Victoria Pier Colwyn Bay Costs and Details of Structural Survey

Conwy County Borough Council,

In relation to the structural survey you have ordered on Victoria
Pier, Colwyn Bay, (hereinafter "the pier") as variously reported in
the local media (see front page of North Wales Weekly News 4th
March 2010 edition), and as also reported to David Jones, MP in a
meeting between your Chief Executive and David Jones, MP, I require
the following information:

1) Who at, or what department of, CCBC decided that a structural
survey should be carried out on the pier, and was that decision
made by reference to policy, reference to law, a devolved power to
an officer, a decision of committee or other. (if other please
explain who or what)
I also require a copy of the policy, written decision of the
committee or similar clearly setting out how the decision was made.
If such decision was made by direction of statute law, then it is
sufficient for you to reference the relevant part of said statute.

2) Who is carrying out the survey, and how were they chosen (IE
formal tender process etc.?) In the event that the survey was put
out to tender, please advise where the opportunity to tender was
advertised, include a copy of the advertisements(s) and tell me how
many tenders were offered for the contract.
In the event that some other process was used to determine who was
most suitable to carry out the survey, please explain the process
of choice used, and how "best value" is demonstrated to the Council
in the process used to choose the particular person or firm that
was awarded the contract to perform the structural survey on the
pier.

3) What is the full cost (including all disbursements, VAT etc.)
estimated or quoted or invoiced for the survey. I appreciate that
the final invoice may not have been received at the time you
process this request - therefore it is acceptable at present to
provide the sum quoted upon which the contract to carry out the
survey was granted to the surveyor, and provide the final account
as and when it is received. THIS DOES NOT ALTER OR INTERFERE WITH
YOUR OBLIGATION IN LAW TO ANSWER ALL OTHER POINTS OF THIS REQUEST
PROMPTLY.

4) What is the scope of the survey? - a copy of the brief to the
surveyor will suffice in response to this particular part of the
request for information.

5) How does the Council intend to pay for the cost of the survey?
In the newspaper article referenced above the Council is quoted as
having: "stepped in to pay for a structural survey".
However, I can find no relevant piece of legislation under which
the Council could currently legitimately pay for such a survey.
Neither can I find any reference to a suitable policy of the
Council being in existence that covers such an eventuality.
Naturally, I am assuming the Chief Executive of CCBC would not
instruct his officers to commit an act that was against the law.
Therefore, I am assuming my searches have simply missed the
relevant piece of law or policy, so please provide a copy of the
information you evidently hold wherein a legitimate means for the
Council to spend money on a property that it does not own, does not
have any interest in, or control of, nor any intention of gaining
any such interest or control, is fully detailed, especially given
the fact that law and policy already provides adequate remedy for,
and indeed an obligation to, the Council to enforce the legal owner
of the pier (who is as you fully acknowledge currently "Royce
Peeling Green" which is a solvent trading company worth over
£3,000,000 according to its most recently filed accounts) to carry
out both the survey and any resultant repairs required to bring the
pier into a safe and stable state of preservation.

6) A full copy of the survey and any associated specialist reports,
recommendations etc. arriving from it within 24 hours of it being
delivered to the Council in the event that it has not already been
delivered at the time you respond to the other points in this
request.

7) Information on what immediate and intermediate measures the
Council is taking to ensure the public cannot gain access to areas
beneath the pier where they may be subject to danger from anything
falling from the pier - given that the Council has been informed,
in writing, numerous times, by numerous people of the potential
dangers.

8) A copy of the latest risk assessment carried out by or on behalf
of the Council with regard to the pier - or if no such risk
assessment has been carried out, the reason why no such risk
assessment has been carried out.

NB: In the likelihood you will attempt to use "Commercial
Sensitivity" as an excuse for withholding some or all of this
information, I wish to make it quite clear that I am NOT asking
for, nor do I require at present, the names and values of any
unsuccessful tenders. All details of the successful tender will be
discoverable once the survey is furnished to the Council and in the
forthcoming published accounts of the Council - therefore, de
facto, it cannot be in any way considered to be "Commercially
Sensitive Information".

I await your prompt reply with great interest, as indeed do many
others.

Steve Hunt

Mr Smith,

As usual, you have failed to fully answer my request, and the
responses you have made throw up more anomolies.

I refer to each of your responses in turn by reference to the
original paragraph numbers:

1) The Local Government Act 2000 section 2 does NOT give the
Council carte blanche to do whatever it likes with public money as
you seems to think. You seem to have forgotten to read section 3(1)
of said Act, which prohibits the Council from incurring such
expenditure by reference to various other Laws and principles.

