To repeat, the Colwyn Bay pier meeting was astonishingly well attended; even more people turned up than to the Walton meeting a couple of years ago. Sadly, not everyone had received the message that pre-booking was desirable; the consequence was that an estimated 200 had to be turned away. If you weren’t able to get in, apologies, but the very fact that you were turned away underlines how passionate people are about the pier.
And passion there certainly was in the council chamber. A large number of people (including this blog’s commenters, David Curtis and Monty Slocombe) spoke with great feeling about how much they wanted to see the pier restored. The pier, it seems, has become a symbol of Colwyn Bay’s relative decline; the desire to see it restored is also the desire to see the town regenerated.
I was truly sorry that Conwy county council decided not to send officer representation to the meeting; it is true that litigation with Mr Hunt is continuing, but I feel there was no reason why a representative could not have attended and listened quietly to the views expressed. County and town councillors were, however, present and all credit to them for that.
Shows of hands revealed that an estimated 90 per cent or more of the audience wanted to see the pier restored, with a similar percentage willing to contribute financially to the project. A large number appeared also to be willing to explore the possibility of forming a new charitable trust as a vehicle for the pier’s restoration.
My next step is to arrange a meeting with Conwy’s chief executive to discuss further progress. It is essential that Mr Hunt, the county and the pier administrators enter into active dialogue to resolve the current legal dispute. It would be tragic if further delay made the pier’s restoration even more of a challenge.
My thanks to fellow North Wales bloggers (especially Oscar, John Oddy, Jason Weyman and Chameleon) for helping to publicise the event.
And, most of all, my thanks to the people of Colwyn Bay for the passion and fighting spirit they showed last night.
I would like it on record, yet again, that I have ALWAYS been available for discussion with anyone, about anything, to do with Victoria Pier since I became owner in December 2003.
David, you yourself have copies of correspondence received by Goronwy Edwards (at that time Leader of CCBC) from myself practically begging them to (quote) “sit round the table like gentlemen and talk to me”, rather than enter what would clearly be very expensive litigation on both sides – an offer which you know they resolutely refused, forcing the matter into the Courts at now considerable ongoing expense and substantial potential liability to the constituents you represent as a Member of Parliament.
Please, you must use whatever powers you have to force CCBC to talk to myself, or even lawyer to lawyer if they still refuse to talk to me directly.
It is not me who refuses to talk.
Pingback: Voices of Colwyn Bay « David Jones, MP | Conwy News 01492 info
A well chaired meeting which focused on the most visible symbol of the decline of Colwyn Bay and probably the most important issue to many of it’s residents. If you’re seeking votes (and who can blame you David?) don’t let go. Efforts must be made to organize and channel the feeling and good will which is so evident. I gather that is a fund exists already. Would it be appropriate now to form a working party in order to keep the momentum going? The will is there, and I am sure that the expertise is available from amongst the residents of Colwyn Bay to force matters to a conclusion.
Steve
As I said at the meeting you get nothing for nothing or to put it another way, the Council will not talk or negotiate or even move towards that state with the threat of court action hanging over them and their officers.
The only way forward in the pier dispute is for the ownership aspect to be sorted. That can only be done by talking.
You should be allowed to pay your debts without hesitation.
The public support was qualified, most people would like to see the pier in some form, hanging on there for many years. What they are not prepared to do is look at a rotting hulk whilst you seek litigation.
I see it as a difficult problem for you. On the one side you want CCBC to talk and it appears they will not. On the other hand the public overwhelmingly showed that they want their representatives to talk to you and they must.
You have a key in your hand that you must be prepared to turn if necessary to make it happen.
But you must not use that key for nothing. You need safeguards also.
Perhaps though, a start would be to stop insulting all and sundry.
I really do feel that the Pier need to be in the hands of a Trust formed by local people, rather than one man.
