The ArgusHundreds sign online petition against i360 loan agreement (From The Argus)

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

Hundreds sign online petition against i360 loan agreement

The Argus: Campaigners have continued their fight against the agreed £36.2m loan for the i360 project Campaigners have continued their fight against the agreed £36.2m loan for the i360 project

CAMPAIGNERS have continued their battle against the agreed £36.2 million loan for the i360 tower.

Members of Brighton and Hove City Council’s policy and resources committee voted to approve the multi-million pound loan last Thursday.

But an online petition has been started calling on the Public Works Loan Board – the public body that will administer the money – to refuse the council’s request for funding.

And after just a few days the petition has collected 407 signatures.

The petition states: “If private financial backers are not achievable from anywhere in the world, why should Brighton and Hove residents be expected to assume the risk?”

Hove resident Valerie Paynter, who set up the petition, said she felt a responsibility to take action to try to stop development going ahead.

She said: “It would be nice to see a new pier that incorporates the sailing club and then lots of things happening with the pier. We need to get away from the nonsense of the i360.”

The decision to agree the loan was made despite concerns from the public and some within the council that the project was too risky.

Concerns had been raised about the size of the loan and suggestions that the predicted visitor numbers used to approve the business plan had doubled since the original application.

But despite the concerns, the loan was agreed and start of work is expected within the year.

David Marks, managing director of Marks Barfield Architects, the developer behind the project, defended the plan and claimed much of the opposition to the 175 metre tower had been fuelled mainly by misinformation.

On the petition, he said he welcomed public comment but said claims that there would be no toilets, the pod was increasing in capacity and the council was paying for marketing were “plain wrong”.

“We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations.”

A council spokesman said: “It’s not a bidding process such as with the National Lottery. Once the project is underway and reaches a stage where the funding is required, we can get access to it immediately.”

Comments (156)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:03am Fri 14 Mar 14

Bennn says...

Idiots. No wonder nothing ever gets done in this city, apart from the library and the stadium that took years to build.
Idiots. No wonder nothing ever gets done in this city, apart from the library and the stadium that took years to build. Bennn
  • Score: -14

9:05am Fri 14 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Bennn wrote:
Idiots. No wonder nothing ever gets done in this city, apart from the library and the stadium that took years to build.
And the stadium was built with private money NOT tax payers money.
[quote][p][bold]Bennn[/bold] wrote: Idiots. No wonder nothing ever gets done in this city, apart from the library and the stadium that took years to build.[/p][/quote]And the stadium was built with private money NOT tax payers money. Fight_Back
  • Score: 57

9:14am Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

The reason this donut on a stick wasn't built was because it couldn't raise the funds. Why should the public of Brighton & Hove be held accountable for something private investors wouldn't touch with a barge pole.
The reason this donut on a stick wasn't built was because it couldn't raise the funds. Why should the public of Brighton & Hove be held accountable for something private investors wouldn't touch with a barge pole. mimseycal
  • Score: 66

9:26am Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh
ton-hove.gov.uk/Data
/Planning%20Applicat
ions%20Sub-Committee
/20061011/Agenda/$It
em%2084.B%20Plans%20
List%2011%20October%
2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article. saveHOVE
  • Score: 45

9:39am Fri 14 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

I just cant see the i360 being financially viable.private invester know this that's why they wont risk there money.Brighton wheel goes round with only one pod occupied probably because of the high parking charges in the area.I would like to know why the council did not think it was viable to open council run tourist attractions in a very good busy summer like the mini golf course on hove seafront.The greens even vandalised several bowling greens across the city at great cost only underused as you could not hire bowls as everything was closed.
I just cant see the i360 being financially viable.private invester know this that's why they wont risk there money.Brighton wheel goes round with only one pod occupied probably because of the high parking charges in the area.I would like to know why the council did not think it was viable to open council run tourist attractions in a very good busy summer like the mini golf course on hove seafront.The greens even vandalised several bowling greens across the city at great cost only underused as you could not hire bowls as everything was closed. clubrob6
  • Score: 28

9:43am Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

At this moment there are 479 signatures on the saveHOVE petition to stop the PWLB granting the £36.2m to BHCC to lend on to Marks Barfield's Brighton i360 Ltd.

Those who signed include developer Mike Holland, former Argus Business Editor John Keenan, the former BHCC West Area Planning Manager who resigned over King Alfred: Ian Coomber, architects Paul Zara of Conran and Paul Nicholson of Chalk Design - both high flyers who understand risk and viability, the former Chair of the Economic Partnership Simon Fanshawe and Green Councillor Ben Duncan, to name but a few whose signatures might surprise a few people.

Will you join them? Loaning to make money on a new development could be wonderful, but not for this. Maybe for a new Brighton Centre or a new King Alfred...but not for this loser. If BHCC borrow to lend for anything whatsoever, it should surely be for a project that financial investors clamour to back...but BHCC does it; and makes the profit that is not risky and which helpsbankroll city services.

Here is a link to the petition:

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/uk
-public-works-loan-b
oard-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront
At this moment there are 479 signatures on the saveHOVE petition to stop the PWLB granting the £36.2m to BHCC to lend on to Marks Barfield's Brighton i360 Ltd. Those who signed include developer Mike Holland, former Argus Business Editor John Keenan, the former BHCC West Area Planning Manager who resigned over King Alfred: Ian Coomber, architects Paul Zara of Conran and Paul Nicholson of Chalk Design - both high flyers who understand risk and viability, the former Chair of the Economic Partnership Simon Fanshawe and Green Councillor Ben Duncan, to name but a few whose signatures might surprise a few people. Will you join them? Loaning to make money on a new development could be wonderful, but not for this. Maybe for a new Brighton Centre or a new King Alfred...but not for this loser. If BHCC borrow to lend for anything whatsoever, it should surely be for a project that financial investors clamour to back...but BHCC does it; and makes the profit that is not risky and which helpsbankroll city services. Here is a link to the petition: http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/uk -public-works-loan-b oard-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront saveHOVE
  • Score: 28

9:56am Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

clubrob6 wrote:
I just cant see the i360 being financially viable.private invester know this that's why they wont risk there money.Brighton wheel goes round with only one pod occupied probably because of the high parking charges in the area.I would like to know why the council did not think it was viable to open council run tourist attractions in a very good busy summer like the mini golf course on hove seafront.The greens even vandalised several bowling greens across the city at great cost only underused as you could not hire bowls as everything was closed.
Thank you for explaining why lawn bowls should have been kept instead of dumped. Why didn't the council do the research to find out all they needed to do was put in a hire facility....maybe a commercial one even?
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I just cant see the i360 being financially viable.private invester know this that's why they wont risk there money.Brighton wheel goes round with only one pod occupied probably because of the high parking charges in the area.I would like to know why the council did not think it was viable to open council run tourist attractions in a very good busy summer like the mini golf course on hove seafront.The greens even vandalised several bowling greens across the city at great cost only underused as you could not hire bowls as everything was closed.[/p][/quote]Thank you for explaining why lawn bowls should have been kept instead of dumped. Why didn't the council do the research to find out all they needed to do was put in a hire facility....maybe a commercial one even? saveHOVE
  • Score: 19

10:02am Fri 14 Mar 14

Kedge says...

The petition is the only chance of a City-wide democratic vote on the i360 proposal., so go for it.. I had a problem with IE, but got to the petition using Mozilla Firefox..
The petition is the only chance of a City-wide democratic vote on the i360 proposal., so go for it.. I had a problem with IE, but got to the petition using Mozilla Firefox.. Kedge
  • Score: 13

10:14am Fri 14 Mar 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

The Councilors that approved this should ALL hang their heads in shame So out of touch with real people I hope they ALL lose their seats next May for the misery that will be dumped on the City's tax payers when the company building it goes to the wall.
The Councilors that approved this should ALL hang their heads in shame So out of touch with real people I hope they ALL lose their seats next May for the misery that will be dumped on the City's tax payers when the company building it goes to the wall. upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: 16

10:14am Fri 14 Mar 14

Mel Shock says...

A spectacluar waste of public money. An eyesore and totally not in keeping with the seafront. I have signed and have shared amongst my FB friends.
There are far better things that moeny could be spent on in BAH and the i360 is NOT one of them
A spectacluar waste of public money. An eyesore and totally not in keeping with the seafront. I have signed and have shared amongst my FB friends. There are far better things that moeny could be spent on in BAH and the i360 is NOT one of them Mel Shock
  • Score: 17

10:16am Fri 14 Mar 14

winewomenandsong says...

The place for a childrens playground ride is a theme park.
What next will Cllr's give the nod to, a cre'che to keep themselves amused?
The place for a childrens playground ride is a theme park. What next will Cllr's give the nod to, a cre'che to keep themselves amused? winewomenandsong
  • Score: 1

10:18am Fri 14 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

So, it's been signed by about 0.002% of Brightonians.

Was this petition actually created with the belief that it could prevent i360 being built, or was it created because opposing new developments in B&H is basically Valerie's hobby?
So, it's been signed by about 0.002% of Brightonians. Was this petition actually created with the belief that it could prevent i360 being built, or was it created because opposing new developments in B&H is basically Valerie's hobby? Gribbet
  • Score: -30

10:24am Fri 14 Mar 14

Mel Shock says...

I should imagine it was created to give people a voice !!

what is the real benefit of taking such a huge risk for such a tower ? A view of the sea and downs ? I can get that from the top of the racecourse for free and its spectacular on a sunny day !
I should imagine it was created to give people a voice !! what is the real benefit of taking such a huge risk for such a tower ? A view of the sea and downs ? I can get that from the top of the racecourse for free and its spectacular on a sunny day ! Mel Shock
  • Score: 28

10:37am Fri 14 Mar 14

Marks Barfield Architects says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh

ton-hove.gov.uk/Data

/Planning%20Applicat

ions%20Sub-Committee

/20061011/Agenda/$It

em%2084.B%20Plans%20

List%2011%20October%

2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/content/
planning/major-devel
opments/i360-west-pi
er-observation-tower
-and-heritage-centre


Marks Barfield Architects
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects Marks Barfield Architects
  • Score: -30

10:44am Fri 14 Mar 14

Mel Shock says...

The jobs will be short lived whilst the project is being built. it will not take hundreds to run the 'attraction' once up and running.
I personally do not care about the amount of toilets etc, I just personally think it is not suitable for Brighton seafront and will look horrendous and be a pointless attraction.
The jobs will be short lived whilst the project is being built. it will not take hundreds to run the 'attraction' once up and running. I personally do not care about the amount of toilets etc, I just personally think it is not suitable for Brighton seafront and will look horrendous and be a pointless attraction. Mel Shock
  • Score: 24

10:51am Fri 14 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Marks Barfield Architects wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh


ton-hove.gov.uk/Data


/Planning%20Applicat


ions%20Sub-Committee


/20061011/Agenda/$It


em%2084.B%20Plans%20


List%2011%20October%


2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/content/

planning/major-devel

opments/i360-west-pi

er-observation-tower

-and-heritage-centre



Marks Barfield Architects
You would support it though wouldn't you ?

Marks Barfield are £1.8m in debt so can't afford to pay for this project. So what do the two shareholders in Marks Barfield do ? They setup Brighton i360 Ltd ( and the holding company ) and the same two shareholders in Marks Barfield own both these companies. They then persuade the local council to "loan" them nearly £40m !!!!!!!!

There is more to this than is being admitted and it stinks.
[quote][p][bold]Marks Barfield Architects[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects[/p][/quote]You would support it though wouldn't you ? Marks Barfield are £1.8m in debt so can't afford to pay for this project. So what do the two shareholders in Marks Barfield do ? They setup Brighton i360 Ltd ( and the holding company ) and the same two shareholders in Marks Barfield own both these companies. They then persuade the local council to "loan" them nearly £40m !!!!!!!! There is more to this than is being admitted and it stinks. Fight_Back
  • Score: 38

11:08am Fri 14 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Instead of patronising the people of Brighton he may need to appreciate it is a City Council not 'County Council' as his latest tweets suggest - such is the 'close working relationship'..

I find it appalling that a top architectural practice are not bothered about the lack if a refreshed environmental assessment of higher visitor numbers. Instead of keep asserting the people of this 'City' (not county) are wrong maybe show us the traffic impact - soooo patronising to say "but if the people understood" like an errant partner who says his wife doesn't understand him!!!! Might help if you get the wife's name right at least.....
Instead of patronising the people of Brighton he may need to appreciate it is a City Council not 'County Council' as his latest tweets suggest - such is the 'close working relationship'.. I find it appalling that a top architectural practice are not bothered about the lack if a refreshed environmental assessment of higher visitor numbers. Instead of keep asserting the people of this 'City' (not county) are wrong maybe show us the traffic impact - soooo patronising to say "but if the people understood" like an errant partner who says his wife doesn't understand him!!!! Might help if you get the wife's name right at least..... KempyLocals
  • Score: 15

11:19am Fri 14 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

If predicted visitor numbers really are that high then why could Marks Barfield still not get funding? You would think lenders would firm a disorderly Q ?? Nope - nobody will take the risk apart from mislead Councillors on P&R in ore of an architect that did something worthwhile elsewhere more than ten years ago.

This petition is our only shot at democratic engagement given Councillors neglected to 'ask the people' before taking this and future generations into a high debt risk!
If predicted visitor numbers really are that high then why could Marks Barfield still not get funding? You would think lenders would firm a disorderly Q ?? Nope - nobody will take the risk apart from mislead Councillors on P&R in ore of an architect that did something worthwhile elsewhere more than ten years ago. This petition is our only shot at democratic engagement given Councillors neglected to 'ask the people' before taking this and future generations into a high debt risk! KempyLocals
  • Score: 14

11:57am Fri 14 Mar 14

Marks Barfield Architects says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh

ton-hove.gov.uk/Data

/Planning%20Applicat

ions%20Sub-Committee

/20061011/Agenda/$It

em%2084.B%20Plans%20

List%2011%20October%

2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/content/
planning/major-devel
opments/i360-west-pi
er-observation-tower
-and-heritage-centre


Marks Barfield Architects
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects Marks Barfield Architects
  • Score: -23

11:59am Fri 14 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Marks Barfield Architects wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh


ton-hove.gov.uk/Data


/Planning%20Applicat


ions%20Sub-Committee


/20061011/Agenda/$It


em%2084.B%20Plans%20


List%2011%20October%


2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/content/

planning/major-devel

opments/i360-west-pi

er-observation-tower

-and-heritage-centre



Marks Barfield Architects
You can cut and paste as much as you like but it won't hide the fact you're £1.8m in debt ! And to prove cut and paste works :

You would support it though wouldn't you ?

Marks Barfield are £1.8m in debt so can't afford to pay for this project. So what do the two shareholders in Marks Barfield do ? They setup Brighton i360 Ltd ( and the holding company ) and the same two shareholders in Marks Barfield own both these companies. They then persuade the local council to "loan" them nearly £40m !!!!!!!!

There is more to this than is being admitted and it stinks.
[quote][p][bold]Marks Barfield Architects[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects[/p][/quote]You can cut and paste as much as you like but it won't hide the fact you're £1.8m in debt ! And to prove cut and paste works : You would support it though wouldn't you ? Marks Barfield are £1.8m in debt so can't afford to pay for this project. So what do the two shareholders in Marks Barfield do ? They setup Brighton i360 Ltd ( and the holding company ) and the same two shareholders in Marks Barfield own both these companies. They then persuade the local council to "loan" them nearly £40m !!!!!!!! There is more to this than is being admitted and it stinks. Fight_Back
  • Score: 30

12:05pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Martha Gunn says...

Perhaps more people will support this project when they realise its true function.

The i360 is in fact part of an elaborate construction project which will enable Captain Kitcat and Lieutenant Lucas (and all the other Green People) finally to return to their home planet.

