Pier chiefs in fight over development

Adam Trimingham - The Argus Friday, 15 March, 2002

PALACE Pier boss David Biesterfield has issued a stark warning to Brighton and Hove City Council over the rival West Pier.

In a letter to The Argus today, he says if councillors approved a large-scale development at the shore end of the West Pier, his company would seek permission for a similar scheme.

Developers St Modwen, with the support of the Brighton West Pier Trust, is putting in plans to the council for a retail and leisure development on the Lower Promenade on either side of the pier.

Mr Biesterfield, a director of the Noble Organisation, which owns the Palace Pier, says: "Planning decisions must be consistent. We trust if the council is minded to agree the large shore-end buildings for the West Pier, it will accept the inevitable justification of a similar development at the root of our pier.

"That shore-end development will be all the more essential if our pier is to compete on fair terms with the modern, commercial development to be state-subsidised for St Modwen's benefit."

Mr Biesterfield has already issued a legal challenge against the National Lottery funding for the West Pier on the grounds it would be unfair competition.

A decision on the £15 million grant will be made by the Heritage Lottery Fund early next month.

Mr Biesterfield says his company has always supported the West Pier restoration but opposed what he calls the flagrant commercial development of the St Modwen scheme

He says: "Virtually every conservation and amenity group in Brighton recognises the scheme is inappropriate."

Concentrating development at the shore end rather than attracting people on to the pier has been the death knell of countless British piers.

The Palace Pier boss suggests the West Pier Trust should apply for enough money to cover the whole project and future maintenance from the Lottery.

He says: "The heritage project could be just that - the preservation and restoration of the West Pier as a museum of Edwardian culture without the subsidised commercial element to which we object."

An alternative would be to move the enabling development to council land on another site.

Dr Geoff Lockwood, chief executive of the Brighton West Pier Trust, said the Palace Pier had previously supported the renovation scheme even when it had included an enabling development.

He said the enabling development principle had been clearly agreed for several years by the city council and heritage organisations.

Dr Lockwood said not every conservationist was opposed to the enabling development, especially the bigger organisations.

The Palace Pier was longer than the West Pier and had much more space for development. Much of it had been arranged as an amusements area with attractions crowded on to it. By contrast, the West Pier would be restored to its authentic condition. This required an enabling development.

Dr Lockwood said the Trust had asked for 100 per cent funding from the lottery but the policy was always that it liked a partnership.

The original offer had been for only £5 million and it had taken long work to increase it.

Dr Lockwood said the application was being presented to the council and he was confident of support.

He added: "If these plans fail, the wreck will have to be cleared once a main building slips into the sea."

The cost would be up to £3 million and no one would pay that without a return.