REGENERATION FUNDS STATION FORECOURT/VICTORIA PIER

The meeting the Council refer to is the one I had to gate-crash on 23rd April 2009, as the Council stated I was specifically NOT to be invited to the meeting (a document came into my possession with all the details on)...

Funny how they try to twist things around in the public eye isn't it? I told the Council that I was more than happy to consider ANY ideas for development of the pier, however radical, including proposals that might involve selling or leasing all or part of it, or turning it into a charitable trust, or working within a public/private funding initiative type of scheme etc. etc. This has always been the case since December 2003 when I purchased it.

HOWEVER, to this very day, the Council has not put one single proposal to me in any shape or form whatsoever.

I read with interest the issue re funding - Steve you mention the council has not made you any offers but don't actually say if you have made any offers to them?
As the owner of Pier I think the onus is more on you than them.

The bigger issue here as I see it is about 'using' and 'visiting'. People use the train station surprising enough to catch a train to go somewhere, and they use the taxi business to get a taxi somewhere.

It doesn't really matter what the station fore court looks like, and any cosmetic improvements will not increase or encourage people to use trains or taxies more than then do already, so no extra custom for the businesses, it will just look nicer for the public and benefit the area as a whole.

People however don't use the Pier, people visit it, and the better it looks the more enticing it will be and more people will visit it and have a drink or a meal etc - thereby increasing the profits of the owner, which from what I can gather from the information provided by the council, is not permitted under the funding rules. I would object (and I think so would most people) to public funds being spent on improvements to businesses that is really the responsibility of business owners. Steve you as the owner of the Pier is not looking at this objectively, for understandable reasons.

Joe Mac,

So I presume you think that Improving the surroundings of The Railway Station Forecourt and Taxi Rank is NOT down to those as individual businesses then? As far as improving business goes, Do you honestly think that once the work has been carried out people will not think 'Oh dosen't the station look nice now lets have a stroll down and get the train into Llandudno instead of driving or lets go and sit and wait for a taxi now the Taxi Rank has been smartened up instead of standing at the bus stop for hours waiting for a bus'? therefore bringing more profits to these companies.. The reason I made my FOI request was as basically to see why money cant be spent improving the front/ around the pier area as is being done re the station forecourt(as the council say it will not benefit the station therefore the same work on the pier would not benefit the pier) As a resident the same as me which one do you think needs doing more and would be of Profit to Colwyn Bay more???? and as you say people already go to the Station/Taxi Rank anyway, so would you not sugguest this as a waste of money imroving it????

Joe Mac,

Yes, I have told the Council on numerous occassions that I am more than happy to consider ANY proposals from them, national bodies (such as the Welsh Assembly) or even other businesses for ways in which to develop the pier.

On the meeting of 23rd April 2009 I Gate-Crashed that the Council called to discuss the future of the pier (to which the Council specifically instructed I should NOT be invited), I again stated I was more than happy to consider looking at Charitable status funding, Public/Private Funding Initiatives, Leasing, Selling, Equity Share, whatever (though I don't especially want to sell it, I would consider it if I thought the potential buyer had a good proposal).

I followed up the meeting with emails confirming my feelings to Shane Wetton (the Baylife/Regeneration Coordinator) and Bethan Jones (who was acting Chief Exec of the Council at the time) - but neither even had the common decency to reply... that kind of sums up the arrogance and indeed ignorance of these people.

As regards the argument of spending money on the Station / Taxi Ranks but NOT the Pier, it is exactly the same argument for all properties - all are privately owned businesses, all need improvement, and all would undoubtedly benefit from that improvement. Of course public money shouldn't be spent on directly making private businesses more profitable, but then again the Government have given £3,000 of YOUR money to the Banks!

If we go by your own argument, spending public money on repairing bracing struts underneath the Pier, for example, isn't going to make people strolling along the prom suddenly decide to buy a meal or put 10p in a slot machine is it?

There is no difference whatsoever in the principle of spending money to improve the "visual aspect" of any of the properties mentioned above. The ONLY difference is the internal politics, self-interest and corruption within CCBC.

Hi Steve, we will have to agree to disagree I think. You are not looking at the issues objectively possibly for understandable reasons as I have said before. You come across as a wee bit angry which I do not think is helpful and because of that anger I think the advice that you are giving to Mr Hall with this request and in the many others that have appeared of late, is clouded and very suspect indeed, and hardly correct. Derogatory comments about councils don't bode well, councils by their nature are sadly, but rightly beaucratic, they move slowly and it is difficult for them to single out and work to the detriment of any one individual, which is kind of what you are suggesting, forgive me if I am wrong. It sounds like you are engaging or have engaged on a one man crusade, or may be a two man crusade with Mr Hall but quite why he should be so interested in trying to find out why public monies have not been spent on the Pier begs another question. I can see why it hasn't from the funding steams that have been mentioned, maybe energy could be put to better use by investigating what other, maybe more appropriate funding streams could be explored. I have some contacts over the border and will make some enquiries but any funding available might not be accessible in wales without the assembly being involved.

Having read the discussion here with interest (and the plethora of FOI requests), I think that it's a shame that the fate of the pier itself has become almost an afterthought!

Let's look at the reality of the situation - the pier itself is in a desperate state. Once Mr Hunt regains control of the pier, one simple question needs to be asked:

Can Mr Hunt obtain the funding to carry out a restoration privately? If he can, then fine. If he can't (and he needs to be realistic about this - where is the £xmillion going to come from) then what is the plan going forward?

If we're realistic, only a charitable trust will have the ability to to obtain that sort of money via grant funding to get the work done. Saltburn Pier, for example, received £1.2m from the Heritage Lottery Fund, Yarmouth (IOW) got £350,000...so it can be done.

Unless major money is found from somewhere for the pier in the next 3-5 years, then I think it could be all over for the pier..and no-one in Colwyn Bay wants to see that.

Joe Mac,

The reason I am so interested in the subject is that as a resident of the Bay, I like to know what I pay in tax is actually being spent on and think that it should be spent on things that need doing as opposed to what does not, after all it is MY money the council is spending ( I know this FOI request is about regeneration funds but you get my point) I also think that the council should do everything it can to help out the current pier owner as The Pier is the biggest landmark in the Town and Improving it would significantly improve trade and tourism in the area do you not think?? Perhaps it begs ANOTHER question as to why you are so interested as to annotate my requests??

Joe Mac,

Also you mention Mr Hunt being on a 'Crusade' against the Council, do you not think that it could be that the council are indeed the ones on a 'Crusade' against Mr. Hunt? Just take this site of one of the many instances i know of by looking at how fast myself and other peoples FOI requests are answered by the council compared to those made by Mr.Hunt, which are rarely answered until the latest possible date if at all, I remind you that in not answering these requests that mine and your local council is actually BREAKING the law.

Mr Hall, with respect I would point out that I was not annotating your requests as such, merely responding to comments made by Mr Hunt. You up until now have had nothing to annotate yourself, but for some reason feel entitled to slate my comments, which along with those of G Davies are intended to try and change the thinking around the issues regarding the pier and offer something constructive by way of me making enquiries with colleagues. Some people actually do achieve some results, but there are those who just appear to complain which achieves little. I have experience of funding issues at national level, but hey maybe I will leave you both to it. Good luck.

Joe Mac,

With respect I was not slating your comments just putting across my point of view, You seemed to question why I was so interested in The Pier and I explained why.............. If you have experience of funding do you not think it would be better to discuss with Mr Hunt In person- try and arrange a meeting etc than just talk about it on a website?

Joe Mac,

You asked the question if I had discussions with the Council about various ways of funding the Pier restoration, and I replied that yes I had, and that I am, and always have been, open to ANY suggestions. I am well aware of how other pier projects have been funded by Lottery etc., indeed I am trustee of a charity well down the route to obtaining £4m for restoration of a theatre in England. As you know, the options in England are different from those in Wales, but it still can be done. So I fail to see where we need to "agree to disagree"?

As for me being angry, if you had been treated the way I have, then I suggest you would be angry too. What angers me more is when the Council continue to break the Law (as you can see on this site they continue to do in front of you very eyes) in order to try to cover up their wrong-doings.