As soon as they can work out a way to deal with rubbish collection on their space journey home we will be rid of them.
Perhaps more people will support this project when they realise its true function. The i360 is in fact part of an elaborate construction project which will enable Captain Kitcat and Lieutenant Lucas (and all the other Green People) finally to return to their home planet. As soon as they can work out a way to deal with rubbish collection on their space journey home we will be rid of them. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 20

12:51pm Fri 14 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Marks Barfield Architects wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh


ton-hove.gov.uk/Data


/Planning%20Applicat


ions%20Sub-Committee


/20061011/Agenda/$It


em%2084.B%20Plans%20


List%2011%20October%


2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/content/

planning/major-devel

opments/i360-west-pi

er-observation-tower

-and-heritage-centre



Marks Barfield Architects
Please could you explain to the Council Taxpayers why when you sold your one third share in the London Eye you are not able to Finance the project or obtain funding through your experence in getting the London Eye up and running.We know you have said you ar putting in £6m but that will probably be taken back out again in Marks Barfield fees to Brighton i360 Ltd?
[quote][p][bold]Marks Barfield Architects[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects[/p][/quote]Please could you explain to the Council Taxpayers why when you sold your one third share in the London Eye you are not able to Finance the project or obtain funding through your experence in getting the London Eye up and running.We know you have said you ar putting in £6m but that will probably be taken back out again in Marks Barfield fees to Brighton i360 Ltd? rolivan
  • Score: 20

1:01pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

None of what Marks Barfield Architects says makes any sense, they can't even keep to the same figures from one posting to the next, as can be seen in their post above, the i360 pod is now 10 times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people), are they now trying to suggest a capacity of some 300 people.
In their video, which can still be seen on http://www.marksbarf
ield.com/#/projects/
brighton-i360/?filte
r=date&layout=galler
y&gallery=video it is clearly stated 4 times the size, and a maximum capacity of 100 people per trip.
Let us not forget that there are lies, **** lies and propaganda, and if anything is said often enough, it becomes the truth.
Watch the video, have a look at the state of the pipes in the construction section, and ask yourself if you would risk you and yours riding on it.
I had a car fail the MOT with less rust than that.
None of what Marks Barfield Architects says makes any sense, they can't even keep to the same figures from one posting to the next, as can be seen in their post above, the i360 pod is now 10 times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people), are they now trying to suggest a capacity of some 300 people. In their video, which can still be seen on http://www.marksbarf ield.com/#/projects/ brighton-i360/?filte r=date&layout=galler y&gallery=video it is clearly stated 4 times the size, and a maximum capacity of 100 people per trip. Let us not forget that there are lies, **** lies and propaganda, and if anything is said often enough, it becomes the truth. Watch the video, have a look at the state of the pipes in the construction section, and ask yourself if you would risk you and yours riding on it. I had a car fail the MOT with less rust than that. Man of steel
  • Score: 15

1:03pm Fri 14 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Marks Barfield Architects wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh


ton-hove.gov.uk/Data


/Planning%20Applicat


ions%20Sub-Committee


/20061011/Agenda/$It


em%2084.B%20Plans%20


List%2011%20October%


2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/content/

planning/major-devel

opments/i360-west-pi

er-observation-tower

-and-heritage-centre



Marks Barfield Architects
So are the reports that the expected visitor numbers to the i360 would be in addition to those already visiting wrong and they are now part of this 10m?
[quote][p][bold]Marks Barfield Architects[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects[/p][/quote]So are the reports that the expected visitor numbers to the i360 would be in addition to those already visiting wrong and they are now part of this 10m? rolivan
  • Score: 7

1:22pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
Perhaps more people will support this project when they realise its true function.

The i360 is in fact part of an elaborate construction project which will enable Captain Kitcat and Lieutenant Lucas (and all the other Green People) finally to return to their home planet.

As soon as they can work out a way to deal with rubbish collection on their space journey home we will be rid of them.
On the strength of that can I withdraw my signature from the petition?
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Perhaps more people will support this project when they realise its true function. The i360 is in fact part of an elaborate construction project which will enable Captain Kitcat and Lieutenant Lucas (and all the other Green People) finally to return to their home planet. As soon as they can work out a way to deal with rubbish collection on their space journey home we will be rid of them.[/p][/quote]On the strength of that can I withdraw my signature from the petition? Richada
  • Score: 10

1:26pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

It is saddening to see Marks Barfield SO desperate they feel the need to stoop to wicked mudslinging here.

Nobody has suggested the pod size has changed. Why do they make that accusation? The internal max capacity figure has doubled from the maximum 100 passengers declared and consented at planning in 2006 to 200 and Jason Kitcat said in a tweet this can be done by internal changes to the pod design.

The doubled ground level impact is potentially severe and they shy away from submitting an amended planning application to deal with this as would normally be expected. Including loo provision for doubled numbers. There is no loo INSIDE THE POD. The loo provision is minimal and for the cafe on the ground basically.

It is outrageous to suggest a new Environmental Impact Assessment is not
Is not needed. Mud slinging from these people shows them up badly.
It is saddening to see Marks Barfield SO desperate they feel the need to stoop to wicked mudslinging here. Nobody has suggested the pod size has changed. Why do they make that accusation? The internal max capacity figure has doubled from the maximum 100 passengers declared and consented at planning in 2006 to 200 and Jason Kitcat said in a tweet this can be done by internal changes to the pod design. The doubled ground level impact is potentially severe and they shy away from submitting an amended planning application to deal with this as would normally be expected. Including loo provision for doubled numbers. There is no loo INSIDE THE POD. The loo provision is minimal and for the cafe on the ground basically. It is outrageous to suggest a new Environmental Impact Assessment is not Is not needed. Mud slinging from these people shows them up badly. saveHOVE
  • Score: 19

1:35pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

saveHOVE wrote:
It is saddening to see Marks Barfield SO desperate they feel the need to stoop to wicked mudslinging here.

Nobody has suggested the pod size has changed. Why do they make that accusation? The internal max capacity figure has doubled from the maximum 100 passengers declared and consented at planning in 2006 to 200 and Jason Kitcat said in a tweet this can be done by internal changes to the pod design.

The doubled ground level impact is potentially severe and they shy away from submitting an amended planning application to deal with this as would normally be expected. Including loo provision for doubled numbers. There is no loo INSIDE THE POD. The loo provision is minimal and for the cafe on the ground basically.

It is outrageous to suggest a new Environmental Impact Assessment is not
Is not needed. Mud slinging from these people shows them up badly.
That would be because Marks Barfield are effectively BUST. They owe £1.8m - this is their last chance before going under and they want the taxpayer to fund their lavish homes.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: It is saddening to see Marks Barfield SO desperate they feel the need to stoop to wicked mudslinging here. Nobody has suggested the pod size has changed. Why do they make that accusation? The internal max capacity figure has doubled from the maximum 100 passengers declared and consented at planning in 2006 to 200 and Jason Kitcat said in a tweet this can be done by internal changes to the pod design. The doubled ground level impact is potentially severe and they shy away from submitting an amended planning application to deal with this as would normally be expected. Including loo provision for doubled numbers. There is no loo INSIDE THE POD. The loo provision is minimal and for the cafe on the ground basically. It is outrageous to suggest a new Environmental Impact Assessment is not Is not needed. Mud slinging from these people shows them up badly.[/p][/quote]That would be because Marks Barfield are effectively BUST. They owe £1.8m - this is their last chance before going under and they want the taxpayer to fund their lavish homes. Fight_Back
  • Score: 15

1:40pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

Gribbet wrote:
So, it's been signed by about 0.002% of Brightonians.

Was this petition actually created with the belief that it could prevent i360 being built, or was it created because opposing new developments in B&H is basically Valerie's hobby?
Funny how democracy in action only suits the Greens when THEY want it to.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: So, it's been signed by about 0.002% of Brightonians. Was this petition actually created with the belief that it could prevent i360 being built, or was it created because opposing new developments in B&H is basically Valerie's hobby?[/p][/quote]Funny how democracy in action only suits the Greens when THEY want it to. Richada
  • Score: 14

1:43pm Fri 14 Mar 14

brightonpip says...

i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it
i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it brightonpip
  • Score: -19

1:44pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

brightonpip wrote:
i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it
So as a taxpayer ( assuming you're not a sponging student ) you're happy to pay for this folly ?
[quote][p][bold]brightonpip[/bold] wrote: i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it[/p][/quote]So as a taxpayer ( assuming you're not a sponging student ) you're happy to pay for this folly ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 16

1:46pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

saveHOVE says...
Nobody has suggested the pod size has changed. Why do they make that accusation?
I their video seen at http://www.marksbarf
ield.com/#/projects/
brighton-i360/?filte

r=date&layout=galler
y&gallery=video it is clearly stated 4 times the size a a Londo Eye pod with a maximum capacity of 100 people per trip, yet above it is stated that it is now ten times the size.
This sort of expansion cannot be done by internal alterations.
saveHOVE says... Nobody has suggested the pod size has changed. Why do they make that accusation? I their video seen at http://www.marksbarf ield.com/#/projects/ brighton-i360/?filte r=date&layout=galler y&gallery=video it is clearly stated 4 times the size a a Londo Eye pod with a maximum capacity of 100 people per trip, yet above it is stated that it is now ten times the size. This sort of expansion cannot be done by internal alterations. Man of steel
  • Score: 9

1:48pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

Mmmm, time for a new keyboard I think.
Mmmm, time for a new keyboard I think. Man of steel
  • Score: 1

2:02pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here.

10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!.

Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here.

Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers?

We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors.

In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky.

Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?
I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here. 10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!. Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here. Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers? We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors. In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky. Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves? Richada
  • Score: 13

2:16pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

Fight_Back wrote:
brightonpip wrote:
i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it
So as a taxpayer ( assuming you're not a sponging student ) you're happy to pay for this folly ?
And indeed for your children to carry on paying for it.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brightonpip[/bold] wrote: i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it[/p][/quote]So as a taxpayer ( assuming you're not a sponging student ) you're happy to pay for this folly ?[/p][/quote]And indeed for your children to carry on paying for it. Richada
  • Score: 11

2:43pm Fri 14 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Yes Mr Marks now do tell us as nobody else will.
Yes Mr Marks now do tell us as nobody else will. KempyLocals
  • Score: 8

2:46pm Fri 14 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

And Cllr Kitkat can perhaps explain all the references to "overwhelming public support" when the petition against is doing so well? Did he ever think to "ask the people" when so keen to do so on cuts! Or is it just spending he wants no democratic control over 'in his ward'?
And Cllr Kitkat can perhaps explain all the references to "overwhelming public support" when the petition against is doing so well? Did he ever think to "ask the people" when so keen to do so on cuts! Or is it just spending he wants no democratic control over 'in his ward'? KempyLocals
  • Score: 23

2:59pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Marks Barfield Architects wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh


ton-hove.gov.uk/Data


/Planning%20Applicat


ions%20Sub-Committee


/20061011/Agenda/$It


em%2084.B%20Plans%20


List%2011%20October%


2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/content/

planning/major-devel

opments/i360-west-pi

er-observation-tower

-and-heritage-centre



Marks Barfield Architects
The CN Tower is obviously quite a bit taller but wider than the i360, can sway back and forth as much as 100cm every 10 seconds.

Seeing as Brighton in known for blustery and high winds, I would like to know the tower sway calculations for the i360?

Will there be a maximum wind tolerance that may limit its use in extreme weather conditions?

I know that some people are sensitive to travel and seasickness so if you add vertigo to the combination, could this have a bearing on its predicted usage if it gets a nauseas reputation?
[quote][p][bold]Marks Barfield Architects[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects[/p][/quote]The CN Tower is obviously quite a bit taller but wider than the i360, can sway back and forth as much as 100cm every 10 seconds. Seeing as Brighton in known for blustery and high winds, I would like to know the tower sway calculations for the i360? Will there be a maximum wind tolerance that may limit its use in extreme weather conditions? I know that some people are sensitive to travel and seasickness so if you add vertigo to the combination, could this have a bearing on its predicted usage if it gets a nauseas reputation? Hovite
  • Score: 12

3:21pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

I have just seen that the Weymouth Sea Life Tower is forced to close in high winds, and it is only 53m high.

It appears to use the same size tubular structure and pod, but only about a third as tall, so I predict that the i360 will be more sensitive to wind sway.

It also cost Weymouth £3.5m to build.
I have just seen that the Weymouth Sea Life Tower is forced to close in high winds, and it is only 53m high. It appears to use the same size tubular structure and pod, but only about a third as tall, so I predict that the i360 will be more sensitive to wind sway. It also cost Weymouth £3.5m to build. Hovite
  • Score: 13

3:45pm Fri 14 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

Gribbet wrote:
So, it's been signed by about 0.002% of Brightonians.

Was this petition actually created with the belief that it could prevent i360 being built, or was it created because opposing new developments in B&H is basically Valerie's hobby?
Surprisingly few people are have any knowledge of the i360, especially the younger crowd. Of the people that do know about it, few have taken the time for any research. There's also a tiny percentage of people, like yourself, that can see the looming potential risk, know the estimated visitor numbers have been plucked out of thin air ..etc.. and yet still blindly go on with their sheep-like 'they know what they're doing" attitude. You're an embarrassment, and thank F*** for people like Valerie.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: So, it's been signed by about 0.002% of Brightonians. Was this petition actually created with the belief that it could prevent i360 being built, or was it created because opposing new developments in B&H is basically Valerie's hobby?[/p][/quote]Surprisingly few people are have any knowledge of the i360, especially the younger crowd. Of the people that do know about it, few have taken the time for any research. There's also a tiny percentage of people, like yourself, that can see the looming potential risk, know the estimated visitor numbers have been plucked out of thin air ..etc.. and yet still blindly go on with their sheep-like 'they know what they're doing" attitude. You're an embarrassment, and thank F*** for people like Valerie. pumpkineater23
  • Score: 19

3:51pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Weymouth Sealife Tower, short video showing evacuation procedure from escape hatch in the bottom of the Gondola by way of winch. The Evacuee is fully harnessed and attached to a steel cable.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=RE8HT-_HD
T8

Ha ha ha
Weymouth Sealife Tower, short video showing evacuation procedure from escape hatch in the bottom of the Gondola by way of winch. The Evacuee is fully harnessed and attached to a steel cable. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=RE8HT-_HD T8 Ha ha ha Hovite
  • Score: 10

3:55pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Warren Morgan says...

Richada wrote:
I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here.

10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!.

Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here.

Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers?

We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors.

In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky.

Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?
I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here. 10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!. Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here. Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers? We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors. In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky. Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?[/p][/quote]I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 6

4:27pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Will you sign the petition? If not, why not.
Will you sign the petition? If not, why not. saveHOVE
  • Score: 13

4:54pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Richada wrote:
I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here.

10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!.

Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here.

Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers?

We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors.

In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky.

Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?
I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for.
Only one serving councillor has far been prepared to back fine words with the fine deed of signing the petition. I think all refusenik councillors owe it to the city and its future to help spare them the risk of a defaulting loan, being lumbered with a cheap ride up a pole and all the other expense around it.

Joint marketing to try to make it pay....maintenance and clean up issues along Kings Road and Kingsway and all the officer time that has to be paid for dealing with this horror.

The West Pier Trust is being bailed out just as much as Marks Barfield and this too is wrong. The PWLB money should be for positive investment not rescuing failures or for a bailout. Please sign the petition.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here. 10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!. Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here. Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers? We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors. In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky. Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?[/p][/quote]I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for.[/p][/quote]Only one serving councillor has far been prepared to back fine words with the fine deed of signing the petition. I think all refusenik councillors owe it to the city and its future to help spare them the risk of a defaulting loan, being lumbered with a cheap ride up a pole and all the other expense around it. Joint marketing to try to make it pay....maintenance and clean up issues along Kings Road and Kingsway and all the officer time that has to be paid for dealing with this horror. The West Pier Trust is being bailed out just as much as Marks Barfield and this too is wrong. The PWLB money should be for positive investment not rescuing failures or for a bailout. Please sign the petition. saveHOVE
  • Score: 16

4:58pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Hovite wrote:
Weymouth Sealife Tower, short video showing evacuation procedure from escape hatch in the bottom of the Gondola by way of winch. The Evacuee is fully harnessed and attached to a steel cable.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=RE8HT-_HD

T8

Ha ha ha
I dont believe evacuation procedures were given in the i360 planning application. There is a very long spiral staircase down the centre of the pole as far as I can recall....for maintenance.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: Weymouth Sealife Tower, short video showing evacuation procedure from escape hatch in the bottom of the Gondola by way of winch. The Evacuee is fully harnessed and attached to a steel cable. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=RE8HT-_HD T8 Ha ha ha[/p][/quote]I dont believe evacuation procedures were given in the i360 planning application. There is a very long spiral staircase down the centre of the pole as far as I can recall....for maintenance. saveHOVE
  • Score: 6

5:03pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

saveHOVE wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ...
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ... mimseycal
  • Score: 6

5:06pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Richada wrote:
I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here.

10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!.

Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here.

Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers?

We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors.

In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky.

Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?
I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for.
Only one serving councillor has far been prepared to back fine words with the fine deed of signing the petition. I think all refusenik councillors owe it to the city and its future to help spare them the risk of a defaulting loan, being lumbered with a cheap ride up a pole and all the other expense around it.

Joint marketing to try to make it pay....maintenance and clean up issues along Kings Road and Kingsway and all the officer time that has to be paid for dealing with this horror.

The West Pier Trust is being bailed out just as much as Marks Barfield and this too is wrong. The PWLB money should be for positive investment not rescuing failures or for a bailout. Please sign the petition.
Warren Morgan: SaveHOVE is right to request your signature on the petition if you are really against the project. You have to be part of the collective if you are sincere in your position.

This is not about standing against it independently to collect your own personal Brownie points.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here. 10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!. Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here. Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers? We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors. In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky. Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?[/p][/quote]I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for.[/p][/quote]Only one serving councillor has far been prepared to back fine words with the fine deed of signing the petition. I think all refusenik councillors owe it to the city and its future to help spare them the risk of a defaulting loan, being lumbered with a cheap ride up a pole and all the other expense around it. Joint marketing to try to make it pay....maintenance and clean up issues along Kings Road and Kingsway and all the officer time that has to be paid for dealing with this horror. The West Pier Trust is being bailed out just as much as Marks Barfield and this too is wrong. The PWLB money should be for positive investment not rescuing failures or for a bailout. Please sign the petition.[/p][/quote]Warren Morgan: SaveHOVE is right to request your signature on the petition if you are really against the project. You have to be part of the collective if you are sincere in your position. This is not about standing against it independently to collect your own personal Brownie points. Hovite
  • Score: 9

5:12pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

mimseycal wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ...Good point! How is the i360 DDA compliant and how, if it jammed at the top (as lifts can do), are disabled people evacuated? Helicopter?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ...[/p][/quote]Good point! How is the i360 DDA compliant and how, if it jammed at the top (as lifts can do), are disabled people evacuated? Helicopter? saveHOVE
  • Score: 8

5:13pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

saveHOVE wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ...Good point! How is the i360 DDA compliant and how, if it jammed at the top (as lifts can do), are disabled people evacuated? Helicopter?Parachute
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ...[/p][/quote]Good point! How is the i360 DDA compliant and how, if it jammed at the top (as lifts can do), are disabled people evacuated? Helicopter?[/p][/quote]Parachute Hovite
  • Score: 3

5:14pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Quote function has a bug in it.
Quote function has a bug in it. Hovite
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

mimseycal wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ...Is the quote missing? I have never said anything about wheelchairs. Just clarifying that before Marks Barfield jump on it and use it. A great Mimsy observation.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote:Not much use if you are up there in a wheelchair is it ...[/p][/quote]Is the quote missing? I have never said anything about wheelchairs. Just clarifying that before Marks Barfield jump on it and use it. A great Mimsy observation. saveHOVE
  • Score: 2

5:15pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Dealing with idiots says...

brightonpip wrote:
i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it
Lots going for the city apart from the latte drinking pseuds like you who in your own words can **** off.
[quote][p][bold]brightonpip[/bold] wrote: i do wish valerie and her merry men would just **** off and stop destroying everything this citys future has going for it[/p][/quote]Lots going for the city apart from the latte drinking pseuds like you who in your own words can **** off. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 7

5:21pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Hovite wrote:
Marks Barfield Architects wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh



ton-hove.gov.uk/Data



/Planning%20Applicat



ions%20Sub-Committee



/20061011/Agenda/$It



em%2084.B%20Plans%20



List%2011%20October%



2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-


hove.gov.uk/content/


planning/major-devel


opments/i360-west-pi


er-observation-tower


-and-heritage-centre




Marks Barfield Architects
The CN Tower is obviously quite a bit taller but wider than the i360, can sway back and forth as much as 100cm every 10 seconds.

Seeing as Brighton in known for blustery and high winds, I would like to know the tower sway calculations for the i360?

Will there be a maximum wind tolerance that may limit its use in extreme weather conditions?

I know that some people are sensitive to travel and seasickness so if you add vertigo to the combination, could this have a bearing on its predicted usage if it gets a nauseas reputation?
I have already predicted a problem for anyone prone to vertigo or whose head for heights might be a problem standing in a glass case. Your points are a welcome expansion of consideration in this direction.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marks Barfield Architects[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects[/p][/quote]The CN Tower is obviously quite a bit taller but wider than the i360, can sway back and forth as much as 100cm every 10 seconds. Seeing as Brighton in known for blustery and high winds, I would like to know the tower sway calculations for the i360? Will there be a maximum wind tolerance that may limit its use in extreme weather conditions? I know that some people are sensitive to travel and seasickness so if you add vertigo to the combination, could this have a bearing on its predicted usage if it gets a nauseas reputation?[/p][/quote]I have already predicted a problem for anyone prone to vertigo or whose head for heights might be a problem standing in a glass case. Your points are a welcome expansion of consideration in this direction. saveHOVE
  • Score: 2

5:27pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

Hovite wrote:
Weymouth Sealife Tower, short video showing evacuation procedure from escape hatch in the bottom of the Gondola by way of winch. The Evacuee is fully harnessed and attached to a steel cable.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=RE8HT-_HD

T8

Ha ha ha
Oh heck, imagine doing that 200 times over - with frail, even wheelchair bound visitors in the pod.

Thanks for the link!
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: Weymouth Sealife Tower, short video showing evacuation procedure from escape hatch in the bottom of the Gondola by way of winch. The Evacuee is fully harnessed and attached to a steel cable. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=RE8HT-_HD T8 Ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Oh heck, imagine doing that 200 times over - with frail, even wheelchair bound visitors in the pod. Thanks for the link! Richada
  • Score: 4

5:41pm Fri 14 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Brighton says NO only out of touch Councillors say yes - but then not all of them.....I think we would like you to stay in London Mr Marks
Brighton says NO only out of touch Councillors say yes - but then not all of them.....I think we would like you to stay in London Mr Marks KempyLocals
  • Score: 13

5:44pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Richada wrote:
I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here.

10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!.

Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here.

Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers?

We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors.

In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky.

Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?
I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for.
Sorry, Cllr Morgan, I apologize, make that 8 Councillors under their spell then.......

As a council tax payer, I urge, for the sake of the city and tax payer alike, all Councillors who disagree with the i360 being funded in this way to sign the petition.

At least having done so, they will be able to face the voters from an honest standpoint on this specific issue.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: I am actually pleased to see Marks Barfield engaging with us here. 10 Councillors on a committee having fallen under their spell can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population here in Brighton & Hove - especially when the majority of them know the city far less well than an overwhelming number of us who elected them!. Hopefully Marks Barfield themselves actually believe the figures they have been putting about - particularly regarding visitor numbers, if they do not, then, as others have said, something smells very bad indeed here. Let us, just for a minute, take their figures at face value, 200 visitors per ride, over 1200 per day (that's break even - not their actual estimate), just quite how is the surrounding infrastructure going to support these numbers? We're not really talking about the provision of a few extra toilets here, but primarily transport; buses, taxi's, cars, parking. On a sunny summer day (in all likelihood the only kind of day that this will see anything approaching full capacity) the city is already groaning under the weight of visitors. In reality all of this will prove pretty academic as the guesstimated visitor numbers are pie in the sky. Again, one can only ask, if this i360 project is such a sure fire money maker, then how come, since being granted planning permission, 8 years ago, have YOU Marks Barfield not been able to finance this through private enterprise and cash in on it yourselves?[/p][/quote]I would point out again that I and my two Labour colleagues on the committee voted against the i360 loan proposal. The Green and Conservative councillors voted for.[/p][/quote]Sorry, Cllr Morgan, I apologize, make that 8 Councillors under their spell then....... As a council tax payer, I urge, for the sake of the city and tax payer alike, all Councillors who disagree with the i360 being funded in this way to sign the petition. At least having done so, they will be able to face the voters from an honest standpoint on this specific issue. Richada
  • Score: 10

5:59pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Ten councillors or eight councillors ... isn't it scary that less then a dozen councillors can put the entire city of Brighton & Hove in hock to the government for the foreseeable ...
Ten councillors or eight councillors ... isn't it scary that less then a dozen councillors can put the entire city of Brighton & Hove in hock to the government for the foreseeable ... mimseycal
  • Score: 12

6:04pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here.

LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole.

How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?
Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here. LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole. How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated? saveHOVE
  • Score: 11

6:10pm Fri 14 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

And Weymouth build cost £3m not £46m
And Weymouth build cost £3m not £46m KempyLocals
  • Score: 7

6:21pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

The petition now carries the endorsement of 569 people who have been made aware it is there and who have signed it. Will you add your name?
http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/uk
-public-works-loan-b
oard-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront
The petition now carries the endorsement of 569 people who have been made aware it is there and who have signed it. Will you add your name? http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/uk -public-works-loan-b oard-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront saveHOVE
  • Score: 2

6:24pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Wretched greens

They are the scourge of Brighton and in my view are without any shadow of doubt the worst thing that has happened to Brighton in the last 30 years.

Vanity projects and making life difficult for the good people who simply want to contribute and instead they encourage and support all types of miscreant

Wretched greens

Laughable
Wretched greens They are the scourge of Brighton and in my view are without any shadow of doubt the worst thing that has happened to Brighton in the last 30 years. Vanity projects and making life difficult for the good people who simply want to contribute and instead they encourage and support all types of miscreant Wretched greens Laughable Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 4

6:30pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

KempyLocals wrote:
And Cllr Kitkat can perhaps explain all the references to "overwhelming public support" when the petition against is doing so well? Did he ever think to "ask the people" when so keen to do so on cuts! Or is it just spending he wants no democratic control over 'in his ward'?
Cllr Kitcat's Green blinkers have blinded him to the fact that there is any opposition whatsoever to this project. In a sense, I can actually understand that - it is very much in character.

However, far more puzzling is Cllr Theobald, an old school free-market Tory if ever there was one, supporting this scheme as a publically funded venture.

Whilst in puzzling mode, bearing in mind Marks Barfield's failure to respond to my and others questioning its failure to raise private finance for the i360 over the 8 years that it has had planning permission - another question - just why do Marks Barfield, rather than Brighton i360 Ltd choose to offer us the benifit of their wisdom here?
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: And Cllr Kitkat can perhaps explain all the references to "overwhelming public support" when the petition against is doing so well? Did he ever think to "ask the people" when so keen to do so on cuts! Or is it just spending he wants no democratic control over 'in his ward'?[/p][/quote]Cllr Kitcat's Green blinkers have blinded him to the fact that there is any opposition whatsoever to this project. In a sense, I can actually understand that - it is very much in character. However, far more puzzling is Cllr Theobald, an old school free-market Tory if ever there was one, supporting this scheme as a publically funded venture. Whilst in puzzling mode, bearing in mind Marks Barfield's failure to respond to my and others questioning its failure to raise private finance for the i360 over the 8 years that it has had planning permission - another question - just why do Marks Barfield, rather than Brighton i360 Ltd choose to offer us the benifit of their wisdom here? Richada
  • Score: 4

6:33pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 ltd., are one and the same. The first is headed by the husband and wife team, the second by the wife and husband team ...
Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 ltd., are one and the same. The first is headed by the husband and wife team, the second by the wife and husband team ... mimseycal
  • Score: 8

6:41pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project.
Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful.
It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.
So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project. Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful. It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 14

6:41pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here.

LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole.

How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?
I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here. LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole. How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?[/p][/quote]I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost. Hovite
  • Score: 3

7:16pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

A scenario for you:

As a businessman, one of my duties to my business is to assess the "risk" of extending credit to new customers. If they go bust, owing me money, there is a strong likelyhood that, should I have extended too great a risk, my company too will follow them into liquidation.

I am approached by a brand new start up company - a shadow company to one that I am already aware carry considerable debts and have struggled, then failed, to raise finance for a major project. They ask me to broker a loan for over £36M in order to finance the same scheme that their shadow company has failed to get off the ground.

The answer to the loan proposal is an all to obvious no surely? Yet in the public sector, 8 Councillors, a tiny minority of those elected, who bear no financial responsibility - or consequence - can commit the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove to guarunteeing this loan.

Security on the loan? Oh yes, the assets of the project itself, the i360 observation tower - which upon defult of the loan will be a "toxic asset", one that will require city financing until the day it is dismantled.......

.......safe as houses this loan, how could I ever have doubted it?
A scenario for you: As a businessman, one of my duties to my business is to assess the "risk" of extending credit to new customers. If they go bust, owing me money, there is a strong likelyhood that, should I have extended too great a risk, my company too will follow them into liquidation. I am approached by a brand new start up company - a shadow company to one that I am already aware carry considerable debts and have struggled, then failed, to raise finance for a major project. They ask me to broker a loan for over £36M in order to finance the same scheme that their shadow company has failed to get off the ground. The answer to the loan proposal is an all to obvious no surely? Yet in the public sector, 8 Councillors, a tiny minority of those elected, who bear no financial responsibility - or consequence - can commit the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove to guarunteeing this loan. Security on the loan? Oh yes, the assets of the project itself, the i360 observation tower - which upon defult of the loan will be a "toxic asset", one that will require city financing until the day it is dismantled....... .......safe as houses this loan, how could I ever have doubted it? Richada
  • Score: 13

7:25pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project.
Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful.
It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.
At least one of the conservative councillors was at one time a director of a company ... which was dissolved during his directorship. Ah well, at least we know he knows how to go belly up!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project. Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful. It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.[/p][/quote]At least one of the conservative councillors was at one time a director of a company ... which was dissolved during his directorship. Ah well, at least we know he knows how to go belly up! mimseycal
  • Score: 10

7:45pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project.
Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful.
It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.
The ones present were as follows:
Councillor Jason Kitcat, Chair, Present
Councillor Leo Littman, Deputy Chair, Apologies, sent representative
Councillor Geoffrey Theobald OBE, Opposition Spokesperson, Present
Councillor Warren Morgan, Group Spokesperson, Present
Councillor Geoffrey Bowden, Committee Member, Present as substitute
Councillor Ian Davey, Committee Member, Present as substitute
Councillor Les Hamilton, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Jeane Lepper, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Ann Norman, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Garry Peltzer, Dunn, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Bill Randall, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Sue Shanks, Committee Member, Apologies sent representative.

Warren has stated that he and his fellow councillors voted against. So that would be Cllr Warren Morgan, Cllr Les Hamilton and Cllr Jeane Lepper who voted against this proposal. All the rest, aside from Cllr Sue Shanks and Cllr Leo Littman, who sent apologies and representatives in their stead, voted for the project.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project. Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful. It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.[/p][/quote]The ones present were as follows: Councillor Jason Kitcat, Chair, Present Councillor Leo Littman, Deputy Chair, Apologies, sent representative Councillor Geoffrey Theobald OBE, Opposition Spokesperson, Present Councillor Warren Morgan, Group Spokesperson, Present Councillor Geoffrey Bowden, Committee Member, Present as substitute Councillor Ian Davey, Committee Member, Present as substitute Councillor Les Hamilton, Committee Member, Present Councillor Jeane Lepper, Committee Member, Present Councillor Ann Norman, Committee Member, Present Councillor Garry Peltzer, Dunn, Committee Member, Present Councillor Bill Randall, Committee Member, Present Councillor Sue Shanks, Committee Member, Apologies sent representative. Warren has stated that he and his fellow councillors voted against. So that would be Cllr Warren Morgan, Cllr Les Hamilton and Cllr Jeane Lepper who voted against this proposal. All the rest, aside from Cllr Sue Shanks and Cllr Leo Littman, who sent apologies and representatives in their stead, voted for the project. mimseycal
  • Score: 6

7:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Thank you mimseycal. We can now start taking a closer look at these individuals.
I am also baffled as to why councillors who have stated they will be standing down at the next election are even allowed to be involved, that's Mr Randall who has publicly stated his intention not to stand.
Thank you mimseycal. We can now start taking a closer look at these individuals. I am also baffled as to why councillors who have stated they will be standing down at the next election are even allowed to be involved, that's Mr Randall who has publicly stated his intention not to stand. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 13

7:56pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project.
Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful.
It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.
The ones present were as follows:
Councillor Jason Kitcat, Chair, Present
Councillor Leo Littman, Deputy Chair, Apologies, sent representative
Councillor Geoffrey Theobald OBE, Opposition Spokesperson, Present
Councillor Warren Morgan, Group Spokesperson, Present
Councillor Geoffrey Bowden, Committee Member, Present as substitute
Councillor Ian Davey, Committee Member, Present as substitute
Councillor Les Hamilton, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Jeane Lepper, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Ann Norman, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Garry Peltzer, Dunn, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Bill Randall, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Sue Shanks, Committee Member, Apologies sent representative.

Warren has stated that he and his fellow councillors voted against. So that would be Cllr Warren Morgan, Cllr Les Hamilton and Cllr Jeane Lepper who voted against this proposal. All the rest, aside from Cllr Sue Shanks and Cllr Leo Littman, who sent apologies and representatives in their stead, voted for the project.
Oh and just in case you are not sure of the political breakdown of this committee ... 4 Greens, 3 Conservatives and 3 Labour ...
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project. Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful. It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.[/p][/quote]The ones present were as follows: Councillor Jason Kitcat, Chair, Present Councillor Leo Littman, Deputy Chair, Apologies, sent representative Councillor Geoffrey Theobald OBE, Opposition Spokesperson, Present Councillor Warren Morgan, Group Spokesperson, Present Councillor Geoffrey Bowden, Committee Member, Present as substitute Councillor Ian Davey, Committee Member, Present as substitute Councillor Les Hamilton, Committee Member, Present Councillor Jeane Lepper, Committee Member, Present Councillor Ann Norman, Committee Member, Present Councillor Garry Peltzer, Dunn, Committee Member, Present Councillor Bill Randall, Committee Member, Present Councillor Sue Shanks, Committee Member, Apologies sent representative. Warren has stated that he and his fellow councillors voted against. So that would be Cllr Warren Morgan, Cllr Les Hamilton and Cllr Jeane Lepper who voted against this proposal. All the rest, aside from Cllr Sue Shanks and Cllr Leo Littman, who sent apologies and representatives in their stead, voted for the project.[/p][/quote]Oh and just in case you are not sure of the political breakdown of this committee ... 4 Greens, 3 Conservatives and 3 Labour ... mimseycal
  • Score: 8

7:59pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Richada says...

mimseycal wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project.
Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful.
It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.
The ones present were as follows:
Councillor Jason Kitcat, Chair, Present
Councillor Leo Littman, Deputy Chair, Apologies, sent representative
Councillor Geoffrey Theobald OBE, Opposition Spokesperson, Present
Councillor Warren Morgan, Group Spokesperson, Present
Councillor Geoffrey Bowden, Committee Member, Present as substitute
Councillor Ian Davey, Committee Member, Present as substitute
Councillor Les Hamilton, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Jeane Lepper, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Ann Norman, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Garry Peltzer, Dunn, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Bill Randall, Committee Member, Present
Councillor Sue Shanks, Committee Member, Apologies sent representative.

Warren has stated that he and his fellow councillors voted against. So that would be Cllr Warren Morgan, Cllr Les Hamilton and Cllr Jeane Lepper who voted against this proposal. All the rest, aside from Cllr Sue Shanks and Cllr Leo Littman, who sent apologies and representatives in their stead, voted for the project.
Oh and just in case you are not sure of the political breakdown of this committee ... 4 Greens, 3 Conservatives and 3 Labour ...
Thanks for clearing that up - one of those councillors had already lost my vote, be better still if the petition led to them loosing the loan!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: So a group of councillors without any experience of business votes to use residents' money for a private business and then proposes to grant itself planning permission for its own project. Grubby, nasty, wrong, immoral, unacceptable and disgraceful. It's time that the good journalists in the town turned over the lot involved with this. First of all can The Argus publish the names of every councillor who voted for this.[/p][/quote]The ones present were as follows: Councillor Jason Kitcat, Chair, Present Councillor Leo Littman, Deputy Chair, Apologies, sent representative Councillor Geoffrey Theobald OBE, Opposition Spokesperson, Present Councillor Warren Morgan, Group Spokesperson, Present Councillor Geoffrey Bowden, Committee Member, Present as substitute Councillor Ian Davey, Committee Member, Present as substitute Councillor Les Hamilton, Committee Member, Present Councillor Jeane Lepper, Committee Member, Present Councillor Ann Norman, Committee Member, Present Councillor Garry Peltzer, Dunn, Committee Member, Present Councillor Bill Randall, Committee Member, Present Councillor Sue Shanks, Committee Member, Apologies sent representative. Warren has stated that he and his fellow councillors voted against. So that would be Cllr Warren Morgan, Cllr Les Hamilton and Cllr Jeane Lepper who voted against this proposal. All the rest, aside from Cllr Sue Shanks and Cllr Leo Littman, who sent apologies and representatives in their stead, voted for the project.[/p][/quote]Oh and just in case you are not sure of the political breakdown of this committee ... 4 Greens, 3 Conservatives and 3 Labour ...[/p][/quote]Thanks for clearing that up - one of those councillors had already lost my vote, be better still if the petition led to them loosing the loan! Richada
  • Score: 7

8:08pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Thank you mimseycal. We can now start taking a closer look at these individuals.
I am also baffled as to why councillors who have stated they will be standing down at the next election are even allowed to be involved, that's Mr Randall who has publicly stated his intention not to stand.
Standing down in 2015 does not mean you step away from committees in 2014. He was first elected during the May 2003 elections for the Hanover & Elm Grove ward.

Cllr Bill Randall also holds the chair of the Housing Committee for instance. In addition to which he is the Deputy Mayor, chair of the Housing Management Consultative Sub-Committee, deputy chair of the full Council as well as a member of the Policy & Resources Committee and the Scrutiny Panel on ASC Future Service Models.
.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Thank you mimseycal. We can now start taking a closer look at these individuals. I am also baffled as to why councillors who have stated they will be standing down at the next election are even allowed to be involved, that's Mr Randall who has publicly stated his intention not to stand.[/p][/quote]Standing down in 2015 does not mean you step away from committees in 2014. He was first elected during the May 2003 elections for the Hanover & Elm Grove ward. Cllr Bill Randall also holds the chair of the Housing Committee for instance. In addition to which he is the Deputy Mayor, chair of the Housing Management Consultative Sub-Committee, deputy chair of the full Council as well as a member of the Policy & Resources Committee and the Scrutiny Panel on ASC Future Service Models. . mimseycal
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Hovite wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here.

LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole.

How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?
I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.
I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer?

Thick tw4t
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here. LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole. How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?[/p][/quote]I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.[/p][/quote]I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer? Thick tw4t Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: -9

8:16pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Hovite wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here.

LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole.

How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?
I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.
I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer?

Thick tw4t
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here. LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole. How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?[/p][/quote]I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.[/p][/quote]I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer? Thick tw4t Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: -8

8:35pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

No mimseycal it doesn't, but it's not very democratic that a handful of people, one of whom has said he won't be around after 2015, making decisions they will not be accountable for.
This isn't right. And what about all those developers in private business who have to go through the usual planning process without being in partnership with the council or receiving finding. I see a good few legal challenges coming along to council planning decisions.
This is a mess.
No mimseycal it doesn't, but it's not very democratic that a handful of people, one of whom has said he won't be around after 2015, making decisions they will not be accountable for. This isn't right. And what about all those developers in private business who have to go through the usual planning process without being in partnership with the council or receiving finding. I see a good few legal challenges coming along to council planning decisions. This is a mess. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 8

8:45pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
No mimseycal it doesn't, but it's not very democratic that a handful of people, one of whom has said he won't be around after 2015, making decisions they will not be accountable for.
This isn't right. And what about all those developers in private business who have to go through the usual planning process without being in partnership with the council or receiving finding. I see a good few legal challenges coming along to council planning decisions.
This is a mess.
No doubt ... it is a mess. What I find far more worrying however is that on such an important decision substitutes can be sent in.

One would suppose that as time goes by, experience is garnered ... well, that is the way things work for most people. I find it very scary that two last minute substitutes have been given a voice on such a huge commitment for all of us.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: No mimseycal it doesn't, but it's not very democratic that a handful of people, one of whom has said he won't be around after 2015, making decisions they will not be accountable for. This isn't right. And what about all those developers in private business who have to go through the usual planning process without being in partnership with the council or receiving finding. I see a good few legal challenges coming along to council planning decisions. This is a mess.[/p][/quote]No doubt ... it is a mess. What I find far more worrying however is that on such an important decision substitutes can be sent in. One would suppose that as time goes by, experience is garnered ... well, that is the way things work for most people. I find it very scary that two last minute substitutes have been given a voice on such a huge commitment for all of us. mimseycal
  • Score: 4

9:05pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Richada wrote:
A scenario for you:

As a businessman, one of my duties to my business is to assess the "risk" of extending credit to new customers. If they go bust, owing me money, there is a strong likelyhood that, should I have extended too great a risk, my company too will follow them into liquidation.

I am approached by a brand new start up company - a shadow company to one that I am already aware carry considerable debts and have struggled, then failed, to raise finance for a major project. They ask me to broker a loan for over £36M in order to finance the same scheme that their shadow company has failed to get off the ground.

The answer to the loan proposal is an all to obvious no surely? Yet in the public sector, 8 Councillors, a tiny minority of those elected, who bear no financial responsibility - or consequence - can commit the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove to guarunteeing this loan.

Security on the loan? Oh yes, the assets of the project itself, the i360 observation tower - which upon defult of the loan will be a "toxic asset", one that will require city financing until the day it is dismantled.......

.......safe as houses this loan, how could I ever have doubted it?
A fully fledged letter to the Argus for the print edition/online. Go for it. Spells it out perfectly.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: A scenario for you: As a businessman, one of my duties to my business is to assess the "risk" of extending credit to new customers. If they go bust, owing me money, there is a strong likelyhood that, should I have extended too great a risk, my company too will follow them into liquidation. I am approached by a brand new start up company - a shadow company to one that I am already aware carry considerable debts and have struggled, then failed, to raise finance for a major project. They ask me to broker a loan for over £36M in order to finance the same scheme that their shadow company has failed to get off the ground. The answer to the loan proposal is an all to obvious no surely? Yet in the public sector, 8 Councillors, a tiny minority of those elected, who bear no financial responsibility - or consequence - can commit the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove to guarunteeing this loan. Security on the loan? Oh yes, the assets of the project itself, the i360 observation tower - which upon defult of the loan will be a "toxic asset", one that will require city financing until the day it is dismantled....... .......safe as houses this loan, how could I ever have doubted it?[/p][/quote]A fully fledged letter to the Argus for the print edition/online. Go for it. Spells it out perfectly. saveHOVE
  • Score: 6

9:15pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Richada wrote:
A scenario for you:

As a businessman, one of my duties to my business is to assess the "risk" of extending credit to new customers. If they go bust, owing me money, there is a strong likelyhood that, should I have extended too great a risk, my company too will follow them into liquidation.

I am approached by a brand new start up company - a shadow company to one that I am already aware carry considerable debts and have struggled, then failed, to raise finance for a major project. They ask me to broker a loan for over £36M in order to finance the same scheme that their shadow company has failed to get off the ground.

The answer to the loan proposal is an all to obvious no surely? Yet in the public sector, 8 Councillors, a tiny minority of those elected, who bear no financial responsibility - or consequence - can commit the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove to guarunteeing this loan.

Security on the loan? Oh yes, the assets of the project itself, the i360 observation tower - which upon defult of the loan will be a "toxic asset", one that will require city financing until the day it is dismantled.......

.......safe as houses this loan, how could I ever have doubted it?
It was seven councillors. 4 Green, 3 Tory. Otherwise, a mesmerising and stark display of how market forces normally operate. Please submit this to the Argus as a letter for the print edition/online publication. The public needs to see it. in a place more openly and widely accessible.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: A scenario for you: As a businessman, one of my duties to my business is to assess the "risk" of extending credit to new customers. If they go bust, owing me money, there is a strong likelyhood that, should I have extended too great a risk, my company too will follow them into liquidation. I am approached by a brand new start up company - a shadow company to one that I am already aware carry considerable debts and have struggled, then failed, to raise finance for a major project. They ask me to broker a loan for over £36M in order to finance the same scheme that their shadow company has failed to get off the ground. The answer to the loan proposal is an all to obvious no surely? Yet in the public sector, 8 Councillors, a tiny minority of those elected, who bear no financial responsibility - or consequence - can commit the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove to guarunteeing this loan. Security on the loan? Oh yes, the assets of the project itself, the i360 observation tower - which upon defult of the loan will be a "toxic asset", one that will require city financing until the day it is dismantled....... .......safe as houses this loan, how could I ever have doubted it?[/p][/quote]It was seven councillors. 4 Green, 3 Tory. Otherwise, a mesmerising and stark display of how market forces normally operate. Please submit this to the Argus as a letter for the print edition/online publication. The public needs to see it. in a place more openly and widely accessible. saveHOVE
  • Score: 4

9:28pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
Hovite wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here.

LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole.

How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?
I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.
I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer?

Thick tw4t
Ok describe who am looking out for, height, hair colour(if you have any), eye colour, big red nose, size 30 shoe etc

Do you go by the name of CoCo?
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here. LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole. How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?[/p][/quote]I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.[/p][/quote]I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer? Thick tw4t[/p][/quote]Ok describe who am looking out for, height, hair colour(if you have any), eye colour, big red nose, size 30 shoe etc Do you go by the name of CoCo? Hovite
  • Score: 4

9:49pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

This project is going to end up mired in legal challenges and planning wrangles. It's never going to get off the ground.
This project is going to end up mired in legal challenges and planning wrangles. It's never going to get off the ground. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 4

9:56pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This project is going to end up mired in legal challenges and planning wrangles. It's never going to get off the ground.
One way or another ... it is going to cost us dearly.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: This project is going to end up mired in legal challenges and planning wrangles. It's never going to get off the ground.[/p][/quote]One way or another ... it is going to cost us dearly. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

10:35pm Fri 14 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This project is going to end up mired in legal challenges and planning wrangles. It's never going to get off the ground.
No planning wrangles on the horizon - when there should be.
No legal challenges - like what?
Only that wretched loan.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: This project is going to end up mired in legal challenges and planning wrangles. It's never going to get off the ground.[/p][/quote]No planning wrangles on the horizon - when there should be. No legal challenges - like what? Only that wretched loan. saveHOVE
  • Score: 5

11:01pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go.
It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go. Gribbet
  • Score: -17

11:04pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

That is of course providing all Ts have been crossed and all the Is have been dotted.
That is of course providing all Ts have been crossed and all the Is have been dotted. mimseycal
  • Score: 4

7:40am Sat 15 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough.

I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there.

My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it.
Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough. I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there. My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it. HJarrs
  • Score: -14

7:59am Sat 15 Mar 14

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

HJarrs wrote:
Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough.

I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there.

My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it.
HJ

Your rationale is akin to a compulsive gambler betting the house on a 100/1 outsider in the Grand national seconds before race start on the basis that the race wont be available to bet on for another year. The west pier site is not a burning platform and we don't need to rush a decision through. After all our resources are going to be busy soon correcting all the speed limits back to 30 mph, removing bus lanes and cycle paths to get the city flowing again.

That said we know that the Green party are desperate to trigger one last vanity project prior to being summarily dismissed in the forthcoming elections and guess what...?

Guess what HJ, the city has woken up to us Greens and they know our game. They are also better placed to stop us now, so what shall we try next. PM me so we can join stories up.

Ps when are you coming to Brighton again?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough. I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there. My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it.[/p][/quote]HJ Your rationale is akin to a compulsive gambler betting the house on a 100/1 outsider in the Grand national seconds before race start on the basis that the race wont be available to bet on for another year. The west pier site is not a burning platform and we don't need to rush a decision through. After all our resources are going to be busy soon correcting all the speed limits back to 30 mph, removing bus lanes and cycle paths to get the city flowing again. That said we know that the Green party are desperate to trigger one last vanity project prior to being summarily dismissed in the forthcoming elections and guess what...? Guess what HJ, the city has woken up to us Greens and they know our game. They are also better placed to stop us now, so what shall we try next. PM me so we can join stories up. Ps when are you coming to Brighton again? I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 9

9:29am Sat 15 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

HJarrs wrote:
Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough.

I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there.

My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it.
*Ahem* There is no sky bar.

I once denounced the project as something that would eventually fail and end up as a nightclub in the sky or similar. I guess someone on the i360 team thought that a nice marketing ploy watered down to a sky bar and at the P&R stage a few people were drawn into the pod holding drinks.

Look at the petition site for a link to Argus articles with original drawings from the planning application stage. No sky bar. And those drawings date from when the passenger capacity they got planning consent for was 100. Just a bare space around the pole.

When asked how the pod could suddenly hold 200, Jason Kitcat tweeted that internal design changes made it possible. Removing what? The pole? Certainly not by adding a 'sky bar' or installing a loo. Neither of which is in the planning consented pod.

Planning confirmed there was no Condition restricting numbers in the pod, that it is a health and safety issue. But if you put in a bar; you need to put in a loo.

It really is only fit for conversion into a sky bar or party venue of some kind - a gimmick for the hen and stag crew. And at what expense to the city? Right now it has consent for up-and-down viewing and nothing else.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough. I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there. My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it.[/p][/quote]*Ahem* There is no sky bar. I once denounced the project as something that would eventually fail and end up as a nightclub in the sky or similar. I guess someone on the i360 team thought that a nice marketing ploy watered down to a sky bar and at the P&R stage a few people were drawn into the pod holding drinks. Look at the petition site for a link to Argus articles with original drawings from the planning application stage. No sky bar. And those drawings date from when the passenger capacity they got planning consent for was 100. Just a bare space around the pole. When asked how the pod could suddenly hold 200, Jason Kitcat tweeted that internal design changes made it possible. Removing what? The pole? Certainly not by adding a 'sky bar' or installing a loo. Neither of which is in the planning consented pod. Planning confirmed there was no Condition restricting numbers in the pod, that it is a health and safety issue. But if you put in a bar; you need to put in a loo. It really is only fit for conversion into a sky bar or party venue of some kind - a gimmick for the hen and stag crew. And at what expense to the city? Right now it has consent for up-and-down viewing and nothing else. saveHOVE
  • Score: 12

9:35am Sat 15 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Make no mistake. If this is built and ticket sales flag, desperate measures will be put in place. How would BHCC be able to turn down a licensing request for the pod (which it does not have) if persuaded that they would then be able to single book large parties for events - or a nightclub.

Repayment of the loan would be at stake.....

Think about it. And then sign the petition to spare the city the impact that at the moment has only been calculated for a maximum of 100 people just going up and jus coming down again within 20 minutes to half an hour. The 2006 planning committee were not asked to consider anything more. And there is no Environmental Impact Assessment for a hen or stag bookout or 600 passengers per hour instead of a max of 300.

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/uk
-public-works-loan-b
oard-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront
Make no mistake. If this is built and ticket sales flag, desperate measures will be put in place. How would BHCC be able to turn down a licensing request for the pod (which it does not have) if persuaded that they would then be able to single book large parties for events - or a nightclub. Repayment of the loan would be at stake..... Think about it. And then sign the petition to spare the city the impact that at the moment has only been calculated for a maximum of 100 people just going up and jus coming down again within 20 minutes to half an hour. The 2006 planning committee were not asked to consider anything more. And there is no Environmental Impact Assessment for a hen or stag bookout or 600 passengers per hour instead of a max of 300. http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/uk -public-works-loan-b oard-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront saveHOVE
  • Score: 9

9:42am Sat 15 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

The thing is ... once this donut on a stick is built they will have us over a barrel really. Have donut on a stick, must use donut on a stick type of thing.
The thing is ... once this donut on a stick is built they will have us over a barrel really. Have donut on a stick, must use donut on a stick type of thing. mimseycal
  • Score: 7

9:49am Sat 15 Mar 14

Zorniza says...

All comments- for and agains this project show not for the first time, that the council is completely lacking common sense and is totally out of touch with local interests.
All comments- for and agains this project show not for the first time, that the council is completely lacking common sense and is totally out of touch with local interests. Zorniza
  • Score: 10

9:58am Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough.

I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there.

My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it.
That's all very well - but it does nothing to address our fears that this project will fail spectacularly due to completely false hopes given by visitor numbers then become a financial millstone on the backs of two generations of Brighton & Hove council and business tax payers.

I realise that this is not a concern of the current administration - following the next election they will all drift away from the city for green pastures new, leaving the rest of us to pay (in more ways than one) for their short, but devastating, legacy.

We, in signing this petition, are merely attempting to limit the damage - and in all likelihood, being a realist, I have to say that in all probability it is actually already too late to stop the loan agreement being signed anyway, but at least we have made our voice heard and cannot be held complicit when the inevitable happens and the costs of the i360 fall back onto the city of Brighton & Hove..
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Well, if you don't like the i360, then fair enough. I can't say it is life of death for me whether it goes ahead or not (though I fancy a drink in the Sky bar!), but once again I return to the question: If not i360 then what? Whatever takes its place must either pay its way or be funded by external grant. There had better be a really good idea out there. My worry is that this site will be derelict for yet another generation if we are not careful and that the city will not be developing and providing new reasons for coming to the city. In my view, the problem is that if i360 does not go ahead, nothing will happen for years that is a far bigger financial risk to the city than building it.[/p][/quote]That's all very well - but it does nothing to address our fears that this project will fail spectacularly due to completely false hopes given by visitor numbers then become a financial millstone on the backs of two generations of Brighton & Hove council and business tax payers. I realise that this is not a concern of the current administration - following the next election they will all drift away from the city for green pastures new, leaving the rest of us to pay (in more ways than one) for their short, but devastating, legacy. We, in signing this petition, are merely attempting to limit the damage - and in all likelihood, being a realist, I have to say that in all probability it is actually already too late to stop the loan agreement being signed anyway, but at least we have made our voice heard and cannot be held complicit when the inevitable happens and the costs of the i360 fall back onto the city of Brighton & Hove.. Richada
  • Score: 8

9:59am Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

Zorniza wrote:
All comments- for and agains this project show not for the first time, that the council is completely lacking common sense and is totally out of touch with local interests.
That, in a nutshell, is the situation.
[quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: All comments- for and agains this project show not for the first time, that the council is completely lacking common sense and is totally out of touch with local interests.[/p][/quote]That, in a nutshell, is the situation. Richada
  • Score: 10

10:20am Sat 15 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Gribbet wrote:
It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go.
You really do appear to be deluded. Do you read the very valid points raised and think it will just blow over? Perhaps you should address the points raised about concerns that this might be some sort of scam. Simply patronising those making intelligent points make you seem somewhat deranged.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go.[/p][/quote]You really do appear to be deluded. Do you read the very valid points raised and think it will just blow over? Perhaps you should address the points raised about concerns that this might be some sort of scam. Simply patronising those making intelligent points make you seem somewhat deranged. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 7

10:25am Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

Gribbet wrote:
It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go.
Is the financial risk of two generations of B&H council tax payers being saddled with, not only, the loan repayments, but also the considerable running costs of this venture, really so irrational?

Also, looking at the projected visitor numbers / break even point, do YOU really consider the failure of this scheme "some outside possibility of a worst case scenario"?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go.[/p][/quote]Is the financial risk of two generations of B&H council tax payers being saddled with, not only, the loan repayments, but also the considerable running costs of this venture, really so irrational? Also, looking at the projected visitor numbers / break even point, do YOU really consider the failure of this scheme "some outside possibility of a worst case scenario"? Richada
  • Score: 7

10:31am Sat 15 Mar 14

Herbertfarquarson says...

Usual Argus idiots trying to put a spanner in the works of anything that can improve Brighton and Hove. Its a pity they cannot learn the true facts before embarking on their crusades and misleading the public into signing up to silly petitions. Those who argue for another pier should put their own money into it and build one anyway and see how well that pays off. Idiots!
Usual Argus idiots trying to put a spanner in the works of anything that can improve Brighton and Hove. Its a pity they cannot learn the true facts before embarking on their crusades and misleading the public into signing up to silly petitions. Those who argue for another pier should put their own money into it and build one anyway and see how well that pays off. Idiots! Herbertfarquarson
  • Score: -22

10:45am Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

Herbertfarquarson wrote:
Usual Argus idiots trying to put a spanner in the works of anything that can improve Brighton and Hove. Its a pity they cannot learn the true facts before embarking on their crusades and misleading the public into signing up to silly petitions. Those who argue for another pier should put their own money into it and build one anyway and see how well that pays off. Idiots!
I take it you actually believe that the predicted numbers will turn up day after day - every day of the year for 50 years into the future then.

We have been presented with very few hard "facts" concerning the i360, the glaringly obvious one though is that after 8 years, Marks Barfield failed to finance this as a commercial enterprise

There is vastly better use that this public money could be put to here in Brighton and Hove, if we are to bear such an open-ended risk, then at least use the money to build something (such as an ice rink or proper leisure centre - maybe at Black Rock) that would be of greater use to all.

I actually agree with your point about the pier, in its previous form it was unable to support itself, a far more radical development would be required in order to make any form of a pier work on that site.
[quote][p][bold]Herbertfarquarson[/bold] wrote: Usual Argus idiots trying to put a spanner in the works of anything that can improve Brighton and Hove. Its a pity they cannot learn the true facts before embarking on their crusades and misleading the public into signing up to silly petitions. Those who argue for another pier should put their own money into it and build one anyway and see how well that pays off. Idiots![/p][/quote]I take it you actually believe that the predicted numbers will turn up day after day - every day of the year for 50 years into the future then. We have been presented with very few hard "facts" concerning the i360, the glaringly obvious one though is that after 8 years, Marks Barfield failed to finance this as a commercial enterprise There is vastly better use that this public money could be put to here in Brighton and Hove, if we are to bear such an open-ended risk, then at least use the money to build something (such as an ice rink or proper leisure centre - maybe at Black Rock) that would be of greater use to all. I actually agree with your point about the pier, in its previous form it was unable to support itself, a far more radical development would be required in order to make any form of a pier work on that site. Richada
  • Score: 12

10:49am Sat 15 Mar 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not? Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: -13

11:29am Sat 15 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree.

As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch.

The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT!

This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree. As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch. The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT! This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad. saveHOVE
  • Score: 15

11:48am Sat 15 Mar 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree.

As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch.

The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT!

This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.
I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success.

No need to worry at all...
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree. As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch. The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT! This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.[/p][/quote]I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success. No need to worry at all... Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: -10

12:13pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Thank you SO much for making that clear to us.

No, seriously, thank you for a great laugh out loud moment.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]Thank you SO much for making that clear to us. No, seriously, thank you for a great laugh out loud moment. Richada
  • Score: 10

12:19pm Sat 15 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree.

As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch.

The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT!

This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.
I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success.

No need to worry at all...
You obviously suffer with a multi personality disorder and have lots of conversatons in the Mirror.Oh and by the way if it wasn't for the unfathomable change of mind by a few Conservatives it wouldn't have even got to this point .I think Mr Theobald will be very disappointed if His name isn't up in lights also.It might just be that Greens and Cons end up in Flames next year and I voted Cons for 40 years but never again.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree. As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch. The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT! This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.[/p][/quote]I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success. No need to worry at all...[/p][/quote]You obviously suffer with a multi personality disorder and have lots of conversatons in the Mirror.Oh and by the way if it wasn't for the unfathomable change of mind by a few Conservatives it wouldn't have even got to this point .I think Mr Theobald will be very disappointed if His name isn't up in lights also.It might just be that Greens and Cons end up in Flames next year and I voted Cons for 40 years but never again. rolivan
  • Score: 9

12:54pm Sat 15 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Greens and Tories (kitcat and theobold) seem desperate to hand over £36million money to see an enormous erection on the seafront. Fools. I'll let them insert mine down there for half that amount.
Greens and Tories (kitcat and theobold) seem desperate to hand over £36million money to see an enormous erection on the seafront. Fools. I'll let them insert mine down there for half that amount. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 2

12:54pm Sat 15 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree.

As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch.

The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT!

This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.
I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success.

No need to worry at all...
Yawn, yawn. You spend all your time trolling, never adding to any debate. How you can remember so many details of your different Argus accounts is impressive though.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree. As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch. The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT! This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.[/p][/quote]I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success. No need to worry at all...[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn. You spend all your time trolling, never adding to any debate. How you can remember so many details of your different Argus accounts is impressive though. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

1:01pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Gosh! HJarrs has a go at Green_Girl_1990 (year of Alex's birth by any chance?) Green on Green! Hmmmm.....
Gosh! HJarrs has a go at Green_Girl_1990 (year of Alex's birth by any chance?) Green on Green! Hmmmm..... Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 6

1:21pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The Tories pinning their flag to this rusty mast spells the end for them at the next election,particularl
y when many of their voters are local business folk and traders who are suffering under current issues not being managed by the party.
I can see Warren and the Labour group stealing a march here if they pick up some momentum.
It isn't right right that public money is used for a private enterprise which will also compete with other private ventures in the city funded solely by private enterprise. If I was running the Palace Pier or any other venture in the city I would be challenging the legality of this. I wonder if it's breaking competition laws.
The Tories pinning their flag to this rusty mast spells the end for them at the next election,particularl y when many of their voters are local business folk and traders who are suffering under current issues not being managed by the party. I can see Warren and the Labour group stealing a march here if they pick up some momentum. It isn't right right that public money is used for a private enterprise which will also compete with other private ventures in the city funded solely by private enterprise. If I was running the Palace Pier or any other venture in the city I would be challenging the legality of this. I wonder if it's breaking competition laws. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 7

1:24pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.

First we are al inbred, now we are too stupid to understand anything, I think that ania green and green girl are one and the same.
According to the articles in Brighton Independant written by kitkat and barfield, it seems as if everybody in Brighton, with the exception of Valerie Paynter and her cohorts, are for the donut on a pole.
As I said before, repeat any lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.
Green_Girl_1990 wrote: Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you. First we are al inbred, now we are too stupid to understand anything, I think that ania green and green girl are one and the same. According to the articles in Brighton Independant written by kitkat and barfield, it seems as if everybody in Brighton, with the exception of Valerie Paynter and her cohorts, are for the donut on a pole. As I said before, repeat any lie often enough, and it becomes the truth. Man of steel
  • Score: 3

1:27pm Sat 15 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

At least let the good people of Brighton name the Green / Tory wasteful vanity project?
iSore360? uShafted180?
Could this be mystic symbolism (akin to the Da Vinci code) on a large scale - - whilst less subtle than the hidden meaning of Da Vinci, the doughnut in the picture above perhaps depicts the exposed backside of council tax payers with the shaft-of-destiny showing them the will of the righteous few.

Is their some 'sect of the mystic doughnut' conspiracy going on here? Is this to be their place of worship to the high council of the puckered ring? I think we should be told.
At least let the good people of Brighton name the Green / Tory wasteful vanity project? iSore360? uShafted180? Could this be mystic symbolism (akin to the Da Vinci code) on a large scale - - whilst less subtle than the hidden meaning of Da Vinci, the doughnut in the picture above perhaps depicts the exposed backside of council tax payers with the shaft-of-destiny showing them the will of the righteous few. Is their some 'sect of the mystic doughnut' conspiracy going on here? Is this to be their place of worship to the high council of the puckered ring? I think we should be told. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 7

1:46pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The Tories pinning their flag to this rusty mast spells the end for them at the next election,particularl

y when many of their voters are local business folk and traders who are suffering under current issues not being managed by the party.
I can see Warren and the Labour group stealing a march here if they pick up some momentum.
It isn't right right that public money is used for a private enterprise which will also compete with other private ventures in the city funded solely by private enterprise. If I was running the Palace Pier or any other venture in the city I would be challenging the legality of this. I wonder if it's breaking competition laws.
That is actually an excellent point - one not so far raised here.

In our cash strapped times those visiting the city do so on a budget - they have "x" amount to spend on attractions.

In publicly financing this private venture, the council is creating a situation of unfair competition - reducing the trade for properly, privately funded attractions.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The Tories pinning their flag to this rusty mast spells the end for them at the next election,particularl y when many of their voters are local business folk and traders who are suffering under current issues not being managed by the party. I can see Warren and the Labour group stealing a march here if they pick up some momentum. It isn't right right that public money is used for a private enterprise which will also compete with other private ventures in the city funded solely by private enterprise. If I was running the Palace Pier or any other venture in the city I would be challenging the legality of this. I wonder if it's breaking competition laws.[/p][/quote]That is actually an excellent point - one not so far raised here. In our cash strapped times those visiting the city do so on a budget - they have "x" amount to spend on attractions. In publicly financing this private venture, the council is creating a situation of unfair competition - reducing the trade for properly, privately funded attractions. Richada
  • Score: 4

1:52pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree.