Section 76 of the Buildings Act 1984 states that the Council should
serve notice on the owner of the Building: You have previously
confirmed the Council has served no such Notice. If you were lying
previously, then please now provide a copy of that Notice.

Section 77 of the Buildings Act 1984 deals with the Council taking
action at the Magistrates Court - please provide a copy of the
order drawn up by the Magistrates Court, or if the Council did not
use section 77, please state this to be the case.

Section 78 of the Buildings Act 1984 deals with emergency works.
Clearly you do not think the works are "emergency", since you
commissioned a report in October 2009 indentifying works that
should be carried out, and some 6 months later, no such works have
been carried out. 6 months is adequate time to have served notice
on the legal owners of the pier, so again please provide a copy of
the notice served.

Your reponse has NOT answered part 1 of my request - since the
Local Government Act 2000 does not apply, and you have failed to
provide any evidence that you have operated under section 76-78 of
the Buildings Act 1984, as you have not served any notices, taken
any action in the Magistrates Court, or carried out any emergency
works.

Please provide the information requested.

----------------------------

2) You have failed to inform me: where the opportunity to tender
was advertised, copies of those advertisements, how many tenders
were received. Please provide this information.

----------------------------

3) Please provide the sum quoted on which the contract was awarded,
as per my request.

----------------------------

4) This seems rather short to be a copy of the survey brief?

----------------------------

5) The Local Government Act 2000 does NOT provide a means for the
Council to pay for the survey and any subsequent works, due to the
provisions of section 3(1) of the Act.

Provisions are made in the Buildings Act 1984 for the Council to
recover costs from RPG (the legal owner), so please confirm that
you HAVE recovered the previous costs from RPG incurred by the
Council on the initial report and small amount of works carried out
in October 2009, and that the Council WILL be recovering costs from
RPG for the survey currently in progress and any works arising
from.

If the Council had not recovered costs from RPG, and does not
intend to recover costs in the future from RPG, please explain why,
and under what law the Council believes it is correct in its
actions.

All this information is required to satisfy my original request for
information on the method the Council is using to pay these costs.

-----------------------------

6) Accepted that the Survey is not yet ready.

-----------------------------

7) You have previously quoted sections 76-78 of the Buildings Act,
which gives the powers to the Council to carry out works and then
recover costs from RPG as the reason why the Council is incurring
costs on a survey. Now you are saying the responsibility is on RPG,
not the Council. The two statements are contradictory. Furthermore,
you have stated that no notices or orders have been served on RPG
to carry out any remedial works. Please clarify.

-----------------------------

8) The Council has a duty to ensure Public Safety. Given that no
risk assessment has been carried out, how then has the Council
determined that the pier is unsafe? Please provide a copy of the
information that has been used in determining the safety of the
pier in the alternate to a risk assessment. "Risk Assessment" was
meant to mean whatever assessment of the risk has been made, rather
than a specific document entitled "risk assessment" - perhaps I
should have made that more clear in my original request.

----------------------------

You are reminded of the original timescale of my FOI request.

Please acknowledge receipt of email, and indicate when you will be
providing the information to satisfy my request.

Steve Hunt

Dear Info Regs Unit/Uned.Rheol-Gwyb,

You have FAILED to provide the information requested, as always.

I demand an internal review of your deliberate refusal to supply
the information requested, and I demand that you now release the
information requested on 23rd March 2010 without further delay. You
are in breach of the law yet again.

Take note that your most recent response has NOT provided the
information requested in part 1 of this request; you have still not
stated who decided to carry out the survey. All you have done is
confirm that you have NOT complied with the Building Act.

Furthermore, you have NOT addressed any of the other clarification
points in my letter of 22nd April 2010, and all of those parts of
the information request remain outstanding.

Your deliberate belligerence is yet again noted, and yet another
formal complaint will also be made to the ICO due to your
consistent, deliberate, breaking of the law.

Steve Hunt

I shall await Monday's excuse with interest then...

Steve Hunt

Mr Smith,

You DELIBERATELY contrive to hide the truth, as per usual. Why do
you think you can constantly BREAK THE LAW?

You have REFUSED to supply the information requested, despite
numerous reminders and clarifications.

The more you try to hide the truth from people, the more people
realise just how corrupt you all are. You only incriminate yourself
further and further - quite funny really.

Naturally yet another complaint will be made to the ICO.

Steve Hunt