Colwyn Bay Victoria Pier

We dont often  comment on local developments.  But as hot potatoes go this one is golden brown and crisp, still bubbling in the goose fat.  

To many it is a decaying lump detracting from work to regenerate Colwyn Bay, its waterfront and a drain on the public purse: it is in opposing views the  jewel in the crown, completing the renaissance of the bay with new community uses, gallery and tourist attraction.  

  

The resolution by Conwy CBC to seek de-listing then demolition of the pier yesterday is, for those with a general interest in planning and heritage at least, intriguing.

A Grade 2 listed building, its nationally significant and in Council ownership (noting that there is a pending appeal over that matter as yet unheard). 

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on the Minister to prepare a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and brings under statutory control  any works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest.  If you want to do any of that you need Listed Buidling Consent. (LBC). 

Where the Council owns the building it requires direct application to and decision by the Minister, no doubt involving subsequent public inquiry.  

Yesterdays report and decision doesn't appear to have had any regard to the value of the heritage asset. It doesn't seek to question it and in fact infers (if in poor language) the S66 duty to have "special regard to the desirability of preserving" etc . How could it do much else given  resources already committed and early phase HLF bids?   So it has shot itself in the left foot.

The purpose of the report yesterday was to "To obtain the Council’s view whether to proceed with the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) ‘development phase grant’ (appendix 1). or consider and decide to adopt an alternative option regarding the future of the Victoria Pier (the pier), having properly balanced risk and regeneration need".   On its face that "balancing" exercise excludes any regard whatsoever to the S66 duty. Shot in the right foot.

The decision it appears was made on the grounds solely of cost-risk and uncertainty (to council tax payers) of the various options of doing nothing, partial repair or fully restoring/regenerating it and running it thereafter. Understandable concerns, not least as latest costings show full restoration could cost as much as £16m.    [Left kneecap] 

Hmmm, welcome to the real world of owning a listed building.  

De-listing a building once on the list appears to be an ethereal process not governed by the Act or the 2012 Regulations. Circular 61/96 provides 2 paragraphs of guidance (para's 58 and 59).  English Heritage offers a guidance note, but its applicability here in Wales is questionable.  The Minister will review the de-listing request in the light of new evidence - its in effect the reverse process of listing. From what we read, the latest evidence, e.g recently rediscovered Eric Ravilious murals, adds greater weight to the existing evidence perhaps even reinforcing the case for for listing. [Right kneecap]

But, and here is the very big but...  61/96 is very clear that any decision to de-list has to be based on new evidence and the "evidence must relate to the special architectural or historic interest ascribed to the building".  Circ 61/96 expressly clarifies the position where objection to listing is for example related to "a building's condition and the cost of repairing or maintaining it, or to plans for redevelopment".

It follows, in our view, that yesterdays resolution is that an request  de-list 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 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. 

It also appears that no-one mentioned R (SAVE Britain's Heritage) v SSCLG & Others) even if de-listing could be secured. Nor were the cumulative effects of the various works on the waterfront mentioned, meaning EIA/ES mechanisms are likely to be triggered. 

Quite how all this reflects the perception of how differently the Council wishes to treat its own land and how it is seen to deal with others is, to put not too fine a point on it...  stark.

Keep looking folks this one has legs even if they are currently wounded.

Footnote

To respond to some of the queries received since posting. As stated at the start, we rarely comment on local matters. By definition we are often involved directly or peripherally in many locally. Last Thursdays resolution is intresting to us because of the rarity of and grounds upon which delisting can be sought. That's what we wanted to share that with you.