Update - 31 January 2021

Welcome to our latest update.  This is a quick run-through of some of the things we're currently looking at.  One of these is a book we've come across about local government in the town.  We've also been reflecting on the decision, now confirmed, of the University of Brighton to close its Eastbourne campus.  

As we've said previously, one of our society's aims is to better educate ourselves on the reasons Eastbourne is the place it is today.  To that end, we discovered a book in our local library.  It's a municipal history of Eastbourne and it covers the years 1938 to 1974.

It's written by a man named J C Aspden, who was the council's Chief Education Officer for many years until his retirement in 1971.  It's an official commission, so it has its fair share of dry lists, tables and data.  But we've found the account interesting nonetheless, and its insight into the thinking of those whose decisions shaped the town gives plenty of food for thought.  

We'll have more to say on the book's contents in future posts - not least the plans, which never came to fruition, for a dry ski slope at Whitbread Hollow!  For the moment, we'll reflect on some of the context it gives for the town's development during the years it covers.  

The first thing the author notes, perhaps unsurprisingly, is the town's location - with its seafront, its climate made healthy by the shelter of the downland escarpment and Beachy Head, and its proximity to pleasant countryside and places of historic interest.  These natural circumstances gave Eastbourne an advantage from the outset.

The next thing is that these circumstances were enhanced, not compromised, by the attitude taken by the main landowners who initially sought to develop the town.  There were no planning restrictions in force when the Compton and Davies-Gilbert estates first drew up their designs for elegant streets and squares, and put in law covenants over the land they in due course sold on.  These covenants put barriers in the way of inappropriate development or buildings which might run counter to their original vision. And, aside from some notorious exceptions - the Southcliff Tower comes to mind - they seem to have worked.

With these advantages, the town soon became a popular destination for prosperous holiday-makers whose spending fuelled the local economy.  Hotels were built along the front to accommodate increasing visits.  Following on from this, Eastbourne began to support a lucrative conference trade, as political parties, trade unions and other organizations favoured such locations for their annual gatherings.

Another factor influencing the early economy was private education.  The town was seen as an ideal, healthy setting to situate boarding schools for the children of parents based overseas, where the father was in the armed forces, government service or colonial enterprises of one sort or another.  These schools multiplied across the Meads and Upperton areas and along the upper end of the sea front.  But the social and economic circumstances of the 1930s quickly reversed this, and many schools merged or closed.  A majority of those remaining left during the war, and did not return.  By this time, of course, the local authority had expanded its own provision, on top of the voluntary schools which had existed in smaller numbers up to that point.

Eastbourne also became popular as a retirement destination.  At first, those who chose the town were well-to-do,  with successful careers behind them in business or public service, often, like the boarding school parents, based overseas.  They settled in the large villas and fine houses of Meads and Upperton, accommodating domestic staff, gardeners, drivers and the like.  In due course, the war brought about a greater social mix among the town's retired community.  

A consequence of the high number of elderly residents was significant pressure on medical and social services, certainly relative to the population of the time.  Doctors and hospitals struggled to meet the demand.  

Its other effect was to make dominant a conservative attitude of mind, among those who voted in local elections at any rate, and this tended to resist public expenditure - so longer-term investment and big capital projects were repeatedly voted down, much to the frustration of officials such as the author of the book.  It was all about keeping the rates low.  

By contrast, this elderly, conservative community were the mainstay of a thriving voluntary sector.  Many of the services which these days we'd expect the state or local authority to provide became the work of charitable organisations,  populated by wealthy retirees with time on their hands.

We'll come back to the book in future posts.  One development of note, however, is its account of the arrival in the town, back in 1947, of the Chelsea College of Physical Education, and its importance, alongside other further education institutions, to the town's efforts to rebuild after the war.  Several mergers later, the college was absorbed by the University of Brighton and became its Eastbourne Campus - a campus which we now know for sure will close, with its departments and facilities moving to Brighton.  

Growing up in the town, we rather took for granted Chelsea College, and its successor manifestations.  We probably adopted a rather superior attitude to an educational institution dedicated to sport and sport science.  We certainly had no intention of studying there.  The more we learn about its work over the years, the more ignorant we realise that view was.  Innovative and ground-breaking research took place at the campus, and many leading sportsmen and women had links with it.  Its departure will surely be a loss for the town and we must hope that some kind of educational organization will in due course take its place, but we are not optimistic about that.

On that rather downbeat note, we will bring our update to a close.  Many thanks for reading.

Update 11 January 2022

Welcome to the society's latest update.  

This week, we're trying to understand what lies behind the current bin strike in the town; we're going to try to answer the question - when is a new hospital a new hospital? Finally, we're going to look at some opinion polls which purport to show voting intention at constituency level - and we'll see what they say about Eastbourne.

So first the bin strike.

As we've said before, we no longer live in the town, so we can only imagine how inconvenient and unpleasant the current situation is for those who do.  Here's hoping the dispute is resolved soon.  At the time of writing though, this does not seem likely.

The strike is about wages, particularly for the HGV-qualified drivers in the workforce.  But it's also about some of the conditions at the depot.  On one side of the dispute is the GMB, which is one of the major general trade unions, representing workers in all kinds of industries and sectors.  On the other is Eastbourne's LibDem-run council, which outsources its refuse collection services to a private company, albeit one it wholly owns and whose board comprises LibDem councillors and senior Borough Council officers.

The bin workers look to their equivalents in Lewes.  After all, Eastbourne and Lewes now manage their refuse collection under a joint brand - Environment First.  The Lewes workers are directly employed by the local authority.  The Eastbourne bin workers are not, and say that their counterparts in Lewes are paid more.   

The Eastbourne drivers are looking for a 25% pay uplift.  The Union argues it's less about the rate of increase, more about a decent hourly rate.  The Council has offered 7%, which the strikers have rejected.  

So the dispute continues.  GMB members are picketing the depot on strike days.  The Council has sought to get round the strike by using HGV qualified supervisors to drive the vehicles.   The picket line, made up of strikers and GMB supporters from elsewhere, has prevented them.

If anything, the two sides seem to be getting further apart.  The council thinks those who didn't vote for strike action should be allowed to do their work, and is taking legal advice.  The GMB is consulting members working in refuse collection in other local authorities.  Its General Secretary is taking a direct interest.

At some stage, this dispute will be resolved, and the bin workers will return to work with better pay and improved facilities.  The issue will be how much it all costs.  The Council will need to find the money from somewhere to foot the bill.  

Second, when is a new hospital not a new hospital?

Boris Johnson made his announcement about hospitals back last year.  Eastbourne would have one of the 40 brand new hospitals promised for the country.  Local Conservative MPs celebrated.  They made much of their roles in securing the outcome.  

When we heard the news, our first thought was where in the town this brand new hospital might appear.  And what would happen to the old District General Hospital.  Would it go the way of St.Mary's, the Princess Alice or even the old TB hospital by the Downs - converted into flats, or knocked down?

We now know that the words "new hospital" have quite a broad meaning in the minds of officials in the Department of Health and Social Care.   They extend to "major refurbishment and alteration of all but building frame or main structure, delivering a significant extension to useful life..."

A more prosaic account of what is proposed is found in the statements of the East Sussex Healthcare Trust, the NHS body which runs the DGH and other hospitals across the county. What is planned is a major and much-needed overhaul of the hospital's ageing estate.  

Whether these plans will satisfy Eastbourne residents is another matter.  The Trust provides acute health care services to over half a million people in East Sussex and beyond, primarily through the DGH and the Conquest in Hastings.  It regards the DGH not as Eastbourne's hospital, but as a District hospital that happens to be in Eastbourne.  Its past efforts to arrange services in what it sees as the most effective way have run up against a highly energetic local group, "Save the DGH", endorsed by local politicians of all parties, and one which campaigns against any proposal to move core services from the town.

Talking of politicians, we continue to look for signs of what might happen here in the next general election.

We came across a couple of MRP polls.  These aim to reflect voting intention at the constituency level.  MRP stands for "multilevel regression and post-stratification".   We won't pretend to understand what this really means.  We think it's the use of very big samples, where lots of demographic detail is obtained alongside voting intention.  The voting intention is then projected onto a constituency population, matching the demographic detail to surveys by the Office of National Statistics and the Census.

(Or something like that).

The technique has a proven record of spotting otherwise unlikely developments - like the 2017 Labour surges in Canterbury and Kensington.  So we were interested in what these polls - conducted by Survation and Focaldata - were showing in southern coastal towns similar to Eastbourne.  They show growing Labour strength, with the party standing to pull off dramatic wins in the two Bournemouth seats, and one of those in Worthing.  This is on top of holds in Brighton, wins in Hastings and also one of the Thanet seats.  Labour is becoming a party of the south coast seaside town.  

What they don't suggest is any change in Eastbourne, at least not yet.  Both show narrow Tory holds.  In one of them, Labour comes out in second place, and that does not sound right.  

Either way, we'll watch for more of these.  In the meantime, have a good week.

Update - 4 January 2022

Welcome to our third blog update.  A Happy New Year to you.  Thank you for looking in.

