Some of the winch huts with Jerwood No posters - do they look as if they support the gallery on the Stade?
If the images don't appear above click here
SAY 'NO' to Jerwood on the Stade
15th March 2013 Jerwood taker the p**s and hikes up its prices by 50% More >>
In an attempt to increase visitor numbers Jerwood hikes up the cost of admission. Don't forget that the original idea was that admission would be FREE and the 'gallery' would attract huge crowds which in turn would regenerate Hastings.
A gallery spokesman said: “Jerwood Gallery has recently reviewed its pricing structure.
Residents of Hastings borough will continue to receive a great value offer: a discount of £5 off full-price adult tickets. Explain please, admission was going to be free. Jerwood could of course have provided an admission price of £1,000,000 for Martians, then locals would get a massive £999,997 discount on that!!
We are additionally offering a free return visit within 12 months to all those purchasing full-price adult, child and family tickets. - so no discount for the very folk that are providing the subsidy and should be getting in free anyway.
We have frozen the prices of all annual memberships for the year.
We have responded to visitor feedback and extended our free ‘First Tuesdays’, from 4pm to 8pm on the first Tuesday of every month, to include all visitors, both local and national. WOW!
Jerwood Gallery is a not-for-profit company, operating without public revenue subsidy. So how would you describe the arrangement letting them off nearly £100,000 in business rates every year.
See Hastings Observer report
Hastings Observer 15th July 2011, page 23
A transcript of this text is below
Cllr. Locke is very good with his prediction but it is not a stick we wish to beat HBC with, but some simple facts.
If you look at the attached a copy of the Deed of Covenant between the site owner HBC and Gallerium Enterprise, the tenant, you will see that it is written into the 99 year lease of which the deed forms a part, that the gallery operation will not be charged local rates – Page 3 – Recitals - C. It is also interesting to note the very careful wording by some clever lawyers employed by someone – Page 4 – Business Rates. They don’t have to apply for rate relief, they have it by right as per the signed and legal documents.
In a response to a question from SOS, HBC estimated that the rate relief was worth approximately £60-70K per year at current values, not the £13-18K mentioned in your news item, unless of course Cllr. Lock was being ‘clever’ with the truth and only referring to a pro rata charge on the basis that Gallerium are only notionally liable from when the gallery open to the public – whenever that might eventually be? - and of course the ongoing (for the next 99 years anyway) annual loss of £130,000 is also to be addressed.
The Jerwood Foundation is neither the leaseholder nor the operating company of the Jerwood Gallery. The tenant is the Gallerium Enterprise organisation is a Liechtenstein registered entity – see the lease and the covenant go to clause 4.26 in the lease document. We wonder when the operator will try and wriggle out of this undertaking, like the original undertaking of free entry for all. Cllr. Lock does seem to be trying to mislead the public, either deliberately or due to lack of understanding of the real situation – and after all, it was he that threw down the gauntlet remember.
SOS Secretary Alan Smith has contacted Cllrs. Lock and Finch with verification that £200,000 will be lost to Hastings EVERY YEAR and has not yet receive a reply from either of them.
SPORTS clubs, charities
and community groups
are being let off council
rates - with the local authority happy to forgo
more than a £100,000 in
JERWOOD’S POWER PAID FOR BY YOU
A ROW over land ownership is costing taxpayers up to £20,000 a month.
28th November 2010 Independent view "Art isn't the real enemy in the new battle of Hastings"
But more than that, it's about the high-risk strategy of pinning hopes for renewed prosperity on one grand project. Like every depressed town in Britain, near or far from the coast, government investment in housing, jobs and public services is the only real way to build a sustainable future.
28th November 2010 Car parking changes ‘will hit economy' - article in the Hastings Observer
LANGUAGE schools have accused the council of putting the town’s moneyspinning foreign students business at risk with new parking changes.
Many were unhappy when the Stade coach park was shut as part of the Jerwood Gallery redevelopment, and coaches redirected to parking bays in Falaise Road.
Jackie Milton, who runs a language school in the Old Town, was furious. She said: “I don’t need to remind people that the student business is one of the biggest forms of income for Hastings, so why does the council continue to make it difficult for them?
“We will end up losing business to other towns who are willing to ensure that coaches can park in the evenings, and not have to hunt around for parking and drivers having to worry about their times.
