Regular readers of this blog will know that I have been heavily involved in the tortuous recent history of Colwyn Bay’s Victoria Pier. If you’re not up to speed on the issue, I suggest that you use the search facility in the top corner.
My blog postings have become increasingly infrequent over the past couple of years, largely because my workload is now such that what passes for my spare time is chiefly occupied in sleep; my life has become what my grandmother used to call “bed and work”. However, since there have been significant and worrying developments in the pier saga over the last couple of weeks, I felt it appropriate to take advantage of the Easter break to compose this post.
The first piece of news broke last week. Readers will recall that the trustees in the bankruptcy of Mr Steve Hunt, the former owner of the pier, disclaimed their trust last August. As a consequence, the pier (to short-circuit the legal intricacies of the process considerably) fell into the ownership of the Crown Estate. Last week, Conwy County Council announced that it had purchased the pier from the Welsh Assembly Government, which it had itself just acquired it from the Estate. The purchase price is understood to be around £36,000.
Hard on the heels of that announcement came the news, three days ago, that the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) had turned down an application by Conwy for a grant of £4.9 million toward the cost of restoration of the pier. In a press release, the head of HLF Wales said:
“This month’s HLF Board meeting was very over-subscribed. The quality of bids was exceptionally high and, regretfully, we just didn’t have enough money to support all the applications we looked at on the day. We will be meeting with representatives from the Council shortly to discuss the best way forward for their project.”
The consequence of these two developments is that Conwy now owns a listed building in the most appalling state of disrepair that is disfiguring the seafront of Colwyn Bay. It hasn’t a penny to repair it, but does have an obligation, given the pier’s listed status, to restore it. The cost of restoration is now probably north of £10 million. To demolish it would probably cost around £1 million, but to do that the council would require listed building consent, which would take time, during which the pier would have to be repaired.
The liability for all this cost falls on the council taxpayers of Conwy county, who are already reeling after another substantial tax increase this year. It is a dreadful state of affairs that could have been entirely avoided if the issue had been properly handled by the council.
Readers will probably know that the council has been in dispute for some years with Mr Steve Hunt, who contends that he was wrongly bankrupted for non-payment of business rates. That issue is, essentially, a legal matter between Mr Hunt and the council.
Mr Hunt is not the most user-friendly person in the world (as even he would probably acknowledge) and the manner in which he has tended to express himself has sometimes been unfortunate. It has probably cost him some friends in the council, if he ever had any. He considers, however, that he has justifiable cause to feel aggrieved by the council’s conduct. That may well be the case, but, since it is the subject of litigation, it would not be proper for me to comment further.
I do, however, now feel it proper to acquaint readers with my concerns over the council’s handling of this issue.
My overriding objective in connection with the pier has been to try to judge the mood of the people of Colwyn Bay and to ensure that it is properly represented. To that end, I held two public meetings in 2010, at which the issue of the pier was fully discussed, and formed the firm opinion that there was a considerable desire within the town to see the pier restored if at all possible. This was not by any means a universal view; the well-respected Colwyn Bay Civic Society, for example, considered that the pier had had its day and should be demolished. That remains the Society’s position.
Nevertheless, given that the majority of those who attended the meeting, and who wrote separately to me, clearly wanted to see the pier restored, I pressed for the council to engage with Mr Hunt and his trustee in bankruptcy. I took the view that it was neither proper nor realistic for Conwy to try to behave as if Mr Hunt didn’t exist.
It was clear to me, however, that Conwy didn’t want to speak to Mr Hunt. At a personal level, this was perhaps understandable, given the less than complimentary terms in which Mr Hunt had spoken and written about council members and officials. However, it was equally clear that there would be no progress unless and until some constructive discussions took place. For that to happen, people would have to put personal issues aside.
It was not until April of the following year that I managed to set up a meeting, which took place at my office and was attended by a senior councillor, senior council officers and Mr Hunt himself. I privately considered it a remarkable achievement to get them all to sit in the same room.
