Dear Editor
Levelling Up
The government recently announced a grant of £19 million for improvements to the De La Warr Pavilion and for community facilities at Sidley, north of Bexhill.
This all seems far away from Rye, but I welcome the government’s announcement and congratulate Rother officers, councillors, the manager of the De La Warr and the Bexhill and Battle MP on a considerable achievement. The De La Warr Pavilion is listed grade one for its architectural merits. It is of international as well as national cultural importance and the cost of making it fit for the future is well beyond the resources of a single district council. Central government funding was essential and we can all be proud of the pavilion as a magnet for the tourism on which Rye and the whole district depends.
According to the Index of Social Deprivation, Rother has six areas among the most deprived 20% in England. Four of them are in Bexhill of which no fewer than three are in Sidley and one in central Bexhill. It is right to support Sidley with central government funds. Rye has one similarly deprived area, but the running costs of the Rye pool would have been beyond the scope of levelling up, even if the timing had been right. I look forward to Rother and Rye Town Council developing other ways to take that forward.
Both the De La Warr and Sidley projects are a good use of central government money to revitalise the district. I am less sure about calling the grant of £45 million to the Port of Dover “levelling up”. The grant includes a doubling of border control posts to reduce delays. This is not levelling up, but an attempt to mitigate the friction on EU trade which followed our withdrawal from the Single Market. There is now bureaucracy and delay which did not exist before – a deliberate consequence of government policy. Our trade agreement with the EU could be so much better, for while there are no tariffs there are other time-consuming and expensive checks which could have been avoided. The solution is to improve our trade agreement – which is bound to involve compromise – rather than to pour public money into extra facilities to deal with the problems created. Just think what could have been done with that £45 million.
Cllr Andrew Mier
Andrew Mier is Rother District Councillor (Lib Dem) for Southern Rother (The villages of Fairlight, Guestling, Icklesham and Pett)
Image Credits: from Rother District Council website, supplied by Cllr Mier .
So Andrew mier is under the assumption that bexhill and Sidley are deemed the most deprived areas of Rother, Sidley maybe deserves some money for regeneration, but spending more money on bexhills white elephant is obscene,especially as it is also funded by ratepayers money to the tune of 500k a year, and what a coincidence that huw merriman got the funding solely for Bexhill and Sidley,being the mp and government minister, whilst nearby Eastbourne got nothing,even though their bandstand on their seafront is crumbling. Now that would have been a real worthwhile project, instead of continually drip feeding the loss making del awarr pavilion,that if had been in private hands,would have been bankrupt years ago.
Dear John,
I’m not making assumptions about the relative poverty of Sidley and part of Bexhill and part of Rye. These are the government’s own figures. See eg http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/iod_index.html
The government’s levelling up policy can be criticised (you will see my comments about the Dover scheme). Some have said the money should be given to local authorities to decide their own priorities at the local level.
I am sorry the Eastbourne Bandstand is in such bad shape. A bigger criticism would involve Hastings, which lacked the resources even to make a bid. I believe they had money earlier and may bid if there is a third round (a risky assumption).
As to the De La Warr what would you do? It’s listed Grade One. Without government money there was a real prospect of closure and decay of the structure which could not be permitted. No doubt you prefer the government to do the financial heavy lifting rather than Rother, which simply couldn’t afford it. I’d be with you on that.
True Andrew, and the ratepayers of Rother cannot keep subsidising a pavilion that has never made a profit,let’s also not forget the Landgate tower in Rye is a listed building, and thanks to Rother district Council this structure fell into decay,under their tenure.
Reading through the lines of the press comments and article about the Eastbourne bid – it seems it did not meet the criteria for this round…
The Oxford English Dictionary definition of prioritise is as follows; to put tasks, problems, etc. in order of importance, so that you can deal with the most important first.
I will agree that we all have different priorities depending on our personal outlook, financial situation and interests. This is only to be expected. But I challenge those with an interest in the de la Warr Pavilion to justify their attempt to gather together the finance to spend a massive £23,400,000 on that crumbling edifice.
The Rother District Council website states that ‘ The investment of £19,192,000 from the Government’s Levelling Up Fund will enable the delivery of cultural-led regeneration to improve the lives of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in Rother.’
No it won’t. The greater part of it will be frittered away on the de la Warr Pavilion which will have little or no effect on the disadvantaged people in Rother. They will not be travelling from the outer regions of the District to enjoy, partake or observe the high brow events that are provided free of charge.
Then, let me remind you how much, £19,192,000 is public money. If individuals or businesses wish to donate substantial sums to support an interest of their own they are welcome to do so, but when it comes to public money, that is your money, my money and that of millions of other people, that is a whole different scenario.