THE JERWOOD Gallery will be allowed to charge for admission after councillors threw out a move to make it free.
Kevin Boorman explained that
Jerwood had to charge if it was to
claim back the VAT costs on the
initial building costs, estimated
to be £700,000.
He said: "We have taken advice
which in a nutshell says the business
plan does not stack up if Jerwood
cannot claim back the VAT
Our own calculations come up with a different scenario. Perhaps HBC would like to comment?
Read and learn from the masters. How to be rich and avoid UK taxes.
Let’s arbitrarily split the Jerwood claimed 150,000 visitors per year into 50,000 locals at £2.00 per head and 100,000 non locals at £5.00 per head.
£2.00 x 50K = £100K including VAT or £83,333.00 less VAT - £16,666.00 VAT content
£5.00 x 100K = £500,000.00 including VAT or £416,666.00 less VAT - £83,334 VAT content
That’s £100,000.00 VAT content per year, which ignoring other VATable Jerwood sales would equal the claimed £600,000 VAT bill on the construction costs over 6 years – all this assumes VAT at the new rate of 20% applying next year.
Jerwood will of course have generated income, after deduction of VAT, of £500K per year in admission charges alone, or £3 million over the same 6 year period. They would have to be paying some unusually high salaries to their proposed small number of staff if they are a not for profit operation; plenty left over for routine maintenance and utility bills. They don’t have to pay local taxes of course, estimated to be worth around £70K per year to them. We would say Jerwood were onto a nice little earner. Oh yes, and the other little ‘gift’ from HBC was the free site, worth at the very minimum £500K.
At the root of all this is not the principle of charging admission but the deliberate misleading of HBC and the local population. Collectively, We think we’ve all be conned. The council agreed to the lease, they could have stipulated free admission for locals, a free season ticket for locals or anything they liked but no, they just rolled over and caved in, and we, the Hastings council tax payers will be subsidising a tax-haven based 'foundation' for the next 99 years. Nice work if you can get it!
|13th June 2010 Council sends coaches in wrong direction|
This fine map was handed to an SOS member by a member of Hastings Borough Council Staff on Sunday 13th June, it's what was being handed out to coach drivers. Now spot the deliberate mistake, - yes, that's right, it takes you to the BOTTOM of Falaise Road which is now one way DOWN. HBC's Director of Regeneration, Simon Hubbard who is in overall charge of this unholy mess said that the map was the one that should have been handed out at Falaise Road - yeah, right. The impact on carbon emissions, as you would expect, has been ignored as has the fact that coach drivers liked coming to Hastings because they could park in the Old Town. Hastings stands to lose around £9 million when the day trippers stop coming and more than £35 million if the continental coaches that bring the continental students stay away.
|16th April 2010 - from the Hastings Observer - Council blunder costs taxpayer £20,000|
Council blunder costs taxpayer £20,000
He claimed Hastings Borough Council (HBC) officers had not addressed traffic concerns around the site and the council decided to submit a new application, approved in December.
The High Court ordered the council pay all the legal fees – revealed this week as £20,679.
Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "It is despicable that such huge legal fees have arisen because the council was incompetent when it drew up the initial plans."
Paddy Stephenson, of Whittlewood Close, St Leonards, who has fought a long-running campaign against council planners, was also amazed at the amount.
"How many more times will the taxpayer have to fork out hard-earned money when planning officers make mistakes?" she said.
"If this occurred within the private sector those responsible would receive their marching orders. In the case of the council, a rap on the knuckles will probably suffice.
"If planning personnel are not up to the job they are paid to do, they should be removed before we are faced with further costs," she added.
Kevin Boorman, who oversees the Jerwood project, said the council did its best to keep the costs down.
"I am obviously disappointed it has cost us £20,000 and I would have preferred to spend the money in other ways," he said.
"We chose not to fight the challenge in court and did all we could to contain the legal costs.
"I would make the point that this was a technical challenge over a procedural point and that the application was again agreed unanimously when it was re-submitted in December."
Mr Boorman refused to be drawn on whether anyone had been disciplined over the bungled first application. But he said: "When anyone takes any successful action against us we review our procedures and there are always lessons to be learned."
The Taxpayers' Alliance called on HBC to find savings elsewhere in the project to make up for the legal bill.
Note: when asked by SOS to make public the content of the consultation the reply was "The trustees have no plans to make this information available. Sorry."
