The ArgusReport reveals council to offer another £21.4m for i360 in Brighton (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Report reveals council to offer another £21.4m for i360 in Brighton

The Argus: Report reveals council to offer another £21.4m for i360 in Brighton Report reveals council to offer another £21.4m for i360 in Brighton

Brighton and Hove City Council is to offer an extra £21.4 million, on top of an already agreed figure of £14.8 million, to help fund the i360 tower.

But according to official council papers released today, developers of the project, Marks Barfield, will offer £6 million in funds to get the project off the ground.

It is also claimed the tourist attraction will bring in between £13.9 million and £25.4 million in revenue for the city after the first year.

Read the full papers:

Comments (71)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:39pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Benji.uk says...

Do the people of Brighton want this? I don't, I also question the costs of running and maintenance against the money it will 'earn'. A vanity project not needed.
Do the people of Brighton want this? I don't, I also question the costs of running and maintenance against the money it will 'earn'. A vanity project not needed. Benji.uk
  • Score: 36

4:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

s_james says...

How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!!
How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!! s_james
  • Score: -8

4:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

sabbat36 says...

i'm waiting for the vote the greens out comments, combined with the cycle lanes comments etc
i'm waiting for the vote the greens out comments, combined with the cycle lanes comments etc sabbat36
  • Score: -15

4:21pm Fri 28 Feb 14

rolivan says...

s_james wrote:
How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!!
If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!![/p][/quote]If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous. rolivan
  • Score: 20

4:21pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

I've been clear since this new loan was announced that I and my colleagues will be voting against this on Thursday. The loan is from the government, but if the i360 were to fail then the council and the taxpayer would be liable for the full amount. The "asset" the council would be left with - the tower itself - has no secondary/alternativ
e uses, unlike arenas/offices etc that public works loans have been used for elsewhere. It is a very big risk that no private investors have been willing to support in the eight years that this project has been on the table.
I've been clear since this new loan was announced that I and my colleagues will be voting against this on Thursday. The loan is from the government, but if the i360 were to fail then the council and the taxpayer would be liable for the full amount. The "asset" the council would be left with - the tower itself - has no secondary/alternativ e uses, unlike arenas/offices etc that public works loans have been used for elsewhere. It is a very big risk that no private investors have been willing to support in the eight years that this project has been on the table. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 57

4:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

s_james says...

rolivan wrote:
s_james wrote:
How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!!
If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.
Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!![/p][/quote]If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.[/p][/quote]Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same. s_james
  • Score: -11

4:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly.
Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 34

4:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

s_james wrote:
rolivan wrote:
s_james wrote:
How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!!
If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.
Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same.
My calculations make it 36.2 million. So there's an extra £200,000.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!![/p][/quote]If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.[/p][/quote]Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same.[/p][/quote]My calculations make it 36.2 million. So there's an extra £200,000. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Fri 28 Feb 14

brightonpip says...

s_james wrote:
How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!!
Quite agree. Hardly news let alone breaking news.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!![/p][/quote]Quite agree. Hardly news let alone breaking news. brightonpip
  • Score: -4

4:46pm Fri 28 Feb 14

john newman says...

No point in having this so called attraction if people cannot use decent public transport links to reach it. Inadequate railway network, especially at weekends and a bus station like Pool Valley that helps us to remember what 1965 was like!!
No point in having this so called attraction if people cannot use decent public transport links to reach it. Inadequate railway network, especially at weekends and a bus station like Pool Valley that helps us to remember what 1965 was like!! john newman
  • Score: 21

4:58pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Number Six says...

1965? Not that modern, surely
1965? Not that modern, surely Number Six
  • Score: 7

4:58pm Fri 28 Feb 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 11

5:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

paul6391 says...

Pathetic joke the green party, i dont want my tax money spent this eyesore..
concentrate on making the arches in madeira drive safe...cant wait to vote these PRATS out
Pathetic joke the green party, i dont want my tax money spent this eyesore.. concentrate on making the arches in madeira drive safe...cant wait to vote these PRATS out paul6391
  • Score: 29

5:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

RottingdeanRant says...

If our councillors think its such a good deal then let them offer up some of their property as security for the loan and let them keep any pro rata proportion of the profit! Put THEIR money where their mouths are.
If our councillors think its such a good deal then let them offer up some of their property as security for the loan and let them keep any pro rata proportion of the profit! Put THEIR money where their mouths are. RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 21

5:31pm Fri 28 Feb 14

rolivan says...

s_james wrote:
rolivan wrote:
s_james wrote:
How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!!
If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.
Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same.
So You think it is OK to Guarantee a loan for a Glorified Lift.
If the Council was to Borrow £36.2 million to build "affordable" or Council Housing which is a far more pressing issue I and I am sure a lot of others would prefer that option.It is not £36.000 that is being talked about.
.People tend to talk in Telephone numbers as if it doesn't really matter.On the one hand the Greens thought they could get away with a 4.75 Council Tax increase because they need to to bring in a few hundred thousand more and here they are along with the Cons agreeing to put the Council into Debt for £36m which will rise to £40m if this project gets approved.I have never voted Labour in my life but I must give Warren Morgan credit in trying to put a stop to this Folly.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!![/p][/quote]If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.[/p][/quote]Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same.[/p][/quote]So You think it is OK to Guarantee a loan for a Glorified Lift. If the Council was to Borrow £36.2 million to build "affordable" or Council Housing which is a far more pressing issue I and I am sure a lot of others would prefer that option.It is not £36.000 that is being talked about. .People tend to talk in Telephone numbers as if it doesn't really matter.On the one hand the Greens thought they could get away with a 4.75 Council Tax increase because they need to to bring in a few hundred thousand more and here they are along with the Cons agreeing to put the Council into Debt for £36m which will rise to £40m if this project gets approved.I have never voted Labour in my life but I must give Warren Morgan credit in trying to put a stop to this Folly. rolivan
  • Score: 25

5:31pm Fri 28 Feb 14

allykatz says...