The question of the HLF bid was discussed. It was clear that Mr Hunt, as a private individual, would not qualify for funding. The council’s preference was for a not-for-profit company, Shore Thing, to lead the funding bid, supported by the council itself. To do so, the council would need to have legal title to the pier, although Shore Thing would probably need a lease.
I expressed concern about the wisdom of the council’s acquiring the pier, given its condition, without an assurance that the HLF would make funding available. The cost of restoration would be enormous and it would be folly to take on the liability otherwise.
As a suggestion to progress the issue, I proposed:
-
that the trustees in bankruptcy be invited to restore ownership to Mr Hunt;
-
that Mr Hunt agree to enter into a commercial lease to the council for, say, 125 years;
-
that the council simultaneously agree to grant an underlease to Shore Thing for, say, 25 years;
-
that Shore Thing proceed with the HLF grant application, supported by the council;
-
that the agreements for both the lease and underlease be conditional upon the success of the HLF bid; if it was rejected, neither would proceed and would become nullities.
That, it seemed to me, was a way of progressing the matter without exposing Conwy to financial liability. The terms of the lease and underlease would, of course, have to be negotiated and would have to be watertight, but the council had excellent in-house legal advice available to it.
Everyone present at the meeting seemed to think that the proposal was sensible, including the councillor. It was understood that there would be further discussions between the parties and that the council should take advice from the District Valuer as to the proper level of rent. Those were commercial considerations, not issues for politicians, and should be dealt with separately.
I was reasonably cheered by the outcome of the meeting and briefly blogged about it. At last, it seemed, people were parking their personal differences and concentrating on the principal issue.
A few weeks later, I attended another meeting at Conwy’s offices in Llandudno Junction. Mr Hunt was again present, but the councillor who attended the meeting at my office had been replaced by a cabinet member. I was hugely disappointed by both the lack of progress since the previous meeting and the attitude of the cabinet member, which was, frankly, negative in the extreme. He made it clear that he would not deal with Mr Hunt and that he took exception to “what he’s said about me”. The council, he said, would not enter into an agreement for a lease, but would seek to acquire the pier directly. I understood that Mr Hunt had in fact proposed three options for leases for the council to consider, but the councillor was apparently prepared to entertain none of them.
I told the councillor that I was very disappointed and that I felt that the course he was proposing to follow was dangerous and would put council taxpayers’ money at risk. An altercation developed between Mr Hunt and the councillor; the councillor then left the meeting before it had formally concluded. I was dismayed by his apparent inability to separate personal and business considerations.
The council’s acquisition of the pier and its failure to secure HLF funding are, for the reasons set out above, a very serious matter. The council has handled the issue poorly and now needs to concentrate all its efforts on working up a stronger bid for HLF funding. The line it has put out to the press (“It is not a case of now or never”) seems, frankly, complacent and lacks the sense of urgency one might expect.
Yes, this is a very serious matter; not only for the people of Colwyn Bay, but also for the people of the entire county of Conwy, who now find themselves the involuntary owners of an enormous and depreciating negative asset without the means to restore it.
I have already contacted the council’s chief executive and propose to meet him soon to discuss the way forward. I am anxious to do all I can to help rescue the HLF bid. And there are a lot of other local people who, I am sure, would be equally pleased to help. The council should be speaking to them, too.
Not only do we need the HLF money, we need another £5 million or so on top, in order to restore the pier. We need to consider where that is to come from. We also need to talk about the attractions that will be located on the pier and whether they will produce a sufficient income stream to maintain it. Everyone with a sensible proposal for a sustainable future for the pier should be invited to come forward and have his or her say.
And, most importantly, we need to ensure that all this is done in public. No more closed meetings with press and public excluded, which have been the council’s modus operandi hitherto. This is one of the biggest issues in Conwy and it is essential that we all know what’s going on.
With a bit of maturity and sense of purpose, something good, even wonderful, may yet come out of this miserable episode. But the ball is now firmly in Conwy’s court. Let’s hope that their past performance is not an indication of things to come.
