Save Horsham Town Hall
|
|
|
Latest Campaign News : Letters from Horsham residents highlight HDC failings Outrage from Horsham residents at HDC behaviour! Horsham residents views ignored as HDC puts Town Hall up for sale Future of Town Hall looked at again - lets get it right this time! New hope for Town Hall community use Town Hall acts as memorable backdrop to Festival of Sound 2011 Trust's award bid for Old Town Hall Horsham District Council gets knuckles rapped by District Auditor over Town Hall bid process Big Society in Horsham : the Big Hope or a Big Pile ? Horsham District Council press ahead with 'doomed' restaurant plan : we re- examine the issues Was there a delay caused by campaigners or the Court case? The facts! Restaurant says 'no' to town hall Campaigners stand fast as Bill's is beaten Removal of Stopping-up Order notice signals the end of Council's Old Town Hall restaurant project? More Horsham residents respond to councils 'being held to ransom' article Old Town Hall talks over before they start HDC : Never let the truth get in the way of a good story Judicial Review: Did Horsham District Council mislead the High Court? Results of Judicial Review request Full text of the press release to the West Sussex County Times in the wake of the Court judgement Horsham residents set the record straight over councils 'being held to ransom' article |
Information concerning the request for a Judicial Review of the Town Hall planning applications This page contains news and updates concerning the request for a Judicial Review of the planning applications that have been submitted to change the Town Hall into a restaurant. Full text of the press release to the West Sussex County Times in the wake of the Court judgement Press
release WSCT 25 Oct 2010 Attn:
Anna Coe/David White The
Blue Flash Music Trust welcomed this weeks Judicial Review decision on the Old
Town Hall planning decision. Treasurer of the Trust, Robert Mayfield
said:"Whilst permission for Judicial Review of the planning decision
has not been granted, I am very encouraged by His Honour Judge Anthony
Thornton QC's comments and ruling on the two fundamental issues. Firstly, the
Council has claimed many times, both in the press and throughout
this case, that we had no right to challenge HDC actions. However His Honour ruled
that Robert Mayfield “is a resident
within and a Council Tax payer to HDC, he is the trustee of the Blue Flash Music
Trust that has used the premises in the past and that use will no longer be
possible following the (sic), grounds being challenged and he has a genuine and
real interest in the use of the Town Hall for community purposes and to ensure
due process is followed in relation to any planning decision made in relation to
that use.” This
Honour’s judgement will be useful with any other, alternative legal action
going forward. Clearly, His Honour did not agree with Councillor Baldwin's
recent comments that the Council was "being held to ransom", as
reported in the County Times last week. Secondly,
Judicial Review was avoided as a result of His Honour's key decision concerning
the applicant; the applicant being Mr. Leon "who was, the
evidence clearly shows, the applicant, and not HDC". Without this ruling,
based on the evidence submitted by the Council, the contested planning decision
would have needed to be taken by the Government Office of the South East
and not HDC. This
ruling on the applicant therefore re-raises one of the questions at the
fore-front of the District Auditor's recent investigation; a question as
to the legality of the Council's funding of the design and
planning fees for the benefit of a third party. We are therefore very happy
with His Honour's Order overall." Business Consultant for the Blue Flash Music Trust and representative of Mr Mayfield in the recent District Auditor inquiry added: "Whilst we
knew that Judicial Review was probably not the most decisive legal
option at his disposal, Mr Mayfield generously held that other forms
of civil action were too confrontational and would jeopardize the final goal of
working with, and on behalf of the Council, as was originally planned four years
ago. With the Council appointing a QC to face an ordinary, 70 year-old 'claimant
in person' the words 'sledgehammer' and 'nut' spring to mind. Personally I
think the balance of moral argument is ably reflected in His Honour's award of
what are seen to be 'token costs'. In my experience, costs would normally have
been awarded at ten and twenty times this amount. For
example, the second Court case only became necessary because HDC
actively pursued a Highways Order permitting the work to go ahead. They did
this without disclosing the Court's outstanding deliberations on the planning
decision to the Secretary of State. We knew that the Court would ultimately
have no choice but to strike out this subsequent claim against the Secretary of
State and are therefore grateful to His Honour for the token amount of £200
awarded against us. However, we still view this additional case as an
unnecessary burden to the Court triggered by the premature actions of HDC. All
in all, I salute the bravery of Mr. Mayfield in standing up to the Council's
actions and at the same time, admire his generosity towards the Council in
withdrawing his legitimate objection to the 2008/09 accounts. This meant
that the Council's Audit certificate could finally be issued after more
than a year. In my view, Mr. Mayfield could have easily pressed
the District Auditor to make an application to the High Court for the alleged
unauthorised expenditure relating to the Old Town Hall plans as would be his
right under the Code of Practice. Also, I further believe that the Council are
in clear breach of the Local Government Act 1972 as regards "best
value" on the Old Town Hall and I believe Mr. Mayfield intends to
look at this next. Certainly,
I believe that the final Gondola Holdings bid of £72,500 was a far
superior offering for the Old Town Hall in every respect. The Council also
witheld the details of this final offer in spite of Freedom of
Information Act requests and the document finally had to be brought to light by
the Audit Commission. I
was surprised by the comments of Councillor Baldwin in last weeks edition
because I remember he was originally one of the properly cautious
Councillors who were successful in getting the Old Town Hall restaurant
proposal deferred at the Council Cabinet meeting of June 2006.
