INTERROGATION FOR VALE COUNCIL’S LABOUR LEADER ON PENARTH PIER PAVILION

The Leader of the Vale of Glamorgan Council, Cllr Neil Moore (Labour Cadoc Ward) may find it difficult to answer a challenging question about the council’s part in the Penarth Pier Pavilion debacle when he takes questions from councillors at the televised council meeting tonight

The Leader of the Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan Council, Cllr Neil Moore, is to be questioned  about the council’s involvement in the affairs of Penarth Pier Pavilion  in a live television council meeting this evening .

The question however, has not been tabled by any Labour councillor –  and not even any councillor from Penarth  – but by Cllr Kevin Mahoney (Independent Sully).

Penarth Pier Pavilion is now the subject of questions at tonight’s Vale Council meeting

Cllr Kevin Mahoney (Independent Sully) is doing what Penarth councillors have failed to do – and is asking the Vale Council’s Labour Leader awkward questions about Penarth Pier Pavilion

Cllr Mahoney has a reputation for standing-up to, facing-down, and forcing answers out of  the Vale’s Council’s Labour apparatchiks who have been in control of the council for the last  5 years.

In the “Questions” session of tonight’s the council meeting, Cllr Mahoney is to ask the Labour Leader Cllr Moore :-

“Given the £900,000 already given by the Vale to the lessee  of the Penarth Pier Pavilion [Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd – a.k.a. PACL] ] , what meetings have been held between the Vale administration and Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd  since the latest crisis and reduction of opening hours of the pier, in order to establish what exactly is going on, and what conclusions have been come to in this matter?” .

Cllr Mahoney has also tabled a number of other questions for  Cllr Moore.

One of them is :-  “Do you feel that it is acceptable that any complaint / inquiry instigated by a Vale Councillor against the actions or behaviour of the Managing Director of the Vale of Glamorgan County Council or other senior officers, has to be actually sanctioned and actioned by the MD himself / herself before being assigned for investigation to a senior colleague of the very person that the complaint / inquiry is being made about, –  rather than such an action being carried out by an independent party unconnected with the person / persons involved.?”

To see the council meeting live on the internet go to  http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/our_council/council/minutes,_agendas_and_reports/minutes,_agendas_and_reports.aspx .

Scroll down to “Council Meeting, Live Webcast” and click on that.

The meeting – the last of the present council before the May 4th elections – starts at 18:05 after what used to be called “prayers” but is now described as a “Non- Religious Moment of Reflection”.

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.

21 Responses to INTERROGATION FOR VALE COUNCIL’S LABOUR LEADER ON PENARTH PIER PAVILION

  1. If Kevin wants to chat I have been on this case for over 5 years when then I smelt a rat.
    Kevin do get in contact nicki@page1world.co.uk I may be able to give you more ammunition for tonight.
    There is lots of it passed to me from many inside sources over a considerable period plus my own campaigning and feedback from I love ❤️ Penarth pier pavilion community campaign.
    Penarth individual didn’t or haven’t respond as Penarth individuals with others are the core of the problem in our investigations we believe. I have had a reply from Prince Charles office yesterday as I wrote to him in utter frustration and desperation having the charity commission, ombudsman, barristers – public access in Cardiff not being able to get involved in the expose and demanded public enquiry. Enough is enough it’s damn right shameful and those involved must be brought to public account now.

  2. I have also by the way finally through lobbying and detailed communication via his PA Angela had communication back directly with the Managing Director Vale of Glamorgan

  3. Chris David says:

    Ask for the management accounts and minutes of any meetings Kevin. There needs to be no confidentiality. Its a not for profit company not in competition and set up as a public service- with public money. Open up VoG and PACL.

    • I’m afraid that I am only allowed one quick supplementary question to the prepared answer given.

      In my recent experience, prepared answers from Neil Moore or Lis Burnett tend to be full of meaningless bluster and evasiveness. My annoyed responses to them not answering the questions actually asked can be seen on the council webcasts of previous meetings.

      • Chris David says:

        Good luck. We really do need to get rid of the evasive.

      • Andrew Jones says:

        Hello Kevin – as the person who satrted the online position I’m very pleased that you are doing this as the wall of silence in Penarth around PACL’s management of the Pavilion is shocking! Totally agree with the comments made above by Chris

        We should have our cinema back open and as a minimum in the meantime we need to know the action plan and timescale to get it back open . It was funded with public money and community support so it should not be a matter of debate whether we are entitrled to be part of this process.

        In financial terms I would like to know:-

        1) How come PACL are now saying that their financial position is much improved?
        2) If that’s the case why did they need the recent £126k bailout?
        3) Given 1 & 2 above then surely there is no reason for us not to have the cinema open again

        Supplementary to this I would like to know the reasons why the Pavilion is no longer a client of the Independent Cinema Office and how this impacts on the future of the cinema?

        Has the debt owing to ICO which forced the closure of the cinema now been cleared given their improved finances and HLF bailout?

      • Thank you for your response Andrew, as you will have gathered I share exactly your concerns especially in regards the lack of transparency to the residents of the Vale who after all have contributed so much in cash terms to the Pavillion project.

        One thing about the £126,000 grant is that if it is as described for ‘Consultation advice’ then presumably it shouldn’t be used to bail out the various loss making astivities of the pavilion.

        I have also queried in an earlier article as to what on earth a project such as the pier pavillion needs £126,000 to be spent on consultants fees over and 18 month period for?

        It’s an extraordinary amount of money for the purpose as described.

      • Philip Rapier says:

        Saying one thing in Opposition and another when in control of the Council.

        Dennis Skinner style attacks on the “unanswered questions” of the Toriy Admiinistration in 2012 was Councillor Neil Moore’s tenacious attitude to Dyffryn Gardens being rented to the National Trust for a quid a year by the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
        Almost identical Public Asset flogging off cheap arrangement with PACL on the Pavillion so why do almost alll questions remain “unanswered”. by Councillor Neil Moore?

        As posted previously and quoted in-
        “Vale of Glamorgan Council Minutes 30 April 2012”
        Coun Moore-
        “He considered there was still a great deal of work to be done to finalise arrangements and yet there were still too many —-“unanswered questions”—– particularly with regard “to state aid approval”- and that ” Grant Liabilities ” which he considered had not been adequately addressed and reiterated– previous concerns– raised in regard to the 25 year claw back and NT having a break clause at 20 years.”

        ” He indicated that he was not prepared to accept proposals as contained in the report under the current conditions.”

        Quite right and neither will the people of Penarth

      • Andrew Jones says:

        Hi Kevin

        With regards to your point about the use of the £126k HLF grant not being used to bail out activities of PACL I totally get that. I work in the third sector/charity sector and have made many funding bids over the years – some successful and some not. As you say £126k is an extraordinary large amount of money to be given to a small organisation such as PACL for the specific purpose of developing a sustainable business model – especially as they have already had £200k for this purpose from the Coastal Communities Fund (WG/BLF). The point I was making is that with this additional money from HLF for organisation/business development it should free up other non ring fenced income/reserves that otherwise would have had to be raided for this to divert to service delivery such as the cinema.

        I have it on pretty good authority that the reason our cinema closed at short notice is because the ICO pulled the plug on film distribution due to non payment of bills by PACL. That is their only real overhead cost as the cinema is within the Pavilion and it relies on volunteers to run it. Therefore I see no reason why the cinema should now not be reopene d( after all it generates income!) unless of course there are other factors preventing it that we don’t yet know about?

  4. Can we send Nicki Page in ….. concealed in a Trojan Horse?

  5. Anne Greagsby says:

    Good for him. If I was there I’d back him. As an independent he won’t get an intimidating complaint letter to his party from Prof Hazell to silence him.

  6. Mike baker says:

    Well done for doing your job Kevin, these issues need to be aired in public and the Labour council should be held to account

  7. Gareth Davies says:

    You get both myself and my wife’s vote in the forthcoming local elections Kevin.Well done for pursuing this.

    • Thank you for both for your support Gareth. I’m not expecting much in the way of an answer tonight based on previous experience, but will pursue the matter after reflecting on the response this evening

  8. Cllr Clive Williams MBE Penarth First Independents says:

    Well done Kevin, as I sit next but one to you in the Council meetings I can feel the vibes of your frustration, at your questions being evaded. It is also very frustrating to only be allowed one supplementary question that can sometimes be anticipated. I have seconded you on a few occasions and you have my 100% backing in your efforts ref the Pier Pavilion.
    I have pledged I will be involved in future meetings if elected on May 4th or not, as this is such and
    important issue for Penarth which I have identified in our election leaflets. There is such nonsense
    being stated, and clouded by political influence, I want to wait until after the elections to be totally involved as I do not want to be accused of using this very important issue for personal gain.

    • Thank you for your support and advice Clive, I know that you have plans and possible solutions in place in order to hopefully assist the revitalisation of the pier pavillion and it’s cinema following the elections.

      I really don’t understand why PACL won’t open up and put before the residents of the Vale who have provided so much funding to the organisation the problems that they are experiencing.

      It is quite clear that the Vale public wish to help, but also clear that they can’t until there is two way commincation in how they can from those running PACL, who I’m sure have contributed many many hours and much hard work with the most genuine of good intentions.

      It’s impossible to help people or organisations who don’t wish to be helped despite their apparant precarious situation.

      • Chris David says:

        The point is Kevin they shouldn’t be allowed to “avoid help” There are no commercial confidentiality issues. This is a not for profit company funded by public money. Its quite clear that Hazel and the VoG are hiding incompetence and probably don’t have management accounts or meeting minutes. The law should be changed to force these types of org’s to be completely open. By the way a business (new) plan could be done for a few hundred with the right volunteers. Something smells- this is a micro business, £126,000 represents 25,200 attendances at £5 a shot! Couldn’t get enough internet speed here in sticks to watch last night- will have to catch up. What happened?

  9. Clive and I spoke and I confirm he gave his commitment to get matters into the open public arena. Am audit must take place and old heads have to roll

  10. Peter Church says:

    “Prepared answers from Neil Moore or Lis Burnett tend to be full of meaningless bluster and evasiveness.”
    This really sums up Labour: full of meaningless bluster!

    Good luck on questioning Lis, but as you said they will provide a holding answer with not an ounce of truth.

Comments are closed.