Re: Llandudno's Pier Pavilion redevelopment site

[Ian]

If you love the Town as I do write to CADW and tell them you want the protection to remain.

Two things occur: do we have a lawyer on the forum?  If so, and they could get in touch with Dave or me - in compete confidence of course - then we might be able to draw on some professionally informed legal knowledge.

The second thing is that we could draft a template letter for this purpose, and for any future actions which forum members might be interested in taking.

This forum is growing - steadily and soundly - and it could become a real force for good in the area. Certainly, its existence is becoming well known, as I was invited to join it by someone, recently  :-))

[DaveR]

I've done some digging. This is a picture of Mr David Taylor's 'house' http://goo.gl/maps/2fVA which was the offices of Estate Management Warwickshire Ltd. According to Companies House this company only existed between 15/09/2005 to 17/11/2005 as a non trading company. From 10/07/2003 to 16/02/2010 this was also the registered address of 19 non trading companies starting with the name 'E U' - source http://ukdata.com/a-z/Eu-1.html. On the 12/05/05 the registered address was changed to  40-44 Tan Lane, Stourport on  Severn, Worcestershire http://goo.gl/maps/IGtr. This address was the registered address of yet more non trading companies. Was David Taylor an employee or director of any of these companies or it's predecessors? Who exactly owns's the bomb site now? The plot now thickens!

Interesting info there. Welcome to the forum, btw.  I believe the Pavilion site is owned by David Taylor personally now. There was some speculation at one time about whether he even existed but CCBC apparently believes he does and he is described as a 'market operator'. 

[DaveR]

What got me going was the way CCBC used the Local Development Plan to move the habitable zone boundary from down the side of the Grand Hotel to down the side of the Amusement Arcade.

Did they suceed in this? In the LDP Report, it says "The site is situated entirely within a C2 Flood Risk zone and should be subjected to a justification test. More suitable sites should be considered for allocation", together with a recommendation it not be included?

At the CCBC meeting in August, it was decided that:

"The Local Electoral Division Member, Councillor Christine Jones, had requested this report as the Pier Pavilion was a high profile site, and had been derelict for over 15 years, following a fire which destroyed the original building.

Discussion between the site owner and a number of interested parties had failed to result in the submission of a project requiring planning permission/listed building consent.

CADW wished to retain the Listed Building status of the site in order to maintain control of any re-development opportunities which came forward in the future.

Previously there had been an offer by the Welsh Development Agency to assist any prospective development, with a viable and acceptable scheme to utilise its compulsory purchase powers, and further powers to ‘cleanse’ the legal title by removing various covenants.  Unfortunately, this opportunity had been lost, with the abolition of the Welsh Development Agency.

Discussion and comments were as follows:-

It was understood that ownership of the site was currently in the personal possession of Mr Taylor

Llandudno was unlikely to be designated as a regeneration area, although unemployment had probably risen in the town, unemployment was a national issue

CADW should be challenged on the reasons for retaining the Listed Building status on the site

The possibility of removing the covenants should be investigated

Discussion should be undertaken with the Economic and Regeneration Unit of the Welsh Assembly Government on the possibility of a Compulsory Purchase Order

A regular clean-up of the site should be undertaken, as and when necessary, together with the hoardings being replaced, and the owner re-charged for any works undertaken

A letter should be sent to the owner, requesting a meeting with a small delegation of Members, to discuss a way forward for the site

The site should be referred to the Strategic Site Development Group."

Full Report here:  http://modgoveng.conwy.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=19458

[Ian]

Another point occurs . This tactic of leaving the site as it is works only because CCBC lacks the funds or the legal mandate to remove it from him.  Perhaps it's time to start contacting MPs such as Guto and asking them whether there needs to be a change in the law to deal with absentee landlords who try this on. After a decent period, perhaps anyone who does something like this should forfeit the right to it entirely.

[dwsi]

These are the laws that are available to CCBC http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulresources/local_authority_powers.html
Why aren't they using them?

[Ian]

Which one could they use? Many of those regs apply to empty buildings, not what is effectively a building site.

[Blongb]

22 separate seats to the fire, each one of sufficient intensity to burn the place down on its own. Can't understand why Mr Worcester Businessman wasn't done for arson, as he was the only one to gain by its professional done destruction. Do you recon once he found out he couldn't beat the planning regulations, he went to the Banks and borrowed money on the site? If so it could explain why he is quite content to leave things as they are, he has no need to build anything.

This is all very interesting. How did you hear about the 22 separate seats to the fire, I've never heard that before? Surely a professional arsonist would be smarter than that?

"We have to have our place inspected by the North Wales Fire Service Dave, and it was whist in discusion with a fire office who had been in attendance at the fire and who was involved in the subsequent fire investigation, that the manner and number of sources was told to me. He wasn't a bull sh**er by any manner of means and I have no reason to doubt what he told me was correct."

[Blongb]

Ian, its quite possible to use the Town and Country Planning Act 1990   1990c.8 - continued  Part VIII - Special Controls - continued  Chapter II
Land Adversely Affecting Amenity of Neighbourhood.  Thanks to an anonymous friend I was given a copy of the said and used it to get Mrs. Betty Williams help in getting the site cleaned up. At her surgery meeting, she had to call her secretary in Westminster to check with the House of Commons Library to see if it was still on the statute book and to its relevance. It was and still is. )*)&

[DaveR]

22 separate seats to the fire, each one of sufficient intensity to burn the place down on its own. Can't understand why Mr Worcester Businessman wasn't done for arson, as he was the only one to gain by its professional done destruction. Do you recon once he found out he couldn't beat the planning regulations, he went to the Banks and borrowed money on the site? If so it could explain why he is quite content to leave things as they are, he has no need to build anything.

This is all very interesting. How did you hear about the 22 separate seats to the fire, I've never heard that before? Surely a professional arsonist would be smarter than that?

"We have to have our place inspected by the North Wales Fire Service Dave, and it was whist in discusion with a fire office who had been in attendance at the fire and who was involved in the subsequent fire investigation, that the manner and number of sources was told to me. He wasn't a bull sh**er by any manner of means and I have no reason to doubt what he told me was correct."

I don't doubt you for a second, it just sounds so over the top. Surely by doing it like that, the person responsible makes it obvious even to a one eyed Albanian that it was arson? 

[DaveR]

Which one could they use? Many of those regs apply to empty buildings, not what is effectively a building site.

All Local Authorities have the ability to do a Compulsory Purchase. However, it is necessary for the Local Authority to show that it has a specific usage for the property once it has been acquired, otherwise the attempt will fail. Parliament has always taken the view that land should only be taken compulsorily where there is clear evidence that the public benefit will outweigh the private loss.

[dwsi]

Which one could they use? Many of those regs apply to empty buildings, not what is effectively a building site.

All Local Authorities have the ability to do a Compulsory Purchase. However, it is necessary for the Local Authority to show that it has a specific usage for the property once it has been acquired, otherwise the attempt will fail. Parliament has always taken the view that land should only be taken compulsorily where there is clear evidence that the public benefit will outweigh the private loss.

The site could be used to house the new lifeboat station, that's a public benefit 

[Trojan]

22 separate seats to the fire, each one of sufficient intensity to burn the place down on its own. Can't understand why Mr Worcester Businessman wasn't done for arson, as he was the only one to gain by its professional done destruction. Do you recon once he found out he couldn't beat the planning regulations, he went to the Banks and borrowed money on the site? If so it could explain why he is quite content to leave things as they are, he has no need to build anything.

This is all very interesting. How did you hear about the 22 separate seats to the fire, I've never heard that before? Surely a professional arsonist would be smarter than that?

"We have to have our place inspected by the North Wales Fire Service Dave, and it was whist in discusion with a fire office who had been in attendance at the fire and who was involved in the subsequent fire investigation, that the manner and number of sources was told to me. He wasn't a bull sh**er by any manner of means and I have no reason to doubt what he told me was correct."

I don't doubt you for a second, it just sounds so over the top. Surely by doing it like that, the person responsible makes it obvious even to a one eyed Albanian that it was arson? 

So why wasn't there an arson investigation by the police and a prosecution? 

[Blongb]

The site could be used to house the new lifeboat station, that's a public benefit 
[/quote]
Several years ago we asked the RNLI if they would consider using the site for a Lifeboat Museum after they told us the site wasn't suitable for an operational Lifeboat Station, but they said they weren’t planning to do that. We also wrote to the Tate Modern and asked if they would consider using the site for one of their Regional Galleries but again we were declined. We haven’t given up though and are still looking, as everyone deserves to have a decent neighbour.

[Trojan]

If you're serious blongb, threre wouldn't be enough water there at low tide to have a lifeboat station at that location.  

[Fester]

When I mentioned to Motorhead's Lemmy,  that since he last visited the area, ...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING had been done about the Pier Pavilion,  this is the reaction I got.
(My obsession grows as 13th November grows near)