Can we have £36m to buy visitors free beer, I have a feeling that may attract many more tourists.
Can we have £36m to buy visitors free beer, I have a feeling that may attract many more tourists. allykatz
  • Score: 15

5:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

pjwilk says...

Just scrap it and lower the council tax.
Just scrap it and lower the council tax. pjwilk
  • Score: 10

5:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hector66 says...

this has to be the most foolhardy and reckless use of the city's financial resources ever! it is scandalous. their revenue calculations are no more than pie-in-the-sky, and who is to say construction costs won't escalate.
this has to be the most foolhardy and reckless use of the city's financial resources ever! it is scandalous. their revenue calculations are no more than pie-in-the-sky, and who is to say construction costs won't escalate. Hector66
  • Score: 30

5:53pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hector66 says...

and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.
and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered. Hector66
  • Score: 13

5:59pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ronrostog says...

Looks rubbish, will need constant upkeep to protect it, does not keep in with the area, nobody will bother to pay for the lousy views it will offer, scrap it.
Looks rubbish, will need constant upkeep to protect it, does not keep in with the area, nobody will bother to pay for the lousy views it will offer, scrap it. ronrostog
  • Score: 17

6:43pm Fri 28 Feb 14

dwhitt says...

Maybe my simple brain doesnt compute this too well. On one hand we have the council who can't agree a budget & want to increase council tax to keep multiple services going across Brighton but on the other hand they already have a large amount to fund this one-purpose monstrosity.

I wonder what it will look like after a night of 90mph+ winds battering it. "Need more money now to fix it, thank you citizens"
Maybe my simple brain doesnt compute this too well. On one hand we have the council who can't agree a budget & want to increase council tax to keep multiple services going across Brighton but on the other hand they already have a large amount to fund this one-purpose monstrosity. I wonder what it will look like after a night of 90mph+ winds battering it. "Need more money now to fix it, thank you citizens" dwhitt
  • Score: 13

6:52pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly.
This is the ideal folly.......

......for the Green Party who think they're on the way up.......

......and the Brighton Tories on the way down.

In other words, the i360 - a magnificent lift to obscurity.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly.[/p][/quote]This is the ideal folly....... ......for the Green Party who think they're on the way up....... ......and the Brighton Tories on the way down. In other words, the i360 - a magnificent lift to obscurity. Richada
  • Score: 8

7:16pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Three Conservative Councillors are going to make the Greens dream of a lift shaft with a see-through cage for our seafront come true.

They are:
Cllr Geoffrey Theobald (Patcham)
Cllr Graham Cox (loudest cheerleader) (Westbourne
Cllr Garry Peltzer-Dunn (Wish)

They are all persuaded that the business case is sound and that happens to depend on thousands of visitors to the wretched thing, 7/12/365! Why they think it achievable is impossible to understand.
Three Conservative Councillors are going to make the Greens dream of a lift shaft with a see-through cage for our seafront come true. They are: Cllr Geoffrey Theobald (Patcham) Cllr Graham Cox (loudest cheerleader) (Westbourne Cllr Garry Peltzer-Dunn (Wish) They are all persuaded that the business case is sound and that happens to depend on thousands of visitors to the wretched thing, 7/12/365! Why they think it achievable is impossible to understand. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 14

7:31pm Fri 28 Feb 14

tez1959 says...

cant they just use the years takings on the extortionate car par park charges they rob from the motorist to fund the white elephant
cant they just use the years takings on the extortionate car par park charges they rob from the motorist to fund the white elephant tez1959
  • Score: 4

7:39pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Three Conservative Councillors are going to make the Greens dream of a lift shaft with a see-through cage for our seafront come true.

They are:
Cllr Geoffrey Theobald (Patcham)
Cllr Graham Cox (loudest cheerleader) (Westbourne
Cllr Garry Peltzer-Dunn (Wish)

They are all persuaded that the business case is sound and that happens to depend on thousands of visitors to the wretched thing, 7/12/365! Why they think it achievable is impossible to understand.
Ah .. I know Cox ... have come across him before though he isn't my councillor. The lapdog's wagging tail or, in other words, Simon Kirby yes man.

Theobald is a hasbeen wannabee who failed to gain a seat in parliament when he tried to stand for East Brighton.

Don't know a lot about Peltzer-Dunn but I do seem to recollect him being a director for a now dissolved company ... Not sure what that says about his business acumen
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Three Conservative Councillors are going to make the Greens dream of a lift shaft with a see-through cage for our seafront come true. They are: Cllr Geoffrey Theobald (Patcham) Cllr Graham Cox (loudest cheerleader) (Westbourne Cllr Garry Peltzer-Dunn (Wish) They are all persuaded that the business case is sound and that happens to depend on thousands of visitors to the wretched thing, 7/12/365! Why they think it achievable is impossible to understand.[/p][/quote]Ah .. I know Cox ... have come across him before though he isn't my councillor. The lapdog's wagging tail or, in other words, Simon Kirby yes man. Theobald is a hasbeen wannabee who failed to gain a seat in parliament when he tried to stand for East Brighton. Don't know a lot about Peltzer-Dunn but I do seem to recollect him being a director for a now dissolved company ... Not sure what that says about his business acumen mimseycal
  • Score: 10

8:21pm Fri 28 Feb 14

peachesncream says...

A message to Cllr Theobald and chums: Please, please rethink your plans to support this folly. The business plan is fatally flawed and the projections spurious to say the least. How can anyone justify supporting such a risky venture in such dire times. This is hardly a front-line service and it is the real front-line services which need to to be supported, not loss-making ventures.
A message to Cllr Theobald and chums: Please, please rethink your plans to support this folly. The business plan is fatally flawed and the projections spurious to say the least. How can anyone justify supporting such a risky venture in such dire times. This is hardly a front-line service and it is the real front-line services which need to to be supported, not loss-making ventures. peachesncream
  • Score: 12

8:39pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Pebbles907 says...

Why isn't anyone listening to us?

WE DON'T WANT IT!!!
Why isn't anyone listening to us? WE DON'T WANT IT!!! Pebbles907
  • Score: 13

8:47pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Hector66 wrote:
and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.
Such as?

You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away?

The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan.

If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.
[quote][p][bold]Hector66[/bold] wrote: and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.[/p][/quote]Such as? You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away? The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan. If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between. Eugenius
  • Score: -7

8:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

rolivan says...

This is getting worse every time I read it.It now appears it is going to cost about £46.2m as there is an additional £4m from Coast to Capital.
This is getting worse every time I read it.It now appears it is going to cost about £46.2m as there is an additional £4m from Coast to Capital. rolivan
  • Score: 4

8:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing. Eugenius
  • Score: -8

8:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this:

"If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would
continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to
be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the
foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which
anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy."

This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO.

This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much.

Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail.
4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this: "If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy." This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO. This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much. Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 12

9:04pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Three Conservative Councillors are going to make the Greens dream of a lift shaft with a see-through cage for our seafront come true.

They are:
Cllr Geoffrey Theobald (Patcham)
Cllr Graham Cox (loudest cheerleader) (Westbourne
Cllr Garry Peltzer-Dunn (Wish)

They are all persuaded that the business case is sound and that happens to depend on thousands of visitors to the wretched thing, 7/12/365! Why they think it achievable is impossible to understand.
Ann Norman, Garry Peltzer Dunn and Geoffrey Theobald are the 3 Tories who are expected to sit on P&R and sell this city down the river by supporting the £36m loan to Marks Barfield.

The Greens don't care, Labour is against, and what is in it for the elections next year seems not to bother any of them.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Three Conservative Councillors are going to make the Greens dream of a lift shaft with a see-through cage for our seafront come true. They are: Cllr Geoffrey Theobald (Patcham) Cllr Graham Cox (loudest cheerleader) (Westbourne Cllr Garry Peltzer-Dunn (Wish) They are all persuaded that the business case is sound and that happens to depend on thousands of visitors to the wretched thing, 7/12/365! Why they think it achievable is impossible to understand.[/p][/quote]Ann Norman, Garry Peltzer Dunn and Geoffrey Theobald are the 3 Tories who are expected to sit on P&R and sell this city down the river by supporting the £36m loan to Marks Barfield. The Greens don't care, Labour is against, and what is in it for the elections next year seems not to bother any of them. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 7

9:05pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
Hector66 wrote:
and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.
Such as?

You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away?

The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan.

If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.
Never mind alternative uses. This loan will be made for one reason and one reason only. We realise that. What your chums don't seem to realise is that we don't want the phallic symbol that will end up shafting every taxpayer in this city. We don't want to be responsible for a huge loan that will in all likelyhood be defaulted by the developer because they haven't made a good enough case to pursuade private investors in years of trying.

We will be left to pick up the pieces!

Now I realise that this is the preferred modus operandi of the Brighton Greens and I know that our current ConLib government is perfectly happy to penalise everyone but their City chums. It seems Cox, Theobald and Peltzer-Dunn are of the same mind. Shame on them all!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hector66[/bold] wrote: and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.[/p][/quote]Such as? You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away? The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan. If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.[/p][/quote]Never mind alternative uses. This loan will be made for one reason and one reason only. We realise that. What your chums don't seem to realise is that we don't want the phallic symbol that will end up shafting every taxpayer in this city. We don't want to be responsible for a huge loan that will in all likelyhood be defaulted by the developer because they haven't made a good enough case to pursuade private investors in years of trying. We will be left to pick up the pieces! Now I realise that this is the preferred modus operandi of the Brighton Greens and I know that our current ConLib government is perfectly happy to penalise everyone but their City chums. It seems Cox, Theobald and Peltzer-Dunn are of the same mind. Shame on them all! mimseycal
  • Score: 9

9:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
These are the guys who have been trying to find financial backers for years. That is how good a business plan they have.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]These are the guys who have been trying to find financial backers for years. That is how good a business plan they have. mimseycal
  • Score: 6

9:09pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
Once we sign up for this, the developer will well and truly have us by the short and curlies ...
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]Once we sign up for this, the developer will well and truly have us by the short and curlies ... mimseycal
  • Score: 3

9:23pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this:

"If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would
continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to
be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the
foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which
anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy."

This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO.

This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much.

Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail.
Yes, that's the position legally. The council can either choose to leave the West Pier area derelict until another investor comes along or step in to get things moving and give the seafront and Preston Street a boost.

The advantages of stepping in?

£1m per year in interest revenue for the next 25 years, one-off £1.1m arrangement fee, one-off £70,000 Section 106 contributions, 1% of ticket revenues ringfenced to the local community, £60,000 a year in additional business rates, 440 new jobs.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: 4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this: "If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy." This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO. This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much. Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's the position legally. The council can either choose to leave the West Pier area derelict until another investor comes along or step in to get things moving and give the seafront and Preston Street a boost. The advantages of stepping in? £1m per year in interest revenue for the next 25 years, one-off £1.1m arrangement fee, one-off £70,000 Section 106 contributions, 1% of ticket revenues ringfenced to the local community, £60,000 a year in additional business rates, 440 new jobs. Eugenius
  • Score: -10

9:23pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
Hector66 wrote:
and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.
Such as?

You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away?

The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan.

If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.
And this isn't one of them!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hector66[/bold] wrote: and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.[/p][/quote]Such as? You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away? The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan. If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.[/p][/quote]And this isn't one of them! mimseycal
  • Score: 5

9:25pm Fri 28 Feb 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little. rolivan
  • Score: 9

9:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Harry Brown says...

