Agenda item

Cllr V Gay – Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Wellbeing and Culture introduced the report and informed Members that the recommendations had been resolved by Cabinet at its February meeting. She referred to the first recommendation to extend the Pier Management Contract with Openwide, and noted that this had taken place previously on several occasions, with the relationship being in place since 2001. It was noted that the second recommendation stated that the Council was open to exploring a risk sharing arrangement for 2022, though this was only an eventuality and the full cost of this was not known. Cllr V Gay referred to the third recommendation and noted that the Council were liable to fund improvements, which had been recommended by Environmental Health. Finally, the fourth recommendation to explore broadening the Pier’s offer was an approach taken with all similar contracts. Cllr V Gay stated that Openwide had also made efforts to secure their own financial support during the Pandemic, which included two cultural grants from the Arts Council, the first amounting to £227k and the second £125K, which had helped to underwrite the cancelled 2020 season. She added that it was unclear what could be expected in 2022, therefore the risk sharing arrangements were only a precaution, as it was important to continue supporting the Seaside Special Show.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr J Rest referred to recommendation D, and asked whether the Council still imposed restrictions on pantomime shows. Cllr V Gay replied that she was not aware of the details, though she expected this restriction may have been in place prior to production of the Christmas Pier show, which may have been established as a result. Cllr J Rest suggested that it would be helpful to clarify whether the restriction was still in place, as it could provide a potential opportunity for Openwide. Cllr V Gay agreed and noted that Openwide had several proposals of its own to broaden its offer, such as themed weekend events. She added that historically the Council had provided approximately £80k of annual funding, though this was no longer the case with £20k of profit shared in the 2019 season.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to recommendation B on risk sharing arrangements and asked whether any other options had been considered, such as increased insurance. Cllr V Gay replied that she was not aware of Openwide’s insurance arrangements, though in many cases insurers had refused pay-outs relating to Covid-19. She added that many theatres across the Country had faced financial difficulties during the pandemic, though she would seek to provide a written response regarding Openwide’s insurance arrangements.

     iii.          Cllr S Penfold referred to recommendation C to fund the refurbishment of the bar area, and noted that within the report at section 1.2 it was stated that Openwide would be responsible for non-structural repairs to fixtures and fittings. He then asked whether the funding was for structural refurbishment only. Cllr V Gay replied that she was not aware of the full plans for the refurbishment, though a written reply could be provided. The Chairman noted that he had been on the Working Party that discussed the contractual arrangements, and suggested that the Council were responsible for capital refurbishments, whilst Openwide were responsible for routine maintenance and repairs. He added that there had also been plans for the Council to update the lighting and seating, which he expected had been completed some time ago.

    iv.          Cllr T Adams stated that there were additional elements that the Council had responsibility for upgrading such as dressing rooms, and suggested that it could be useful to arrange a Member visit to the Pier.

      v.          Cllr V Gay noted that whilst there were several Piers across the Country, Cromer Pier remained relatively unique as a historical asset, which was a significant draw for tourism.

    vi.          The Chairman suggested that it could be helpful to receive a briefing for Members to better understand how the contract is managed and how the Pier is maintained.

   vii.          Cllr V Holliday asked whether it was possible to quantify the economic impact of the Pier and the benefits it had for the District. The CTA replied that the Economic Growth Team may be able to provide this information, and she would seek to provide a written response.

  viii.          Cllr N Housden stated that it was crucial to treat the Pier with care, given its significance as a historical asset, then referred to recommendation D and suggested that more food concessions could be explored to generate additional income if no restrictions were in place. He asked whether the £45k budget for improvements would include any funding for options being considered as part of recommendation D. Cllr V Gay replied that more concessions had often been discussed, but they required careful consideration as they could impact other businesses in the area. Cllr T Adams noted that there were some historic restrictions on the Pier, though options were being explored to increase the range of concessions available on and off the Pier. He added that Openwide had expanded previously into the forecourt area, and whilst a careful balance had to be maintained, there was potential for more concessions. It was noted that as Council subsidies had decreased, Openwide had been given the option to provide more concessions.

    ix.          Cllr H Blathwayt noted that he had previously been a Member of the National Pier Society, and reminded Members that Cromer Pier had won the Pier of the Year award in 2019. He added that if the Pier were to become too commercial, it may damage its reputation going forward, and should therefore be given very careful consideration. Cllr H Blathwayt asked whether the RNLI made any contributions to the Pier, given the location of the lifeboat station. Cllr T Adams replied that he was unsure of arrangements with the RNLI, though he would seek to confirm this. It was noted that the relationship with the RNLI was a mutually beneficial, as the RNLI provided a crucial life-saving service for the District.

      x.          The Chairman noted that it would be helpful for Openwide to be included in a Member briefing to explain any further commercial options being considered and their plans for the future of the Pier.

    xi.          The recommendations were proposed by Cllr S Penfold and Cllr H Blathwayt, with the inclusion of an additional recommendation to include a Member briefing on the Pier contract and maintenance arrangements.

RESOLVED

1.     To commend the following Cabinet decisions:

a) Agree now to the extension of the pier management contract at the end of its current ten-year term for five years to March 2033 (as allowed for under the contract) so that the additional costs / losses incurred by Openwide in supporting the contract over the past two years due to COVID might be recovered – i.e. Option 1 as detailed within Section 5 of the report.

b) Agree that the Council is prepared, in principle, to explore further with Openwide a risk-sharing approach in underwriting the costs of investment in the 2022 Seaside Special production recognising the challenges presented by the COVID pandemic on audience figures during 2021 and the continued uncertainty for the 2022 summer season given that planning and investment in the 2022 production is already underway - i.e. Option 3 as detailed within Section 5 of the report.

c) The Council agrees to make budgetary provision in the current financial year of up to £45,000 to upgrade the bar and food service area within the Pavilion Theatre

d) Agree that the Council works closely with Openwide to explore broadening the offer of the Pier as outlined in Options 4 and 5 of Section 5 of the report so as to attract new audiences, visitors and income to the Pier.

2.     To request that an all-Member briefing be arranged to improve understanding of the contractual arrangements with Openwide for the management and maintenance of the Pier. 

ACTIONS

1.     Written replies to be provided on the following points, where possible:

·        Any restrictions on hosting a Pantomime production?

·        Does Openwide’s insurance cover loss of income due to extenuating circumstances?

·        Is funding allocated under recommendation C for structural repairs/investment only?

·        Can the economic impact of the Pier and the benefit provided for the District be quantified?

·        Do the RNLI in any way contribute to the maintenance of the Pier?