PENARTH TOWN COUNCIL BACKS ‘PACL’ IN PIER PAVILION CLOSURE ROW

The doors of Penarth Pier Pavilion now remain locked on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The Pavilion Cinema is completely closed. The Pavilion’s restoration in 2013 cost £4,200,000 in public money.

In an almost unanimous vote, Penarth Town Council’s policy and finance committee  last night passed a motion of ‘support’ for Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd [a.k.a. ‘PACL’] , the struggling not-for-profit company/”charity” which holds a 125-year lease on Penarth Pier Pavilion and its integral 68-seat Pavilion Cinema.

The councillors’ vote came at the end of a difficult month for PACL – which had come under heavy criticism  after announcing that it would be – as from March 6th – closing Penarth Pier Pavilion for 3 days a week – and shutting-down the Pavilion Cinema completely.

The crowded public meeting in the Pilot Pub Penarth on March 20th, convened by Cllr Philip Rapier (Labour St Augustines) – at which the sudden closure of the Pavilion Cinema was discussed

Two packed public meetings were held in the town on March 20th to discuss the situation, and an on-line petition garnered 1,600 signatures within a week – protesting against the Pavilion Cinema closure .A further public meeting is due to be held at All Saints Church on April 5th organised by local PR executive Nicki Page- who said she had been banned from Penarth Town Council’s HQ at West House.

The Pier, and the Pier Pavilion, are owned by the Vale of Glamorgan Council. Penarth Town Council’s only connection with the Pier Pavilion is that it has a nominated representative on the board of directors of its leaseholders – Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd [PACL] . That representative is currently the Mayor of Penarth, Cllr Mike Cuddy (Labour St Augustines).

Mayor of Penarth Cllr Mike Cuddy (Labour St Augustines) is the council’s representative on the board of the heavily criticised not-for-profit company Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd

Last night, as chairman of the Town Council’s policy and resources committee, Cllr Cuddy raised the issue of Penarth Pier Pavilion informing councillors that a “motion had been advised to him” and he invited the committee to discuss the matter.

Cllr Cuddy explained that people had seen “the discussions by the interested public in the town  – and it behoves, I think, the Town Council to reflect on that –  as the ‘custodian of place’ here”. Despite being a member of the PACL board, Cllr Cuddy said he could participate in the discussion but declared that he would not take part in any vote on the proposed motion of support.

Cllr Gwyn Roberts (Labour St Augustines)

Cllr Gwyn Roberts (Labour St Augustines) who (until he abruptly resigned in February)  was the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s representative on the board of PACL,  said he would be proposing the motion .

Cllr Roberts said “There has been an  awful lot of fuss recently about the closure of the cinema and also that the Pavilion will now only be open four days a week ” . Cllr Roberts said he was no longer a member of the board, so he did not know what the financial position of the company was, but it was “ reasonable to believe”  that PACL was going through a “difficult period” .

[ PDN Note: Cllr Roberts ceased to be  a director on February 6th 2017. In the Pilot public meeting on March 20th, the audience heard that the directors of PACL had not been provided with copies of the PACL management accounts].

Cllr Roberts said “At times like this it is important that we offer our support  to the Pavilion” – and he had therefore written a motion for consideration by the Penarth Town Council’s policu and finance committee. The motion read as follows :-

“Penarth Town Council appreciates the ambition and  work that Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd has undertaken in such a huge task to bring Penarth Pier and Pavilion back into public use. We understand the importance of the Pavilion to  our residents and would like to thank PACL for their on-going hard work and commitment in bringing the Pavilion back to life. During any temporary difficulties PACL may be experiencing, as the Pavilion evolves from an innovative project to a permanent asset, Penarth Town Council will offer its support and do all in its power to keep the Pavilion open for the people of Penarth’s continued pride and enjoyment”

Cllr Roberts said he had seen implied  – or inferred – criticism of PACL,  but he  considered that  the council should “appreciate what a fantastic job they’ve done”. – and reminded members that the Pavilion had been “an eyesore for many, many years”. [i.e: prior to the £4,200,000 restoration in 2013 – which was funded entirely by public money] .