This week I am publishing all the Councils OWN documents on the pier website that prove beyond any doubt how they knowingly lied to the Courts in order to make me bankrupt, how they deliberately altered computer records, how they concealed money THEY owe ME etc. Could I suggest before you pre-judge me again, you read all of the documentary evidence for yourself and then re-think?

Gareth Davies:

As you know, the Welsh Assembly has revealed it has a large pot of money (up to £10m I understand) with which it is prepared to make 'special case grant funding' available to restore the Pier, providing it fulfils the relevant criteria of course. This is available even with the Pier being owned privately. Quite obviously the WA are not just going to write me a cheque, there will be lots of terms and conditions etc., but to answer your question, YES, the funding IS available to restore the pier.

With the WA funds on the table, other funds may also be available as match funding to the WA funds. Depending on what exactly is done with the pier, this could come from any number of bodies who fund particular areas - Tourism for example, or from a Job Creation angle, or Heritage etc.

You are correct that it is not easy to attract large funding for projects in private ownership. The Heritage Lottery Fund is one that will not fund privately owned buildings, but they WILL fund a building on a lease from a private owner, so long as the lease is at least 25 years, or 35 years for big projects (this is what we are looking at with the theatre project I'm involved with). Having said all that, there are also several developers who have track records of Urban Regeneration projects which work with public and private funds which achieve some amazing projects on often difficult to develop sites. Perhaps the best known of these developers is Urban Splash, who I am sure you have heard of.

I reiterate again that I am more than happy to discuss ANY way of getting the job done. What you must remember is that when no-one else in the country wanted to buy the Pier, I was the one who came along with my own hard-earned cash and bought it! - I'm not after a medal, just trying to make the point that in 2003 no-one else was prepared to put a penny into trying to save the pier apart from me.

The WA have now said they recognise the importance of the pier not only as a listed building, but its importance to the town too, and are therefore prepared to support its restoration financially. As soon as I am in the legal position to be able to do so, I shall be on their doorstep for a meeting!

However, the Council still do not want to join the party, despite my many offers. You will see when I publish documents where I have offered to have meetings with the Council to try and find a way forward, and where the Council Leader himself said my offer "was not worthy of a response" - that rather neatly sums the Council up.

Dear Mr Hall

I am angered and disgusted that clearly great amounts of tax payers money has been pumped into a campaign against the pier owner as you are also.

Station road looks very nice with its newly laid surface, however the empty properties are unsightly, as is the pier, and the money the council have decided to 'invest' into bankrupting the pier could have gone to much better use.

I operate as a freelance designer in Colwyn Bay and am ashamed to admit that I voted the current council in.
I feel too much money is being wasted on aesthetics with these half thought-out 'redevelopment' schemes and not enough on getting commerce flowing again in Colwyn Bay.

Real business incentives would see longevity in the redevelopment in Colwyn Bay, and this can only be achieved by the council SUPPORTING local businesses and attractions, and not wasting funds on shutting them down.

I feel very strongly about this as previously living in Cheshire, I have seen first hand how business incentives have paved the way for sustainable regeneration, and that our council's approach will be yet another unsuccessful plan, as the town does not have a clearly defined role.

If Mr Hunt can obtain the funding from the WA, not only would an important asset in Colwyn Bay's heritage be saved, but the possible jobs generated (or indeed safeguarded) in the restoration, and long term operation of this structure can only be a good thing.

However, the pier went into decline for a reason - I strongly believe that its role must change to ensure its long-term future. There has been a notable increase in watersports in the bay in the past 15 years, maybe the future of the pier could lie with some form of sea-sports centre?

Alas I fear the future is not bright. More money will be pumped into pretty gardens and expensive ornate lighting, and nothing on attracting commerce nor tourism. It is clear from the article on the front of last week's Pioneer that there seems to be some absurd idea to remove the pier and replace it with some sort of posh restaurant circulating. This fears me greatly - I'm sure a pretty circular restaurant would be more attractive ON the pier, rather IN PLACE of it...