” I don’t know what answer you want out of me.” says the Leader of the Labour-run Vale of Glamorgan Council –  Cllr Neil Moore (Labour Cadoc Ward) –  as he is quizzed about his council’s role in the Penarth Pier Pavilion debacle and the financial crisis faced by the Pavilion tenants Penarth Arts & Crafts Ltd .

The Vale of Glamorgan Council admitted last night that it has held a number of discussions with Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd – [the company to which the council has leased the Pavilion for 125 years] – that the latest meeting was held only this week – but that the company has refused to open its books to the council.

The statement flies in the face of the impression created up to now that the crisis in Penarth Arts and Crafts [a.k.a. PACL] has nothing really to do with its landlords, the Vale of Glamorgan Council . It’s now clear that, in fact, the council doing everything it can to  try to prop up PACL.

The admission came from the Leader of the Labour-controlled Vale Council, Cllr Neil Moore (Labour Cadoc Ward Barry) in answer to a question from Cllr Kevin Mahoney (Independent Sully).

Cllr Kevin Mahoney (Independent Sully) asked for the Vale Council to put pressure on Penarth Arts and Crafts – leaseholders of the Penarth Pier Pavilion and Cinema – to come clean about its financial situation.

Cllr Mahoney had asked “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?”

In reply Cllr Moore said that “discussions have taken place  with the management of PACL  to consider the long-term financial viability of the organisation – the latest of those discussion having taken place earlier this week”.

Cllr Moore went on to say “members may also be aware that PACL have recently been awarded grant funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund which is to provide essential financial support to the organisation whilst it looks to develop a sustainable business model for the future.”

The future of Penarth Pier Pavilion was raised at the last meeting of the Vale of Glamorgan Council to be held before the May 4th elections – when a new council will be elected.

Cllr Kevin Mahoney (Independent Sully) pushed for answers – but little new information was forthcoming

Cllr Mahoney came back with a supplementary question for  Cllr Moore – pointing out that the grant – for £126,000 – was for “consultation over a period of 18 months” which he said was “an extraordinary amount of money“.  “Surely – he said – “it’s got to be incumbent on the Vale to encourage, if not insist, that PACL adopt an immediate policy of openness and transparency  in order to open up for examination and let everybody know what the problems are that they are facing”

Cllr Mahoney called PACL “clearly a failing organisation” . He urged that the reasons for the three-days-a-week closure of the Pavilion and the total closure of the Pavilion Cinema be fully explained to the public.  Addressing the Labour administration, Cllr Mahoney said “surely it’s incumbent on you lot to insist that they actually come clean – because there’s just a veil of silence from these people[i.e. PACL]

The Vale Council’s Labour Leader Cllr Neil Moore said PACL were not in breach of the terms of their lease on Penarth Pier Pavilion.

Cllr Moore replied “Well – ‘us lot’ have had discussions with them in the past . We’ve had discussions with them at the moment. We’ve had discussions with them this week. PACL has received £126,000 for the coming 18 months period . I’m not aware that there are any conditions or commitments attached to that  . The funding as I understand it is to be used to access external professional advice on all aspects of the business in order for them to go forward .”

Cllr Moore went on to say “Now, they are a private organisation in essence. They are fully meeting the conditions of their lease and as such,  the operation of the management of the organisation is purely a matter for their board – which is their controlling body.”

Yes we will discuss with them, yes we will ask them to help them with their business case as we have done and we will continue to do  – but what I would also say is that the £126,000 isn’t the Vale’s money – it’s come from the lottery system – so yes we will work with them . We can’t insist they open their books to us ; we would hope they would –  but clearly we will work with them to the best ability so that they can continue to become a viable organisation. We can only do as much as we can .”

Turning to Cllr Mahoney, Cllr Moore said lamely ” I don’t know what answer you want out of me. We are working with them, we’ve been  there, we’ve helped them, we’ve given them advice, we’ve assisted  them with some of their bids,  – and clearly if they weren’t a viable, as you suggest, I would have hoped  – or would have thought –  that they wouldn’t have received the grant-funding that they have – and clearly that is there for them to become a viable business…and hopefully they will do very quickly  – if they’re not already”.

Only one supplementary question can be asked – so Cllr Mahoney could press the matter no further.

Peering over the top of her glasses, Deputy Leader Cllr Lis Burnett (Labour St Augustines) said “I’m not completely sure whether the point of the question is to get an answer –  or to prove another opportunity to insult me!” . Her remark triggered collective groans from opposition councillors .

The most amusing moment in the meeting came however when Cllr Mahoney interrogated Labour’s Deputy Leader Cllr Lis Burnett (who has quit Penarth Council and is abandoning her seat in St Augustines in the hope of being elected for the Vale in Stanwell Ward next week) .

Cllr Mahoney asked if the council was engaging experts to investigate the potential health  effects of the new incinerator at Barry on residents in the surrounding areas  before any licence was issued for it .

Cllr Burnett alleged that Cllr Mahoney’s question had been “framed with a number of inaccurate statements” – and proceeded deliver a potted history of the contentious project in order to as she put it- to “clarify” the background . [ The plant had originally been refused planning permission but that decision had been overturned in a planning appeal which had gone against the council and cost council-tax payers £60,000]  .

Some councillors evidently disputed Cllr Burnett’s version of events. There were shouts of “That’s not right Kev!” in the council chamber  – which were silenced by the Mayor.

Cllr Mahoney asserted that Cllr Burnett had “evaded once again” his question. “Yet again” – he accused Cllr Burnett – “you have gone off on one of your tangents – as if nobody noticed – there’s allegations of “misleading” ….”.

The Mayor Cllr Stuart Egan,  who was presiding over his last council meeting,  silenced  Cllr Mahoney and cued Cllr Burnett to respond.

The ever-combative Cllr Burnett said “I’m not completely sure whether the point of the question is to get an answer or to prove another opportunity to insult me! “. At that remark, collective groans could be heard coming from opposition councillors around the chamber.

…It has indeed been a long 5 years in office for this particular Vale of Glamorgan Council administration.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address . 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.


  1. Then – let us see the lease agreement and get a lawyer to check it, as we believe there is a get out clause for the Vale Council on the current 120 plus year agreement with the tenant and operator PACL
    Why so long in the first place ?

    • PR says:

      Exactly, it’s a failing business – find a get out clause or let them fail. Any money thrown at this now is wasted and trying to save face ahead of an election.

    • Philip Rapier says:

      On the Complaints Page of the Charity Commission it is quite clear about what a Trustee or Employee (Whistleblower) past or present should do when they have concerns
      Why have they not done so and only chose to resign?
      “Responsibilities of trustees and auditors”
      Report serious incidents to the Charity Commission if you’re a trustee of a charity in England or Wales.

      Auditors must report any financial irregularities to the Charity Commission when examining a charity’s accounts.

      Read the guidance for trustees on reporting serious incidents.
      “Charity employees with serious complaints”

      You can report suspected wrongdoing in any organisation you work for by making a whistleblowing complaint.

      Email the Charity Commission if you’re in England or Wales.

      Charity Commission – whistleblowing

  2. Andy says:

    Well done Kev, asking the questions the public want asking! It’s a shame there aren’t more councillors with morals.

  3. Chris David says:

    OK that answers my last question, as I said this is a not for profit company funded by public money. Its ludicrous that such an organisation cannot be forced to open up its books and minutes. Its derelict that the VoG didn’t ensure that in order to be granted a lease- and / or give PACL £900,000 of public money, conditions weren’t put in place to ensure transparency. In addition a break clause in a commercial lease is standard practice. This a micro business and the figures need forensic inspection. £1,026,000 = 205,000 attendances at (say) £5 a time just to break even on the initial capital outlay! C 60 attendances a day over a full 7 day week 420 = 21,840 attendances a year at more or less full capacity (impossible). That 9.38 years to break even at full capacity. That is a nonsense. Yes these are (very) fag packet figures- best I can do as PACL wont open up and show up the plan or money. But gives one an idea of how bonkers this all looks. Where has the money gone?

  4. Frank Bird says:

    I smell a rodent!

  5. Andrew Jones says:

    Isn’t this all so ironic and so unneccessary. All we wanted was to get our cinema reopened. You would think we had asked to to turn the Pavilion into a car park! If Vale Councillors had just been prepared to be open and transparent and engage with local residents then we could have saved all this .

    When I met with Cllr Lis Burnett she wanted to tell me all about the Community Mapping Toolkit produced by the VoG which she is immensley proud of. This toolkit is supposed to ‘help local communities engage and find out what is going on in their community. ‘ Oh the irony. We want to engage with PACL & VoG and we know that we want our cinema. What is so difficult with this?

    The cinema exists , there’s a band of ready volunteers to run it and local residents prepared to pay to come along to see a film. You would think that would be welcomed – is there really a need to hand over £126k to PACL to develop a sustainable Pavilion when collectively we can tell them what we want there, how to improve it etc. The whole thing is ridiculous and plays out like an episode of the keystone cops.

    I understand the council meetings are screened live on the web and are available afterwards on the website. Why not show them at the Pavilion Cinema as a one off special to get us in the mood for election day?

  6. Cllr Clive Williams MBE Penarth First Independents says:

    Well done Kevin, you have the backbone to say it as it is. You deserve to be back after the
    4 th May. You are correct in what you say, as you cannot solve a problem or situation unless you understand the position, and have the facts. With holding details prevents any way forward, which
    obviously suits some people

  7. Mike baker says:

    Why, if the council are handing over large sums to this company, they have no control over what is happening?, where is the openness that the public demand? ..Congratulations to you Kevin for properly representing the community….

    • Chris David says:

      Mike I’ve asked this question several times and lot more- see my last post above. I’ve also emailed the Charity Commission and asked them if they’ve carried out full DG and a bit more. I think the whole question of NFP companies needs looking at. Its ludicrous that £1,026,000 of public money can be injected into a micro “company” and said “company” can avoid full and open disclosure to all.Kevin thanks for what you’ve done. I hope some of you with power can force this issue into the open. Many questions remain starting with where has over £1million gone- or going?

  8. PR says:

    I wonder who are the consultants who will get the cash and who they are related to?

Comments are closed.