As others have said, if this was a decent and viable business opportunity then private investors would have been cueing around the block to put the money up.
This is a vanity project for those in temporary 'power' and it will be the tax payers of Brighton who pick up the pieces when it all goes sour and the names behind the yes votes are long forgotten.
Forget this daft idea now. We have a wheel do visitors can check out the tops of St James' Street rooftops, why do we now need lift so they can spot the brothel creepers and drug dealers around Preston Street?
As others have said, if this was a decent and viable business opportunity then private investors would have been cueing around the block to put the money up. This is a vanity project for those in temporary 'power' and it will be the tax payers of Brighton who pick up the pieces when it all goes sour and the names behind the yes votes are long forgotten. Forget this daft idea now. We have a wheel do visitors can check out the tops of St James' Street rooftops, why do we now need lift so they can spot the brothel creepers and drug dealers around Preston Street? Harry Brown
  • Score: 7

9:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

dingdong2 says...

Absolute joke - anyone who has been on the wheel will know there is nothing interesting about Brighton from the air.
Vertical towers elsewhere have fallen into disrepair and been completely white elephants

How dare the council risk taxpayers money like this on a scheme that locals don't want when the money could be spend far better elsewhere.
Absolute joke - anyone who has been on the wheel will know there is nothing interesting about Brighton from the air. Vertical towers elsewhere have fallen into disrepair and been completely white elephants How dare the council risk taxpayers money like this on a scheme that locals don't want when the money could be spend far better elsewhere. dingdong2
  • Score: 7

9:43pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Eugenius wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this:

"If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would
continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to
be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the
foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which
anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy."

This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO.

This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much.

Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail.
Yes, that's the position legally. The council can either choose to leave the West Pier area derelict until another investor comes along or step in to get things moving and give the seafront and Preston Street a boost.

The advantages of stepping in?

£1m per year in interest revenue for the next 25 years, one-off £1.1m arrangement fee, one-off £70,000 Section 106 contributions, 1% of ticket revenues ringfenced to the local community, £60,000 a year in additional business rates, 440 new jobs.
So leave it. Let them squat. Show them up so their reputation is at stake if they refuse to go away. Looking like beggars, squatters, sitting tenants won't help their trading image will it! #Citywreckers

The arches were demolished and put back together, strengthened, renewed to brand spanking newly available tenancy use. That alone will renew that part of the seafront and get the area looking more active.

Preston Street cannot be revived as restaurant nirvana. Too much development of restaurants citywide has ended their days as all there was; and the street needs to change its uses and maybe even revert to housing which would be highly desirable and raise the tone of the street.

The city cannot be held to ransom for Preston Street restaurant traders.

If i360 is built, and people DID actually bother with it, the existing traffic nightmare that is Sackville Road (the planning application access to seafront route) and the Kingsway would destroy people's will to bother coming into town for other things.

How much has BHCC budgeted for the desperate marketing of i360 which would be needed on and ongoing basis? Why were the Brighton Wheel people never even approached to provide their user figures? #BasicResearch.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: 4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this: "If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy." This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO. This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much. Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's the position legally. The council can either choose to leave the West Pier area derelict until another investor comes along or step in to get things moving and give the seafront and Preston Street a boost. The advantages of stepping in? £1m per year in interest revenue for the next 25 years, one-off £1.1m arrangement fee, one-off £70,000 Section 106 contributions, 1% of ticket revenues ringfenced to the local community, £60,000 a year in additional business rates, 440 new jobs.[/p][/quote]So leave it. Let them squat. Show them up so their reputation is at stake if they refuse to go away. Looking like beggars, squatters, sitting tenants won't help their trading image will it! #Citywreckers The arches were demolished and put back together, strengthened, renewed to brand spanking newly available tenancy use. That alone will renew that part of the seafront and get the area looking more active. Preston Street cannot be revived as restaurant nirvana. Too much development of restaurants citywide has ended their days as all there was; and the street needs to change its uses and maybe even revert to housing which would be highly desirable and raise the tone of the street. The city cannot be held to ransom for Preston Street restaurant traders. If i360 is built, and people DID actually bother with it, the existing traffic nightmare that is Sackville Road (the planning application access to seafront route) and the Kingsway would destroy people's will to bother coming into town for other things. How much has BHCC budgeted for the desperate marketing of i360 which would be needed on and ongoing basis? Why were the Brighton Wheel people never even approached to provide their user figures? #BasicResearch. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 7

9:49pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city? Eugenius
  • Score: -9

10:02pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Richada wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly.
This is the ideal folly.......

......for the Green Party who think they're on the way up.......

......and the Brighton Tories on the way down.

In other words, the i360 - a magnificent lift to obscurity.
Incidentally, planning permission for the i360 was granted under the last Labour administration.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly.[/p][/quote]This is the ideal folly....... ......for the Green Party who think they're on the way up....... ......and the Brighton Tories on the way down. In other words, the i360 - a magnificent lift to obscurity.[/p][/quote]Incidentally, planning permission for the i360 was granted under the last Labour administration. Eugenius
  • Score: -4

10:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
Re the London Eye

3.7 million people visit annually mainly because it's in London !

It was also something of a pioneer for this country and a lot more people visit London anyway.

And yes, the views are much more interesting from the London Eye.

Going higher doesn't really cut it if all you are going to see is rooftops and sea from further up.

You may have some genuine arguments in its favour but it is pretty clear many folk do not want it, why not secure a grant for a really decent swimming pool / leisure centre i.e. something that will serve the residents on a daily basis.

Finally others have on commented similar projects which have failed elsewhere both in this country and abroad so what makes this one so very different that we can sling £40 million at it ?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?[/p][/quote]Re the London Eye 3.7 million people visit annually mainly because it's in London ! It was also something of a pioneer for this country and a lot more people visit London anyway. And yes, the views are much more interesting from the London Eye. Going higher doesn't really cut it if all you are going to see is rooftops and sea from further up. You may have some genuine arguments in its favour but it is pretty clear many folk do not want it, why not secure a grant for a really decent swimming pool / leisure centre i.e. something that will serve the residents on a daily basis. Finally others have on commented similar projects which have failed elsewhere both in this country and abroad so what makes this one so very different that we can sling £40 million at it ? Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 9

10:10pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
Euginius ... earth to Eugenius ... can we have a reality check here?

