When coastal communities hit the national news, it’s usually a delight to read, as those of us who live by the sea have plenty to boast about. In a recent article on BBC News, the Beeb even quoted our local MP. However, Mrs Hart appeared to have nothing to say about her own coastal constituency, Rye and Hastings…
The article focussed upon a new report written by the Sussex Community Foundation entitled, tellingly, “Communities on the Edge”. The report warns that levelling up’s focus on regions will result in the “massive challenges” faced by some smaller, remote parts of the country being “hidden” and likely missed by the government.
Mrs Hart is chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Coastal Communities, so she knows the problems faced by people living in Rye and Hastings. In Rye, the veneer of affluence masks a deeper truth. Yes, some people can afford to pay £17 for a gin and tonic in the High Street, but over 30% of the kids at Rye College are eligible for free school meals. Astonishingly, this rises to 50% and even 62% in some schools in Hastings. I’ll spare Mrs Hart’s blushes and not mention her voting record on free meals during school holidays, but I do feel duty bound to say, after 13 years of Conservative government, our kids are being shamefully let down. The fact that in the 21st century, in the fifth richest country on earth, 27% of British children are living in poverty really beggars belief (Joseph Rowntree Foundation).
On a slightly brighter note, Rother District Council has recently been awarded £19m for community, creativity and skills in Bexhill. It’s no panacea, but offers some positive counterpoint – and, no, it’s not all going to the De La Warr, John! However, the report poses an important question in this regard: why must councils, with financial circumstances sometimes as parlous as their hard-pressed constituents, have to compete with other regions for desperately-needed funding? I’m reminded of those news features of humanitarian aid being dropped from UN helicopters into the starving melee… Melodramatic? I’m not so sure it is. Hastings, one of the government’s priority areas for levelling up, with some of the most deprived wards in the south east, couldn’t even afford to bid.
The BBC article discusses reform of the government’s bidding criteria, and talks of the transition to green energy as a means of providing well-paid jobs. Hybrid and home working are also suggested as ways of enabling young people to remain in their localities, but education, vocational training and affordable homes would be a crucial factor in that equation. Seasonal workforces are also referenced by the report, and they’re of particular importance to our farming communities, who desperately need vets, pickers and abattoir workers – not to mention abattoirs…
Stories like those revealed in “Communities on the Edge” reveal a scene of widening inequality and deepening poverty, locally and nationally. The additional peril I foresee is a growing disillusion with institutions and politicians, who do not seem to be listening to us. This dissatisfaction is leading to polarisation, ideological entrenchment, conspiracy, and the continued corrosion of consensus and social harmony. But it’s all very well endlessly bemoaning the problems we’re all painfully aware of… The question is, what’s to be done? Well, I suspect we can all agree, we need things to change.
Image Credits: Guy Harris .
Yes but Eastbourne did Guy,and they were turned down, and they had a bigger worthwhile cause in saving their crumbling bandstand on Eastbournes promenade.Yes you are right we certainly need change,and I ask how much longer is good money going to be thrown,at the loss making Pavilion on bexhill seafront, it cannot go on year after year,with ratepayers across Rother, subsidising this white Elephant.
Hi, John
The De La Warr is a Grade I listed building which the Council is legally obliged to maintain. I suspect it’s the same situation in Brighton with the Pavilion, which is owned by Brighton & Hove Council, and I can’t imagine there are many local voices suggesting it should be left to crumble. The De La Warr and The Pavilion are landmarks, just like the Eiffel Tower or the Trevi Fountain. I can’t quantify the revenue those two famous monuments bring in, but about ten years ago, the De La Warr was reckoned to have a financial impact of £16m into the local community, and if nothing else, it’s been a great focus for the raising of grants in recent years. However, the DLW also attracts nearly half a million visitors a year to Bexhill. Without disrespect to Bexhill, where the sun was shining today, I can’t immediately think how else such numbers would be attracted. The money isn’t just going on the maintenance of the building’s fabric (which is a legal obligation, as above), but on training and local regeneration. So, I completely appreciate that there are many deserving causes right now, but I don’t think the DLW’s a worthy focus for ire.
But the Landgate Tower is a Grade 1 listed building which Rother has a legal duty to protect and it hasn’t. And it is lucky to get £10 k every three years or so, which is then spent on a company that comes to assault the building with industrial hire pressure power hoses, totally unsupervised. Rye also attracts at least half a million visitors a year. Pro rata the citizens of Rye give, via Rother, the DWP £30k each year! And have done so for at least a decade and a half.
[Note. This is based on an annual grant by Rother to DLWP of about £500,000]
My work brings me into one to one contact with school teachers in the main. They often ask me where I live and I tell them near Rye (in Brede actually) and usually they say something complimentary relating to their visit to the town or the local area. I then ask them about the de la Warr Pavilion and almost all have never heard of it.
If teachers in some of the most prestigious schools in the south east of England have never heard of the DLWP, I have to question such assertions that it attracts 500,000 visitors annually to Bexhill and was reckoned to have a financial impact of £16m into the local community, even that was ten years ago and reckoned by whom? Reckoning not being a very accurate method of financial assessment.
The DWLP is certainly a striking building looked at from most angles, this is achieved by its’ method of construction, a system which has since been considered to be seriously problematic.
The main structure is a metal framework which was used to give the building stability to support the design. Concrete was then used to give the building its’ form. Unfortunately over time the metal structure has corroded causing cracking of the concrete, hence the continual maintenance problems.
The position of the building close to the sea only exacerbates the basic issue associated with that type of building construction. It will eventually become liable to collapse unless more and more tax payer’s money is poured into it in an attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Post WW2 many replacement houses were required and needed to be built very quickly. To achieve that a similar construction method was employed. It is now almost impossible to obtain a mortgage for a house of that type of construction which has not undergone an expensive certified repair. Even if one house has been repaired but an adjoining one has not then it is unlikely that a lender will take on the mortgage risk.
At some point the DLWP because of its’ age, type of construction and proximity to the sea will succumb to the inevitable and have to be abandoned. The only questions that have to be answered are when, and how much more public money will be poured into that money pit before the inevitable decision has to be taken?
Interesting to hear the DLW attracks half a million visitors a year Guy, and still relies on ratepayers money to subsidise it, and it still cannot stand on its own two feet, how many visitors do we have visiting Rye each year, especially to photograph our gateway to the town,The Landgate tower, which Rother district council left in an appalling state.
Hello, All.
The estimates of financial impact come from the DLW Pavilion’s website – anyone can read it, and dispute it, if they believe that would be worthwhile. I’ve actually sought an upto date estimate.
May I just make a couple of points though: First, the circumstances of the Landgate don’t affect the obligations toward the DLW and visa versa.
However, the two sites do differ in some respects. The Landgate has no public access, cannot hold concerts, seminars or host exhibitions etc., and I doubt very much that it could help attract a grant of anywhere near £19m for regeneration. I wish it could. So I think we’re comparing apples and oranges. And Notwithstanding Rod’s anecdotal evidence of the DLW’s obscurity, I doubt his respondents would be any the wiser about the dear old Landgate.
As you probably know, about five years ago works were carried out to maintain the Landgate, and I believe these cost about £70,000. That’s to maintain a ruin – albeit a cherished ruin and a beloved landmark. Just as many might think the money invested in the DLW could be spent elsewhere, others might say the same of the Landgate. But RDC is obliged to maintain both, and has to find the money from somewhere. I think very few would dispute, however, that the DLW had better financial potential and plays a more ‘active’ role in the life and culture of East Sussex.
Lastly, given what’s already been said about the council obligations and the financial impact of the DLW, I’d be interested to know, what would you do?
Guy, you ask “what would you do “
Well, I would look at the possibility of the DLWP operating independently with perhaps a small degree of subsidy from RDC given it has half a million visitors a year and has several means of raising revenue and I would press the council to publish a long term strategy for its historic buildings; I would ( if I were standing for election in the upcoming Rother District to represent Rye and Winchelsea) make it very clear that I would represent that ward and fight for our share of limited funding by, in the first place but not exclusively, acknowledging that Rye and Winchelsea survive almost exclusively on revenue from Tourism – the loss of a landmark like the Landgate would seriously undermine the town’s appeal to visitors and I would press for its upkeep and preservation (£70k every now and then is insignificant) ; finally if elected I would be doing everything in my power to hold Freedom Leisure to their contract to provide services across the WHOLE of Rother and not to attempt a cherry picking exercise. That said, if you are successfully elected I have a feeling you might do a better job than the current incumbents so – good luck
Yes you are quite right what you say about the Landgate tower,maybe if Rother district council had maintained it properly from the start when they took it over, they wouldn’t have had too waste 70k of ratepayers money on cleaning up the appalling mess they left it in.
Thanks, Simon – I think!
I suppose if the DLW operated as an ‘independent’ concern, you’d have to ensure the current service and access to the local community were sustained – free entry, youth training, collaboration with local schools etc etc, and I suspect that may be the issue wrt to a fully commercial proposition as opposed to a charity. But I concede, Simon, right now I don’t know for certain. Given the evident interest in DLW, I am going to try to find out!
All the best.
Guy one of the problems with our current definition of poverty –
“Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year.”
is that there will always be people in poverty – as it is relative to a form of average income. A better definition is needed. That is not to say that children have suffered and that the high cost of living particularly for things such as going on trips or other activities which have gone up by more than inflation. I speak as someone who was brought up in poverty (lived in one room till I was 8 , no car, washing machine, telephone (ever) no holidays – but a day trip a year) although it was a very happy childhood with two loving parents and lots of other people were in the same circumstances. No-one by the way ever ate anything processed or went out for a meal.
Also we are not the 5th richest country. According to Worldometer using GDP per capita we are 26th.
These are statistics you should be aware of as it undermines your comments.
Hi, Marie
The thing with statistics is, there are lots of different metrics. You are using one, I’m using another – the UK was 5th-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal gross domestic product – it’s a commonly cited stat. It’s actually now 6th according to that metric, so thanks for making me double check!
As for the poverty point, I’m using the Joseph Rowntree Foundation data, as I think I noted.
But I suspect we’re both agreed, poverty is a huge issue by any measure.
Sorry, further to the above, I suppose I missed your cue there, Simon, didn’t I? But I would hope it was taken as read that anyone who wanted to volunteer in their community had its best interests at heart. I certainly do. I wasn’t making a binary argument above, I was simply trying to look at it in the round – realistically. I think it’s really easy to say you’ll do something just to seduce people, but daft to do so before you know if you actually can. I’m on the outside looking in, right now, but the one thing I can already perceive is that it takes time, deliberation and cooperation to sort out anything locally. The people who take so much stick on RN and elsewhere are all essentially volunteers, and I can tell you, from what I can see, they’re doing their best in trying circumstances. RTC, for instance, is working with RDC to try to assure a future for the pool and the Landgate, and the inward investment into DLW and Sidley of course takes pressure off RDC’s finances, meaning it might be able to reduce the DLW’s subsidy, which I hope addresses some of the concerns above.
As to Rye and Winchelsea’s dependence on tourism, I fully understand it. It’s what brought me here over a decade ago, and the Landgate and St Thomas’s certainly helped to create that draw for me and my family. Visitor infrastructure is also critical to our tourist economy, and to the welcome we provide, and just to underline my bona fides, let me tell you that I’ll be doing a fact-finding tour of Rye and Winchelsea’s public toilets this week!