Any suggestion that spending a vast sum of money on the de la Warr Pavilion is going to benefit or improve the lives of the residents of Rother is stretching the imagination too far.
In Rother there are people living on the streets, using food banks, living in sub-standard accommodation, surely when considering where to prioritise spending these people’s needs come way ahead of a loss-making business in a crumbling building.
The other doubtful reasoning always put up by RDC is that they are responsible for maintaining the DLWP whether it be open or closed, standing up or falling down. Similarly anyone owning a listed building (don’t mention the Landgate in Rye which precedes the DLWP by several hundred years) has to find the wherewithal to maintain it. If that is too great a burden for the public purse the DLWP should be put up for sale. Another owner might well make a going concern of it, though in all honesty I doubt it.
If the purpose of this ‘levelling-up’ money is to improve the lives of people in Rother then let that start with supporting the opening of the Rye swimming pool, a mere £100,000 would apparently make all the difference between allowing many disadvantaged people to get some pleasurable exercise, or the pool falling into disrepair and eventually being scrapped.
Will that happen? A big resounding ‘NO’ simply because it is too far from Bexhill.
It will be claimed that the money is only for the Bexhill area and must be used for such. We people of Eastern Rother live in the same Rother District as the residents of Bexhill and its’ environs.
We live in what is supposed to be a democracy with fair shares for all, but that concept is sadly lacking when it comes to expenditure for the benefit of the council tax payers.
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
This was never a question of the De La Warr or the Rye Pool. The running costs of the Rye Pool were not eligible for central government’s Levelling Up funds. There is no argument to be had about about that.
As I have pointed out money is going to the very disadvantaged area of Sidley, and it is hard to complain about that. To knock down the De La Warr, a well-run grade one listed building would be the act of a philistine and greatly to the detriment of the District as a whole.
There are many sources of funding other than Levelling Up which could be of benefit to Rye and we should all be working together to tap into them.
Rother’s record on the other issues you raise, such as rough sleeping (a tiny number) and homelessness is excellent.
You will note that my Ward is to the east of Hastings, much nearer to Rye than Bexhill.
Cllr Andrew Mier (AM) wrote; This was never a question of the De La Warr or the Rye Pool. The running costs of the Rye Pool were not eligible for central government’s Levelling Up funds. There is no argument to be had about about (sic) that.
RC Yes there is. This is all tax payer’s money which is collected then sub-divided and redistributed in an arbitrary manner, apparently with those who shout loudest getting the greatest benefit. I read that Hastings could not afford to apply, so an area has to be wealthy to apply for more wealth.
AM As I have pointed out money is going to the very disadvantaged area of Sidley, and it is hard to complain about that.
RC No Councillor, only some of the money is going to Sidley, how much is yet to be announced.
AM To knock down the De La Warr, a well-run grade one listed building would be the act of a philistine and greatly to the detriment of the District as a whole.
RC Well-run? Anybody could run a business that receives well in excess of £1m in grants each year whilst receiving millions of pounds for maintenance, this all being tax payer’s money.
As to being a great benefit to the District as a whole that is a matter of doubt. Has any independent research been carried out to justify that claim? I suggest that more people travel further to visit Rye than ever they do to go to the DLWP.
AM There are many sources of funding other than Levelling Up which could be of benefit to Rye and we should all be working together to tap into them.
RC If there are many other sources of funding why weren’t those sources approached before the Rye Pool was closed down?
AM Rother’s record on the other issues you raise, such as rough sleeping (a tiny number) and homelessness is excellent.
RC You have missed out RDC’s record on improving the standard of the poor housing stock, which people are having to pay increasing rental rates to live in. The money to be allocated to the DLWP would help far more people if directed to improving residential properties.
AM You will note that my Ward is to the east of Hastings, much nearer to Rye than Bexhill.
RC How has this any relevance to the subject? You are a member of Rother District Council that currently governs Bexhill, an area that greatly benefits from enormous grants of taxpayer’s money whilst pleading poverty. When will we see your proximity to Rye evidenced by increased funding in this area?
RC The wooden sheds masquerading as shelters on Bexhill West parade cost £65,000 each, before installation costs. That is just one example of profligate waste exercised by Rother District Council in Bexhill. The cost of two of them would keep Rye swimming pool going for several years.
Prioritise please.
Well said Rod Came, the truth of the matter,always prevails in the end.
John and Rod. Squarely hitting the nail on the head. How much longer do we need to support the DLW pavilion at the detriment of addressing other, more pressing needs of the borough as a whole?
Just read an article which mentioned it will cost about a million pounds to repair a little fountain near the DLP!! I am amazed, it is only a small fountain that little children play in. What is the world (Bexhill in particular) coming to!!!!