I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend but this isn't LONDON! London is a different city about 50 miles away.

And I realise that you may be opening up to us a tad but really dearling ... the most exciting thing according to you is to spend 20 minutes going up in a glass donut, just to twirl around and come down again???? That is sad!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?[/p][/quote]Euginius ... earth to Eugenius ... can we have a reality check here? I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend but this isn't LONDON! London is a different city about 50 miles away. And I realise that you may be opening up to us a tad but really dearling ... the most exciting thing according to you is to spend 20 minutes going up in a glass donut, just to twirl around and come down again???? That is sad! mimseycal
  • Score: 9

10:16pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

A return flight with BA into a number of European cities is about £50. If you take a daytime flight the approach into LGW is over Brighton and the Sussex coast and is marvellous. With free booze and a snack it makes it far better value than paying £20 to go up a tower. You may as well visit the suite on top of the Metropole if you want to see the sea from high up. The Brighton wheel spends most of its time spinning without any passengers.
I can also recommend a BA flight into LHR from Amsterdam which flies along the Thames in Central London on approach and seeing the Houses of Parliament and the various bridges is one of the worlds most beautiful night time flights and for about £50 return still outshines these towers which keep popping up.
A return flight with BA into a number of European cities is about £50. If you take a daytime flight the approach into LGW is over Brighton and the Sussex coast and is marvellous. With free booze and a snack it makes it far better value than paying £20 to go up a tower. You may as well visit the suite on top of the Metropole if you want to see the sea from high up. The Brighton wheel spends most of its time spinning without any passengers. I can also recommend a BA flight into LHR from Amsterdam which flies along the Thames in Central London on approach and seeing the Houses of Parliament and the various bridges is one of the worlds most beautiful night time flights and for about £50 return still outshines these towers which keep popping up. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 10

10:17pm Fri 28 Feb 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more.
As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?[/p][/quote]i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more. As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm. rolivan
  • Score: 8

10:34pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre:

Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station.

I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow.

Which other similar projects do you say have failed?

I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination.
Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre: Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station. I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow. Which other similar projects do you say have failed? I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination. Eugenius
  • Score: -8

10:39pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
A return flight with BA into a number of European cities is about £50. If you take a daytime flight the approach into LGW is over Brighton and the Sussex coast and is marvellous. With free booze and a snack it makes it far better value than paying £20 to go up a tower. You may as well visit the suite on top of the Metropole if you want to see the sea from high up. The Brighton wheel spends most of its time spinning without any passengers.
I can also recommend a BA flight into LHR from Amsterdam which flies along the Thames in Central London on approach and seeing the Houses of Parliament and the various bridges is one of the worlds most beautiful night time flights and for about £50 return still outshines these towers which keep popping up.
Bravo Max! I have been meaning to make a similar point.

Fact is, very many of those the business plan believes are plausible paying customers for i360 go on foreign holidays or came here from abroad and that means they have already seen the views over the South Downs and environs. The views over blighty are the most memorable part of going abroad: the coming home again. Back on the ground it is less fab. alas.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: A return flight with BA into a number of European cities is about £50. If you take a daytime flight the approach into LGW is over Brighton and the Sussex coast and is marvellous. With free booze and a snack it makes it far better value than paying £20 to go up a tower. You may as well visit the suite on top of the Metropole if you want to see the sea from high up. The Brighton wheel spends most of its time spinning without any passengers. I can also recommend a BA flight into LHR from Amsterdam which flies along the Thames in Central London on approach and seeing the Houses of Parliament and the various bridges is one of the worlds most beautiful night time flights and for about £50 return still outshines these towers which keep popping up.[/p][/quote]Bravo Max! I have been meaning to make a similar point. Fact is, very many of those the business plan believes are plausible paying customers for i360 go on foreign holidays or came here from abroad and that means they have already seen the views over the South Downs and environs. The views over blighty are the most memorable part of going abroad: the coming home again. Back on the ground it is less fab. alas. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 1

10:43pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre:

Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station.

I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow.

Which other similar projects do you say have failed?

I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination.
And fall sadly flat in the comparison. Fact is Eugenius we've been well and truly shafted and we will be paying for this for years to come.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre: Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station. I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow. Which other similar projects do you say have failed? I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination.[/p][/quote]And fall sadly flat in the comparison. Fact is Eugenius we've been well and truly shafted and we will be paying for this for years to come. mimseycal
  • Score: 5

10:52pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more.
As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.
Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why).

Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure.

3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000.

Interesting.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?[/p][/quote]i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more. As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.[/p][/quote]Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why). Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure. 3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000. Interesting. Eugenius
  • Score: -8

10:57pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
A return flight with BA into a number of European cities is about £50. If you take a daytime flight the approach into LGW is over Brighton and the Sussex coast and is marvellous. With free booze and a snack it makes it far better value than paying £20 to go up a tower. You may as well visit the suite on top of the Metropole if you want to see the sea from high up. The Brighton wheel spends most of its time spinning without any passengers.
I can also recommend a BA flight into LHR from Amsterdam which flies along the Thames in Central London on approach and seeing the Houses of Parliament and the various bridges is one of the worlds most beautiful night time flights and for about £50 return still outshines these towers which keep popping up.
Hey get this Max - if you go up the i360 at night (I'm not making this up) it turns into the Sky Bar and you can have your gin and tonic and peanuts plus aerial view for much less than £50.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: A return flight with BA into a number of European cities is about £50. If you take a daytime flight the approach into LGW is over Brighton and the Sussex coast and is marvellous. With free booze and a snack it makes it far better value than paying £20 to go up a tower. You may as well visit the suite on top of the Metropole if you want to see the sea from high up. The Brighton wheel spends most of its time spinning without any passengers. I can also recommend a BA flight into LHR from Amsterdam which flies along the Thames in Central London on approach and seeing the Houses of Parliament and the various bridges is one of the worlds most beautiful night time flights and for about £50 return still outshines these towers which keep popping up.[/p][/quote]Hey get this Max - if you go up the i360 at night (I'm not making this up) it turns into the Sky Bar and you can have your gin and tonic and peanuts plus aerial view for much less than £50. Eugenius
  • Score: -11

11:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

s_james wrote:
rolivan wrote:
s_james wrote:
How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!!
If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.
Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same.
Looks like the article has succeeded in misleading the easily mislead as usual.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: How is this news? The figure of £36M is what has been quoted in all the discussions in the Argus, on this website and elsewhere for the past few months?!![/p][/quote]If You add the 3figures together it now Totals £42.2m so it is not only News it is Outrageous.[/p][/quote]Not true - the £6M was always going to be provided by the developer. Nothing has changed. The loan remains the same.[/p][/quote]Looks like the article has succeeded in misleading the easily mislead as usual. Gribbet
  • Score: -10

12:14am Sat 1 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more.
As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.
Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why).

Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure.

3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000.

Interesting.
I just came up with a guess and you managed to get the figures so why was there a need to waste money on Surveys unless as I said before they can be held accontable
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?[/p][/quote]i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more. As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.[/p][/quote]Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why). Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure. 3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000. Interesting.[/p][/quote]I just came up with a guess and you managed to get the figures so why was there a need to waste money on Surveys unless as I said before they can be held accontable rolivan
  • Score: 7

12:42am Sat 1 Mar 14

snowballs says...

Hmmm, £14- £21million revenue? Not sure how developers come up with that figure. People come to Brighton and Hove for all kinds of reasons - the shopping, the beach, the nightlife probably being the main draws. I don't think this is project is interesting enough to draw anyone. Yes, they might ride up and down in it once they're here - as I dare say they do with attractions such as the wheel and the rides on the pier - but I can't imagine the i360 would be the main reason for anyone to choose Brighton over any other day out to a city or seaside town. So the main revenue would be the income, which after staffing and running and maintenance costs, business rates and taxes are paid, I wouldn't imagine would be more than a few hundred thousand, max.
Hmmm, £14- £21million revenue? Not sure how developers come up with that figure. People come to Brighton and Hove for all kinds of reasons - the shopping, the beach, the nightlife probably being the main draws. I don't think this is project is interesting enough to draw anyone. Yes, they might ride up and down in it once they're here - as I dare say they do with attractions such as the wheel and the rides on the pier - but I can't imagine the i360 would be the main reason for anyone to choose Brighton over any other day out to a city or seaside town. So the main revenue would be the income, which after staffing and running and maintenance costs, business rates and taxes are paid, I wouldn't imagine would be more than a few hundred thousand, max. snowballs
  • Score: 7

2:20am Sat 1 Mar 14

Hector66 says...

Eugenius wrote:
Hector66 wrote:
and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.
Such as?

You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away?

The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan.

If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.
eugenius it is not for me to name alternative profit-making schemes (however profit is defined), it is enough to know that a loan of 36 million to finance at best an incredibly risky project should not be proceeded with.

pointing out that one of the reasons it should not be proceeded with is the alternative use to which the said 36 milllion could be put, helps to organise the thoughts and arguments.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hector66[/bold] wrote: and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.[/p][/quote]Such as? You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away? The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan. If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.[/p][/quote]eugenius it is not for me to name alternative profit-making schemes (however profit is defined), it is enough to know that a loan of 36 million to finance at best an incredibly risky project should not be proceeded with. pointing out that one of the reasons it should not be proceeded with is the alternative use to which the said 36 milllion could be put, helps to organise the thoughts and arguments. Hector66
  • Score: 8

8:51am Sat 1 Mar 14

rayellerton says...

Eugenius....as I have said before you seem to very well informed and as such have more than a passing interest in this proposed project. In that case i challenge you to reveal your real name. Lets have some transparency here...we are not fools
Eugenius....as I have said before you seem to very well informed and as such have more than a passing interest in this proposed project. In that case i challenge you to reveal your real name. Lets have some transparency here...we are not fools rayellerton
  • Score: 12

9:07am Sat 1 Mar 14

Tallywhacker says...

Eugenius wrote:
Hector66 wrote:
and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.
Such as?

You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away?

The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan.

If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.
Ice rink With a new swimming pool.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hector66[/bold] wrote: and then there are the alternative uses for 36 million quid have to be considered.[/p][/quote]Such as? You do understand that it is not a case of the council having 36 million quid to give away? The Public Works Loan Board lends money to infrastructure projects but only if they can show an income stream to repay the loan. If you can name another infrastructure project that will generate a stable profit to repay a capital loan then there is a chance it could qualify but such projects are few and far between.[/p][/quote]Ice rink With a new swimming pool. Tallywhacker
  • Score: 8

9:08am Sat 1 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre:

Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station.

I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow.

Which other similar projects do you say have failed?

I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination.
What in the same way that the Brighton Wheel was attempted to be linked in the public's imagination to the London Eye ? That worked didn't it ? NOT !

You can bandy around comparisons to London as much as you like but the real elephant in the room is the Brighton Wheel. Mostly empty - even in peak season - and a total profit of £130k over THREE years. The Wheel is calling upon the same tourist catchment as the i360 will be yet somehow a private firm who are millions in debt have persuaded our simple councillors that they should push the financial risk to the local tax payer ( mainly because the private developer has no chance of any sensible bank or PE company lending them money when they are already so much in debt ).

You keep banging on about profits but there is evidence that it can turn a profit. As for other things the loan could be used for and provide a decent return ..... you clearly haven't been in the city long enough ( just one of those bused in Greens as are the other Green councillors ) to spot that the Brighton Centre needs re- building and that brings in millions a year.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre: Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station. I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow. Which other similar projects do you say have failed? I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination.[/p][/quote]What in the same way that the Brighton Wheel was attempted to be linked in the public's imagination to the London Eye ? That worked didn't it ? NOT ! You can bandy around comparisons to London as much as you like but the real elephant in the room is the Brighton Wheel. Mostly empty - even in peak season - and a total profit of £130k over THREE years. The Wheel is calling upon the same tourist catchment as the i360 will be yet somehow a private firm who are millions in debt have persuaded our simple councillors that they should push the financial risk to the local tax payer ( mainly because the private developer has no chance of any sensible bank or PE company lending them money when they are already so much in debt ). You keep banging on about profits but there is evidence that it can turn a profit. As for other things the loan could be used for and provide a decent return ..... you clearly haven't been in the city long enough ( just one of those bused in Greens as are the other Green councillors ) to spot that the Brighton Centre needs re- building and that brings in millions a year. Fight_Back
  • Score: 7

9:11am Sat 1 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Oh Eugenius, I mean Geoffrey, you must get out more. The wheel spins around empty most days and nights. Take a look. Towers are boring.
Oh Eugenius, I mean Geoffrey, you must get out more. The wheel spins around empty most days and nights. Take a look. Towers are boring. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 11

10:20am Sat 1 Mar 14

Number Six says...

I have happily travelled the fifty miles to London to go on the London Eye. I wouldn't bother travelling the eight miles to Brighton to go up this shafted doughnut. Why would I? What would I see? Well, there's the sea, the Pavilion roof, the sea, more rooftops, some more sea and that's about it. I wouldn't bother if it was free. I certainly wouldn't spend any hard earned on it
I have happily travelled the fifty miles to London to go on the London Eye. I wouldn't bother travelling the eight miles to Brighton to go up this shafted doughnut. Why would I? What would I see? Well, there's the sea, the Pavilion roof, the sea, more rooftops, some more sea and that's about it. I wouldn't bother if it was free. I certainly wouldn't spend any hard earned on it Number Six
  • Score: 9

10:46am Sat 1 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Oh Eugenius, I mean Geoffrey, you must get out more. The wheel spins around empty most days and nights. Take a look. Towers are boring.
Oh ... he isn't Geoffrey. His posts are full the self-righteous myopia of the confirmed green chocolate bar afficionado and not enough of the self serving, smug, I'm-alright-Jackness of the conservative.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Oh Eugenius, I mean Geoffrey, you must get out more. The wheel spins around empty most days and nights. Take a look. Towers are boring.[/p][/quote]Oh ... he isn't Geoffrey. His posts are full the self-righteous myopia of the confirmed green chocolate bar afficionado and not enough of the self serving, smug, I'm-alright-Jackness of the conservative. mimseycal
  • Score: 5

12:15pm Sat 1 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more.
As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.
Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why).

Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure.

3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000.

Interesting.
Sorry but you cannot compare the two. London has 30 million tourists from overseas, 26 million overnight stays, plus a population of 10 million. Then you have a vast number of people who aren't 'tourists' but commute into London every day. It is fast becoming the most visited city, beating Paris etc.

The London Eye is popular because the view is simply amazing - Houses of Parliament, the Thames, the Gherkin, the Shard are just a handful of the things you can see. What does Brighton have that is even remotely comparable?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?[/p][/quote]i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more. As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.[/p][/quote]Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why). Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure. 3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000. Interesting.[/p][/quote]Sorry but you cannot compare the two. London has 30 million tourists from overseas, 26 million overnight stays, plus a population of 10 million. Then you have a vast number of people who aren't 'tourists' but commute into London every day. It is fast becoming the most visited city, beating Paris etc. The London Eye is popular because the view is simply amazing - Houses of Parliament, the Thames, the Gherkin, the Shard are just a handful of the things you can see. What does Brighton have that is even remotely comparable? thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 8

12:22pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Number Six says...

"Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why). "

Are you for real? If I listed out all the attractions that London has that Brighton doesn't I'd be late for work on Monday.

In short, London is one of the foremost cities in the world. Brighton is a seaside town with delusions of grandeur
"Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why). " Are you for real? If I listed out all the attractions that London has that Brighton doesn't I'd be late for work on Monday. In short, London is one of the foremost cities in the world. Brighton is a seaside town with delusions of grandeur Number Six
  • Score: 4

12:29pm Sat 1 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this:

"If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would
continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to
be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the
foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which
anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy."

This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO.

This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much.

Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail.
Quite right - it's a disgrace.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: 4.3 of the i360 Agenda Report for Policy & Resources next Thursday says this: "If the council determine not to proceed, it is likely that the starting date would continue to remain uncertain until the economic recovery allows new investors to be secured. As a consequence the West Pier site could remain sterilised for the foreseeable future with consequences for the vitality of the seafront which anchors the city’s visitor and tourism economy." This means that Marks Barfield have an open-ended agreement with The West Pier Trust and they are lumbered with a developer they cannot get rid of - IMHO. This means that by declaring in 2009 that development had begun, BHCC is lumbered with a planning consent that has been implemented so they are stuffed on that front. All they did to prevent losing the3 year old consent was to move bits out of the sea pretty much. Effectively, Marks Barfield are squatters with rights. Sitting Tenants without a renewable agreement. And I think this £36m is moral blackmail.[/p][/quote]Quite right - it's a disgrace. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 5

9:43pm Sat 1 Mar 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.
So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?
i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more.
As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.
Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why).

Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure.

3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000.

Interesting.
HJ

Are you spinning again, or is this policy determined statistics that are being quoted?