Unfortunately for the Council, every risk identified in my report to that
meeting appears to have materialised. Councillor Baldwin also talked at that
meeting of the Old Town Hall issue splitting his local political party
"down the middle". It was subsequently noted that the respected
Chairman of the OTH Advisory Group, Alan Harris stood down at the next
election in May 2007. In
response to Councillor Baldwin's recently reported comments about the costs of
the Audit Commission investigation, I do not believe that the District Auditor
would have committed this expenditure on behalf of the Horsham taxpayers
without good reason and based on sound evidence. Indeed, I believe that HDC
may be responsible for increasing these investigation costs slightly by delaying
the inquiry. The District Auditor was originally planning to issue a
provisional decision in January of this year, but things dragged on beyond the
General Election and the Government’s announcement of the abolition of the
Audit Commission. In spite of Mr. Mayfield withdrawing the objection, I
understand the District Auditor still intends to raise possible corrective
recommendations arising from the Old Town Hall issue as part of her normal
audit documentation. These recommendations may yet therefore prove
cost-effective for the Horsham taxpayer in the long term. Finally,
the Trust is not responsible for costs incurred as a result of the hall lying
empty as claimed. The costs quoted are for the most part, not actually
incurred. They are centrally allocated costs that are distributed by an
accounting exercise for services that the OTH does not normally benefit from,
even when it is allowed to be used by the community. The hall has also been unnecessarily
denied the opportunity of income by the Council, such as with the unnecessary
refusal to let the Horsham Painting Group hold their imminent November
exhibition there. In fact, no restaurant work could have been carried
out to the building before the earliest possible date for the Highways 'Stopping
Up Order' to take effect which was July 2nd. However, the Council unnecessarily
refused to allow people to use the building since January." Mr
Mayfield, concluded: "This
whole mess started with the unconstitutional trumping of the Council's
'community use' policy by Cabinet in March 2006. It is a decision that has
haunted the Council ever since. Councillor David Sheldon also warned the Council
meeting of September 2006 that if they opted for 'Council-run community
use' the Council "would be back in the same position in two years
time". In fact it only took one year for the second OTH Advisory group to
run out of steam, having decreased the usage and increased the losses on the
hall. As
the approved business plan and feasibility study still shows, the Hall has great
potential to be a major tourist asset to the town as well as being for
continued community use. This would benefit all the towns businesses, not just
one. The project could also easily be the tangible example of the Big
Society that the government is looking for. All it needs is for the Council
to sit down with the Trust and make it happen. The alternative would appear to be continued embarrassment for the Council over their handling of this affair and no-one, including the Trust, wants to see this. As demonstrated by our actions over the years, we have always sought to minimise the damage to the Council's reputation at the same time as legitimately defending this historic hall with its purpose built acoustics. In spite of the dispute, we have also worked positively with the Council during that time on low-cost, well received initiatives such as Horsham Music Week. * * * Judicial
Review: Did Horsham District Council mislead the High Court? Robert Mayfield of the
Blue Flash Music Trust just recently received the verdict of the High Court on
the Council's restaurant planning application. The pivotal standing point of
the case was whether the Council had sufficient independence to decide the
planning application or whether the Government Office of the South East should
have taken the decision. With their evidence the
Council obviously managed to persuade the Judge that the planning application
was made independently by a third party (Mr. Josh Leon) and was not their own.
