Hastings debate on housing abandoned after legal advice confusion

On Wednesday (July 13), Hastings Borough Council had been due to debate a motion — tabled by Labour cabinet member Andy Batsford — which called on the council to declare a housing emergency and write to the government demanding it put in place a number of reforms to housing policies.

These included calls to abolish no-cause evictions, known as Section 21 Notices, as well as measures through which councils could limit the number of holiday homes within their areas.

As the debate began, however, Conservative group leader Andy Patmore informed councillors he had been advised by the council’s chief legal officer Mary Kilner that his status as a landlord meant he had a pecuniary prejudicial interest.

In other words, he was told he had a financial stake in the issue and it would therefore be inappropriate to take part in the debate.

However, he also said the legal advice had been clear this was the case for both landlords and renters (specifically “holders of assured shorthold tenancy agreements”). He said this advice went on to say this would also cover councillors whose spouses or other family members fell into either of those categories.

Following this a flurry of other councillors went on to declare their own interests and leave the chamber.

Ms Kilner said: “I’m very happy that councillors put their hands up and declare pecuniary prejudicial interests and I commend that. But in this case it is not that it is going to happen; it is basically a letter that is being written.

“I am happy for you to leave the room as I have advised, but equally it’s whether we have the power to do this.”

She added: “I don’t think there is going to be a pecuniary or other benefit coming from this motion because as I see it, [the letter] will probably end up in the filing drawer.”

With the chamber far emptier than at the beginning of the debate, the council broke for a short recess. After the recess the motion was deferred for discussion at a later date.