I am leaving the Greens at the first opportunity on the basis that I can't live with the deception and lies anymore.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]The Constuction Costs can be as accurate as you say they are but still extortianate for a Glorified lift.However what is more worrying are the customer numbers even at 50 percent of predicted figures and please do not come back with The London Eye and Universal Studios as an example as they have something worthwhile to view.I think a better proposition is a Coach ride to The Devils Dyke Hotel with a meal included and then a Trip to the top of The Racehill which would probably give you the 2 best views over the whole of Sussex.I just cannot believe that many people will want to go up and down a pole for a few minutes to see very little.[/p][/quote]So why do 3.7m people a year take a ride on the London Eye? Is it because the views in London are so superior (agree there is less to see in Brighton but the i360 will be higher altitude), or is it because it is an iconic design, an engineering marvel, the most exciting thing to do on a visit to the city?[/p][/quote]i would like to know how many how many people visit London and Brighton Annually and then see if it is 5 times more people visit London than Brighton I would hazard a Guess as that seems to be a popular word that it is Much more. As for the Lift itself they do have a habit of breaking down regularly and are often out of action for weeks at a time as many of the residents of highrise blocks will confirm.[/p][/quote]Oh god yes London is much more popular than Brighton (although heaven knows why). Ok, so let's say London is 5 times more popular than Brighton, which seems about right, Brighton gets 8 million visitors a year, London 26 million - ok so that's actually only 3.25 times more popular than Brighton but let's go with your figure. 3,750,000 (annual London Eye visitors) divided by 5 is 750,000. Interesting.[/p][/quote]HJ Are you spinning again, or is this policy determined statistics that are being quoted? I am leaving the Greens at the first opportunity on the basis that I can't live with the deception and lies anymore. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 3

12:05pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre:

Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station.

I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow.

Which other similar projects do you say have failed?

I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination.
Why on earth should anyone not in the "know" associate the i360 with the London Eye?

Does anyone associate Sussex Heights with factories at Hollingbury - both Richard Siefert - did they ever? No.

You simply aren't comparing like with like.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Re securing a grant for a really decent swimming pool/leisure centre: Yes, we all want these things for the city but the council would only be able to go solo on this to Public Works Loan Board if profits were high enough to pay 4% interest a year on the loan (for about £30m at a guess), and that's not really how public swimming pools roll; they need to be affordable for everyone rather than making mega profits. More likely this will be delivered as part of a larger mixed development, either at King Alfred or near Hove Station. I do think that if we get i360 off the ground then other projects will follow. Which other similar projects do you say have failed? I think I've said this already but the stand-out factor is having the same architects that designed the London Eye and the fact that the i360 will be linked to the London Eye in the public imagination.[/p][/quote]Why on earth should anyone not in the "know" associate the i360 with the London Eye? Does anyone associate Sussex Heights with factories at Hollingbury - both Richard Siefert - did they ever? No. You simply aren't comparing like with like. Richada
  • Score: 3

12:11pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
Richada wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly.
This is the ideal folly.......

......for the Green Party who think they're on the way up.......

......and the Brighton Tories on the way down.

In other words, the i360 - a magnificent lift to obscurity.
Incidentally, planning permission for the i360 was granted under the last Labour administration.
........yes, in a different era.

Who granted it planning permission isn't the issue here - this is 2014 and we live in a time of so called austerity when the council have failed to manage and fund proper services for all - the i360 is financial folly, planning has nothing to do with that fact and the whole scheme is being used as a massive PR stunt in an attempt to deflect the media (and our) attention fromthe chaos at street level, in every street of the city.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Absolute madness! Let's hope the Tories now take the opportunity to reconsider their position, and vote with Labour to stop this ridiculous Green folly.[/p][/quote]This is the ideal folly....... ......for the Green Party who think they're on the way up....... ......and the Brighton Tories on the way down. In other words, the i360 - a magnificent lift to obscurity.[/p][/quote]Incidentally, planning permission for the i360 was granted under the last Labour administration.[/p][/quote]........yes, in a different era. Who granted it planning permission isn't the issue here - this is 2014 and we live in a time of so called austerity when the council have failed to manage and fund proper services for all - the i360 is financial folly, planning has nothing to do with that fact and the whole scheme is being used as a massive PR stunt in an attempt to deflect the media (and our) attention fromthe chaos at street level, in every street of the city. Richada
  • Score: 7

2:27pm Sun 2 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

I can imagine the i360 being pitched to Dragon's Den and the reaction the developers would get when they explained that in eight years, they hadn't managed to find any private investment to get the project off the ground, but they wanted 36.2 million. Eugenius could tell the dragons that the view in Brighton is better than the London Eye. Ridiculous and ludicrous!
I can imagine the i360 being pitched to Dragon's Den and the reaction the developers would get when they explained that in eight years, they hadn't managed to find any private investment to get the project off the ground, but they wanted 36.2 million. Eugenius could tell the dragons that the view in Brighton is better than the London Eye. Ridiculous and ludicrous! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 5

5:38pm Sun 2 Mar 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years.

But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?
This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council"

I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.
That's where I got the figure of £3million from - para 7.5. This covers the cost rise in the period July 12- Dec 13.

For Dec 13 - June 16, there is only £1 million in the budget.

I'm afraid that I'm not reassured by the fact these are the guys who built the London Eye. Quite the reverse. Please explain why, given this track record, there isn't therefore a queue of private investors clammering to be involved?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: Looking at the figures in the document above, construction costs alone have risen £3 million from July 12 - Dec 13, ie 7.7% in roughly 1.5 years. But it's not due to be complete and opening until June 16 - in 2.5 years time. The council only have £1 million contingency built into the budget which simply will not be anywhere near adequate, based on the stated increase in costs so far. Who will be picking up the overspend??? Jason?[/p][/quote]This is explained in para 7.5 - £3m due to inflation but "Most of the increase reflects the higher payments to the council" I think the construction costs are likely to be highly accurate - these are the guys who built the London Eye, they know what they're doing.[/p][/quote]That's where I got the figure of £3million from - para 7.5. This covers the cost rise in the period July 12- Dec 13. For Dec 13 - June 16, there is only £1 million in the budget. I'm afraid that I'm not reassured by the fact these are the guys who built the London Eye. Quite the reverse. Please explain why, given this track record, there isn't therefore a queue of private investors clammering to be involved? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 2

7:06pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Number Six says...

I seem to recall that when they first started the London Eye they had quite a few problems getting it up, a feeling I am sure some posters on this board are familiar with.
I seem to recall that when they first started the London Eye they had quite a few problems getting it up, a feeling I am sure some posters on this board are familiar with. Number Six
  • Score: -6

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree