At Special Council this evening the decision was made by the Council to purchase the Pier from the the current Bankruptcy Trustees.
The were a great deal of apologies for the meeting. I think the vote was 31 - 1, so only 32 of 59 Councillors were there for the vote (a couple of others were at the beginning of the meeting but had to leave before the conclusion)
I was the only Councillor to vote against the proposals. May be I'm the one who has got it wrong, but my view is that this is going to cost us a great deal of money over the next few years, while we wait to see if we by some chance get funding to restore the pier.
Funding is highly dependent upon a yet to be seen Business Plan from the Pier Pressure Group's company "Shore Thing". I apologise for the pun, but at this time this is in no way a 'sure thing', only a 'maybe'.
My concerns remain that there are is great deal of uncertainty at the moment and all options run with high risk. We received financial best and worst case figures on the options (as I requested at the Cabinet meeting). The option recommended by officers and cabinet in my opinion misrepresented the worst case figures and didn't matched the risk analysis (I did challenge this in the meeting).This, in my opinion, strewed the view that this option was one of least financial risk, this is not the case.
The issue which everyone has not taken heed of is that if a Public Authority own the site, CADW will then assist that the repairs are completed even if we are unable to find External funding. Hence if we do not get this funding it will be the Conwy Council Tax payer that will have to come up with the money.
We are dealing with this problem because of the bankruptcy timings. We are also dealing with this in times of significant austerity. I do hope I'm wrong but I feel this will be another Maesdu Bridge issue (I wasn't wrong about that one). We are being pushed into things because of external timing issues, very risky indeed.
Please beware that just because the authority takes ownership do NOT (thank you Richard) expect changes quickly. The grant application process is far from quick (compare it to Llandudno Railway Station). I can see us with nothing to show, except expenditure, for a few years yet (3 - 5 years)
So what would I have done, My preference would have been that we managed the transfer of the pier to a third party arms length organisation, such as Shore Thing. This would then have passed the massive liability of ownership out of the Council Tax payer. The other option was to do nothing, this will have meant that Steve Hunt would have taken receipt of the Pier in July. In my opinion, it would be then up to Mr Hunt to move it forward. My advice would have been to encourage Mr Hunt to work with the Pier Pressure Group/Shore Thing. If this did not work or if Mr Hunt was unable to keep up with the upkeep required then it may mean in the future (several years) that we would have had to taken on the liability then. Hopefully this would be after the current financial climate. The structural survey of the Pier at this point may have given us more options, which could include demolition.
What I will be interested now is understanding why we are doing this with the Pier yet other Local Eyesore sites in the County can not be dealt with.
The report details still remains exempt due to personal details within the report. Although I did vote as did others that the meeting should not be exempt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13701410
I hope I will be able to tell you that my concerns turn out to be unfounded and that as described by officers we have the "fair wind" and everything goes to plan and that all costs are covered by external finance. If this happens I will be first to put up my hand and say I was wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I was in support of the council taking on the pier as it's in such a bad condition but your point about Cadw being able to force the council to do the work is a worry! Good for you for sticking to your guns, its very easy to go with the majority. It would be great if funding could be found, there's so much happening in the Bay at the moment, I hope it's not a Maesdu but I wouldn't bet on it.
I fully agree with you.
However, in your commentary, I think you mean 'do not' expect things to happen quickly.
Regards
Richard
Congratulations on your bravery in standing out against the mindless drift towards a big spend and/or a lasting eyesore.
It is not always easy to be a minority of one, but you did the right thing.
Not often mentioned in all this is that even if a grant WERE made available, the grantor is probably spending public money anyway.
If things are tight nationally, then £5M (more?) of public money spent on a clapped out pier is NOT priority.
Well done - stick to your guns, especially as it seems there is no-one else doing that.
It is rare indeed that I congratulate a Councillor, but I do so now on being the only one to vote with his mind and NOT the 'council whip'
I am trying to be careful what I write, in order that you can actually publish my comment (hopefully!)
What you say about "bankruptcy timing" is of course the sole crux of the panic of CCBC to try and buy the pier - they will do *anything* to stop me getting it back.
Were ALL the councillors made aware of the 3 different long-term lease options I made to the Council, giving them the chance to sub-lease it to "Shore Thing", to do pretty much whatever they wanted with it (as long as it was preserved), and ensuring that the public funding (if it even exists) would still be able to be fully accessed?
The real issue now has to be that local taxpayers are going to be burdened with massive emergency repair bills due to CCBC's 'failure' to force RPG to look after the pier whilst they held it for 3 years... as a multi-million pound company making a £1m annual profit (according to last filed accounts at companies house) they had adequate funds to look after it. There is a reason for this, as I shall be revealing shortly - though I appreciate you might not want to publish it on your website.
Then of course there will eventually be a large damages claim from myself (and probably my former tenants and staff too as a class-action) - of course, that process can't start until it is certain the pier won't revert to me.
Don't understand your logic, Chris. If grant money isn't spent in Colwyn Bay, then it will be spent somewhere else! Given that fact, surely its better it is spent in the local area?
On the other hand, I understand your logic, Jason, but I think you've called this one wrong. The community have said very clearly that they wish to see the Pier restored - remember that public meeting with crowds queuing down the road? The community have also 'stepped up' by forming the 'Shore Thing' group to take on a formidable project instead of just expecting the council to do everything. As such, I feel they should be backed 100% now.
Chameleon,
Thanks for the comment, and I understand your view.
I was at the first meeting called by David Jones, but what was surprising in yesterday's meeting was that high majority of Councillors view was to demolish, they said this was based upon feedback from their communities. I won't go further on this or name names as the meeting took place "in camera".
By this cause of action being taken, it now means that the last thing CADW would allow is Demolition (this was explained at the meeting) as their view will be that as a Public Authority we have a bottomless pit of funding to ensure repairs are carried out. The bottomless pit being the Conwy Council Tax payer.
The sad thing about all of this is that it took the public meeting by David Jones, MP to get things moving. Had this all started 12 months earlier, then we would have a better idea whether the business plan will work, and be much more progressed with obtaining funding.
But yet again we are making decisions without all the information. i.e my concern on risk.
Saying all that, now the decision has been made I will support Shore Thing in anyway I can. It is not in anyone's interest for this to fail. And as I said I now hope I will be able to say I was wrong.
Jason
Bankrupting me over a measly £5,000 (which they now admit I didn't even owe them) will now cost locals millions, and they still won't have a pier as the funding simply does not exist, never has.
There is not one single penny of confirmed funding - please do correct me if I am wrong on that point, but my sources tell me that is precisely the case. I wish there was money, I asked Conwy since 2003 to come to me with ANY available funding offers and tell me what had to be done to get it (lease, charity, PPP etc.)- but they never did, not once.
External funders will NOT pay for the immediate £500,000 or so of emergency repairs that will have to be carried out, nor whatever it will cost to maintain and insure for the coming 3 years or so that it will take to get £6.5m funding together (which by then will have gone up to around £10m with contingencies)
Just the KPMG investigation into what they have done in 2009 has cost £25,000 (so far) - and the 2009 accounts are likely to end up being challenged in the High Court the way the investigation is going.
Massive can of worms opened - and it will only get worse. The stuff that has been leaked to me to be investigated in the 2010 accounts will make your eyes water. Roll on 2010 Audit in a few weeks time. And then 2011.
Chameleon: Pier Pressure / Shore Thing do NOT have any public endorsement or public legitimacy at all, for the following reason:
Sure, the original group of people who stood up and were approved by the assembled crowd in St. Paul's to form "Pier Pressure" had legitimacy. However, if you were there you will recall their pledge that the Council would NOT be allowed to join or have any influence over the group.
Since formation, all members of "Pier Pressure" who showed any 'allegiance' to me whatsoever were removed (usually by not being told when the meetings took place, then accused of showing no interest and voted out) - and these were replaced by what are best politely described as friends of CCBC. "Pier Pressure" is just a puppet, its strings pulled by certain councillors who I won't bother naming.
"Shore Thing" was set up without any public consultation or approval whatsoever - it is merely a shell company to keep things at arms length from CCBC, for obvious reasons.
So it is quite simply wrong of those who say these 2 groups have the full support of the public; they do not.
If CCBC *really* wanted the pier saved, why have they refused to enforce the Planning and Listed Buildings laws on RPG for the past 3 years, at massive expense to the local taxpayer? - simple enough question isn't it?
Or why didn't CCBC simply buy the pier 3 years ago, when it was open, trading, had tenants and customers, and above all was SAFE ENOUGH to be fully insured?
Why does no-one ask these simple questions? - perhaps Jason will be brave enough to do so and let us have the answers... certainly no other councillor has the balls to do it.
Steve: I have published your comments.
This is obviously one side of the story and the strange thing is due to the exempt nature of the reports to Council I can not put the information/reports we have received on the blog or answer your questions directly.
I can say that there were several options on the table at Wednesday's Council Meeting.
I'm always interested to listen to information
Surely the blunt truth is that no-one is going to fund a white elephant.
A 20th century amenity has become a 21st century eyesore and the reality is that only public money can shift the eyesore.
In 10 years time - or less - the problem will be replicated in Llandudno.
Very interesting developments.
What sort of timetable does the council have for the purchase to go through?
And what is the likely timescale for restoration work to actually commence, do you think?
Timetable for Purchase - this is almost immediately, Officer will be trying to secure any funding from WAG and negotiating a purchase price from the Receivers. The Pier would revert back to the ownership of Steve Hunt after 3 years of receivership, this ends in July.
Restoration Work - this is my concern. When officers start talking about "fair winds" this raises my alarm bells. Especially as during my time at the Council I haven't seem much that goes with a fair wind, especially when seeking External Funding (Llandudno Railway Station is a classic example). This is because of all the hoops that are required to jump through. The officers have estimated it could take around 2 years (assuming fair winds) before restoration can commence.
Many thanks for the response, Jason. It will certainly be interesting to see how things (eventually) turn out with this.
The structure does have a certain elegance, even now in its dilapidated and abandoned state - http://geotopoi.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/victoria-pier-colwyn-bay/ - it would definitely be a real shame if it couldn't eventually be fully restored and re-opened.
Let's see what the 'winds' have in store.
Post a Comment