Cllr Ian Courtney (Labour Cornerswell) was also a Town Council representative on the PACL board

Another former town council representative on the PACL board – Cllr Ian Courtney (Labour Cornerswell) – said he wanted to speak in support of Cllr Roberts’s motion. Cllr Courtney said he had attended the public meeting at the Pilot Pub on March 20th which had been held in a very helpful, constructive vein and had been devoid of any  “rancour and rant”. It had also reflected the depth of feeling within the community of Penarth for “this very prized civic asset “. He seconded Cllr Roberts’s motion.

However Cllr Courtney was the only member of the council to raise a caveat about the situation . He said wanted to draw to the attention of councillors to what he called “the depth of the challenges that face PACL – or any subsequent body which happens to run the Pavilion”.  He said it had been a couple of years since he had been a trustee on the board of PACL , but drew the committee’s attention to the Report and Accounts of  Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd [ a.k.a. PACL] for the year up to the 31st of December 2015 in which the PACL trading subsidiary “PPP” ( standing for Penarth Pier Pavilion Ltd)  had reported a loss of over £67,000.

PDN NOTE: It is the PACL subsidiary company – Penarth Pier Pavilion Ltd – which actually operates the Pier Pavilion,  along with  the Pavilion Cafe and the Pavilion Cinema (which has now been closed). PACL’s most recent accounts say that “In the year ending 31 December 2015, the trading subsidiary Penarth Pier Pavilion Limited made a loss of £67,435 and is being supported by the charity. The combined business plan in place for the charity, and its trading arm Penarth Pier Pavilion Limited, forecasts a small surplus for 2016 – but management information to date show the group to be behind budget.” .

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said “I think it’s important that the Town Council does support the continuation of the Pier Pavilion in whatever  format it is likely to take in the future ” . He also thought it important for councillors to support Cllr Roberts’s motion “ to ensure we are doing our duty as a council”.

Cllr Anthony Ernest (Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Anthony Ernest (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said he supported the views expressed by members . One thing that worried him  was that the Town Council was being drawn into the debate – and that the council was, by implication, also being seen as responsible for running the Pavilion.  “Apart from having a trustee on the board [of PACL] we have no other financial implication. The council had a vital interest in the Pavilion but did not have a “controlling interest”.   PACL – he noted – “is a registered charity and  they operate their own system. It’s not a council-run operation” .

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell)

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell) said he had not spoken anywhere about the situation since the Pavilion Cinema had been – temporarily – closed, but he was sure a lot of people had been disappointed.

Cllr Wilson said there had been comments that the cinema had been “in competition” [with the Town Council’s own Live Event Cinema]  . Cllr Wilson said he wished to state “publicly and factually” that the Paget Rooms [the venue of the council’s own Live Event Cinema ] “is not in competition with the Pavilion Cinema“.  He said the council was there to complement and support PACL.  PACL’s charitable status meant it had special obligations, duties and responsibilities to be fulfilled and “restrictive funds” which limited what could be done with them. The public needed to understand it was a complex operation .

Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell)

Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) continued the same theme. He alleged that there had been what he called “misinformation” about Penarth Town Council’s role as far as the Pier Pavilion Cinema was concerned . He said that when the councillors had been looking at setting up the Event Cinema in the first place, they had looked at that time at the requirements of the National Theatre and “part of that was the size of audience  – which the pier were unable to provide “. The Pier Pavilion – he said – was “not a consideration as an Event Cinema”.

Cllr Thomas said the Live Event Cinema had been “complementary” to the Pavilion Cinema and not been in competition with it  – and went on to say that the Pier and Pier Pavilion “are huge assets to the town . They’re recognised as being a major draw for visitors plus a source of  pride for residents”

Cllr Gwyn Roberts said that “contrary to popular belief” Penarth Council had “worked with PACL when setting up the Live Event Theatre – and we only went ahead to do it after PACL had decided  it was not practical. We worked with PACL, we complement them  and PACL were fully aware of it before we did it”

[ PDN Note: For clarification,  PDN is asking Penarth Council to provide historic minutes of any discussion in any council meeting about the suitability or otherwise of the Pavilion Cinema as a venue for the Town Council’s Live Event Cinema. The council’s publicly declared motivation for setting up the Live Event Cinema at the Paget Rooms was to increase the revenue of the council-run Paget Rooms].

