One might have thought that Rye Partnership chairman, Keith Glazier, had a train to catch on Wednesday evening, judging by the speed with which the AGM was conducted – the main part, including Chairman’s report, approval of accounts (unaudited) and re-election of directors and auditors being concluded in just over 11 minutes.
In his report, Glazier stated that the Partnership remained committed to regeneration and job creation in Rye. Their properties were all now let and they had recently been in conversation with the Chapman organisation who wished to continue to expand their activities and investment in the town. He confirmed that the Amicus housing scheme for Tilling Green was, at least for the time being, dead and that they were looking at the lease on the Tilling Green Community Centre and whether to renew it in its current form or whether to make changes with a view to looking ahead three to five years. There would be further meetings, he said, with the residents’ association as well as the new Community Interest Company, after the forthcoming County Council elections. Currently, however, the Community Centre was a loss-making venture with high costs and too little use.
The accounts for the period ended March 2016 (and therefore now a year out of date) showed a pre-tax profit of £7,894 against a loss the previous year of £1,579. No indication of the financial results for the current 12-month period was given, although the Chairman said that they could now start to look forward instead of continually firefighting. The formal part of the AGM was then closed and the meeting thrown open to questions from the floor.
The majority of questions revolved around the future of the Community Centre, which is of particular concern to local residents.
Dominic Manning pointed out that the building used to operate at a profit but that general uncertainty over its future had driven a number of users away and only a lease of five years or more would stand any chance of getting some of them back. As the site was now of negligible value as a development prospect, how about a lease of at least 10 years to enable grants for much needed refurbishment, to be obtained.
East Sussex County Council, came the answer, would be unlikely to agree anything longer than five years and a minimum of 25 years would be required if any application for major grants was to have a chance of success.
John Howlett suggested that as it had always been a public building, it would be possible for ESCC to gift it back to the community. Glazier agreed that was possible but commented that Rye Town Council does not have a great track record in being brave about taking on this sort of commitment. Howlett then remarked that as ESCC had been responsible for the lack of maintenance resulting in the building’s present condition, they should pay to have it refurbished. The reply to this was that even if it had been poorly maintained and even if that was the responsibility of ESCC, it would not be putting any money into the Centre.
After just a few more comments, the final question was, could the County Council at least assist in a general tidy up (which, by inference, included small repairs) for the forthcoming Mayor-Making ceremony. The answer was that he, Glazier, would see what he could do but there was virtually no money available. So, in other words, the real answer was probably no.
The meeting was then closed.
Photo: John Minter
Keith Glazier states the Tilling green Community centre is a loss making venture,with high costs.Perhaps as Leader of East Sussex Council, he can tell the tax payers of East Sussex, how much the redundant Freda Gardham School, costs to run as a Creative Centre, under the Freedom of Information act. And are the costs offset, by the hiring out of the playing field,to caravan dwellers, throughout the summer months.
Sadly I wasn’t at this meeting but I wonder which hat Keith Glazier was wearing when he talked about the TGCC? That of the owner – as he is the leader of ESCC? Or the tenant and sub lessor – Rye Partnership where he is the Chairman? Has he resigned from either of these roles? I don’t think so.
A couple of years ago he pointedly absented himself when it came to all matters concerning TGCC due to the very obvious conflict of interest he had placed himself in by being in charge of both the landlord and tenant.
Therefore, whatever Councillor Chairman Glazier said about TGCC at the Rye Partnership AGM last week was either completely out of order or worthless since officially he can have no view on this matter.
Seems like he doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to his commitment to be silent on matters that by dint of his dual roles may concern him.
He should have removed himself from the meeting the moment any discussion relating to TGCC started.
Lastly, Councillor Glazier should be aware that East Sussex County Council is a massive loss making ‘business’ dependent for the vast majority of the income to keep it afloat on central government grants. As a ‘business’ ESCC simply doesn’t stack up without this money. It is also very expensive to run. That doesn’t mean ESCC has to be flogged off and torn down. Does it? Of course not. Nor should TGCC be treated so shabbily.
In reply to Andy Stuart’s comments, I would state the following, which I believe to be true:
1. Having a community centre at Tilling Green is a good thing. It encourages social inclusion, community cohesion and facilitates social wellbeing, health, education and leisure for immediate residents as well as those from surrounding areas.
2. Until 2012, there was no community centre in Tilling Green.
3. Without the support of the Rye Partnership, there would be no TGCC.
4. Without the support of East Sussex County Council, there would be no TGCC.
Now, whilst I may not see eye to eye with Keith Glazier on a party political level, and not wishing to belittle the work of anybody else in this matter, I’m in no doubt whatsoever that without him, there would be no community centre in Tilling Green. In no small measure have we to thank him for this, so Andy’s bilious personal attack is totally unwarranted. The notion that there must be a ‘conflict of interest’ is baffling. Why would the objectives of the RP and ESCC of necessity be incompatible? Cllr Glazier, in his capacity as Chair of RP and leader of ESCC, has used the synergy between these two organisations to get the best possible outcome for residents.
The fact is that due to the failed planning application last year, the future of TGCC looks uncertain and a concerted collective effort is now required to secure its future. If Andy, in his capacity as town councillor, wishes to convince the Town Council or any other entity with both the time and capacity to do things better to take on a leading role, then now is the time to do so. Had he been at the meeting, he would have known that offer is on the table. Sniping from the sidelines is not helpful and demeans the hard effort of many to make TGCC a success: either step up or shut up.
P.s to the Editor: My comment at the meeting was that the operation of the building was close to breaking even two years ago, not that it operated at a profit.
To Answer John Tolhursts questions the Cost of running Freda Gardham should be directed to ARRC the Charity that hold the lease from the County Council and therefore from the tax payers point of view it’s just a matter of monitoring the lease and so very little cost.
Again on the Caravan dwellers he would need to ask the Town Council or the Rugby Club who are the lease owners this is not a matter for the County who receive a pepper corn rent for both sites to allow both the ARRC, the Creative Centre and the Rugby Club to provide such useful service for the people of Rye and the surrounding area.