The taxpayer will keep an eye on this for years yet

The concept of making over the dilapidated pavilion to a non-profit trust was "sold" to the public on the basis that it would enable Lottery cash to be garnered for much-needed restoration and largely relieve Rother taxpayers of what had become an intolerable financial burden.

Thankfully, the pavilion has now benefited from millions in restoration aid.

But, as this week's announcement on the proposed new grant agreement makes clear, Rother is now having to commit itself to more than 3m of support for the pavilion trust over the next six years.

If it doesn't, then the Arts Council won't stump-up its share in shoring-up the Trust.

And if that happens then the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down. If the Trust were unable to continue then the entire responsibility would be handed back to - guess who - Rother taxpayers.

In order to obtain Lottery funding, it was necessary for Rother to agree to a major policy change to transform the pavilion into a regional centre for the visual arts.

Inherent in this was a commitment to making over large parts of the building for free-entry exhibitions.

Experience demonstrates that no building of the pavilion's former nature - let alone its present guise - can hope to be self-supporting.

What the new role did was to increase rather than decrease the proportion of the building which could hope to be revenue-earning.

A Rother working party has laboured long to produce a document which seeks to obtain some sort of "deal."

But it is becoming increasingly obvious that the odds were stacked against the authority - and therefore the taxpayer - from the outset.

The proposed settlement makes no provision (other than an electronic alternative) for the tourist information centre which the public had made it clear it wanted to see.

The Chamber of Commerce appears to have changed its position and acquiesced to this.

But the paying public will not have changed its position.

The public will certainly also want to see other concerns which were made abundantly clear in the Rother opinion survey addressed urgently.

The coming year's pavilion programme shows that the trust meant business when it said it would now seek to develop its performing arts provision.

Bringing big-name artists to the auditorium is a welcome move towards restoring the pavilion to its former position as a valued multi-function building.

We sincerely hope that it is a portent for a future which will, increasingly, reflect the public's expectations of an institution for which historically it has always paid dearly and which it seems destined to continue to subsidise indefinitely.