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said “The situation is very fluid at the moment obviuosly. The motion that we’ve got before us tonight clearly states the council’s position and I think that’s really where we ought to leave it for the time being. Let’s see what happens on that basis and we can provide support as and when it’s required.”

Cllr Rosemary Cook (Labour St Augustines)

Cllr Rosemary Cook (Labour St Augustines) – who has announced that she will not be standing for re-election in May – said she wanted to place on record her support for Cllr Roberts’s motion.

In an additional comment, Cllr Ian Courtney said  PACL was a registered charity – regulated by the Charities Commission. “It is also a company  limited by guarantee and is therefore governed by legislation as enshrined in the Companies Act 2006. That should not be overlooked” .

The council them proceeded to a vote on the motion which was carried unanimously  – except for the previously-declared abstention by the chairman.

 

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to PENARTH TOWN COUNCIL BACKS ‘PACL’ IN PIER PAVILION CLOSURE ROW

  1. Ann Other says:

    Mr Turner is right: activity on the pier should in principle be supported by the Council but at this point no particular Organisation should be supported, least of all PACL who have, as the explicit warnings In the accounts show (and to which no trustee, even the Council’s representatives on the board, appear to have reacted) have made an pig’s ear of the whole thing from start to finish. The ‘format’ in which the pier services are provided must indeed be left open.

    • Anne do come sos I love ❤️ Penarth outcome orientated meeting Wednesday doors open 6pm stars 7

    • Agree – but how about a new community interest company I love ❤️ Penarth ltd to take over the marketing and positioning of the destination including the Pavilion, the Turner House Gallery, Kymin with the council facility managers dealing with building maintenance, insurance, legal etc . We could do a lot better for destination Penarth I believe – we would look at inward investment opportunities and ensure a joined up accountable tourism strategy to protect and preserve our unique town and assets but also ensure sound business sense prevails. It seems to me Cardiff council wants Penarth under their their jurisdiction, the Vale wants to keep Penarth – we the residents can take certain matters into our own hands and do a better professional job if things are properly re- structured and financed. Thoughts welcome Anne

  2. Jonny says:

    This reeks in my opinion.
    Councillors leave the board and don’t say why, then support the idea PACL has done a “fantastic” job. This is beyond embarrassing.
    At least they’re all showing themselves for what they are which is a joke.

  3. Will says:

    This town is enmeshed in mediocrity.

  4. Robert says:

    Capt. Mainwaring, Sgt Wilson, Privates Pike and Frazer, Lance Corporal Jones…who do you think you’re kidding?
    Maximum respect to Cllr Ian Courtney for refusing to suck up and secure allegiances.

  5. Tom says:

    I see the insertion of the word ‘temporary’ before closure when that hadn’t been mentioned until recently. I expect they’re waiting for it all to die down and the pier cinema to remain closed.
    Never mind boys, you’ve nailed your colours to the mast.

    • Nail your colours Tom and all to the mast at the sos I love ❤️ Penarth pier and pavilion meeting 5 April 6pm doors open for 7 start all saints church and demand a public enquiry – the great and good of our town – over 50 trusted trustees a chair members of the council who were trustees, let the milk spill and no ….we can’t just wipe it up again without knowing how it happened and why was it allowed to continue, without it appears fit for purpose leadership. 4 million plus of public money and 56 pounds on marketing is a little unusual ? It’s unusual not to be allowed to put up sos public meeting flyers in the public buildings – kymin – its usual to have embarrassed volunteers to be told not to allow me in to the pavilion – no management or duty manager or chair available to speak to – not working on the weekend – very unusual in the hospitality industry that I know. Or don’t you agree. .? It gets more amazing by the day.
      In addition my clients from London, the fishing community on the pier, schools in llandaff, the dancing community in Cardiff and Penarth , the seniors, charity groups all wanting me to organise their events and campaigns to outreach to the community – held in the pavilion at my recommendation – answer. probably not Nicki . We don’t think the committee who decides on what business is acceptable and takes around a month to decide will give the green light – phew this is tough going !

      • Fitz says:

        You may well have a valid point but there’s no way of knowing.
        Please stop taking whatever it is you’re on, give it a few hours to clear from your system, and then try writing in coherent sentences. Punctuation would be a bonus but let’s start with the right words in the right order and we can work up to commas next term.

  6. Roger says:

    Although I have never been a director of the PACL board – even if I was, I would not, apparently, have been provided with copies of PACL management accounts – I feel that at times like this it is important that I express my opinion that PACL has demonstrated it is not fit for purpose.
    I have therefore written a motion for consideration. The motion reads as follows:
    I am bemused at the gushing talk of “hard work” and “commitment” by Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd, not least when it has led to the closure of the cinema.
    I am curious how the parlous state of the finances was allowed to happen.
    I would like to know the reasons why certain members of PACL’s board stood down.
    I wonder about the apparent secrecy surrounding PACL’s finances and do not understand why these have not been subjected to public scrutiny.
    I would also like to know why the town council is making such a point of praising PACL when accounts show losses, there has been talk of unpaid bills and PACL appears to have made no effort to explain the situation to the public, whose money it has spent.
    In place of sycophantic posturing, I would like to see a full inquiry into where exactly the vast sums of PUBLIC MONEY have been spent and some transparency and humility from PACL.
    I see there are those who have noted the failure of PACL and already put much time and work into a plan for the prosperous future of the Pier and its cinema.
    Rather than being dismissed as rabble-rousers, I would like to see these community-minded people given thanks and a little respect for wanting to save the town’s precious pier.

    • Ann Other says:

      I also have noticed not the slightest desire by trustees to explain what has happened. Surely, the whole point of having councillors on the PACL board as trustees is that in times of trouble they stand up and explain to the people they represent what happened? Am I missing something? Please tell me! Why else are they on the board as councillors in the first place? Help!

    • Jess says:

      Very well said. This whole debacle reeks of small town corruption. It is unbelievable what utter nonsense the councillors are spouting in the face of incontrovertible evidence that PACL are running the pavilion into the ground. Our beautiful cinema is closed, thanks to their ineptitude! The tales of unpaid bills (which are true!) hardly suggests a competent management, or even safe hands for this incredible asset. I am so disappointed and angry at this pathetic response.

    • Roger will you please come to the sos meeting Wednesday 5th April all saints church and express this – exactly my point – we need now immediately a public enquiry by the assembly and charity commission. Where is and was the money, why 50 trusted trustees said nothing where is the business plan, feasibility plan, the cv of those who should professionally know what they are done by – we have to stop the inappropriate style of management and governance now – I much appreciate your support. Nicki please do reach out and I will buzz – I will share a proposed vision for positive change, accountable and achievable

  7. andrewsketty says:

    Absolutely unbelievable but sadly nothing less than I have come to expect in terms of the way PACL’s mismanagement is being dealt with and the wall of protection that seems to surround them.

    The fact that councillors are or have been on the Board of Trustees of PACL in my opinion just explains why people in positions seem to be just protecting this lot. It’s all like the Emperor’s New Clothes – we are meant to see something that is all fine and dandy yet we know it’s not! How long can this embarrassing charade be kept up?

    Gwyn Roberts is quoted as saying ‘ he had seen implied  – or inferred – criticism of PACL,  but he  considered that  the council should “appreciate what a fantastic job they’ve done” Is he for real??? No wonder he has never replied to any e mail that I have sent him as my elected representative concerning the matter.

    And Ian Courtney reported to the Town Council that he had attended the public meeting at the Pilot Pub on March 20th which had been held in a very helpful, constructive vein and had been devoid of any  “rancour and rant”. I was at that meeting too and I’m not sure I entirely agree. Whilst everyone was clearly wholly supportive of the need for our cinema to reopen there was one hell of a lot of ( deserved in my opinion) anger and resentment over the mess PACL has made of our Pavilion.

    SHOCKING!

    • Richard says:

      “The fact that councillors are or have been on the Board of Trustees of PACL in my opinion just explains why people in positions seem to be just protecting this lot. It’s all like the Emperor’s New Clothes – we are meant to see something that is all fine and dandy yet we know it’s not! How long can this embarrassing charade be kept up?”

      Spot on, Andrew, it really is shocking.
      I wonder if power-hungry people continue unchallenged in their own little worlds, thinking we don’t see them for what they are.
      That said, quite a few going out of their way to be sycophants. I wonder why???

    • Ian Courtney says:

      Hi Andrew, if I may respond directly to your comments concerning my observations at last night’s meeting. Simultaneously I want to avoid indulging in a futile ‘number of angels on a pin-head’ style discussion. The words “without rancour and rant” were chosen by me very carefully. They were intended to reflect the largely constructive nature of the meeting and they do not by any means negate what I took to be an underlying, as opposed to explicit, and understandable sense of bewilderment at the state of affairs at the Pavilion. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out I made a polite request via this site that you contact me in advance of last night’s meeting. You may not have had time to do so but you did not respond to me. Again I would like to encourage you to do so.

    • Please come to the second sos I love ❤️ Penarth meeting all saints church doors open 6 for 7. Do invite Mr Rapier he continues to ignore my request for integration all together better Umm!

  8. David Jones says:

    Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

    • Tom says:

      Unbelievable, isn’t it, as though they don’t believe they should be subject to scrutiny.
      Saying that, they never really are. if it wasn’t for this site, nobody would have a clue what was going on. Frightening.

  9. Chris David says:

    Next accounts made up to 31 December 2016
    due by 30 September 2017
    Last accounts made up to 31 December 2015
    The accounts- which PACL may decide to keep back until the publication date will be /are out of date anyway. What is needed is full disclosure of the “to date” Management accounts with supporting monthly meeting minutes- if PACL have produced and conducted? They allude to being behind the forecast budget for the current period, so they’ve suggested that they are now producing accounts. However the suspicion remains there are none, which is very shocking. PACL- please publish the statutory accounts and management accounts NOW. Put the record straight. Cllr Courtney I seem to recall was none too happy about the situation re historic management information. Incidentally Cllr Courtney has experience in finance and in the charity sector (so in this case Companies LBG). Those that have been asked to engage may do well to do so!

  10. James says:

    Cllr Roberts said “There has been an awful lot of fuss recently about the closure of the cinema and also that the Pavilion will now only be open four days a week ” .
    AN AWFUL LOT OF FUSS, you say?
    I think there should be a damn sight more than “an awful lot of fuss” about the mess PACL have made and the vast sums of money spent with no explanation, don’t you?
    An awful lot of fuss?
    You make it sound as though the natives have the temerity to ask tiresome questions again.
    Who are you, Cllr Roberts, to say there’s been “an awful lot of fuss”? Why don’t you tell us why you resigned from the board?
    You’re lucky Penarth is lawless and anything goes or this debacle might have been exposed for the inept, arrogant mess it appears to me to be.
    Huge sums of public money spent and only debts and a closed cinema to show for it.
    Where are the explanations in answer to the “awful lot of fuss”?????

  11. Stanley says:

    Well, I think we can safely say that the “understanding” among those who govern us is that PACL will not be held accountable for draining funds and taking the pier cinema to its knees.
    I very much get the impression that they are waiting for anyone with concerns about the future of the pier to give up.
    They’re stringing us along with talk of working towards a new future for the pier. I think the reality is it’s dead in the water.
    Can’t believe this behaviour from our elected councillors. What a disgrace.

  12. andrewsketty says:

    James/Stanley

    In my own experience in this saga I couldn’t agree more. It’s a disgrace and scandal at every level

  13. David Johnson says:

    Can someone explain why NO maintenance is being carried out, it will return to the sad building it was before.
    Get off your back sides and go and look

  14. Gwilym Davies says:

    This whole mess is looking increasingly like some back-room-blazer-circle-jerk between the council and PACL – with nothing resembling a credible explanation, plan or even basic communication to public enquiry coming out of either. It absolutely stinks!

    I think a few more Penarth residents may end up voting in the coming council elections than would normally bother – because of the council’s anaemic response to this mess – I for one!

  15. Gwilym Davies says:

    There are some incredible quotes in this – already picked out by other posters, but I can’t resist drawing attention to:

    “There has been an awful lot of fuss recently” – Allow me to correct you, Cllr Roberts people are absolutely livid.

    “….appreciate what a fantastic job [PACL] have done”. Are you for real?! It seems to outside eyes that PACL have effectively tanked £4million of public money and closed their prize asset without explanation – and apparently the response from Penarth Council is something along the lines of; Yup, well done, boys – keep up the good work!

    “I think it’s important that the Town Council does support the continuation of the Pier Pavilion in whatever format it is likely to take in the future ” – Errr… and what format is that? A locked building full of state of the art projection equipment?

    “…I think that’s really where we ought to leave it for the time being. Let’s see what happens on that basis and we can provide support as and when it’s required.” — i.e. let’s do nothing and hope people forget about this mess in time.

    • Harry says:

      You’ve summed it up there, Gwilym, thank you.
      Cllr Roberts must think we’re as thick as two short planks.
      He’s made his council colleagues look such fools too.

    • andrewsketty says:

      Gwilym – I don’t think I can add anything else to what you (and others) have said here. Clearly they are all wasting their breach with this farcical performance. WE DIDN’T – AND EVEN LESS SO NOW – BELIEVE ANUTHING WE ARE BEING FED ABOUT THE STUATION.

      Vale Council, Independent Cinema Office and Heritage Lottery have all been in talks even since this saga was broken here on PDN almost 6 weeks. Here’s the challenge to you all as a starter:-

      1. When are you going to tell us what the outcome is?
      2. Assuming your talks are to find a solution when can we expect our cinema to re-open?

      Surelt two simple enough qurstions to answer?

  16. Chris David says:

    No Mr Sketty yes. The questions required to unwind this and look for a new start are a little more detailed. You could try a few well aimed and constructed FOI’s

    • andrewsketty says:

      I get that Chris and thus far any questions I/we have raised of a more in depth refined nature go unanswered. Tongue in cheek I thought 2 simple questions that are clear in terms of answer would be understood

  17. Chris David says:

    Ha yes OK I understand Andrew. PACL are playing an odd game- what have they got to hide? If nothing why not scotch the allegations (two councillors have alluded to “things” they can’t say in public for legal / commercial reasons!) and publish the accounts and minutes. They play an odd game not even responding to public allegations of corruption!! IF there is to be a new regime- and I see no chance of one at the moment, this information is needed as a starting point for a new business plan. Even if PACL hang on I see no reason why they couldn’t publish each months accounts and minutes online with a newsletter? Engage the public ay- tell them about what they own- how novel!.

  18. Richard says:

    The truth is that PACL will get away with this and they don’t half know it. The hangers-on at the councils and the gruesome sycophants in the town know it too. The pier will die a death and will be forgotten now all the money has been DRAINED because the majority of people don’t care a damn.
    I can almost hear PACL saying ‘It’ll soon blow over with the plebs’ and to an extent – bar heroes such as Andrewsketty – they are right.
    As long as people have their Instagram to post pics of their kids in Funky Monkey outfits, their bicycles, their craft beer, a trip to Bar 44, and a Netflix subscription, they carry on, aloof from the indignity of bothering about things like this, thinking they’re leading hip, interesting lives.
    Then one day, we look around, and all of it is gone. What’s left for our children but a ugly space to live, get up, go to work, post on Facebook, come home, go to bed.
    Nothing old and beautiful left, nothing quirky, just an iPhone and “a glass of wine”.

  19. andrewsketty says:

    just take a look at the link below to the What’s On section of the Pavilion website

    http://www.penarthpavilion.co.uk/events

    We have a Tai Chi session , a flower workshop, the ongoing exhibition of local art and…….

    ….no that’s it. Nothing else!!

    And our town councillors backed PACL this week and commended them for their good work. It just beggars belief!!!

  20. Max Wallis says:

    Nothing about the Pavilion on the Town Council agenda, but I attended the meeting anyway. They inserted the Motion into the business, not in writing just read out by Gwyn Roberts. It seemed concocted in the Labour group pre-meeting, no opportunity for non-Labour members to consider in advance. No explanation from Cllr Roberts why he’d resigned as VoG nominee, nor from Mike Cuddy as Town Council rep on PACL Board. The whole Motion was a Labour fix, devoid of any hint of accountability and demand for disclosure; no request for Town Council involvement in moves to restructure PACL. Ian Courtney, evidently critical, was cornered into supporting praise for PACL’s bankrupt performance. For Tory Martin Turner to depict it as the duty of the Town Council to sit back and wait was beyond belief.

  21. Chris David says:

    Another example of how party politics is so unhealthy in managing local affairs. IC isn’t easily cornered so IF he was…….. I know things are bad. PACL et al publish. Its getting to the point where one might wonder if the police should be invited to investigate!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s