It would be interesting to know exactly who was responsible for turning a good design into the Skip by the Sea!
I was thinking of having a 'naming and shaming' section in here, although we'd have to be 100% certain who had done what before doing anything like it. It's not the only thing, either; I would like to know exactly whose responsibility it had been to ensure the licence for the landing stage work was up-to-date. Because of that fiasco, people's holidays were effectively spoilt, and some might well have booked accommodation specifically to visit the Waverley.
In the case of Porth Eirias I'm pretty certain that it will turn out to have been a committee. But this, in fact, is precisely how local government protects itself. An individual will ensure that the minutes will reflect 'a consensus', so no one person can then be found accountable. Now, I accept this goes on in business as well, but the fact is that eventually the business has to make money, so the accountability arrives in the form of the accountants.
The Pier, however, is a different matter. There will have been someone - an individual - whose responsibility it will have been to ensure the permit was valid and they need to be identified. The only alternative is that CCBC are so utterly clueless that they weren't even aware that the need existed. Even so, whichever individual in CCBC was the
de facto project manager for the pier ought to be identified. I'm not asking for the stocks or public flogging but the only recourse the tax payer has to rectify these situations is through the ballot box, and even then the council officers have made self-protection into an art form.
Here's an interesting question: did the council officers produce a project plan for the pier and, crucially, did they list the criteria for failure? I'm betting the answer to both questions is 'no'. In which case, perhaps a letter to the CE should be considered. Perhaps it's time officers in local government face competency hearings.
