Whither the West Pier?

Geoff Lockwood, chief executive of Brighton West Pier Trust, has finally admitted defeat. In his latest statement on the future of the pier, The Ravages of Wind and Fire, published this month on the Trust's website he accepts that the West Pier will not be "restored". Of course, all hopes of genuine restoration went some years back, especially after the disastrous fires of 2003 which has left nothing standing but the burnt-out steel framework of the pier. Any restoration today could be nothing more than a pastiche or replica of the original Victorian structure, and therefore not worth the doing.

So why did the Trust fail. Mr Lockwood gives a number of reasons. The bureaucracy of the Heritage Lottery Fund (who were putting up the millions of public money needed), the "vexatious opposition of the Noble Organisation" (owners of Brighton Pier) who were determined to prevent the restoration "by all possible means", the years of delay and thus further physical deterioration of the pier at the hands of sea and storm, and the finally the work of "professional arsonists".

Mr Lockwood writes: "The fire fighters I was with in the burning structures had no doubt that the fires had been professionally planned; combustible timers placed at night and approached from the sea (we had 24 hour security watch at the landward end). Professional, so which opponents to our plans paid them?"

The crime has never been solved.

Mr Lockwood has scaled down the Trust's ambition for the pier to some kind of heritage centre on the foreshore site of the old pier. I believe that the Trust has in store a good many artefacts from the 'old lady' to fill a small museum.

Let's hope it happens. The Trust intends to announce its new plans early in 2006.

So, the city will have to be content with having only one pier: Brighton Pier. Or will it? Perhaps a completely new pier should be built. Not another Brighton pier. No, Brighton Pier is very good at what it does, but we don't need another - thank you, very much!

What we could have is a 21st century pier, museum, and visitor attraction which would be a demonstration of sustainable technologies. That should bring world-class international architects, technologists, and environmentalists to the design table. And since our one remaining pier is now called Brighton Pier (formerly known as Palace Pier) the new pier should be called Hove Pier and sited on the esplanade, opposite Brunswick Square.

Thus the two-town city of Brighton & Hove would have two piers.

Why not?

See Geof Lockwood's report here

Further info about Brighton's piers here

CIA Skies

The weather in Brighton today and for the last few days has been cloudy, dull, dull and more dull, though mild for this time of year (around 9 degrees centigrade daytime).It's very uninspiring and together with historically low prices (courtesy of the working people of China, no doubt) probably accounts for a good deal of the ever-growing obsession of bedecking our homes with more and more Christmas lights for a Christmas season which grows longer and longer.

Some time ago I was looking at the CIA's online World Factbook . A useful reference work, provided you take account of the peculiar perspective of its authors. In its entry for the UK it has a couple of lines on the climate, including the following observation: "more than one-half of the days are overcast".

Um, interesting, I thought, perhaps it comes from using spy satellites a lot - not the overcast days but the observation thereof. But it's true we have a lot of overcast days and they tend to depress the spirit, especially during these short days of winter. Nonetheless, the winter solstice is now behind us, and longer, if still too frequently overcast, days are lie ahead.

Park & Ride Refusal - Again!

So once again the city council have muffed it on park & ride, voting against yet another proposal for a new park & ride extension. Despite the scheme being radically scaled down before going to the Policy & Resources Committee on 7th December, it was defeated by the combined opposition of Tory, Green and LibDem councillors, giving the opposition a majority over the proposal of the minority Labour administration.

The Tories opposed because of local opposition in one of their safe seats. The Greens opposed because they are attached to unrealisable utopian dreams. The LibDems opposed because they float on the breeze.

Park & Ride is often portrayed by its opponents as the plaything of the business community, intent on making money at whatever cost to the environment. It is true that some business people think like that and that the city's business-dominated Economic Partnership have long championed the cause of park & ride, but those who will suffer its loss are not just business, but the city's visitors, and the city centre residents.

Air quality, road safety, and traffic management will all suffer - and that means city centre residents and all who for whatever reason visit the central area.

I favour a large scheme on the edge of town at its northern approach. But such a scheme can only be justified if it is linked to a radical proposal for rescaling city centre parking and remodelling important areas of the centre in favour of the pedestrian. Labour's scheme was linked to a fairly limited bus-based Rapid Transport System, servicing a number of key seafront venues. That was not enough. It was inadequate.

A bit by bit approach to increasing pedestrian priority areas in the city must at some point turn revolutionary in the way something like that proposed by Anthony Seldon in his book, Brave New City. Until that happens gridlock and more and more air pollution hover on our horizon.

Over the last decade or so hundreds of thousands of pounds, probably millions, have been spent (given to consultants) reviewing sites for possible park and ride schemes. It ain't cheap. And all we have to show for it is the make-do-and-mend scheme at Withdean.