I have finally today received a detailed response from Richard Bellamy Head of HLF in Wales to the points raised with him originally ( as per the update I posted here on 10/5/17) The response is worrying in that it gives the clearest indication yet to residents of Penarth that it is highly unlikely that our cinema will ever return to anywhere near the level of operation that we enjoyed before it's sudden closure in February! Depressing to say the least Dear Mr Jones, Thank you for your e-mail of the 10th of May. I have put your points to Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd and I am now in a position to provide a response to the first six points of your e-mail. · PACL has stated that provision of a cinema facility six nights a week throughout the year was not covering the overheads. The cost of staff, utilities and the payments to the film provider required the auditorium to be at near capacity for every performance to ensure those costs were covered. When the pavilion was able to secure higher profile films such as recent Oscar winners, the auditorium was full and in fact they could justify putting on additional showings as I understand was the case last year with La La Land. However some nights the audience could fall as low as four people with the same cost overheads being incurred. · As with any business, decisions on marketing expenditure have to be constantly reviewed. A balance has to be struck between incurring additional costs of operating a cinema facility, and additional marketing will cost money, and how many more paying customers it will attract. I am not a resident of Penarth so I cannot dispute your statement that some local people are still unaware that you can see films in the Pavilion building. The fact that a high profile film will result in the requirement to put on additional performances could be evidence that contradicts that viewpoint. Unfortunately the process of film distribution makes it difficult for a facility of the size of Penarth Pier Pavilion to secure those types of films every week. I am sure the PACL would not defend every aspect of their approach top marketing the facilities available at the pavilion building and part of the grant we have awarded to the organisation will allow them to take more professional advice on what they do going forward with this aspect of their business. · PACL are an independent organisation and are responsible for their own decisions regarding what sort of business opportunities they decide to pursue. I am sure each opportunity is assessed on its merit, how it might fit with the existing programme of activities the pavilion is already committed to deliver and whether it will actually produce sufficient income to at least cover its own costs if not actually make a profit. PACL also have consider their own staff capacity. Business development requires staff time which has not always been available. Part of the HLF Resilient Heritage Grant will free up existing staff time from more day to day operations which allow them to respond more effectively to new business enquiries. · PACL are meeting all their outstanding financial commitments · It is sometimes the case that offers of help, no matter how well meaning, are not what an organisation might require at a particular in their operational development. The Board of Trustees are ultimately responsible for the operation of Pavilion and at this point they may not have the capacity to accept all offers of help when the urgent need is to focus on its present financial performance . That said, PACL are not working in isolation and have actually taken advice from a wide range of sources, both from private businesses and public sector support organisations. · I think PACL do need to provide the public with more information as to the future direction of the organisation. I will be encouraging the staff and trustees to communicate their plans and role they envisage for the pavilion as a community building for Penarth once they have been finalised and endorsed by their Board of Trustees. · The volunteer base of any organisation requires both management and support. PACL have recognised that this has not been the case recently with regards to the Penarth Pier Pavilion and part of the HLF Resilient Heritage Grant will be used to employ a coordinator to support existing volunteers and gradually rebuild a volunteer base with the skills and experience the Pavilion will need to support a sustainable future. It is not always about numbers, it is more often about skills and commitment. My comments on the remaining points made in your e-mail are as follows: My understanding of the Coastal Communities Grant is that it was awarded to support the following three members of staff: · Pavilion Director · Marketing and Fundraising Officer · Administrator All three posts were recruited and paid for with the grant for two years. At the end of two years the Pavilion Director costs were taken on by the PACL to be covered by earned income and the other two posts become redundant. As I stated in my last e-mail, PACL acknowledge that they face serious challenges in securing a sustainable future for the Pavilion Building. The fact that they have had to apply for a Resilient Heritage Grant is evidence in itself. The Heritage Lottery Fund alongside other funders have invested significant sums of money in resorting the building and we want to see it succeed as a community resource for Penarth. If nothing was wrong with way the building has been run for its first three years and every decision that had been made was the correct one, then further support to enable change would not be necessary. It is clear that this is not the case and the Heritage Lottery Fund has made the decision to award a grant to enable change to happen. I understand that PACL’s Annual Return/Confirmation Statement has now been lodged with Companies House If Penarth Pier Pavilion is to have a sustainable future it will of course require the support of the public. It will need users of it facilities, volunteers to help staff and support its events programme and more than likely donors willing to financially support elements of its operation that are not commercially self-supporting. In order to achieve this support PACL will need to successfully communicate its plans for the future and I will be urging them to do so once they have been fully formed and financially tested. I want to take this opportunity to clearly state that the Heritage Lottery Fund funded what was described as a multi-functional auditorium as part of the restoration of the pavilion. The idea of including projection equipment capable of providing cinema quality films was a very late addition to the project. We therefore do not consider that we funded a Cinema. The idea of having the facility to show films was considered as a potential source of additional income. The experience of three years of operation has shown that rather than a source of income, a six day a week cinema offer in the traditional sense actually costs the Pavilion money. Any decision to resume the showing of films in the auditorium will remain a decision for the management and Board of Trustees of PACL. It might be the case that they generate sufficient income from other uses of the building that could in effect subsidise the showing of films. Another scenario might involve attracting sponsorship or grant aid from other sources to meet the overhead costs not covered by ticket sales and catering income. In both cases it would be a commercial decision to be made by the management and governing body. As a funder of the restoration of the listed pavilion building and supporter of business change through a Resilient Heritage Grant, the Heritage Lottery Fund will not compel PACL to provide a facility or service that might put at risk the long term sustainability of the building. In terms of criticism levelled at the management and Board of Trustees of PACL, this has ranged from the completely legitimate concern at the closure of facilities that the public enjoyed extensive access to over the past three years, to suggestions to bring in teams of forensic auditors to establish “where the money has gone”. The tone of the criticism in some cases hints at fraudulent actions by PACL. I acknowledge that when you are responsible for a building restored and developed with lottery players money you should except that the public will have the right to criticise aspects of how that building is run, particularly a building with the profile of the Penarth Pier Pavilion. What I believe is unfair and dispiriting is when not only your management performance is questioned but also your integrity. I think that applies to paid staff but even more importantly unpaid volunteers such as Trustees. You are correct that I do not feel that a public meeting is an appropriate way forward. Whist I appreciate the concerns you have raised, the Heritage Lottery Fund will monitor proactively the work undertaken using the Resilient Heritage grant and do not expect all the desired improvements to become apparent immediately. Some will take a number of months to be realised and on that basis I do not consider it beneficial to enter into a protracted correspondence. My view is that PACL need time to review their current income generating activity, identify potential new sources and then formulate a new direction for the organisation that will secure its financial future and its role as a community building for both Penarth and the wider area. Yours sincerely Richard Bellamy Pennaeth, Cronfa Dreftadaeth y Loteri Cymru | Head of the Heritage Lottery Fund, Wales Ffôn | Phone: 02920 234144 Ebost | Email: richardb@hlf.org.uk