21 April 2017 Dear Richard Re : Penarth Arts & Crafts (PACL) Ltd It is with regret that I would like to raise a concern about the above organisation in line with your published procedure on ‘Raising A Concern’. In the published guidance you state that ‘As custodians of money raised by National Lottery players and grant-in-aid funding, we will always take your concerns seriously, and have processes to ensure that they can be investigated’. I trust that you will take this matter seriously as all other attempts that I and others have tried to have an honest dialogue about the legitimate concerns around PACL have simply been ignored by all in a position to effect change. You will remember that I contacted you on March 7th 2017 regarding PACL and you kindly responded the following day. As you know I started an online petition requesting that PACL reconsider their plans to close our cinema. 1700 people signed that. Nobody from PACl or the Vale of Glamorgan Council has been prepared to engage with local people to listen to legitimate concerns and suggestions about a way forward. Total non engagement is surely wrong and from my own experience of dealing with Lottery funding ( albeit People & Places) is completely at odds for the need to have community support and engagement over any successful funding bids. In the short period since starting the petition there have been countless similar concerns raised in Penarth about the performance of PACL and its management of our Pavilion. For example :- 1. It has been stated by a number of reliable sources that the reason why our cinema closed at short notice is entirely down to mismanagement by PACL through non payment to the ICO for film hire charges. We the residents of Penarth have thus been deprived of one of our best cultural assets in the town entirely due to mismanagement and NOT lack of support 2. An entirely deficient marketing strategy which is borne out by the number of local people who STILL did not realise there was a cinema in the Pavilion 3. Regular reports of commercial business opportunities being turned away or enquiries not followed up 4. Suppliers who have not been paid for services provided 5. Turned down offers of help and support and adopted a policy of complete non engagement with the community on which it depends 6. A hugely diminished volunteer base Despite these well documented concerns PACL has now received £126k from the Resilient Heritage Programme to build capacity – just a few years after PACL received £200k from the Coastal Communities Fund for a similar objective. Yet there are examples of small local projects that have been turned down for HLF funding due to scarcity of grant available. Whilst I understand that you will be unable to discuss confidential aspects of this funding bid there is clearly a legitimate public interest and local concern into the way PACL operates and reassurance is needed about yet more public money being pumped into this organisation I know that in assessing PACL’s funding application you take into account issues such as :- • Why further Lottery funding is now required ? • The current position of your organisation and the circumstances that have led to this point? • The extent to which your Resilient Heritage project offers value for money? • How capable your organisation is of carrying out this project? • The extent to which your proposals are well planned and financially realistic? • The extent to which outcomes will be sustained after the project • The impact achieved with the original HLF grant • The extent to which those achievements are now at risk These raise serious concerns about how this award was made. Whilst I understand that the award of this funding is for specific purposes in line with your grant award guidance I note there is absolutely no mention by PACL as to how this will impact on re-opening of the cinema which is clearly the one facility that local people value and appreciate. I have to say it is just typical of the arrogance displayed by PACL throughout this that they do not even feel the need to communicate with the local community about how this impacts on the cinema reopening. After all £126k is a considerable sum of money to be investing in an organisation which is not demonstrating good management and is not displaying any evidence of responding to local needs by reopening the cinema. I am assuming that the debt owed to ICO is nowhere near £126k and surely going forward any proposals would include clearing this debt to restart the cinema operation to the benefit of the local community? There are no agendas here other than to see our wonderful cinema reopened and the future of the Pavilion secured. I doubt there is anyone in Penarth who believes that it is safe in PACL’s hands apart from the Trustees themselves. Surely we are owed an explanation about how such a large sum of Lottery money is being given to PACL when they are so many legitimate concerns about its record on management and complete lack of community engagement? I think that local people are entitled to some explanation, reassurance, open engagement and an opportunity to ask questions – surely it is not too much to ask for at least an open meeting with yourself and representatives from the Vale of Glamorgan Council and PACL? I look forward to hearing from you Yours Sincerely Andrew Jones