Comments on the Society's Pier Policy

I lived in Regency Square for 4 years between 1998 and 2002, before moving to London - its so sad that such a forward thinking, artistic, historic and vibrant town as Brighton and Hove could stand by and quibble so much about saving the west pier or at least making it strong enough to remain. It was a haunting, poignant and fascinating part of my everyday life in Brighton and now it has all but gone.

The Society's fatalistic policy does seem rather sad in view of the Trust's continuing efforts to salvage something a bit more exciting than a dreary memorial plaque attached to some railings. No doubt Regency Square residents are worried about the impact of the ruins on their precious property prices, but this is a major heritage site. A new pier incorporating the best bits of the old pier would look fantastic and help bring Brighton back from its sad decline. A bit more imagination and a lot more passion please!

I agree with the policy statement, including leaving the decking and the need for a matching building to the rock shop, but the area underneath is an eyesore and should be cleared. It makes the little market look tatty and is a jumbled collection of rusty old bits and pieces. The sooner the remains of the entire pier are cleared, the better for the sea front. Build a decent permanent loo under the decking.

I agree with the the proposed policy which seems a long overdue way forward. Without seeing the balance sheet it is difficult to claim that the trust must be insolvent. If they do own valuable freehold land they may not be. But the pier itself can be worth nothing and should be written down/off. Indeed they may have to create a prudent reserve for the cost of removing the derelict structure, if they are legally responsible for it, and this could possibly make them insolvent.

Point 2.1 Another twelve months just further postpones the removal of a major eye-sore on the front. It should be removed as soon as possible.

2.8 A replica kiosk is a good idea but the existing one needs to be renovated and painted.

Having read your statement on the Society's policy towards the West Pier:
1. the West Pier Trust is legitimately continuing to pursue its objects
2. the Trust is not insolvent, and not likely to be so. The land it holds freehold more than matches any liabilities
3. the Trust, the Council and English Heritage are actively considering a replacement for the pier that utilises some of its heritage. The Society might wish to delay having a stance until ideas emerge from those discussions.

Geoff Lockwood
Chief Executive