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.