My thoughts on Hastings Borough Council's decision to cut ties with 1066 Country Marketing, by Tim McDonald of the Shipwreck Museum

In my letter which was published in the Observer nearly two months ago concerning the Council’s withdrawal from the 1066 Partnership and drastic reductions to the tourism budget, I asked where all the cuts were going to end?

SEE ALSO: 'I want to know how slamming into the tourism sector is going to help the homeless situation in Hastings', asks museum chief.

The answer has been revealed very much faster than I anticipated!

The excellent article in the March 24 edition of this newspaper by Andrew Hemsley sets it all out in distressing detail. Our primary source of revenue, the tourism industry, is being put at unbelievable risk by a thoughtless budget vote passed by the council. This in itself is hugely distressing, but investigation has thrown up some alarming questions.

I am now convinced that most of the council were not furnished with all the relevant information vital to coming to a sensible and practical conclusion.

Were all councillors aware that in a consultation exercise taken amongst a wide range of prestigious travel organisations, including Tourism South East, English Heritage and British Destinations, not one body amongst the 40 or so who responded agreed with the decision for Hastings to withdraw from the 1066 Partnership?

Even without this expert observation, it should be patently obvious that Hastings, which to the world at large, is 1066, can’t really divorce itself from the leading consortium devoted to promoting this major tourist destination.

The council has removed a considerable part of the tourism budget, totalling £67,500. This sum could go a long way towards helping the industry which, it is estimated, brings £385 million to the Hastings area each year, provides 7,000 jobs and now needs extra, not less, backing to restore the visitor market in the post-Covid era.

The money will, however, make absolutely no impact on the housing and homelessness budget to which it is being redirected. The current overall cost of trying to solve this appalling humanitarian problem is £4,000,000.

It is a national problem, created by inappropriate and unrealistic national policies and can only be fully resolved by national solutions.

Have you read....: Hastings MP to visit Rye Harbour to show support for English Tourism Week​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I’m sure it would be possible to find the £67,500 from other sources – such as reducing agency staff, trimming budgets from other non-revenue earning areas of the council’s operations, cutting back on the number of consultants, etcetera.

I understand that the professional officers in HBC’s tourism department were not consulted in the decision to cut back funding. Why?

In a BBC interview, Cllr Andy Batsford, Health and Culture Portfolio Holder for HBC, spoke about a ‘changing tourism landscape’ and our need for ‘re-imagining’.

He is right, but then goes about tackling it in completely the wrong way. He talks cheerfully about ‘bringing families down to Hastings to stay a week’.

Excellent – where does he intend to put them?

This town is notoriously short of good, medium-term accommodation.

And should I mention the fact that Hastings has never really catered for the family week-long visitor! We thrive on the influx of day trippers – most of whom are here to visit 1066 Country!

This missive has already taken up more than its fair share of the correspondence page, but I make no apologies. As head of one of the major tourist attractions in Hastings, working as hard as possible to attract visitors to this town, I feel I am entitled to express the gravest reservations about what many of us in the local tourism industry feel to be a complete let-down by those who are supposed to be making decisions in the very best interests of the area.​

For the latest breaking news where you live in Sussex, follow us on Twitter @Sussex_Worldand like us on Facebook @SussexWorldUK