH SULLIVAN

In October last year, Hastings Borough Council started what it called an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to identify a new partner, operator or consortium to take over management of St Mary in the Castle. In February, the council issued a further press release stating that it had received a “strong and wide- ranging response… The submissions reflect significant creativity, care and ambition, and demonstrate the importance of the building to both local communities and the wider cultural sector.”

The council promised to undertake a detailed evaluation of these submissions with the support of “specialist advisers”. It also commissioned a building condition survey intended to provide a clear picture of the repairs and investment needed to safeguard the building’s future. The findings of that survey, including comprehensive costings, are expected to be received from consultants before the end of this month.

However, a council spokesperson has indicated that the work found to be required for the former church itself will be considered alongside the council’s wider plans for the seafront and town centre. These include current work to repair the road which forms the frontage of the houses and the roof of Pelham Arcade below, itself a Grade II* listed building.

The repair involves excavation of the existing road surface of Pelham Crescent down to the top of the stone arcade structure, waterproofing the top of the arcade, rebuilding and re-contouring the road, providing new drainage, and delivering “environmental enhancements”. The sum of £1.24 million has been allocated from this year’s council budget to meet the full costs of this road scheme.

The work is currently out to tender. A contractor is expected to be appointed “within the next few weeks”, with the work scheduled to start on site “in summer 2026”.

RESTORATION GRANTS ‘PAUSED’

Some years ago a long-running council programme entitled “the Pelham Arcade Restoration Project” offered substantial grants to owners who were willing to restore their buildings back to their original form, and to a good state of repair. However, such restoration works, and the availability of grant funding, have been “paused”, according to the council’s spokesperson. That’s partly because of the significant damp problem affecting the whole of the Arcade, but also because Historic England has withdrawn from acting as joint funder and the council too lacks funding to offer grants. Instead, it is focussing on delivering the road repairs in the hope that these will substantially ameliorate the damp in the Arcade units.

“Once this critical part of the project has been completed, the next project priorities will be assessed”, the council spokesperson said. However, it Is admitted that any further repairs, restoration or enhancement works will be dependent on what’s available from the council’s future budgets and/or any external grant funding.

In the meantime the council has refused planning permission or listed building consent for the detailed lay-out of a proposed food court within the Arcade. The applicant owner was planning to open six or seven ‘restaurant booths’, each offering a distinct national cuisine (Chinese, Indian, Italian etc) on a 14-hour day and seven-day week schedule. It was claimed that the internal works that were proposed would not affect the building’s external appearance nor its internal structural features.

However, the council found on inspection that unauthorised works had been carried out to the listed building, including demolition of internal walls and partial demolition of the roof lantern structures. Its planning officer noted that the owner was “trying to find a viable economic use for the unit… in a very damp internal environment”. But she concluded that the internal alterations “would fail to preserve the building’s special architectural and historic interest…The visual impact would not be appropriate to the location, would fail to show an appreciation of the surrounding neighbourhood’s historic setting, and would fail to sustain or enhance significance.”