Mr Hunt never seems to be very keen on the idea of a Trust (perhaps because it would mean he would have to cede control over the pier?) but, otherwise, it’s surely the case all our proposed donations of time/labour/money/materials will be going straight into Mr Hunt’s pocket as sole owner and he could then sell the pier at any time?
That is just not acceptable – all the people who are so keen to work towards a repaired pier need to have the confidence that the pier is in the ownership of a Trust, controlled by its members and not one person, that has the sole aim of repairing, preserving and enhancing the pier .
Hugh:
I get tired of having to repeat the same old thing over and over again. I have NEVER been against a trust. I have NEVER refused to talk to ANYONE about ANY WAY to get the pier restored. The idea of a trust is brilliant, it is just fraught with problems most of you haven’t even begun to think of. Please do your research first before you try to tell people about trusts – it is these comments that give people a false idea of hope.
You, and everyone else, had the opportunity to buy the pier BEFORE I did. It was for sale for around 2 years before I bought it. Mike Paxman waited very patiently indeed whilst the Friends of the Pier charitable trust – chaired by Cllr Chris Hughes – tried to get their act together. But they failed.
Why do I have to keep constantly reminding people of the very simple fact that ANYONE could have bought the Pier.
If You, the Council, a Trust, The Queen or anyone else wants to buy it, then I beg you to come forward with a sensible proposal.
AGAIN I repeat that I am, and have been for several years, trustee of a proper Building Preservation Trust that has received and spent around £50k so far just in putting together an application to release another £50k of funding TOWARDS completing a Heritage Lottery Fund application for around £6m to save and restore the incredible Theatre Royal in Hyde. We have a meeting with or architects on Friday actually, regarding the £14k Options Appraisal (what used to be called feasibility study) they have been working on.
I have given a great deal of my time, effort, knowledge and indeed money to that project – not for some personal glory (I have pretty much never told anyone around here until the past few days), but because I personally happen to believe it is a building worth fighting to save. I also joined the trust to get a firm understanding on how BPTs actually work and function, to see if that looked like a feasible way forward for the Pier.
That trust has been going for 10 years, with an incredibly hard working and extremely knowledgeable team. One of the trust members is also involved with the Morcambe Winter Gardens trust – that took 15 years and again several hundred thousand pounds of work to get the big funding grants in to begin restoration – thankfully the project is now going ahead, and the glorious building will be saved.
As the gentleman on the stage said on Friday night, Penarth Pier in South Wales has recently received £90,000 of funding to pay for its Lottery bid. That isn’t £90k to fix the leaky roof, its £90k just for paperwork.
People have been brainwashed into believing that if a trust is set up, funding will instantly appear in a bank account overnight – that simply is not true. I sincerely wish it was, for the sake of many worthy heritage projects I have a keen interest in.
Cllr Chris Hughes has been chair of the “Friends of the Pier” since way before I came on the scene – and how much grant money has he managed to pull in? – well, why don’t you ask him yourself?
Trusts are incredibly slow and wieldy legal mechanisms to get things done. A lottery bid takes a MINIMUM of 2 years, likely to be more like 4-5 years for a project such as the pier. The lottery is also a “funder of last resort” – meaning in simple terms that you have to prove that all other avenues of funding have been explored and rejected – again that takes quite a time. Don’t take my word for it at all, ask them yourself! – ask any Buildings Preservation Trust that has received a substantial amount of money how long it took them? (substantial meaning more than a couple of hundred thousand – I can’t recall the exact cut-off figure, but there is a slightly quicker process for smaller projects)
Now, some sensible people, rather than practically accusing me of stealing donations to fund a lavish lifestyle, have come up with a plan that COULD, in theory, work quite quickly. It is something I have thought of in the past, but was not convinced there was a level of support at the time to make it work… with the support shown now, perhaps now is the time to look at it again. Strike whilst the iron is hot, as the saying goes.
That idea is basically to sell shares in a Company or Co-op that would then take on the Pier, so that everyone in the Town and beyond could own their own little bit of it. Obviously this would raise money for restoration – without the huge costs and very long time delay involved of going down the trust-lottery route. If people put money in on a Monday, it could be spend on steel and wood on Tuesday.
I thought the best legal structure was a PLC – which doesn’t have to be floated on any stock exchange – but which does allow members of the public to buy and sell the shares. More importantly, it allows the shares to be advertised (something you can’t do with a standard Ltd company). Perhaps most important of all, the accounts are matters of public record and scrutiny, so people such as yourself, Hugh, won’t spend their evenings fretting that I am living some kind of champagne lifestyle off the back of other people’s good will… As I said on another blog, please don’t judge me by your own standards – particulary as you haven’t even bothered to get to know me in the 6 years I’ve been here.
A PLC is a very robust legal mechanism and could be set up in a matter of days – hours in fact. This would be good to capture the momentum of peoples enthusiasm. By the time the legal stuff is sorted out, the PLC could have raised enough funds to get started. Personally, I think this is a great idea. Individuals who really want to help, but can only afford a pound or two at the moment, can have one or two shares – perhaps increasing their shareholding later on as their circumstances improve. The gentleman from CBI Insurance who said they would be prepared to look at a substantial contribution could have several thousand shares; everyone is equal in that respect.
Another benefit is that all “donations” – actually share purchases – would be fully recorded, and if for whatever reason the project didn’t work out (say the pier fell down, for arguments sake) then all the “donations” in the pot would be returned to the share holders pro-rata.
I should point out here, Hugh, that CBI lost out when I was forced into bankruptcy. They always insured the pier for me, and Mike Paxman before me. CBI lost around £2,000 in unpaid insurance premiums. YET, even having lost out personally, the guys from CBI do not seem to have your same hang-ups about supporting the Pier.
Again I repeat to all readers – come to me with a proposal and I will gladly negotiate some kind of agreement.
Any deal to “save the pier”, however, has NOTHING to do with my battle against the Local Authority. I will never give up the battle for justice and a fair trial, for myself and everyone else involved with the pier who have suffered personally as a result of what happened.
If CCBC wish to use my quest for justice as an excuse for holding up talks to resolve the “ownership issue”, then you must question their motives on that one, not mine. Mine are very clear.
To set the record straight yet again, there is no “ownership issue” – My name remains on the Title Deeds to the pier – look them up yourself at the Land Registry if you so wish.
Interest and liability in the Pier is currently “vested” with the Insolvency Practitioner. The IP has an obligation in law to realise as high a value as possible, in as short as time as possible, for the benefit of the creditors (CCBC is a creditor).
However, the IP cannot realise the the Pier due to the fact that the bankruptcy is legally unsound, and there is more than enough to pay my genuine creditors in full lodged with my lawyers, and has been since a few days after I was made bankrupt. Do you honestly not think they would have put the pier up for auction if they possibly could have done? In its current state it is clearly a huge liability to them.
Now then, as soon as the IP decides to send the creditors account to my lawyers to be paid from they money they have, we can all jolly off to Court and get the bankruptcy annulled. BUT that will mean I get a chance to present my evidence to the Court. THAT is the real issue facing CCBC, their lawyers and the IP.
Hugh, if you want to go down the trust route, then the instant you have a trust with £6-10m in the bank, or concrete promises of such funding on condition that the trust is granted a 25+ year lease on the pier (which is most likely to be the case in my 5+ years experience of dealing with trusts of this nature) then contact me or my lawyers and you can gladly have a lease on the Pier.
I do not decry the idea of a trust AT ALL – I am getting sick and tired of having to repeat this point.
I AM ALREADY a trustee of another trust of the type you are contemplating for heavens sake!
I am just trying to make people aware of the harsh realities of a BPT before they persue that route, only to be disappointed in 10 years time when they still haven’t got a thing done. I think there are far easier ways to public ownership, if indeed that is what the public wants.
Can I make it any clearer than that?
If you want another local example of a trust that hasn’t worked overnight, look at Dan’s Den. How long have they fought and fought for Lottery funds and support from CCBC? – for arguably a much worthier cause than the Pier. Indeed, I hosted several fund-raising events at the pier for Dan’s Den, to do my bit. Again, not for glory or to fiddle a few pence out of the kids collecting buckets to pay for my yacht as you like to think, but because I believe it is a cause worthy of support. I am saddened that Hazel Cleverley has resigned as chair, but saddened further to hear than one Cllr Chris Hughes is now in said chair.
Now, let me say once more, my fight against CCBC has NOTHING to do with getting the pier restored. NOTHING. There is NO ongoing litigation, as people keep referring to. Don’t believe me, ask my lawyers (Wright Hassall of Leamington Spa) or the Council’s lawyers (DWF of Manchester) for yourself.
However, my lawyers are waiting for responses to letters sent to DWF over a year ago, and several others since. Neither I, nor my lawyers, can answer why this is. Nor can DWF come to that. All they can say is they have not been instructed by their clients (I.E. CCBC). Once again, it is CCBC who are holding things up, not I. I suggest you ask CCBC why they are not instructing their lawyers – after all, it is your money that is being used to pay for these lawyers.
If CCBC and their appointed lawyers fail to respond for another 18 months, then the Pier will revert back to me in any case under the provisions of the law.
So to look at it another way, this trust you want to set up only has to wait a maximum of 18 months before it can take on a lease for the pier. 18 months is no-where near enough time to secure lottery funding, I can assure you. So you had better get thinking of how else you are going to raise the money.
David:
As you probably know, David Jones has set up a meeting on Feb 16th with the Chief Executive of CCBC, Byron Davies.
I am waiting to hear back from DJ if I am allowed to attend this meeting or not.
With regard to the “legal dispute” I have nothing to negotiate over. I offered negotiation time and time again before the matter went to Court, but CCBC refused, as is now well documented.
Since making me bankrupt, CCBC have reduced their claims substantially, which obviously pre-date the commencement of litigation, thus proving I did not owe them the money they claimed in the first place as I have maintained from day 1. So, you see, the negotiation has in fact been done already. David Jones has copies of the relevant paperwork, and I’m sure will confirm this to be the case.
CCBC must go back to Caernarfon Court and admit their claims were wrong all along and rescind the bankruptcy. They cannot keep insisting I owed the original claim amount, when they themselves have subsequently reduced it. It is plainly illogical. The problem for CCBC is in trying to claim they made a “mistake” when it is quite clear from the documents that they were well aware of the correct sums due since before commencing bankruptcy proceedings. Again, David Jones has copies of the relevant documents.
I cannot apply for the bankruptcy to be rescinded – CCBC have to do this.
Once that has been done, full title to the Pier will be restored to me, and I will be delighted to discuss with any Trust, Individual or Business that wants to take all, or even part, of it on… there’s no reason why there couldn’t be one trust to look after the Victorian Pier itself, and another to look after the Art Deco Pavilion, for example.
As I have explained, through years of experience involved with a Trust, I do not think a Trust, per se, is the best way forward. Or at least not right now. Simply they are too difficult to fund and far too slow to get anything done.
A PLC, or something along those lines (a PLC seems to be by far the easiest, cheapest and most legally secure way to set it up as the law is already there) where anyone in the town could buy as many shares as they wanted, seems like a much more sensible idea to explore.
The result is pretty much the same I.E. the pier would be owned by the public, if indeed the public want to own it!. The big difference is a PLC can be set up in hours, and can be receiving money from the sale of shares and spending it again on restoration literally within days. Should anything go wrong, like the pier falls down, then the money in the pot can be given back to the shareholders.
Perhaps there is a commercial lawyer or company specialist reading this who could offer some thought on if this would work?
Thank you for your reply, Mr. Hunt. I’m afraid you have misunderstood my point, which was not that a Trust would have access to millions of pounds of lottery funding (I’ve never said that) but that a Trust would offer COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL of the pier. That is the key point I am trying to make.
Given that, your idea of a PLC is an interesting one, and worth pursuing. Obviously, we don’t yet know a lot about how it would work but some questions:
1) Who would own the pier – the PLC? I take it then they would have to raise the money to buy the pier from you, then raise further funds for restoration?
2) Who would control the PLC – an independent board of directors?
Please don’t think I’m trying to be awkward by asking these questions, they are key issues if it is to work successfully.
Hugh, given you were all but accusing me of misappropriating funds from collecting tins yesterday, I welcome your change of tone.
Your argument that many = integrity is inherently flawed… there are 650 MPs, but how many of them have any integrity? = all the “many theory” proved is that “many” decided to claim dubious expenses for their duck houses, porn movies and bath plugs!
Now then, transparency should equal integrity – but for a perfect example of non-transparency I have to point you at CCBC, for they absolutely excel at it. They are as transparent as coal.
Moving on…
Community ownership is great in theory, but a Trust is just such a pain for a project of this magnitude. It might work for a little village hall, but not a potentially £10m project.
As I said, when I considered this idea in the past, I did not think there would be sufficient interest to really get the idea off the ground – clearly there’s no point in only selling a few thousand pounds worth of shares. But now, there does seem to be a massive interest in the Pier which could perhaps be capitalised on. If the people of the Town and indeed around the World would like to own a little bit of it (I.E. Public Ownership) then great! I have no doubt that hundreds of people will have more passion for it than CCBC have shown, who can’t even be bothered to turn up to a meeting despite being invited twice.
Marketed well, this could be a very successful way of raising funds – imagine if say Stephen Fry bought a few shares and twitterified all his loyal followers about it – that simple kind of thing could work wonders!… there’s probably rules and regulations against that thinking about it, but you get my general idea.
The benefit of a PLC, is that we wouldn’t be trying to re-invent the wheel. The law is well established, very robust, and of course the records are open – which should appease anyone who is concerned about where their donations, or more properly we should say investment, has gone. People could also sell their shares again in the future, which might help in getting in some bigger chunks of money from businesses etc. They would actually own something, a share of the Pier, in exchange for their cash, instead of just dropping it in a bucket.
To set the same thing up from scratch as some kind of Trust, allowing hundreds of people to have a say, would be a complete nightmare and cost a fortune. The other benefit of not going down the Trust route is not having to have endless committee meetings and votes and squabbling to actually get anything done. There are many famous quotes about committees, most of them very accurate indeed!
A PLC would be a business first and foremost, and get on with the job at hand without having to call a full membership meeting every time it wanted to spend a fiver on a box of screws. That it would be a business with a remit to restore and look after Victoria Pier, rather than make a profit for its shareholders, is by the by. If we’re to go down this public ownership route, it seems vital to me to have a very robust legal mechanism that isn’t going to cause trouble every two minutes!
We already have a pseudo-trust called “Friends of the Pier” – where the Chairman, Cllr Chris Hughes, refuses to call an AGM, communicate with the Secretary, or sign any cheques. No point in having another of those, is there?!
Of course, one valid criticism of this idea is that a PLC’s profits are taxable, and a Trust’s are not… however, I seriously doubt the PLC would ever make a profit – certainly not for the foreseeable future. Just as with a Trust, the company could be structured in a way that is wasn’t actually allowed to make a profit, as such… that is to say that all profits should be maintained for the long-term maintenance of the Pier, rather than paid out in dividends to the shareholders. So, I don’t really think tax liability is anything to worry about. If it ever does make a taxable profit, it can only mean that the Pier doesn’t not need another single penny spending on it, and that can only be a good thing surely!
As to who would own the Pier, yes, the PLC would own it – that’s the whole point of the discussion isn’t it? – loads of people have suddenly decided they want to collectively own Victoria Pier!
The PLC could either buy it from me, or I could hold shares in lieu of my contribution thus far, or I’d give a Director’s loan, or whatever… there are plenty of proper legal ways to sort that detail out to protect each party’s interest. I would certainly be happy to delay payment to me until such times as the Pier was restored, to save you asking the question.
Obviously I need my investment back at some point in the future to carry on with my life elsewhere, if it is not to be in Colwyn Bay! – but I also passionately want to see the Pier restored, so I would certainly agree that initial monies raised should be spent on emergency repairs, and then on getting the Pier open and trading again, then on restoration, and finally on buying me out or paying me off or whatever you want to call it… But just like you and everyone else, I too have to pay for my groceries!
As for control, the board of directors needs to have certain skills and knowledge obviously. I would say in particular you need people with skills/knowledge of Tourism, Historic Buildings, Marketing & PR as well as the usual Financial and Legal expertise required for such an enterprise.
I would not like to see tens of thousands of pounds spent on endless consultants reports done by people who have never even run a car-boot stall, never mind a real business, in their entire lives… A roof that doesn’t leak is what she needs, not a glossy report telling us that if we fixed the roof we might see an upwardly mobile increase in the mean visitor demographic – or some such twaddle. The Pier needs restoring, we can all see that, it does not need any consultant to be paid to tell us!
Were it to go down this route, I would like to think that it would be possible to find voluntary directors – but that may not be practical due to the time commitment required. Once it is fully restored and running, then obviously their role becomes more along the lines of custodian, as it were, which is perhaps not so time consuming.
Were this all to work out, if I was to “relinquish control” (or however you wish to phrase it) then it would be with some conditions to ensure my reasons for buying the Pier in the first place are fulfilled, such as:
That the Pier could never be reduced in size, though could be increased if required for more commercial space, or to build a landing stage for boats etc.
The the Pier itself should maintain its Victorian style – IE the original cast iron railings should be retained and missing ones reproduced to match.
That the Pavilion be fully restored to its original state, including restoration of the Murals in the Ballroom etc. The Murals are internationally important works of art, and it was always my intention to give them to the Nation in some way for their long-term protection and preservation as and when they are uncovered.
I don’t think any of these conditions are too onerous, indeed all result in a restored Pier, which is what people want?
Also I’d pre-approve the demolition of the entrance building, and the construction of whatever other buildings are deemed necessary to give the Pier a viable long-term future, so long as they are nice buildings, not UPVC mock-Victoriana junk!… I think any new buildings should be either a perfect recreation of the originals to be historically correct, or of Art Deco design to compliment the restored Pavilion, or high quality and innovative modern structures – which was the spirit of the Pier and buildings at the time each was built. Lots of options. My personal preference would be for Art Deco – simply because I’m a fan of that style… but any of the three would sit well with the Pier as explained. It would be wonderful to recreate the original pineapple-roofed entrance kiosks!
So there we are – I hope that explains the idea a bit more?
So then, how many £1 shares would you like to buy?
I think the pier should go. It is past its era and those that would hang on to the idea of its restoration do so out of nostalga. I have lived in Colwyn Bay for 8 years and have seen no change in the state of the pier. I have heard lots of lofty arguements to keep it, from people that have never really galvanised them selves into real fundraising action. You who all attended the public meeting could have started a restoration fund on the night. £10 per head would happily have raised £4000, £100 a head £40000 and £1000 would raise £400000 a drop in the ocean to what is required. I have been a town councillor for 4 years and have on numerous occassions pointed out that public money can not fund private projects. I represent Dinerth ward, at least until the next election at which point I will re-state my views and probably be voted out in favour of someone who will no doubt promise you the world. Colwyn Bay for me is a little bit more than a chunk of scrap iron on the coast. Colwyn Bay is about the things we do well, like Colwyn in Bloom and small well run businesses riding out the storm of economic chaos. The preservation of our identity should not in my opinion sit in the shadow of the pier. My wife thinks we should find £5000000 and restore the pier. I still love her.