As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch.

The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT!

This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.
I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success.

No need to worry at all...
Yawn, yawn. You spend all your time trolling, never adding to any debate. How you can remember so many details of your different Argus accounts is impressive though.
Oh dear HJ, having a bad spin day?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]Get a grip! There is nothing anti-Green in opposing the i360. It is the i360 that is opposed and the deal that both the Greens and Conservatives decided to agree. As for it being a "fantastic piece of architecture" you will blush mightily if you make use of the YOU TUBE link in a comment in the trail above to have a look at the identical one in Weymouth - just much shorter. Have a look especially at the evacuation drill....via a rope and winch. The Greens are not covered in glory & this is deeply saddening. Borrowing to lend to projects investors endorse is the way to go. This is a bailout of a failure. Even in 2006 at the height of financial hubris, it did not manage to get itself very much financial backing. Two more years of the hubris before the global financial collapse still did not see interest. And just as we are told the economy sap is rising again, well, blow me, don't the existing i360 backers just up and BOLT! This is a city wrecker. Both physically and financially. And SHAME ON YOU for wanting to throw good money after bad.[/p][/quote]I have personally spoken to Dr. Caroline Lucas and Green councillor Alex Phillips, and they both have every confidence that the i360 will be an amazing success. No need to worry at all...[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn. You spend all your time trolling, never adding to any debate. How you can remember so many details of your different Argus accounts is impressive though.[/p][/quote]Oh dear HJ, having a bad spin day? Richada
  • Score: 5

2:07pm Sat 15 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

It's getting personal and does not need to. Sky Bar and corporate events: council only get money on 'ticket sales' corporate events are not ticketed. What if i360 went corporate events only? Nobody thought of that.

If we get green Councillors pics at the base then great - we will know who to blame for deterioration in air quality and all of us remember that the greens (and this is ironic) never undertook any environmental or traffic impact analysis of inflated visitor numbers just boasted about the extra income from parking at Regency Sq car park - surreal eh?

So can any green supporters show us all the environmental impact please? Surely no green councillor would support a project where such matters have not been considered - would they?
It's getting personal and does not need to. Sky Bar and corporate events: council only get money on 'ticket sales' corporate events are not ticketed. What if i360 went corporate events only? Nobody thought of that. If we get green Councillors pics at the base then great - we will know who to blame for deterioration in air quality and all of us remember that the greens (and this is ironic) never undertook any environmental or traffic impact analysis of inflated visitor numbers just boasted about the extra income from parking at Regency Sq car park - surreal eh? So can any green supporters show us all the environmental impact please? Surely no green councillor would support a project where such matters have not been considered - would they? KempyLocals
  • Score: 8

2:12pm Sat 15 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

On finance - I do hope someone somewhere keeps this chat thread! In 4 or 5 years time, when schools are shutting and essential public services are closed to pay back the loan and David Marks relaxes with another Mohito on a foreign shore - we will all look back and see who said what......
On finance - I do hope someone somewhere keeps this chat thread! In 4 or 5 years time, when schools are shutting and essential public services are closed to pay back the loan and David Marks relaxes with another Mohito on a foreign shore - we will all look back and see who said what...... KempyLocals
  • Score: 6

2:23pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

The sky bar being bandied about would mean a trip of 30 minutes after dark, instead of the 20 during the day.
I don't know about anybody else, but I would never dream of ordering a drink if I only had ten minutes in which to drink it.
How many people do they expect to go on it at night for this drink?
How do they expect to pour the drinks, or is this where the staff of 160 will be used?
The sky bar being bandied about would mean a trip of 30 minutes after dark, instead of the 20 during the day. I don't know about anybody else, but I would never dream of ordering a drink if I only had ten minutes in which to drink it. How many people do they expect to go on it at night for this drink? How do they expect to pour the drinks, or is this where the staff of 160 will be used? Man of steel
  • Score: 4

2:31pm Sat 15 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Green Girl - you are reportedly green show us the Envirinmrntal Appraisal can you my dear?
Green Girl - you are reportedly green show us the Envirinmrntal Appraisal can you my dear? KempyLocals
  • Score: 10

2:48pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Tel Scoomer says...

It is right for people to question and scrutinise the i360 plans, including the financial plans, and understandable that the lack of private investment has caused concern. But it is a shame to see this debate conducted with such negativity by so few.
On balance the doughnut on a stick should bring enough benefits to justify the risk. And undoubtedly we will have good and bad years for visitor numbers. The weather, after all, is a crucial factor.
Transport, traffic and parking challenges lie ahead. But a new council next year ought to look afresh at where to site a park and ride and where to put a coach park.
The i360 is a bold vision - a bit scary for some - and it needs a positive response so that we take advantage of the benefits and overcome the difficulties. We can and will make this work and we'll end up with a better seafront and a more vibrant local economy as a result.
It is right for people to question and scrutinise the i360 plans, including the financial plans, and understandable that the lack of private investment has caused concern. But it is a shame to see this debate conducted with such negativity by so few. On balance the doughnut on a stick should bring enough benefits to justify the risk. And undoubtedly we will have good and bad years for visitor numbers. The weather, after all, is a crucial factor. Transport, traffic and parking challenges lie ahead. But a new council next year ought to look afresh at where to site a park and ride and where to put a coach park. The i360 is a bold vision - a bit scary for some - and it needs a positive response so that we take advantage of the benefits and overcome the difficulties. We can and will make this work and we'll end up with a better seafront and a more vibrant local economy as a result. Tel Scoomer
  • Score: -9

3:11pm Sat 15 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

We might. Best case lots more visitors, less space on the beach and greater strain on failing infrastructure. Worst case BHCC bankrupt trying to pay back a loan. I don't like either - it's not 'fear' it's pride in where I live. DO NOT confuse the two!
We might. Best case lots more visitors, less space on the beach and greater strain on failing infrastructure. Worst case BHCC bankrupt trying to pay back a loan. I don't like either - it's not 'fear' it's pride in where I live. DO NOT confuse the two! KempyLocals
  • Score: 9

3:17pm Sat 15 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Pick up a copy of the Saturday print edition of The Argus. Is the hilarious lampooning cartoon of i360 - a big one, filling the letters page - the first to be published? I fell about. It's not online- just in the print edition.
Pick up a copy of the Saturday print edition of The Argus. Is the hilarious lampooning cartoon of i360 - a big one, filling the letters page - the first to be published? I fell about. It's not online- just in the print edition. saveHOVE
  • Score: 10

6:44pm Sat 15 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
You patronising ****. Some of the dimmest, thickest people I know, who don't have an ounce of common sense or any awareness of much beyond themselves have been to University. **** you.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]You patronising ****. Some of the dimmest, thickest people I know, who don't have an ounce of common sense or any awareness of much beyond themselves have been to University. **** you. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 7

7:37pm Sat 15 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
You patronising ****. Some of the dimmest, thickest people I know, who don't have an ounce of common sense or any awareness of much beyond themselves have been to University. **** you.
This is the sort of patronising holier that thou politics we are dealing with in Brighton now eh? Tick tock....,not long to wait until change in Brighton I hope - shame the Current administrations decisions will affect us so badly for so long!
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]You patronising ****. Some of the dimmest, thickest people I know, who don't have an ounce of common sense or any awareness of much beyond themselves have been to University. **** you.[/p][/quote]This is the sort of patronising holier that thou politics we are dealing with in Brighton now eh? Tick tock....,not long to wait until change in Brighton I hope - shame the Current administrations decisions will affect us so badly for so long! KempyLocals
  • Score: 2

8:04pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Chaffinch1 says...

£36M would build a lovely pier, wouldn't it? Hands up everyone who'd like to see the West Pier rebuilt to her former splendour!
£36M would build a lovely pier, wouldn't it? Hands up everyone who'd like to see the West Pier rebuilt to her former splendour! Chaffinch1
  • Score: 9

8:39pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Richada says...

Chaffinch1 wrote:
£36M would build a lovely pier, wouldn't it? Hands up everyone who'd like to see the West Pier rebuilt to her former splendour!
Raises hand......

......unfortunately what we would like and what is commercially viable are likely to be two different things here.

We live in very changed times to when the West Pier closed to the public in the mid '70's - her former splendour, whilst fabulous to look at, was unable to support itself financially then, and without an entirely different concept, would be even less able to support itself now.

Having said that, ANY pier on this site, unlike the one trick pony i360, would be a multi-purpose venue and stand more of a chance to attract visitors not only to stay for more than 30 minutes, but also to return again and again. A pier also offers more to do when the cloud is low, it is misty or raining - i.e. on days when the i360 holds no appeal at all.
[quote][p][bold]Chaffinch1[/bold] wrote: £36M would build a lovely pier, wouldn't it? Hands up everyone who'd like to see the West Pier rebuilt to her former splendour![/p][/quote]Raises hand...... ......unfortunately what we would like and what is commercially viable are likely to be two different things here. We live in very changed times to when the West Pier closed to the public in the mid '70's - her former splendour, whilst fabulous to look at, was unable to support itself financially then, and without an entirely different concept, would be even less able to support itself now. Having said that, ANY pier on this site, unlike the one trick pony i360, would be a multi-purpose venue and stand more of a chance to attract visitors not only to stay for more than 30 minutes, but also to return again and again. A pier also offers more to do when the cloud is low, it is misty or raining - i.e. on days when the i360 holds no appeal at all. Richada
  • Score: 7

9:21pm Sat 15 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Let me make things very clear to you lot.

Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not.

No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city.

And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?
Are you trolling (badly) or is this an attempt at some kind of Green Party sabotage? You're a sad-case either way ;)
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Let me make things very clear to you lot. Many of you anti-Green people have never been to university, and therefore are not intelligent to realise what is good for you.The i360 will bring significant financial benefits to Brighton; we are building this thing for your own good, whether you like it or not. No doubt you anti-Green lot will be very slow to thank us Greens when you all reap the financial rewards of having this fantastic piece of architecture in the city. And yes, the pod WILL have the faces of all of Brighton's Green councillors displayed underneath it, and their faces WILL be illuminated at night. These people have worked so hard for you all, so why not?[/p][/quote]Are you trolling (badly) or is this an attempt at some kind of Green Party sabotage? You're a sad-case either way ;) pumpkineater23
  • Score: 5

1:05am Sun 16 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Somethingsarejustwro


ng
wrote:
Hovite wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here.

LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole.

How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?
I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.
I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer?

Thick tw4t
Ok describe who am looking out for, height, hair colour(if you have any), eye colour, big red nose, size 30 shoe etc

Do you go by the name of CoCo?
You know me and of course I know you. Are you still living on Montpelier?

Thick fw4t
Do you want to be the next story in the Argus?
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Please tweet, facebook, share, email this article to everyone you know so they know about the petition and can also read the instructive comments here. LikeMarks Barfield's sorry attack comment (and its cut and past repeat posting). Like from Hovite who drew attention to You Tube and the devastatingly offputting footage of the near identical (but shorter) evacuation of the Weymouth viewing pod from up its pole. How on EARTH would the i360 be evacuated?[/p][/quote]I also think it is also very important to know the calculated wind sway and the maximum wind speed that the i360 can operate in. If it sways more than a 1m both ways I hope that they will be supplying sick bags at no extra cost.[/p][/quote]I am going to be up your way again at the weekend. Let me know if you fancy catching up for a beer? Thick tw4t[/p][/quote]Ok describe who am looking out for, height, hair colour(if you have any), eye colour, big red nose, size 30 shoe etc Do you go by the name of CoCo?[/p][/quote]You know me and of course I know you. Are you still living on Montpelier? Thick fw4t[/p][/quote]Do you want to be the next story in the Argus? Hovite
  • Score: 0

7:48am Sun 16 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go.
You really do appear to be deluded. Do you read the very valid points raised and think it will just blow over? Perhaps you should address the points raised about concerns that this might be some sort of scam. Simply patronising those making intelligent points make you seem somewhat deranged.
"Do you read the very valid points raised and think it will just blow over?"

Yes and yes. I've also been reading the really far-fetched paranoid comments too, which is most of them. I wouldn't deem the way people go round in circles for hours on an online comments board trying to find every possible hypothetical way this "will" (could) fail, making themselves angry in the process, as being either intelligent or rational though.
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: It's amazing how ordinary folk can talk themselves and each other into such a panic. In the comments above we have the same 5 or 6 individuals going round in circles, repeating and compounding the same irrational fears over and over again as if they stand to be personally bankrupted by some outside possibility of a worst case scenario. For the sake of your blood pressure, maybe it's time to let the balloon go.[/p][/quote]You really do appear to be deluded. Do you read the very valid points raised and think it will just blow over? Perhaps you should address the points raised about concerns that this might be some sort of scam. Simply patronising those making intelligent points make you seem somewhat deranged.[/p][/quote]"Do you read the very valid points raised and think it will just blow over?" Yes and yes. I've also been reading the really far-fetched paranoid comments too, which is most of them. I wouldn't deem the way people go round in circles for hours on an online comments board trying to find every possible hypothetical way this "will" (could) fail, making themselves angry in the process, as being either intelligent or rational though. Gribbet
  • Score: -14

10:16am Sun 16 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Gribbet, you have again tried clumsily side-stepping the issues and you seem to dismiss as paranoia the valid points raised or supported by a number of seemingly expert and professional people who have signed the petition.

Your devotion to the Green (and Tory Party) - 'serving Brighton right' campaign has been duly noted comrade gribbet - Green Party apologist or activist?

Could you do the patronising bit again...perhaps you should remind everyone to calm down and tell all about how many amazing jobs and big piles of money? These other comments are only from, as you note above, "ordinary people". Obviously such a keen 'extraordinary' intellect as yours should not be contaminated with petty details of any argument. After all, it's the ideology that will save the masses from themselves?
Gribbet, you have again tried clumsily side-stepping the issues and you seem to dismiss as paranoia the valid points raised or supported by a number of seemingly expert and professional people who have signed the petition. Your devotion to the Green (and Tory Party) - 'serving Brighton right' campaign has been duly noted comrade gribbet - Green Party apologist or activist? Could you do the patronising bit again...perhaps you should remind everyone to calm down and tell all about how many amazing jobs and big piles of money? These other comments are only from, as you note above, "ordinary people". Obviously such a keen 'extraordinary' intellect as yours should not be contaminated with petty details of any argument. After all, it's the ideology that will save the masses from themselves? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 6

11:24am Sun 16 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Gribbet, you have again tried clumsily side-stepping the issues and you seem to dismiss as paranoia the valid points raised or supported by a number of seemingly expert and professional people who have signed the petition.

Your devotion to the Green (and Tory Party) - 'serving Brighton right' campaign has been duly noted comrade gribbet - Green Party apologist or activist?

Could you do the patronising bit again...perhaps you should remind everyone to calm down and tell all about how many amazing jobs and big piles of money? These other comments are only from, as you note above, "ordinary people". Obviously such a keen 'extraordinary' intellect as yours should not be contaminated with petty details of any argument. After all, it's the ideology that will save the masses from themselves?
No side-stepping, just sticking with my original point. If things are so bad in the real world and not just in people's minds when they're winding each other up on the Argus comments sections, then why is a feeble online petition the extent of the town's action so far? Why don't you protest properly if you truly believe all the doom mongering that's vented on here every day? Why is no one holding placards outside the council offices?

As for party politics, it's not about that for me, it's just a project I think will be good for the town, however I think most of the negativity is less about the i360 and more to do with the usual people just hating the greens. To me it seems the main reason people oppose i360 is because they're annoyed about the lewes road changes and not having their bins emptied, therefore they oppose anything linked to the green party. All of the anti-i360 points people are raising above are hypotheticals, however they're being discussed as if they're givens.

Have you actually thought about the specifics of the impact this would have on you personally if the project isn't a success? Please paint the picture with specifics, e.g. how much have you calculated you'll personally be out of pocket year on year etc?
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Gribbet, you have again tried clumsily side-stepping the issues and you seem to dismiss as paranoia the valid points raised or supported by a number of seemingly expert and professional people who have signed the petition. Your devotion to the Green (and Tory Party) - 'serving Brighton right' campaign has been duly noted comrade gribbet - Green Party apologist or activist? Could you do the patronising bit again...perhaps you should remind everyone to calm down and tell all about how many amazing jobs and big piles of money? These other comments are only from, as you note above, "ordinary people". Obviously such a keen 'extraordinary' intellect as yours should not be contaminated with petty details of any argument. After all, it's the ideology that will save the masses from themselves?[/p][/quote]No side-stepping, just sticking with my original point. If things are so bad in the real world and not just in people's minds when they're winding each other up on the Argus comments sections, then why is a feeble online petition the extent of the town's action so far? Why don't you protest properly if you truly believe all the doom mongering that's vented on here every day? Why is no one holding placards outside the council offices? As for party politics, it's not about that for me, it's just a project I think will be good for the town, however I think most of the negativity is less about the i360 and more to do with the usual people just hating the greens. To me it seems the main reason people oppose i360 is because they're annoyed about the lewes road changes and not having their bins emptied, therefore they oppose anything linked to the green party. All of the anti-i360 points people are raising above are hypotheticals, however they're being discussed as if they're givens. Have you actually thought about the specifics of the impact this would have on you personally if the project isn't a success? Please paint the picture with specifics, e.g. how much have you calculated you'll personally be out of pocket year on year etc? Gribbet
  • Score: -8

11:53am Sun 16 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

The main reason for opposing the I360 is because it is a project that has been touting for funding for quite a number of years. It has been unsuccessful.
Another good reason is that there are some highly questionable matters going on with the architects/developer
s.
Another good reason is that the involvement of the West Pier Trust means that there are some very personal reasons for off-loading the architects/developer
s on to the council/city.

There are a number of other issues but for me those four alone are telling enough without going much deeper into the matter.
The main reason for opposing the I360 is because it is a project that has been touting for funding for quite a number of years. It has been unsuccessful. Another good reason is that there are some highly questionable matters going on with the architects/developer s. Another good reason is that the involvement of the West Pier Trust means that there are some very personal reasons for off-loading the architects/developer s on to the council/city. There are a number of other issues but for me those four alone are telling enough without going much deeper into the matter. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

12:05pm Sun 16 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Well said mimseycal the petitioners are civilised opposition trying to comment on a decision made with NO reference to asking the people what they think.

Can anyone prove the above assertion wrong?
Well said mimseycal the petitioners are civilised opposition trying to comment on a decision made with NO reference to asking the people what they think. Can anyone prove the above assertion wrong? KempyLocals
  • Score: 6

12:40pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Richada says...

Gribbet wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Gribbet, you have again tried clumsily side-stepping the issues and you seem to dismiss as paranoia the valid points raised or supported by a number of seemingly expert and professional people who have signed the petition.

Your devotion to the Green (and Tory Party) - 'serving Brighton right' campaign has been duly noted comrade gribbet - Green Party apologist or activist?

Could you do the patronising bit again...perhaps you should remind everyone to calm down and tell all about how many amazing jobs and big piles of money? These other comments are only from, as you note above, "ordinary people". Obviously such a keen 'extraordinary' intellect as yours should not be contaminated with petty details of any argument. After all, it's the ideology that will save the masses from themselves?
No side-stepping, just sticking with my original point. If things are so bad in the real world and not just in people's minds when they're winding each other up on the Argus comments sections, then why is a feeble online petition the extent of the town's action so far? Why don't you protest properly if you truly believe all the doom mongering that's vented on here every day? Why is no one holding placards outside the council offices?

As for party politics, it's not about that for me, it's just a project I think will be good for the town, however I think most of the negativity is less about the i360 and more to do with the usual people just hating the greens. To me it seems the main reason people oppose i360 is because they're annoyed about the lewes road changes and not having their bins emptied, therefore they oppose anything linked to the green party. All of the anti-i360 points people are raising above are hypotheticals, however they're being discussed as if they're givens.

Have you actually thought about the specifics of the impact this would have on you personally if the project isn't a success? Please paint the picture with specifics, e.g. how much have you calculated you'll personally be out of pocket year on year etc?
You seem to be missing the point here - the majority of objectors to this loan are objecting on purely commercial grounds - that the figures, if taken at face value don't add up and that the visitor numbers will not be achievable.

Without Tory support, through Cllr Theobold, this loan could not have happened. Although the Greens voted for it - the i360 has never been a "green issue" - it had planning permission many years before they had control of the council.

What however it did NOT have, during the intervening 8 years, was government funding. The i360 was originally intended as a private capital enterprise funded project, with Marks Barfield raising the capital to build it.

The other point that you have really not understood is that it is BECAUSE we are, collectively, so concerned that the i360, funded in this way, will be a drain on the coffers of B&H council for an indefinite period that we object to the loan.

It is, in effect, a double whammy - as income tax payers we fund the project initially, and as council tax payers we, and our children, then bear all of the risk associated with it too.

Councils of all colours are telling their voters how hard up they are - cuts in services, social care etc, we live in austere times - at least so we are told. However, between the council and the government, over £36M can now be handed over to a brand new start up company (Brighton i360 Ltd), the parent company of which (Marks Barfield) have promised the council the earth, but have what exactly to offer as security? The assets of the i360 observation tower itself, which, if they fail to make work commercially, the council will not stand a chance of doing so. The developer has absolutely nothing to loose here, if Brighton i360 Ltd goes bust, Marks Barfield are protected by being a separate entity.

Maybe you are unconcerned about another £10 or £15 a year on your council tax bill in order to fund this failed project, and I'd agree with you, in the great scheme of things, it is not a lot of money. However, personally, I would rather see it go to those in real need in our own city, rather than into propping up Marks Barfield, a private, London, company who have failed to finance this scheme themselves, and set up Brighton i360 Ltd as a separate company.

Have a look on Google at the many seaside observation towers already existing, many of them are no longer in use, even the ones that are appear tired and dated, certainly from the look of them they are failing to attract visitors in any great numbers.

OK, you are going to argue that the i360 will be bigger and better and should be compared to Blackpool Tower, or, laughably, the London Eye. Blackpool Tower is a multi-attraction venue, offering plenty to do "downstairs" when the weather is bad. The London eye is situated in the heart of one of the prime tourist destinations in the world. Those who have visited either - or both - of these attractions will know that comparisons are simply unrealistic.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Gribbet, you have again tried clumsily side-stepping the issues and you seem to dismiss as paranoia the valid points raised or supported by a number of seemingly expert and professional people who have signed the petition. Your devotion to the Green (and Tory Party) - 'serving Brighton right' campaign has been duly noted comrade gribbet - Green Party apologist or activist? Could you do the patronising bit again...perhaps you should remind everyone to calm down and tell all about how many amazing jobs and big piles of money? These other comments are only from, as you note above, "ordinary people". Obviously such a keen 'extraordinary' intellect as yours should not be contaminated with petty details of any argument. After all, it's the ideology that will save the masses from themselves?[/p][/quote]No side-stepping, just sticking with my original point. If things are so bad in the real world and not just in people's minds when they're winding each other up on the Argus comments sections, then why is a feeble online petition the extent of the town's action so far? Why don't you protest properly if you truly believe all the doom mongering that's vented on here every day? Why is no one holding placards outside the council offices? As for party politics, it's not about that for me, it's just a project I think will be good for the town, however I think most of the negativity is less about the i360 and more to do with the usual people just hating the greens. To me it seems the main reason people oppose i360 is because they're annoyed about the lewes road changes and not having their bins emptied, therefore they oppose anything linked to the green party. All of the anti-i360 points people are raising above are hypotheticals, however they're being discussed as if they're givens. Have you actually thought about the specifics of the impact this would have on you personally if the project isn't a success? Please paint the picture with specifics, e.g. how much have you calculated you'll personally be out of pocket year on year etc?[/p][/quote]You seem to be missing the point here - the majority of objectors to this loan are objecting on purely commercial grounds - that the figures, if taken at face value don't add up and that the visitor numbers will not be achievable. Without Tory support, through Cllr Theobold, this loan could not have happened. Although the Greens voted for it - the i360 has never been a "green issue" - it had planning permission many years before they had control of the council. What however it did NOT have, during the intervening 8 years, was government funding. The i360 was originally intended as a private capital enterprise funded project, with Marks Barfield raising the capital to build it. The other point that you have really not understood is that it is BECAUSE we are, collectively, so concerned that the i360, funded in this way, will be a drain on the coffers of B&H council for an indefinite period that we object to the loan. It is, in effect, a double whammy - as income tax payers we fund the project initially, and as council tax payers we, and our children, then bear all of the risk associated with it too. Councils of all colours are telling their voters how hard up they are - cuts in services, social care etc, we live in austere times - at least so we are told. However, between the council and the government, over £36M can now be handed over to a brand new start up company (Brighton i360 Ltd), the parent company of which (Marks Barfield) have promised the council the earth, but have what exactly to offer as security? The assets of the i360 observation tower itself, which, if they fail to make work commercially, the council will not stand a chance of doing so. The developer has absolutely nothing to loose here, if Brighton i360 Ltd goes bust, Marks Barfield are protected by being a separate entity. Maybe you are unconcerned about another £10 or £15 a year on your council tax bill in order to fund this failed project, and I'd agree with you, in the great scheme of things, it is not a lot of money. However, personally, I would rather see it go to those in real need in our own city, rather than into propping up Marks Barfield, a private, London, company who have failed to finance this scheme themselves, and set up Brighton i360 Ltd as a separate company. Have a look on Google at the many seaside observation towers already existing, many of them are no longer in use, even the ones that are appear tired and dated, certainly from the look of them they are failing to attract visitors in any great numbers. OK, you are going to argue that the i360 will be bigger and better and should be compared to Blackpool Tower, or, laughably, the London Eye. Blackpool Tower is a multi-attraction venue, offering plenty to do "downstairs" when the weather is bad. The London eye is situated in the heart of one of the prime tourist destinations in the world. Those who have visited either - or both - of these attractions will know that comparisons are simply unrealistic. Richada
  • Score: 10

3:19pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment.

Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about.
Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment. Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 2

3:36pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment.

Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about.
Valerie, I agree with you, but there is only one offender here. I have got a keyboard coward stalking my comments. Who says he knows who I am, where I live, which he doesn't, and keeps on inviting me for a fight and throwing insults and homophobic comments in my direction.

I am surprised that the Argus allows its users to use their website for this sort of abuse. Imagine if he did know who I was and what affect it would have on the person he is targeting. In the meantime I am taking his comments further with the Argus on behalf of others who are bullied on the internet.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment. Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about.[/p][/quote]Valerie, I agree with you, but there is only one offender here. I have got a keyboard coward stalking my comments. Who says he knows who I am, where I live, which he doesn't, and keeps on inviting me for a fight and throwing insults and homophobic comments in my direction. I am surprised that the Argus allows its users to use their website for this sort of abuse. Imagine if he did know who I was and what affect it would have on the person he is targeting. In the meantime I am taking his comments further with the Argus on behalf of others who are bullied on the internet. Hovite
  • Score: 4

3:47pm Sun 16 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Hovite wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment.

Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about.
Valerie, I agree with you, but there is only one offender here. I have got a keyboard coward stalking my comments. Who says he knows who I am, where I live, which he doesn't, and keeps on inviting me for a fight and throwing insults and homophobic comments in my direction.

I am surprised that the Argus allows its users to use their website for this sort of abuse. Imagine if he did know who I was and what affect it would have on the person he is targeting. In the meantime I am taking his comments further with the Argus on behalf of others who are bullied on the internet.
Good luck. However be aware that the most that will happen is that the account will be removed. It is a simple enough matter to get another account approved and then it is back to the old game ... best to do with any comments is to address those issues you care to address and ignore the rest. Not ideal I'll grant you but until websites start taking the matter seriously, little else we can do ... other then avoiding the website in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment. Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about.[/p][/quote]Valerie, I agree with you, but there is only one offender here. I have got a keyboard coward stalking my comments. Who says he knows who I am, where I live, which he doesn't, and keeps on inviting me for a fight and throwing insults and homophobic comments in my direction. I am surprised that the Argus allows its users to use their website for this sort of abuse. Imagine if he did know who I was and what affect it would have on the person he is targeting. In the meantime I am taking his comments further with the Argus on behalf of others who are bullied on the internet.[/p][/quote]Good luck. However be aware that the most that will happen is that the account will be removed. It is a simple enough matter to get another account approved and then it is back to the old game ... best to do with any comments is to address those issues you care to address and ignore the rest. Not ideal I'll grant you but until websites start taking the matter seriously, little else we can do ... other then avoiding the website in the first place. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

4:08pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Hovite says...

mimseycal wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment.

Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about.
Valerie, I agree with you, but there is only one offender here. I have got a keyboard coward stalking my comments. Who says he knows who I am, where I live, which he doesn't, and keeps on inviting me for a fight and throwing insults and homophobic comments in my direction.

I am surprised that the Argus allows its users to use their website for this sort of abuse. Imagine if he did know who I was and what affect it would have on the person he is targeting. In the meantime I am taking his comments further with the Argus on behalf of others who are bullied on the internet.
Good luck. However be aware that the most that will happen is that the account will be removed. It is a simple enough matter to get another account approved and then it is back to the old game ... best to do with any comments is to address those issues you care to address and ignore the rest. Not ideal I'll grant you but until websites start taking the matter seriously, little else we can do ... other then avoiding the website in the first place.
Thanks for the good luck message;

User I.P. Addresses can be traced if there is a will to follow it up, so whilst this type of cowardly person feels safe hiding behind a keyboard this is not always the case and they should always expect the possibility of a knock on their door.

As I said I will be taking this further on behalf of people who are cyber bullied as there is no place for this on the internet let alone a high profile local media company.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Hoveite and Somethings are just wrong: you are undermining the importance of comments and possibly putting off people from making a contributribution by posting personal insults to each other that people have to wade and scroll a long way down to avoid....I bet they just get put off using the opportunity to comment. Please stop doing it. It gives Gribbet more to ego-massagingly smirk about.[/p][/quote]Valerie, I agree with you, but there is only one offender here. I have got a keyboard coward stalking my comments. Who says he knows who I am, where I live, which he doesn't, and keeps on inviting me for a fight and throwing insults and homophobic comments in my direction. I am surprised that the Argus allows its users to use their website for this sort of abuse. Imagine if he did know who I was and what affect it would have on the person he is targeting. In the meantime I am taking his comments further with the Argus on behalf of others who are bullied on the internet.[/p][/quote]Good luck. However be aware that the most that will happen is that the account will be removed. It is a simple enough matter to get another account approved and then it is back to the old game ... best to do with any comments is to address those issues you care to address and ignore the rest. Not ideal I'll grant you but until websites start taking the matter seriously, little else we can do ... other then avoiding the website in the first place.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the good luck message; User I.P. Addresses can be traced if there is a will to follow it up, so whilst this type of cowardly person feels safe hiding behind a keyboard this is not always the case and they should always expect the possibility of a knock on their door. As I said I will be taking this further on behalf of people who are cyber bullied as there is no place for this on the internet let alone a high profile local media company. Hovite
  • Score: 2

9:13pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Chaffinch1 wrote:
£36M would build a lovely pier, wouldn't it? Hands up everyone who'd like to see the West Pier rebuilt to her former splendour!
Sadly Marks Barfield have the planning consent that the owners, The West Pier Trust, have accepted. If the loan goes ahead, that's it. Game, set and an i360 pole in our faces, inescapably viewable citywide. And likely to be a millstone round the city neck in perpetuity.
[quote][p][bold]Chaffinch1[/bold] wrote: £36M would build a lovely pier, wouldn't it? Hands up everyone who'd like to see the West Pier rebuilt to her former splendour![/p][/quote]Sadly Marks Barfield have the planning consent that the owners, The West Pier Trust, have accepted. If the loan goes ahead, that's it. Game, set and an i360 pole in our faces, inescapably viewable citywide. And likely to be a millstone round the city neck in perpetuity. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 2

10:27pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Richada says...

For anyone who is interested in signing it, there is also a government e-petition: http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/61662
For anyone who is interested in signing it, there is also a government e-petition: http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/61662 Richada
  • Score: 3

11:47pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

mimseycal wrote:
The main reason for opposing the I360 is because it is a project that has been touting for funding for quite a number of years. It has been unsuccessful.
Another good reason is that there are some highly questionable matters going on with the architects/developer

s.
Another good reason is that the involvement of the West Pier Trust means that there are some very personal reasons for off-loading the architects/developer

s on to the council/city.