Quoting from His Honour
Judge Anthony Thornton QC's judgement: "... the
applicant being named as Mr. Leon (who was, the evidence clearly shows, the
applicant) and not HDC ...." However, in the recent District
Auditor investigation, the Council seemingly argued that it was legitimate for
the Head of Economic Planning and Development to pursue an application for
the Council under Council Standing Orders. Many of us were also in the
public gallery at the planning meeting of January 6th 2009, including
representatives of the Horsham Society and the Neighbourhood Councils, and
heard Ian Howard the Chairman of the Committee declare "It's no
secret that this is the Council's own application". The Council it
seems was saying one thing to the District Auditor and the public; and
another completely different thing to the High Court. Although it is thought that
Mr. Mayfield could have easily appealed within 7 days using the
evidence from the District Auditor's inquiry in his possession, the Court's
judgement might open up new possibilities. So if any of you out
there have a bit of building work planned, don't bother to do it and pay
for it yourself. Instead, get the Council to commission and pay for the
designs with taxpayers’ money - and pay the £335 planning fee for you
as well. That way, there should be no chance that your application
gets turned down by HDC too. Remember
- if it's good enough for Mr. Leon and Bill's Produce - it's good enough for
you. Seriously though – this is a landmark judgement that will potentially negate the planning role of the Regional Government Offices, particularly as the Judge also ruled that as a result of there being an individual applicant, it was for the Local Planning Authority (HDC in this case) to rule on what was a “material difference”. HDC had determined that Bill’s Produce coming along with a different set of plans - and a further additional set of plans to remove the historic in-filled arches on the front of the building – was not a material difference. Hence the Council determined that they could approve Bill’s Produce plans under their own initial planning references. The Regional Government Offices (Government Office of the South East on Change of Use and Government Office of the West Midlands on the accompanying Listed Building application) recognised the danger but said there was nothing they could do with the Council’s insistence on their being an individual applicant. Quote from both government offices “the Secretary of State has no policing function.” The judgement is therefore likely to quickly focus national attention and is perhaps a vulnerable one. Many people can see the judgement being overturned as soon as another council tries the same tactic – gets challenged - and tries to defend itself with the precedent. Depending on the Court’s reply to Robert Mayfield’s letter, in terms of the OTH campaign, there are now two other possible legal options open. The legal action could now switch to the lack of “best value” in choosing Bill’s Produce over the Gondola bid (an alleged breach of the relevant clause in the Local Government Act). Also, in the light of the recent Court ruling, a possible additional action questioning the legality of HDC (as the Local Planning Authority considering the application) paying for the planning fee and designs on behalf of a third party. Watch this space! * * * In the High Court
of Justice
Ref: CO/3396/2010 Queens Bench
Division Administrative
Court In the matter of an application for Judicial Review Before His Honour Justice Anthony Thornton QC The Queen on the Application M
Claimant -and- Horsham District
Council
Defendant Background and
facts Horsham District Council (the Council) commissioned plans in November 2008 to facilitate change of use to A3 restaurant for a community hall, namely the Horsham Old Town Hall. The plans were submitted under references DC/08/2317 and DC/08/2321, the latter being the accompanying Listed Building Application for this Grade II listed building. The Council also paid the £335 fee required for the DC/08/2317 application. The Council as Local Planning Authority (LPA) approved the applications at their meeting of the relevant planning committee on 6th January 2009 and the plans were forwarded to the Government Office of the South East (GOSE) for endorsement, yet naming L as the applicant. L was in fact an employee of the marketing agents appointed by the Council and an additionally paid consultant of the Council for the purposes of marketing the Old Town Hall as a restaurant. Horsham Old Town Hall was a controversial issue that had raged for over two years. M, a well known local campaigner for retaining community use of the building, made representations to the relevant government offices as the expected decision makers. GOSE questioned L being named as the applicant but this was confirmed by the Council as LPA. Subsequent, different plans were submitted for the Horsham Old Town Hall by a prospective tenant and a further set of plans to change the front elevation via removing the purpose-built in-filled arches for the buildings original use as a courtroom. M protested to the both the Council and the government offices that these further plans should be re-submitted to the LPA under separate planning references as they benefited a different party i.e. they were submitted by the proposed tenant and not the Council as landlord. However, both government offices ultimately conceded that they had no role given the LPA’s continued insistence that L was the individual applicant; as the Secretary of state had “no policing function”. Once notified by GOSE and the Government Office of the West Midlands it was consequently for the LPA to make the decision, Horsham District Council officers endorsed