We've been considering three things over the last few days.  First, Charleston Farmhouse, not far from the town, and the track that leads up to it - this was the subject of a Daily Mail report a few days back; second, some reflections on the type of MP voters of Eastbourne expect, on the back of recent comments made by the new LibDem Parliamentary candidate; finally, our efforts to understand a bit more about the Rachel Charitable Trust, the organization which owns the TJ Hughes building and which has submitted plans for its demolition.

First, Charleston Farmhouse.

The Daily Mail's headline and its article's first few paragraphs suggest a Tory peer got his hands on so-called levelling up money to fix the potholes on his stately home's driveway.  As it happens, by the time the reporter got to the end of their story, they had actually set out what we have since discovered is more or less the true position.  Nevertheless, the Mail retained its headline and first distorting paragraphs.  

The facts as we understand them are as follows.  Charleston Farmhouse (or rather the charity which owns and runs it) applied for the money.  This farmhouse used to be part of Firle Estate, which belongs to Viscount Gage.  It was rented by the painters Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant for many years.  

After the latter's death, ownership transferred to the charity, and the farmhouse became a museum dedicated to the painters' work and a centre for events and festivals.  Its visitors continue to come from far and wide, or at least did before the pandemic, and their visits benefit the local economy.

The track leading to the farmhouse is indeed part of the Firle Estate.  While OK for the estate's purposes, it had become unsuitable for those driving specifically to visit the museum.  The charity applied to something called the Getting Building Fund for money to fund its repair.  This fund is released by Central Government to Local Enterprise Partnerships - who allocate grants for infrastructure projects supporting employment and the local economy.  

The bid was approved, money spent and repairs undertaken.  There is nothing secret about this.  It is all in the public domain.  

Yet the Mail's false headline was enough to spark a flurry of angry tweets and outraged letters from the Labour Party and others, all repeating the misleading presentation of what had gone on.  Our view is that this fuss has obscured a more important question - was it right to prioritize a project such as this, given all the other pressing claims on public finances? 

Second, the type of MP Eastbourne expects.  

We've been listening to the opinions of Josh Babarinde, the new LibDem Parliamentary candidate.  He takes a dim view of Caroline Ansell, the sitting Tory. No surprise there of course.  He claims residents don't like her; that she is invisible; that she doesn't respond to constituents.  Josh believes that an MP should be someone the town looks up to, feels pride in.

This got us thinking about the personalities of previous MPs for the town.

We were brought up here during the Ian Gow years.  He certainly met Josh's criteria.  He was everywhere - a flamboyant, larger than life figure. In the paper every week.  People in the town loved him.  Everyone had a good word, even his political opponents.  

His Tory successor, Nigel Waterson, less so.  He was an effective Parliamentarian, and respected for his expertise on pensions.  But the town did not warm to him in quite the same way.   No-one was that surprised when the expenses scandal exposed his main family home to be in Beckenham.

Stephen Lloyd was more in the Gow mould we would say, certainly more so than Nigel Waterson.  Even die-hard Tories (or our parents at any rate) acknowledged the work he did for the town.  

What is clear is that, fair or not, this criticism of Caroline Ansell will be one of the LibDem attack lines locally.  They have others and we'll be looking at them in future posts.  

Finally, the Rachel Charitable Trust, and its plans to demolish the TJ Hughes building.

There is a big row brewing over this.  A petition has been launched.  Heritage organisations outside the town are watching. The building's architect was Peter Stonham, well-known and important to Eastbourne.  Few people who care about the appearance of the town would want to see a Stonham building pulled down. 

We've been trying to find out a bit more about the Rachel Charitable Trust and what its purpose might signify for the site.   

The charity belongs to a very successful property investor and philanthropist called Leo Noe.  He uses it to run a number of business sites around the UK - alongside his other companies' purely commercial activity.  The revenue funds grants for various purposes.  These include social care initiatives for the Jewish community in the UK, and an organization set up to integrate ultra orthodox Jews into mainstream employment in Israel.

I think it's fair to say that the charity - given this purpose - cannot be expected to sit on an empty building indefinitely.  And any plans need to realise as much revenue for the charity as possible.  I suppose they've already considered alternative plans which stop short of demolition.

It is strange to think this familiar Eastbourne building is at the mercy of interests which go well beyond not just the town, but the UK itself.  But it's not the only such site.  Looked at one way, the Beacon shopping centre, owned by the major financial institution Legal and General, is just a small, modest element of that organization's wider investment strategy.

But perhaps that's best left for a future post!  Thank you for reading.