Hastings councillors will have final decision on future of St Mary in the Castle

On Wednesday (April 26), Hastings borough councillors debated a motion on what comes next for St Mary in the Castle — a Grade II* listed concert hall in Pelham Crescent.

The motion, tabled by Green Party councillor Claire Carr, called on councillors to ensure that any final decision on the council-owned building — either to sell up or sign a new lease — would be made by all elected members.

This marks a departure from the council’s previous course, as only a decision to sell would have been expected to go to a full council vote.

Calling for support, Cllr Carr argued that agreeing the motion would improve the ‘transparency and openness’ of the process.

She said: “The process so far to secure a future for St Mary in the Castle has been done behind closed doors. There have been public accusations of nepotism, of preferred bids. Group leaders have asked to sit in on those meetings and have been refused. Papers have not been shared, despite requests and there has been no transparency or openness.

“The public are constantly demanding better and this motion is brought in that spirit: for a better way of doing things and to bring an end to that call, to provide a resolution, an end point where we all see the final proposals and vote on them democratically — one member, one vote — and hopefully find a viable future for this amazing and much loved building.”

The motion passed with the support of the majority, although most Labour councillors abstained from voting on the motion after a proposed amendment was ruled to be inadmissible.

This amendment, tabled by Labour cabinet member for health and culture Andy Batsford, called for decisions to let or sell “any asset of community value” to go to a full council vote. This would have included St Mary in the Castle.

However, Mary Kilner, the council’s chief legal officer, said the amendments would bind the authority and future decision-making of the council’s cabinet. As a result of rules set out in the council’s constitution, this would require the motion to go for a discussion at cabinet before it could be debated by full council.

This saw Conservative group leader Andy Patmore (who seconded Cllr Carr) accuse Cllr Batsford of attempting to “scupper” the original motion with his amendment.

Cllr Batsford denied this claim, saying: “I put forward this amendment in good faith. I took the legal advice of our legal officer, who gave us the advice that, because of the amendment I put in, it would have to be referred back to cabinet.

“I didn’t do it to make that happen, I put it in there to make sure we didn’t set a precedent on every asset that officers work on every day to make sure that … we don’t sidestep delegated authority.”After a short recess, Ms Kilner ruled that the amendment was not acceptable as it would make the motion ‘much wider’ than was originally intended.

The motion was then passed with 16 votes in favour and 13 abstentions.