the planning decisions on 15th December 2009. The case M filed an application seeking permission for judicial review primarily arguing procedural impropriety; that HDC, also being the LPA, did not have the required independence to decide its own planning application and that therefore, the Government Offices should make the decision. Also, that the subsequent plans for the benefit of the proposed tenant should be processed under separate references and re-submitted to the planning committee. M submitted that there was no evidence that L also agreed to be named as applicant for the subsequent plans and that this might constitute a conflict of interest in that L would be retained by both landlord and prospective tenant. M also argued additional grounds of bias and irrationality in that the final published planning decision allegedly contravened the local Core Development Plan, Development Control standards and Policy Planning and Guidance, particularly PPG15 governing Listed Buildings (latter in force at the time of the decisions). Counsel for the Defendant primarily argued that M did not have sufficient standing to bring the Claim. Secondly, subsequent plans on behalf of the tenant were not materially different and so could be legitimately decided by Council officers as the LPA. The ruling His Honour Justice Anthony Thornton QC ruled as follows: M had sufficient standing in that “The Claimant within and a Council Tax payer to HDC, he is trustee of
the Blue Flash Music trust that has used the premises in the past and that use
will no longer be possible following the grants being challenged and he has a
genuine and real interest in the use of the Town Hall for community purposes
and to ensure due process is followed in relation to any planning decision
made in relation to that use.” However, the case for procedural grounds was not made. In His Honour’s view the evidence clearly showed that L was the applicant and not HDC. Therefore as LPA, it was for HDC to legitimately decide whether the subsequent plans were materially different to those initially approved. As LPA, HDC had therefore followed the executed processes correctly and there was no bias or irrationality in the decision. There were consequently no grounds for the decision to be challenged. M was ordered to pay £500 costs. The apparent
implications of this precedent Other councils wishing to pursue their own planning applications might avoid previous government office scrutiny by naming an individual person as the applicant, even if they are perhaps employed or retained by them as the LPA. The LPA may therefore have further scope to decide subsequent, different plans, on behalf of different individuals, for the same project; without reference back to the relevant planning committee. If those subsequent plans are from new persons, who might normally and legitimately be considered individual applicants to the LPA, the original named applicant will prevail. * * * How to help the campaign further in the wake of the recent Judicial Review request hearing In the wake of the recent ruling on the campaigns request for a Judicial Review of the Town Hall planning applications it is now important that the information relating to the Councils draft contract with Bill's Produce gets into the public domain. If you wish to help with this part of the campaign please can you write to the Council at the address below and ask for the draft contract as shown in the example letter below : Example letter to :
Mrs Sarah Gill
Information Officer
Park North
North Street
Horsham
West Sussex
RH12 1RL
Dear Mrs Gill,
re. Freedom of Information Act Request
please could you supply me with a copy of the draft
conditional contract between Bill's Produce and Horsham District Council as
at 1st August 2010 relating to the Horsham Old Town Hall.
Many thanks.
Yours sincerely,
<name>
Based on other campaign members experience Horsham District Council is likely to refuse the request in 20 days or refuse after requesting extra time (another 20 days).
If this happens please respond with another letter to Mrs. Gill saying you are
not happy and request a review.
The review decision arrives in another 20 days and will likely say
that you still cannot have the document.
If you reach this point please let us know at the campaign email address : Campaign@kmidderigh.plus.com
as we wish to collate everyone's names whom have made this request into a
single joint application to the Information Commissioner to obtain this
information. The more names we have the better the chance of success - so get
writing !
* * * Normally we don't print whole long letters, but this one is well worth the read : 01st November 2010 To the Court Manager Administrative Court Office Your ref: CO/3396/2010 Dear Sir Re. Robert Mayfield v Horsham District Council
– Order of HHJ Anthony Thornton QC - 22/10/10 Thank you for the copy of
the Order from His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton QC dated 22nd
October received on Monday 25th October 2010. I note from the Court
instructions that it was desired for me to reply by Friday 29th
October, but unfortunately, due to my health problems, this has not been
possible. The Court has of course been previously made aware of these
conditions. I am also 70 years old and have to work part-time to help pay my
way which is not easy in the circumstances. I would therefore reasonably ask
the Court for some small leeway on the desired timescale for reply. I would also ask the
Court for their advice as to whether there is another way that an obviously
erroneous decision by the Court can be over-turned apart from seeking an oral
permission hearing? The reasons for this are explained in further detail
below. On the pivotal point the
Court concluded: “..
the applicant being named as Mr. Leon (who was, the evidence clearly shows,
the applicant) and not HDC…. “. The
evidence to the contrary below, would appear to be indisputable However, I do not blame
His Honour for the erroneous decision in this case, as I read in a local
newspaper the week before the judgement that the Council Chief Executive had
been chasing the Court for a perhaps premature decision as result of alleged
costs of delay. Many believe this was improper behaviour because 7 months
would not seem to be an unreasonable and unusual timescale, especially given
the complexities of the case. However, if this action was to be entertained by
the Court, it might have been better for the Council’s ‘late in the day’
appointed barrister to chase a quick judgement on behalf of the Council as she
could have been asked to update her evidence (still in draft) prior to a
decision. It is still not clear whether the barrister was working for a firm
instructed by the Council and instructed through solicitors. Indeed, Council
officers reported that there were no costs arising from the judicial review in
a report to Cabinet. The perceived claim by
the Council that the Court case was causing costly delay was also false as
outlined below. Furthermore, one recent Horsham District Council report even
claimed, though perhaps bizarrely, that money was being saved
from keeping the hall deliberately empty. Costs relating to the OTH have
largely been simply centrally-allocated accounting costs; i.e. those overheads
allocated proportionately across Council buildings - and not costs actually
incurred by the hall. There is also another
straightforward error in the judgement in that I did not ultimately contest
the lack of ‘call in’ by the Government Offices on behalf of the Secretary
of State. I reasonably accepted (after much discussion with those offices)
that the call-in criteria were not adequately met. ‘Call-in’ was not an
HDC responsibility as seemingly observed by the Court.
“..
the applicant being named as Mr. Leon (who was, the evidence clearly shows,
the applicant) and not HDC…. “. However,
the District Auditor confirmed that HDC commissioned and paid £10,000 for the
plans and paid the £335 required planning fee. I would also draw the
Court’s attention to selected notes taken by the District Auditor at a
meeting with Horsham District Council on 25/3/10: “Transparency
of planning process
“The reason for using an agent in this case
was explained as being political. It is speculated that had planning
permission not been granted, the agent would have appealed. Wheras if the
Council had applied in its own name it would not have been able to appeal any
refusal. However planning permission was granted so this prospect did not
arise.” This was a nonsensical
explanation by the Council of course, as there was no realistic prospect of
refusal (with HDC having already committed the planning expenditure on an
unauthorised basis). The block vote was perhaps also ably demonstrated by the
Leader urging the Chairman of the planning committee to vote also, when no
casting vote was required. Some opposition councillors also expressed regret
that a long-standing accord ‘not to vote politically on planning issues’
had effectively been torn up. Secondly there was no
realistic prospect that the Agent would have appealed as he was being paid £5,000
by HDC for consultancy. Consequently, he could not have realistically ‘bit
the hand that fed him’. In response to the Court
judgement I did manage to write to the Councillors by e-mail on Tuesday asking
them to take an honourable stance. Dear
Councillor, You
are now possibly aware that we have received the result of our
application for judicial review. As you know, the pivotal standing point of
the application was whether the Council had sufficient independence to
decide the planning application or whether GOSE should have taken the
decision. With
their evidence the Council managed to persuade the Judge that the planning
application was made independently by a third party (Mr. Leon) and was not
their own. Quoting from His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton QC's judgement: "...
the applicant being named as Mr. Leon (who was, the evidence clearly shows,
the applicant) and not HDC ...." However,
in their defence against the District Auditor's recent investigation the
Council argued that it was legitimate for the Head of Economic Planning and
Development to pursue an application for the Council under Council Standing
Orders. Many of us were also in the public gallery at the planning meeting of
January 6th 2009, including representatives of the Horsham Society and the
Neighbourhood Councils, and heard Ian Howard the Chairman declare "It's
no secret that this is the Council's own application". At
best - the Council's testimony is inconsistent At
worst - the Council misled the Court. In
other words, the Council was apparently saying one thing to the District
Auditor and the public - and another thing to the High Court. I
could therefore easily appeal within 7 days to an oral permission hearing
using the evidence from the District Auditor's inquiry in my possession.
However, I declare that I intend to leave it to the honest
Councillors at HDC; those with honour and integrity, to sort this issue
out and prevent irreparable further damage to the Council's reputation. Yours
sincerely, Robert
Mayfield Blue
Flash Music Trust One
man of honour did emerge at the Council, Cllr. David Holmes, who almost
immediately e-mailed his colleagues recalling the planning committee’s
chairman’s comments as above. It was not clear whether Dr. Holmes was
speaking in an individual capacity or as leader of the minority party however. The Council was therefore
made aware of the acute weakness in the Court judgement and the Chief
Executive wrote to me offering talks. However, when prematurely convinced via
the local press that I would not appeal, the offered talks were seemingly de-prioritised.
An e-mail from the Council Chief Executive was received saying: “I
will ask C to find a date - might be a few weeks though as pretty busy right
now.” Furthermore, the Leader
of the Council talked about the costs of delay once more, even though the
Court case was not responsible for any delay. Further evidence is as follows:
Every household in the land has
very good reason to fear this judgement perhaps. In this case, it was a
Conservative dominated Council degrading an historic building donated to the
community. However, there is now nothing to stop a Council of any political
colour putting a controversial waste site at the bottom of anybody’s garden
for example. All the Council seemingly have to do is name a retained person or
employee as the applicant. In the current climate of public sector cuts there
will be an obvious incentive in my view for any Council to ‘bend’ planning
rules as far as possible in order to make money. The Court ruling would appear
to make any controversial planning application potentially unchallengeable in
a public sector planning ‘free-for-all’. I would therefore like to
appeal this judgement, but cannot do so via an oral hearing because of the
recent Blue Flash Music Trust v LGO (Local Government Ombudsman) experience.
As you are aware, the Court fixed a date without checking Trust availability
and we did not therefore have the ability to send a recognised representative
to Court. I could not attend Court myself because of my health problems, and
as you know, this would still inevitably be the case at any other hearing. The
date was also fixed by the Court at less than three weeks notice so that we
could not apply for a legal representative from the pro-bono bar. No-one
therefore represented the Trust in Court against the LGO and the case was
subsequently decided against us. We still cannot get hold of the actual
judgement after 6 weeks however, in spite of paying the fee. If I was to appeal via an oral
permission hearing therefore, there is no guarantee that the same situation
would not happen again. Please could you therefore advise me on how you would
like me to best proceed in this case. Yours faithfully, Robert Mayfield * * *
Spokesman for Robert Mayfield, Martin Jeremiah writes:
"Throughout the Court case I have often pictured
Robert Mayfield as the iconic lone figure standing in front of the tank in
Tiananmen Square in China. However, this time I feel the HDC tank is
steadily sinking on a bed of sleaze with its guns slowly slipping below the
surface.
Robert could not easily go down the conventional appeal
route for the reasons explained in the letter on this site. Also for the
reasons that I tried to explain to the press. Even if Robert could get
to Court, the Judge rightly pointed to minor legal errors in his judgement.
You couldn't thus discount the possibility of the case falling on some
technicality, even if everything else held good. There would also be the
credibility mismatch of a QC, presumably paid for by the reluctant Horsham
taxpayer, against an ordinary Horsham pensioner.
It will be interesting to see the Court's reply to
Robert's letter."
Bill's Produce will be watching the site closely I think.
I don't think they will easily trust the Council.
* * * Old Town Hall talks over before they start Business Consultant to the Blue Flash Music Trust, Martin Jeremiah writes: "It appears that as soon as the Council became confident that Mr. Mayfield was not intending to appeal the Court judgement, I received an e-mail from the Council's Chief Executive including: '...might
be a few weeks though as pretty busy right now.' This did not seem to match the Council's previously expressed desire for urgency in resolving the issue. The Trust's response is to withdraw from any dialogue until such time as the Council can take such talks seriously. The Trust also rejects any pre-conditions being imposed on these talks. Meanwhile we are determined to step up the campaign. At present, the
Council do not seem to understand, particularly in the wake of the MP's
expenses scandal, that citizens of Horsham District and beyond feel a
responsibility to ensure ethical behaviour in local government. I believe
they also feel a wider duty to protect the arts in troubled economic times.
Money can help sustain life but the arts make life worth living, no matter
how bad things get. The Old Town Hall is just one small battle in this
struggle for the arts. We have already seen HDC as responsible for the
demise of the free Horsham Community Festival and the pulling of the highly
cost-effective Horsham Music Week The Council states that it is currently minded to go through with its Old Town Hall plans. So be it. However, I feel such a move would ultimately be at the total expense of Council credibility. It would also leave the wider campaign objectives unaffected. It is clear to me that the arts are seen as Horsham's major strength to be exploited in difficult economic circumstances. Therefore I do not believe the citizens of Horsham will allow any restaurant to become comfortable in the Old Town Hall and see the artistic opportunities, ones that would benefit the local economy as a whole, wasted." * * *
|
