Slot machines on the pier: answering some of the critics

Bernard McGinley’s recent piece about slot machines on the pier has provoked a lot of response, especially on HOT’s Facebook page, much of it critical. Editorial organiser Nick Terdre takes up some of the questions raised.

Typical of the criticisms levelled at Bernard’s article was one particular FB post, so if I address the questions raised in it, that will also cover the same points raised by others. The quotes from the post are highlighted in bold, but the writer has asked for their name to be withheld.

The slot machines are in the right place, so the headline [Slots where slots shouldn’t be] is misleading. There are some amusement machines that are in the entrance, which McGinley is objecting to…

McGinley states very clearly that there has been a breach. This has caused out[r]age. Has there actually been a breach? Do you know?

“The slot machines are in the right place” – really? The article wastes no time in providing information on where the slots should be, by means of an extract from the committee report – the report prepared by planning officers for the planning committee in support of their recommendation that the application be approved – explaining precisely where the slot machines are permitted to be placed:

There will be no alterations to the internal layout or external appearance of the building. The store rooms, WC, kiosk and service lift will all remain in situ, and only the educational and interpretation spaces at either end of the building will change to an amusement arcades/entertainment centre.

In other words, the spaces at either end of the building are approved for housing the slot machines, but not the middle section where the store rooms, WC, kiosk and service lift are located.

At no point did McGinley express that any of the content of this article is purely his opinion. It’s essentially a personal rant.  Is it newsworthy? Not without hard facts it’s not. 

The article reports the facts of the planning permission – what is allowed and where – and shows with the support of photos that slots have been placed in the middle section which the planning permission excludes from being part of the amusement arcades/entertainment centre.

Far from being a rant or a personal opinion, these are hard facts. Newsworthy? We have a system of rules and regulations to govern planning matters, to which all are supposed to be equally subject. So if someone decides for whatever reason to ignore the terms of their planning permission, yes, that’s newsworthy (although some infractions would be too minor to be worth reporting).

McGinley was strongly opposed to the change of use. He wrote an objection, which one can read within the planning application documents. So this demonstrates prejudice, and gives grounds for intent to publish so called facts, in order to create bad feeling within the community. Is that responsible reporting? Is that ethical?

According to the editorial standards we follow you’re allowed to have your own opinion on a matter and write about it – as long as you treat the matter fairly and allow the parties written about to have their say.

The Oxford Lexicon dictionary defines prejudice as “Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.” So if the argument is based on facts, as this article is, that is not prejudice but argued criticism.

If McGinley had asked pier management, and the council to comment, the article would have been more balanced. But he didn’t.

The article was primarily aimed at the council, which for some time now has been aware of breaches of planning permission by the pier owner, as well as the irregular mounting of signage and other equipment without the required listed building consent – it was raising the question whether the council would take steps to have matters rectified or decline to take up the issue.

There are unfortunately too many instances in which the council, and the Foreshore Trust which it controls, appear to have neglected their responsibility for policing the planning system – events at Rocklands caravan park and the Flamingo amusement park are leading examples.

In fact Bernard did ask the council to comment on the matter and this should have been mentioned in the article. It took a while, including some irrelevant responses, to get a reply addressing the question asked. This is what the council said (now published as part of a comment which Bernard has attached to the article):

“We are in the process of collating all the current breaches of planning
control and will shortly be writing a further letter to the owner
setting out the various ways they should rectify those breaches.

“The letter will give a deadline for the breaches of planning control to
be addressed. If after the deadlines have passed the requested actions
have not been undertaken by the owner of the Pier we will progress
with enforcement action, where appropriate.”

The council says there have been breaches and that it is following up on them. That hopefully puts an end to claims that there haven’t been breaches. Whether effective and proportionate enforcement action is taken remains to be seen – however Bernard reports that in the last couple of days the council has informed him that the letter has been sent and received.

Mr Gulzar and his representatives were not consulted – they probably should have been, though the article as said was intended to be focusing on the council’s response. For a follow-up article which is due to be published shortly, Bernard has spoken to Mr Gulzar’s agent.

There are others who clearly think that putting the slots where they aren’t supposed to be, and ignoring the procedures for obtaining listed building consent, are trivial matters. Their argument is not with HOT but with the planning system and the philosophy behind it – they might want to campaign to have the system reformed so it is possible to have some planning conditions defined as “too trivial to be enforced in case of breach.”

If there hasn’t been a breach, and Mr Gulzar is fully compliant, will HOT write a retraction and a formal apology? 

HOT has a policy of acknowledging mistakes and correcting them. So if we’d been shown to have erroneously accused Mr Gulzar of a breach of planning permission, we’d be happy to recognise that and apologise.

We’re also happy to have differing points of view on our pages. The writer of the FB post was asked if they wanted to write their own take on this matter but declined. If someone else wants to, they should get in touch.

Other critical points were raised in comments posted both on our FB page and on the HOT page which I plan to respond to.

 

This article was amended by Nick Terdre on 7 August 2019.

 

Also in: Home Ground

« Carry on regardless at Hastings Pier?
Slots where slots shouldn’t be »