The trustees of the Hastings and St Leonards Foreshore Charitable Trust have now considered the results of their public consultation which closed on Tuesday 16 February 2010.
The Trust received 64 responses, of which 48 were in support of the proposals and 16 against: but of these, 6 responses – 2 in favour and 4 against – were received after the deadline for responses had passed.
The trustees noted that there were considerably more comments in favour of the exchange of land than against; and that no points had been raised by those who objected to the proposals which gave the trustees cause for concern about the merits, the principle or the process of the exchange of land.
The trustees therefore resolved to apply to the Charity Commission for an Order under section 36 of the Charities Act 1993 authorising the exchange of land, and to proceed with the other Stade proposals, subject to any objections raised by the Charity Commission.
Announcing the decision to go ahead with the proposals, Hugh Marriage OBE, the Chair of the Board of Trustees said:
“The Trust is very grateful to all who have responded to this consultation. The consultation clearly demonstrates how much the people of Hastings welcome these exciting proposals for the Stade. The Trust is delighted to play its part in bringing them about.”
Notes for Editors
The consultation was launched by a notice in the Hastings Observer on 15 January and closed at 1730hrs on 16 February.
The Chair of the Board of trustees can be contacted through firstname.lastname@example.org
The trustees of the Hastings and St Leonards Foreshore Charitable Trust are tomorrow launching a public consultation about proposals in relation to land owned by the Trust at and around the Stade at Hastings.
The key elements of the proposals are:
(i) the creation of a quality public open space on and around the site of the current coach and lorry park and Fishmarket car park;
(ii) the upgrading and relocation of certain facilities, including public lavatories and a community centre, on the site of the current Fishmarket car park; and
(iii) the exchange of a small parcel of Trust land, which Hastings Borough Council wishes to acquire for an art gallery, for a portion of Pelham Place car park which is owned by the Council. Because the Trust is proposing exchanging land with the Council, this element of the consultation is required by charity law.
The full consultation document is available on Hastings Borough Council's website and at
and background information on the Trust, including its annual reports, is available from
The trustees are anxious to encourage as many people as possible to respond to this consultation, as set out in para 5 of the consultation document, including by reply to this email address. Any comments or representations must be received by 5.30pm on 16 February 2010.
When making a response, you should bear in mind that, for reasons set out in para 26 of the document, any considerations about the proposed Jerwood art gallery cannot be taken into account by the trustees. No part of the Jerwood Gallery building will now be on Trust land.
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
19 November 2009 Government minister gives thumbs-up to Jerwood plans (as reported in the Hastings Observer by Richard Gladstone).
20th October 2009 - New planning application lodged. Planning web site is here, Application No. for the 'Gallery' is HS/FA/09/00576 rest of the site is HS/FA/09/00577. You can object online by following the links on the planning pages. Missing from the file is the draft lease, it was up there briefly then removed - we have a copy here
|4th August 2009 - Planning Application quashed. The Judgement is here Hastings Boro Council's planning decision quashed because they didn't listen to all the objections|
Online Polls conducted by the Hastings Observer asked the question "Are you pleased that the Jerwood Gallery plans have been approved" - 79% of respondents said "No". Earlier the Observer asked "Are you backing the Jerwood Gallery on the Stade?" - 72% of respondents said "No".
The minutes of a meeting of the Management Committee of the Hastings Old Town Residents Association (HOTRA) held 3/6/09 reveals 132 paid-up members - not that they were ever asked if they supported the gallery. We already know that 82% of the fishermen are against it, that the Old Town Traders are against it, that there were 487 signatures on three petitions against it, so who is actually in favour?
Since Sea Space, the 'regeneration quango' became involved in Hastings the town has worstened by a further seven places in the Index of Multiple Deprivation - At its height Hastings & St Leonards ranked with the most fashionable of Victorian resorts and the local economy prospered through the first half of the 20th century. From such heights Hastings’ fortunes declined and it is now England’s second most deprived resort town after Blackpool and one of the most deprived areas in the South East region. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007 shows that the Borough of Hastings is the 31st most deprived Local Authority out of 374 LAs in England. This position has worsened by seven places since the IMD 2004 moving it from within the 20 percent most deprived in England to within the 10 percent most deprived. para 2.3 page 7, Stade Impacts Assessment
|Links to external sites - we have no responsibility for the content of these sites - see what other people are saying||
"First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi