C O L W Y N • B A Y • O B S E R V E R • • •

Observing developments in Colwyn Bay

Town rejects council’s vote to demolish pier

with 5 comments

pier-demolition-news17 Dec 2013Conwy council has voted to demolish Colwyn Bay’s Victoria pier – just six months after the pier was awarded a £594,900 development grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Back then, the headlines reflected public (and official) optimism over the pier’s future. So, what’s changed in six months?

The original estimates cited by the council in 2010 were:

♦ Demolition of pier: £1.2m
♦ Rebuilding the basic pier (as a “boardwalk”):  £3.5m
♦ Rebuilding pier + “basic pavilion”: £5.5m

New figures were cited for the demolition vote (Dec 2013):

♦ Demolition: £1m
♦ Basic “boardwalk” pier refurbishment: £3.7m
♦ Pier refurbishment + new kiosks: £4.1m
♦ Pier + main pavilion refurbishment:  £8.9m
♦ Pier refurbishment + new build (as per HLF bid): £11.5m

The figure of “£15m” that you may have seen in media reports refers to the £11.5m figure, but with £4m (approx) added on for “contingency and possible inflation“, etc. (An addition that’s unique to this option).

A petition to save the pier had been signed by thousands, and its organisers (Victoria Pier Pressure Group) told ITV that the number of people who had expressed a preference for demolition was tiny by comparison.

colwyn-bay-pier-petition-small And while the council voted for demolition, the public voted for refurbishment: 75% of respondents to a Daily Post poll favoured restoring the pier; 50% preferred the “boardwalk” option; only 25% chose demolition.*

Further evidence of public opposition to the council’s vote is provided by a new online petition to overturn it – which quickly attracted several hundred signatories. Even more striking is that most of these signatories commented, stating the reason why they want the pier preserved. (Comment was optional under the petition). It should make interesting reading for the councillors who voted to demolish. (Click here and zoom as necessary to read comments).

Demolition vs “boardwalk”

The “boardwalk” refurbishment option would cost £2.7m more than demolition (according to the estimates). But the total cost of pursuing the demolition option may have been underestimated. The estimated £1m (£986,700) demolition figure does not include costs likely to be incurred from what the council describes as the “cons” of demolition, including (but not restricted to):

“Complex and lengthy procedure to be followed to gain delisting from CADW with likely challenge from community/stakeholders”.

“Need to establish a business case/funding for alternative focal point at this point on the waterfront”.

The costs involved here would hardly be insignificant. On the first point, planning consultants, PLPlanning have usefully commented (my bold):

It follows, in our view, that yesterday’s resolution [to seek de-listing and demolition of the pier] on the grounds the Council wishes to advance must fail. The council appears not to have realised this. The only choice open is to apply for LBC [Listed Building Consent] which triggers all the policy and statutory tests. As a ball park we would imagine maybe £250k budget for an LBC application, public inquiry, judicial review/appeals and perhaps another 2 years of uncertainty before a decision is resolved. And quite how, given the evidence of suitable alternatives and interests will the tests for demolition be met? The bar is very high and we don’t think the Council has realised yet.

Additionally, the council seems to have partially forgotten its own advice (section 4.19):

Demolition or partial demolition of the Pier are options but for a listed building such as this options that achieve its preservation should be considered in the first instance. Options should consider sequentially full preservation and then, if this is not possible, partial preservation. The structural appraisal completed to date indicates that the condition of the structural steel components of the Pier are better than expected.


pier-poll-daily-post-12-12-2013We’re told that the decision to demolish the pier is a good thing since it gets rid of the “uncertainty”. But this seems to be spurious reasoning at best, and misleading PR at worst. There is nothing certain about the procedure “to gain delisting” which the council acknowledges is “complex and lengthy” (and which the planning consultants have more things to say about, regarding uncertainty/failure). And that’s to say nothing of the ongoing legal issue regarding ownership.

An analogy would be hurrying the decision to turn off a life-support machine, even when recovery is known to be possible (albeit difficult and costly) because, hey, at least death gets rid of “uncertainty”. And sickness/decay is such an eyesore – it distracts from all the healthy things we’re trying to promote… like jet-skiing.

“Sustainability” & double standards

As for lack of “sustainability” (and other variants on the “no money available” argument), one needs only to look along the prom towards Porth Eirias (cost: approx £4m, and rising) to see why people are perplexed when this argument is used against the pier. Double standards seem to apply. Porth Eirias stands empty, full of dead space and unused conference rooms. It’s far too big for its intended purpose, was shortlisted for the Carbuncle Cup (by a panel of independent experts) and shows no indication of being “sustainable” (I’m happy to be proved wrong on the latter point, but even with an income stream from the planned bistro, I can’t see a building of this size “sustain” itself without a large, regular supply of public money, or a drastic change of function). In terms of justifying its existence, there seems to be one type of economic logic for the pier, and another for Porth Eirias.

The pier that “lets the town down”

The Daily Post quotes Darren Millar as saying that the pier is “the one thing that lets the town down”. They also attribute to him this view: “he feared that the pier was holding back the regeneration of the town”. I hope this was a misattribution, but whether it’s Millar’s words or the reporter’s, it highlights the absurdity of the terms in which the pier is debated. The pier is a decaying, but once elegant, inanimate structure. It’s not “holding back” anything.

Indeed, it must take a certain type of imaginative effort to see the pier as “holding back” the town’s regeneration. Couldn’t the same imaginative effort be used instead to see the pier as restored, functional, appreciated, gleaming in the sunlight and at the heart of Colwyn Bay’s thriving promenade? It could be such an incredible asset and attraction for Colwyn Bay – for just £2.7m more than the estimated cost of demolition.

Finally, a few of the hundreds of comments posted by locals to the above-mentioned petition:-

“An iconic structure for my entire life as a Colwyn Bay local. It would be a tragedy not to renovate this gorgeous structure!”

“It is a landmark site which should be preserved.”

“Local heritage and cultural icons should be protected, restored and nurtured.”

“It’s a Victorian pier and is a great piece of history. Why spend all that money on the new build which is an eyesore!! We should protect our heritage not knock it down.”

“The pier is an essential part of Colwyn Bay’s history and could play an important role in its regeneration.”

*As at 12/12/2013 (see image) – ie four days into the poll.


Written by NewsFrames

December 17, 2013 at 1:22 am

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on Alan Whitfield. Digital Artist & Poet. and commented:
    We need to spread the word. There are so many people in Conwy not aware this is going on. Great post


    December 17, 2013 at 10:43 am

  2. You’re right about the “imaginative effort”! Our esteemed councillors seem incapable of visualising what the pier will be like once repaired. It would give a great boost to the town. I think they are just trying to wash their hands of a tricky problem. But we pay them to resolve such problems, not to give in and be pathetic.


    December 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm

  3. The Waterfront Project is a complete waste of money.
    It is an eyesore and nothing short of a very expensive toilet block.
    Our Council Tax is increasing yet again. Our money should be put to better use.
    If you go to the West Shore in Llandudno you have to pay to go toilet, which is no use if you haven’t any suitable coins on you. Also the cubicles can’t be used in the evening in the Summer when it is still busy there. This can lead to undesirable consequences.
    Instead of spending money on this new building, which hasn’t been thought through and isn’t economically sustainable, the money should have at least been spent on improving existing basic services and structures within Conwy County and bringing them up to standard for the locals and visitors.
    If you have been to Porth Eirias this winter you will have noticed that it is lovely and warm in there. Also there is a member of staff on reception and toilets which have to be cleaned and maintained. How much does this cost? There’s nothing in there to warrant this. And there is a toilet block across the road anyway!
    Now the whole thing is shut down whilst more work is done – just as the main season is getting underway – the lovely sandy beach is closed to the public.
    Nothing is coordinated. The councillors responsible for this project appear to have no business acumen and no clue as to what is beneficial to the town in terms of tourism. What a joke.

    Disgruntled Colwyn Bay Resident

    March 16, 2014 at 9:59 am

    • I agree with that – some good points made. I had noticed how warm it’s been in Porth Eirias, which is a large building typically inhabited by a receptionist (of sorts), with a security person and one or two curious visitors passing through. It seems an incredible waste of money and resources. The whole zinc wedge section seems to be nothing but toilets, changing rooms and corridors. What was originally planned as an “observation room” is now just more toilet/changing-room space. And then there are the unused conference rooms – why does anyone need new conference rooms on a beach, when there’s an abundance of unused office space already available in town?

      It’s the most ill-considered building I’ve ever seen, it’s ugly, it’s crudely designed, and I think it’s costing the public a fortune to run (never mind the initial construction cost of over £5m). But the ongoing cost of sustaining it seems to be something the council is quiet about – unlike the noise they make over the cost of maintaining the pier.

      (Colwyn Bay Observer)

      March 16, 2014 at 11:59 am

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: