As a concerned individual I have today sent the following:- To : All Penarth local councillors Vale of Glamorgan Mr N Moore Leader Vale of Glamorgan Council Rob Thomas MD Vale of Glamorgan Council Richard Bellamy - Head of Wales Region - Heritage Lottery Fund Sarah Rutherford - Operations Officer - Independent Cinema Office Mr Stephen Doughty MP cc : Mr David Morris Jones - Penarth Daily News Anthony Lewis - Penarth Times Philip Rapier In the interests of open communications I will also post a copy of this open letter onto the updates section of the petition site to ensure those that have signed the petition are kept informed Dear All It is now almost 3 weeks since PACL made the controversial decision to close the Penarth Pier Pavilion Cinema for the foreseeable future. In just over 2 weeks the online petition that I set up asking PACL to reconsider their decision has amassed more than 1500 names. It is a matter of record from the huge number of comments made on the petition site the strength of feeling locally in support of the cinema from regular attendees as well as very relevant comments about issues concerning the operation of the Pavilion to date and useful suggestions for the future. Part of the reason why I started the petition was my own personal dissatisfaction with the explanation given by PACL for the cinema’s sudden closure in its statement on the Pavilion website dated February 22nd 2017. Specifically that the cinema would close until after the summer for the reason given :- Cinema going reduces significantly during the spring and summer months to such an extent that, for 2017, we have decided that the best use of our resources during this period is to concentrate on increasing activities in the Pavilion. There appears to be no real evidence to support this sudden closure and makes no sense commercially. Probably as a result of the outcry locally via the petition, local news websites and other means PACL were then forced to issue a further statement (March 9th 2017) which quite frankly only makes the situation worse and has led to even more outcry locally :- ….we have recognised that, to ensure the long term future of the Cinema and of the Pavilion as a whole, we need to make some temporary changes to our operations. The last three years have shown quite clearly that with the limited capacity of the 68 seat Cinema the income from ticket sales will never be enough to cover the costs of running the Cinema. As a registered charity we cannot continue to provide facilities that are uneconomical as is the case with the Cinema. We have therefore drawn up a plan to secure additional independent financial support from a variety of possible sources. This will enable us to maintain the Cinema in the longer term and to keep ticket prices at an affordable level. Over the coming months we will regularly review progress on our future plans and hope very much to be able to re-open the Cinema sooner rather than later. In response to this I would point out the following:- 1) Surely the funders of the project required a robust business plan assessment which would have included a viability appraisal of the cinema? 2) That a commercially astute person would understand that in operating the cinema the income derived is not just from ticket sales but also advertising, bar, café and retail sales associated with people attending a screening. 3) The marketing of the Pavilion ( including the cinema) appears to have been extremely limited – again borne out by countless comments made and the fact that the 2015 accounts show that just £60 was spent on marketing ( down from almost £4.5K the previous year). Even the most basic advice in terms of marketing of an independent cinema on the ICO website appears to have been ignored. 4) PACL is now saying that the cinema is uneconomical yet there appears to be no evidence to support this. If PACL do not wish to – or cannot – run the cinema then surely handing it over to someone who can make it work ( eg Chapter?) rather than allow a grant funded state 0f the art facility to be mothballed 5) PACL say they now have a plan to secure additional financial support. What does this mean? Do they mean additional grants in addition to the huge sums received to date ( including almost £200k from the Coastal Communities Fund for staffing etc to increase visitor numbers). Who is likely to provide additional grant funding to an organisation that has already received extensive support and does not appear to be clearly demonstrating to the public that it is the appropriate custodian of this ‘jewel in the crown’ of Penarth based on performance to date and lack of engagement and transparency with the community on which it depends for business. The concern is that our cinema is being used a scapegoat in a scenario with PACL which seems to raise legitimate concerns over management rather than the viability of the cinema There is growing concern about the track record of PACL Trustees in managing such an operation and questions have been raised about the commercial skills on the current Board of trustees and their experience of managing similar operations. There are questions being raised in Penarth about the apparent lack of local accountability on the part of PACL who received the funding to develop the Pavilion on the back of extensive community consultation, engagement and support. However whilst it is clear that discussions are taking place between the relevant parties ( PACL, Heritage Lottery Fund, BLF, Vale of Glamorgan Council and the Independent Cinema Office) there does not seem to be anyone engaging with the community who regularly use the cinema to seek their views on a way forward that is supported by the community. Whilst I recognise that many discussions will be confidential for commercial reasons a complete wall of silence is not helping Local MP Stephen Doughty, in an e mail response to a constituent, has confirmed he has had ‘a number of helpful and constructive discussions with both the Vale Council and PACL directly, and have offered my help where it would be useful, to ensure recent challenges are addressed’. He goes on to say, ‘I know that PACL will welcome all offers of support and time to ensure that the current challenges are addressed’ and that ‘I am happy to meet with any residents who wish to discuss concerns about the Pavilion – and would encourage them to contact me’. Individuals and local organisations have come forward to offer help but it appears that there has been no response. Surely this is not good and at a minimum it would be useful to engage with the community – certainly representatives from it – at an early stage in the process of ensuring that our much loved cinema is re-opened asap? I look forward to hearing from you Yours Sincerely Andrew Jones