An early morning, insomnia-induced, trawl through the published minutes of Conwy County Borough Council relating to Colwyn Bay’s Victoria Pier has provided interesting reading.
I have no doubt, however, that the exercise would have proven considerably more illuminating had the material not been so lavishly “restricted” (i.e. censored) by the council pursuant to paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The 1972 Act provides, in essence, that the public and press may be excluded from council meetings whenever it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that “exempt information” will be disclosed. Paragraph 14 provides that among the categories of information that may be “exempt” is:
information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
Given that Conwy has invoked paragraph 14 in connection with most of its deliberations relating to the pier, we can only guess what transpired during many of the ten full council, cabinet and committee meetings at which the issue was discussed.
However, the minutes of the special meeting of the full council held on 8 June, 2011, record the following (edited, with my italics):
“The Leader presented a report in relation to the current position of Colwyn Bay Pier and the options available to the Council…
“Following a request at Cabinet on 24 May 2011, additional information in relation to costings and risk assessments were presented to Council.
“Members discussed the options available in great detail and agreed to endorse Option 3 (seek to acquire freehold).
“Concern was raised with regard to the Council’s Capital Programme and the need to provide opportunities for other areas of the County Borough, other than the Baylife+ Regeneration Area. It was therefore agreed that the restoration of the Pier should only be funded through external grants.
“RESOLVED-
“(a) That Option 3 (seek to acquire freehold) of the report be approved…
“(e) That the Council expects the renovation of Colwyn Bay Pier to be funded from external grants and does not therefore anticipate any call on the Council’s capital programme for that purpose.”
In retrospect, given the events of this week, the expectation recorded in sub-paragraph (e) would appear to have been somewhat over-optimistic, not to say cavalier. It calls further into question the wisdom of completing the purchase of the freehold without confirmation of grant funding.
On 15 November, 2011, the council cabinet met to consider a report on the progress being made in preparing detailed proposals and funding applications for the restoration and development of the pier. The minutes record (again edited, with my italics):
“Members considered the risks to the Council once the Pier had been acquired and the contingency plans if the proposals failed.
“The Business Plan and Profit and Loss Projections were discussed in detail and it was felt by some Members that the Business Plan was over ambitious and the following concerns were highlighted:
“Income in relation to the footfall particularly in relation to the catering and bar functions
“Expenditure in relation to Staffing Costs…
“There was also concern in relation to the reputational risk to the Council, and in response the Chief Executive provided Members with details of the key trigger points and the phased programme of action options that could be progressed based on the degree of funding success. The Chief Executive confirmed that final approval [of the Business Plan] would be dependent on all funding packages being in place.
“Members acknowledged that the Business Plan was the basis for the proposals and that more detailed plans would be required if HLF supported the initial application.”
Indeed, it would appear that the proposals reflected in the business plan were considered so over-ambitious that two senior councillors, Philip Evans and Graham Rees, voted against the resolution approved by the cabinet that they “form the basis of partnership grant applications, led by Conwy County Borough Council to the Heritage Lottery Fund, Convergence and others so as to realise these proposals”. It must also be wondered why it was apparently considered unnecessary to work up more detailed plans before submitting the bid to the HLF.
I have previously expressed my concern that the council’s discussions on such an important issue were conducted in private, without scrutiny by public or press. The above extracts from the restricted minutes, I feel, justify that concern.
Certainly, given that the pier has now been acquired, the issue of commercial sensitivity would appear no longer relevant, and it would be appropriate for the council to publish in full the minutes of the meeting of 8 June, 2011, and the background documents considered. People have a right to know why the council made the decision it did, and what led it to “expect the renovation of Colwyn Bay Pier to be funded from external grants” and not to “anticipate any call on the Council’s capital programme for that purpose”.
Before the HLF funding bid is resubmitted, it will be highly desirable to obtain a strong degree of input from the public. The publication of the minutes and the background documents will be invaluable for such purpose and to inform the debate that I believe is essential. I have no doubt that it will also prove helpful to Shore Thing and the council itself.
Finally, a new council will be elected on 3 May. Given the experience over the pier, electors will very probably consider that they have a right to a significantly improved level of transparency. I do hope that the new councillors will ensure that that is what is provided.
