9th December 2009 - Hastings Borough Council grants planning permission.

In order to reach an unbiased result SOS requested that the application be heard by a councillors who had not not sat on the original board (you wouldn't want the same jury if a case was being re-heard in court would you, and planning boards are quasi-judicial) Unsurprisingly consent was granted, Cllr Daniel even trotted out the same inane remark "you wouldn't demolish an art gallery to build a car park would you" - time will tell.

The decision to re-use what was pretty much the original planning board is in direct contravention of Hastings Borough Council's own planning protocol where it states;-

“17. Members shall not participate in the consideration of a planning application if to do so would give the appearance of bias. The test for bias is: “Would the fair-minded observer, knowing the background, consider that there was a real possibility of bias?” It is not the Member’s view of whether they are biased that is relevant here but the view of the independent observer. Perception is important and can lead to judicial challenge in the High Court.”

paragraphs 15, 16 and 23 are also relevant

The complete protocol is here or can be found on HBC's website

14th July 2009 - Planning application quashed because HBC's planning board hadn't considered all the objections - click here for the judgement

Wednesday May 20th 2009 Hastings Borough Council's Planning Committee voted unanimously in favour of the Jerwood application and associated works. Interestingly the SOS committee and its supporters were initially banished to a downstairs committee room whilst the pro-lobby were comfortably seated upstairs and were allowed priority entry to the chamber. Only when it became clear that there was sufficient room for us we were allowed to join the main meeting.

As for the planning meeting, what became very clear is that those members that spoke most had obviously researched least; Councillor Joy Waite was "won over by the strength of public support" referring to 356 letters in favour compared to 44 against and ignored the 487 signatures on the three petitions. Cllr Waite also ignored the existence of over 300 members of "Save Our Stade" who joined because the Stade is the wrong place for this development. A site visit should have demonstrated the strength of feeling against the proposal with Jerwood - 'JERWOOD NO' posters being displayed by the majority of the fishermen. As for the letters of support seen on the HBC planning web site, including the comment forms completed during the three exhibitions, very few would qualify as being support on planning grounds. As objectors, we had to stick strictly to planning issues, as habitually pointed out by Cllr. Daniel, and hence our use of petitions on what we believe to have been perfectly valid planning issues. Were we to have objected simply on the basis that we did not like the proposals then such views would be dismissed as not being relevant. As regards the comment forms gathered at the exhibitions, what councillors were not told, and we had no opportunity to explain, was that the forms were not readily available and only if you were vocally in support of the proposal did HBC and Jerwood representatives direct you to them. Those who made their objections known were not. Certainly on the Saturday exhibition at the Fishermen's Museum, when we asked people who were signing our petition on their way out - we were out in the street of course - if they had completed a comment form they all said 'what comment form?' Such was the crush to get back in and to where the forms were semi hidden, most did not bother, thinking that signing the petition was sufficient.

Councillor Barlow was delighted that the gallery "would bring people down to Hastings all year round" - how does he know that? if he had read the "Unanswered Questions" on this site he would have noted question 12. "Please supply details of when the art collection can be viewed (opening hours, how many days a week and how many weeks of the year ) throughout the year and sanctions available to Hastings Borough Council if these hours are not adhered to." and the official answer from HBC "I do not have this information" . An email with "Questions about the proposed Jerwood Gallery" was sent to Hastings' Chief Executive and copied to each elected member of the council, Councillor Paul Barlow didn't even bother to open his!

Cllr Daniel, carried away with the exuberance of his own verbosity, wants to brush away 1000 years of history, that which attracts visitors from all over the world, "If Hastings has a future then it perhaps needs to stop looking back to the past and 1066 and start looking forward. This can help us become a cultural centre and attract visitors all year round. If things were the other way round and we were discussing knocking down a modern art gallery to build a coach park we would have a riot on our hands. " - yeah, right, that's a planning consideration! and of course he too missed the fact that there is no guarantee that the gallery would be open all year.

This was the Planning Board 20th May 2009 - did they represent your views? were you asked for your views?

Letter to the Hastings Observer, 19th June 2008

One law for the rich...
COVERAGE of the planning committee decision to approve the Jerwood gallery reads more like the report the council would wish to see and not what actually took place.
The experience of being there was quite different. For a start the council officials stopped you at the council chamber door. We were told to return later as we had 'an absolute right' to be at the meeting.
Our neighbours who opposed Jerwood were told the opposite – there would not be enough room for everybody. They would have to watch the proceedings on TV in an ante-room. We found our seats first – they were allowed in later and had to find single seats.
This discrimination, setting neighbour against neighbour, polarises opinion. It has real effects. It openly marginalised anti-Jerwood opinion and it made it more difficult for the objectors to present a coherent case. This stage-managed event gives the councillors making the decision a completely distorted view of the widespread misgivings held about the gallery. Many of its possible benefits are hard to pin down. Take two clear examples.
First, the community facilities. Those of us pressing the council to recognise it has a legal duty to make sure these facilities are open to all children (including those from the poorest backgrounds) have been told our demands are 'unrealistic'. The community space needs a 'business plan', must be provided on an 'economic basis' without any public subsidy.

And the road: both Hastings and East Sussex Councils are dead set against providing a road-calming scheme for Rock-a-Nore Road.
Both councils know that every evening the road – on which the new gallery will be built – becomes a high-speed race track. And will they do anything about it? No, they say, not until there has been a serious accident. Could there be any clearer demonstration that in Hastings there is one law for the wealthy art collector and another for the those who live here?
JONATHAN COE
Rock-A-Nore Road