There are a number of other issues but for me those four alone are telling enough without going much deeper into the matter.
That's pretty much the perfect example of the kind of paranoid, watery reasoning I was referring to.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: The main reason for opposing the I360 is because it is a project that has been touting for funding for quite a number of years. It has been unsuccessful. Another good reason is that there are some highly questionable matters going on with the architects/developer s. Another good reason is that the involvement of the West Pier Trust means that there are some very personal reasons for off-loading the architects/developer s on to the council/city. There are a number of other issues but for me those four alone are telling enough without going much deeper into the matter.[/p][/quote]That's pretty much the perfect example of the kind of paranoid, watery reasoning I was referring to. Gribbet
  • Score: -5

12:02am Mon 17 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
The main reason for opposing the I360 is because it is a project that has been touting for funding for quite a number of years. It has been unsuccessful.
Another good reason is that there are some highly questionable matters going on with the architects/developer


s.
Another good reason is that the involvement of the West Pier Trust means that there are some very personal reasons for off-loading the architects/developer


s on to the council/city.

There are a number of other issues but for me those four alone are telling enough without going much deeper into the matter.
That's pretty much the perfect example of the kind of paranoid, watery reasoning I was referring to.
;-)
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: The main reason for opposing the I360 is because it is a project that has been touting for funding for quite a number of years. It has been unsuccessful. Another good reason is that there are some highly questionable matters going on with the architects/developer s. Another good reason is that the involvement of the West Pier Trust means that there are some very personal reasons for off-loading the architects/developer s on to the council/city. There are a number of other issues but for me those four alone are telling enough without going much deeper into the matter.[/p][/quote]That's pretty much the perfect example of the kind of paranoid, watery reasoning I was referring to.[/p][/quote];-) mimseycal
  • Score: 1

12:53am Mon 17 Mar 14

sedwardsESQ says...

Marks Barfield Architects wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. -

http://present.brigh


ton-hove.gov.uk/Data


/Planning%20Applicat


ions%20Sub-Committee


/20061011/Agenda/$It


em%2084.B%20Plans%20


List%2011%20October%


2006.doc.pdf

You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application.

And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC.

Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM.

A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue.

But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered.

Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives".

It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.
We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong.

The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity.

The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period.

The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible.

A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception.

We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board.

We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture:

http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/content/

planning/major-devel

opments/i360-west-pi

er-observation-tower

-and-heritage-centre



Marks Barfield Architects
Have read the report several times and you state that you are "confident" that the loan can be paid back in less than 25 years! then on reading " http://www.westpier.
co.uk/news/i360-ques
tions-answers-with-g
lynn-jones-trust-cha
irman/ " how can you expect the general public to believe anything when a failing Chief Executive (Glynn Jones) allowed corruption within it's own council before retiring, you seem to have miss judged the general publics mood when it concerns their cash (which will show it's toll in future generations at their and their children's expense) and your confidences will be none the less as failing has Glynn Jones's before retiring, this project will be as failing has all the projects ever build and failed since the minellium dome, it would be cheaper to put a fair ground ride in it's place that would be more attracting, than see you company's walk off into the sunset with a failing project leaving a clumpson eyesore without attension....
[quote][p][bold]Marks Barfield Architects[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Anyone care to read the Agenda report that got the i360 its planning consent? This is the full planning application report. There were two applications. One for full planning and the other for listed consent. - http://present.brigh ton-hove.gov.uk/Data /Planning%20Applicat ions%20Sub-Committee /20061011/Agenda/$It em%2084.B%20Plans%20 List%2011%20October% 2006.doc.pdf You can read for yourselves that the pod capacity was at that time 100 and it is now 200. The 116 capacity cafe in the building around the ride has toilets FOR THAT. Now that it is expected to support maximum of 600 people per hour plus the cafe trade instead of 300 per hour & cafe trade do you think toilet provision is likely to be adequate? You would need to look at planning application drawings for BH2006/02369 to decide. BH2006/02372 is the Listed application. And if you look at the archived webcast for the special P&R mtg that agreed the loan, and listen to the female speaker from Marks Barfield, you will hear her speak of "joint marketing" with BHCC. Right, that's the Marks Barfield quote demolished as deliberate misinformation. Shame on them. SHAME ON THEM. A request to planning was made concerning the doubled pod capacity that was quietly added to a P&R report in 2012 and trumpetted in the current one. Why no amended planning application to increase the capacity? We were told that there was no Condition of Planning (among the 48) specifying or limiting capacity and that it is a health and safety issue. But the planning committee agreeed a capacity of 100 and the environmental impact that this would inflict. Not 200. And a further query about the need for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment - to include transport/traffic issues - has not so far been answered. Planning officers were leaned on over the King Alfred and under FOI the Argus got hold of the multi-signature email sent to senior officers by planning officers telling them to stop leaning on them over King Alfred. Because of King Alfred the Development Control Mgr 'resigned', the West Area Manager resigned and the KA planning officer resigned. Many others followed. I hope the planning department is not once again experiencing pressure from the council to uphold "corporate objectives". It is appalling that Marks Barfield felt the need to resort to misinformation for this article.[/p][/quote]We welcome and expect public comment on the project. But it’s a shame people are being misinformed in the petition. For example claims that there are no toilets, the pod increasing in capacity or the council paying for marketing are plain wrong. The size of the i360 pod has not changed since it was approved at planning committee in 2006. The planning consent does not limit or condition visitor numbers or pod capacity. The i360 pod is ten times larger than a London Eye pod (capacity: 25-30 people) and has sufficient capacity to cater for the projected demand. It is eight years since the planning application visitor estimate figures were produced. The projected visitor numbers then were 589,000 visitors in year one. The average visitor numbers are now predicted to be 729,000 in a stable year. Total visitor numbers to Brighton & Hove have increased from 8 million a year to 10 million a year in that period. The average number of people in the pod over a whole year works out to approximately 75 per ride. In reality it will vary day by day and ride by ride. 200 people can comfortably be accommodated within the pod. It will be easy to move around and look out at the view, or to sit down. The pod will be completely accessible. A new Environmental Impact Assessment is not required due to the updated visitor projections. Visitor projections for attractions vary year on year and Brighton i360 will be no exception. We think people would generally support the i360 if they understand this is a project which will bring hundreds of jobs, millions of pounds and help preserve the seafront for future generations. This is the basis on which funding will be secured from the Public Works Loans Board. We would refer people to Q&As on the council’s website for a clearer picture: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ planning/major-devel opments/i360-west-pi er-observation-tower -and-heritage-centre Marks Barfield Architects[/p][/quote]Have read the report several times and you state that you are "confident" that the loan can be paid back in less than 25 years! then on reading " http://www.westpier. co.uk/news/i360-ques tions-answers-with-g lynn-jones-trust-cha irman/ " how can you expect the general public to believe anything when a failing Chief Executive (Glynn Jones) allowed corruption within it's own council before retiring, you seem to have miss judged the general publics mood when it concerns their cash (which will show it's toll in future generations at their and their children's expense) and your confidences will be none the less as failing has Glynn Jones's before retiring, this project will be as failing has all the projects ever build and failed since the minellium dome, it would be cheaper to put a fair ground ride in it's place that would be more attracting, than see you company's walk off into the sunset with a failing project leaving a clumpson eyesore without attension.... sedwardsESQ
  • Score: 3

1:26am Mon 17 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Signatures on this petition are the only move left on the board. Please help us to try to block the £36.2 'loan' to Marks Barfield which BHCC is applying for to the Public Works Loan Board so it can lend it on to this undeserving cause that was abandoned by the meagre finance it managed to cobble together in the early years of this misbegotten project.

To do nothing is to encourage BHCC to bail out more such losers instead of backing far less risky projects capable of producing facilities that are more genuinely about infrastructure and regeneration - both of which are conditions of achieving the loan.

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/uk
-public-works-loan-b
oard-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront
Signatures on this petition are the only move left on the board. Please help us to try to block the £36.2 'loan' to Marks Barfield which BHCC is applying for to the Public Works Loan Board so it can lend it on to this undeserving cause that was abandoned by the meagre finance it managed to cobble together in the early years of this misbegotten project. To do nothing is to encourage BHCC to bail out more such losers instead of backing far less risky projects capable of producing facilities that are more genuinely about infrastructure and regeneration - both of which are conditions of achieving the loan. http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/uk -public-works-loan-b oard-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront saveHOVE
  • Score: 2

11:57am Mon 17 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf
ield.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/03/BHCC
-QA.pdf

Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given.

ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..
Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf ield.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/BHCC -QA.pdf Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given. ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict.. KempyLocals
  • Score: 4

1:12pm Mon 17 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf

ield.com/wp-content/

uploads/2014/03/BHCC

-QA.pdf

Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given.

ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..
It reads like it as written by Brighon & Hove City Council. Full of "we" words in council references.
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf ield.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/BHCC -QA.pdf Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given. ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..[/p][/quote]It reads like it as written by Brighon & Hove City Council. Full of "we" words in council references. saveHOVE
  • Score: 3

1:23pm Mon 17 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf

ield.com/wp-content/

uploads/2014/03/BHCC

-QA.pdf

Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given.

ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..
Interesting reference to "joint ticketing to ensure people visit OTHER attractions". You have to laugh. Joint ticketing is the only way people will bother with it after they visit whatever else the "joint ticket" gives admission to. How much will BHCC have to pay towards the "joint ticketing" through its marketing budget....paid for by the public?
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf ield.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/BHCC -QA.pdf Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given. ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..[/p][/quote]Interesting reference to "joint ticketing to ensure people visit OTHER attractions". You have to laugh. Joint ticketing is the only way people will bother with it after they visit whatever else the "joint ticket" gives admission to. How much will BHCC have to pay towards the "joint ticketing" through its marketing budget....paid for by the public? saveHOVE
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Mon 17 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

To recap: 2006 visitor numbers 'up to' 550,000 in first year; recent P&R 850,000 'every year' now the latest report suggests 700.000 a year and only 800,000 in year one, oh and apparently 2006 application was only meant to say 500,000 year one. Take your pic on the forecasts folks but only 2006 has been appraised with regards environmental impact - the folly of forecasting. Upto 305,000 (very precise) new visitors a year 'just because of i360' - really?
To recap: 2006 visitor numbers 'up to' 550,000 in first year; recent P&R 850,000 'every year' now the latest report suggests 700.000 a year and only 800,000 in year one, oh and apparently 2006 application was only meant to say 500,000 year one. Take your pic on the forecasts folks but only 2006 has been appraised with regards environmental impact - the folly of forecasting. Upto 305,000 (very precise) new visitors a year 'just because of i360' - really? KempyLocals
  • Score: 3

5:31pm Mon 17 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Latest Council Briefing says 'Public' works loan board has been used for:

wind farms and solar energy (through Feed in Tariffs)
student accommodation (through nominations agreements)
affordable housing (local authority head leases)
Private Rented Sector Accommodation (DCLG repayment guarantees)
infrastructure funding (DCLG LIF programme)

All the above are for 'public' good and the i360 is.......private!
Latest Council Briefing says 'Public' works loan board has been used for: wind farms and solar energy (through Feed in Tariffs) student accommodation (through nominations agreements) affordable housing (local authority head leases) Private Rented Sector Accommodation (DCLG repayment guarantees) infrastructure funding (DCLG LIF programme) All the above are for 'public' good and the i360 is.......private! KempyLocals
  • Score: 3

6:21pm Mon 17 Mar 14

rolivan says...

saveHOVE wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf


ield.com/wp-content/


uploads/2014/03/BHCC


-QA.pdf

Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given.

ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..
It reads like it as written by Brighon & Hove City Council. Full of "we" words in council references.
Financially,
if
the
city
does
nothing
we
forego
over
£1
million
a
year
in
interest
payments,
plus
shared
earnings
and
new
business
rates
from
the
a
ttraction
and
a
wide
range
of
other
economic
and
financial
benefits
that
will
flow
to
local
businesses
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf ield.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/BHCC -QA.pdf Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given. ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..[/p][/quote]It reads like it as written by Brighon & Hove City Council. Full of "we" words in council references.[/p][/quote]Financially, if the city does nothing we forego over £1 million a year in interest payments, plus shared earnings and new business rates from the a ttraction and a wide range of other economic and financial benefits that will flow to local businesses rolivan
  • Score: 1

6:24pm Mon 17 Mar 14

rolivan says...

rolivan wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf



ield.com/wp-content/



uploads/2014/03/BHCC



-QA.pdf

Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given.

ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..
It reads like it as written by Brighon & Hove City Council. Full of "we" words in council references.
Financially,
if
the
city
does
nothing
we
forego
over
£1
million
a
year
in
interest
payments,
plus
shared
earnings
and
new
business
rates
from
the
a
ttraction
and
a
wide
range
of
other
economic
and
financial
benefits
that
will
flow
to
local
businesses
Sorry about the last post I wanted to emphasise the "we will forego" so it was written by The Council under whose Authority?
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf ield.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/BHCC -QA.pdf Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given. ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..[/p][/quote]It reads like it as written by Brighon & Hove City Council. Full of "we" words in council references.[/p][/quote]Financially, if the city does nothing we forego over £1 million a year in interest payments, plus shared earnings and new business rates from the a ttraction and a wide range of other economic and financial benefits that will flow to local businesses[/p][/quote]Sorry about the last post I wanted to emphasise the "we will forego" so it was written by The Council under whose Authority? rolivan
  • Score: 1

6:30pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Richada says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Latest Council Briefing says 'Public' works loan board has been used for:

wind farms and solar energy (through Feed in Tariffs)
student accommodation (through nominations agreements)
affordable housing (local authority head leases)
Private Rented Sector Accommodation (DCLG repayment guarantees)
infrastructure funding (DCLG LIF programme)

All the above are for 'public' good and the i360 is.......private!
Makes you wonder just how much the PWLB actually knows about this particular project.

I suspect it has been granted to B&HCC as a safe investment - which of course it is, Brighton i360 Ltd goes bust, we simply take up the loan repayments.
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Latest Council Briefing says 'Public' works loan board has been used for: wind farms and solar energy (through Feed in Tariffs) student accommodation (through nominations agreements) affordable housing (local authority head leases) Private Rented Sector Accommodation (DCLG repayment guarantees) infrastructure funding (DCLG LIF programme) All the above are for 'public' good and the i360 is.......private![/p][/quote]Makes you wonder just how much the PWLB actually knows about this particular project. I suspect it has been granted to B&HCC as a safe investment - which of course it is, Brighton i360 Ltd goes bust, we simply take up the loan repayments. Richada
  • Score: 3

9:18pm Mon 17 Mar 14

tez1959 says...

viewing tower waste of time and money. stand at the top of the racecourse on a clear day and you can see the isle of wight or up the deviks dyke you can see for miles for free.. failing thet get austins to put a scaffold up be a lot cheaper for everyone youd only need to pay for a hard hat up the greens get em out quick bet the people who voted them in had wished theyed put there x in a different box .fools
viewing tower waste of time and money. stand at the top of the racecourse on a clear day and you can see the isle of wight or up the deviks dyke you can see for miles for free.. failing thet get austins to put a scaffold up be a lot cheaper for everyone youd only need to pay for a hard hat up the greens get em out quick bet the people who voted them in had wished theyed put there x in a different box .fools tez1959
  • Score: 2

9:20pm Mon 17 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Richada wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Latest Council Briefing says 'Public' works loan board has been used for:

wind farms and solar energy (through Feed in Tariffs)
student accommodation (through nominations agreements)
affordable housing (local authority head leases)
Private Rented Sector Accommodation (DCLG repayment guarantees)
infrastructure funding (DCLG LIF programme)

All the above are for 'public' good and the i360 is.......private!
Makes you wonder just how much the PWLB actually knows about this particular project.

I suspect it has been granted to B&HCC as a safe investment - which of course it is, Brighton i360 Ltd goes bust, we simply take up the loan repayments.
Chillingly good point about being a safe investmnt.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Latest Council Briefing says 'Public' works loan board has been used for: wind farms and solar energy (through Feed in Tariffs) student accommodation (through nominations agreements) affordable housing (local authority head leases) Private Rented Sector Accommodation (DCLG repayment guarantees) infrastructure funding (DCLG LIF programme) All the above are for 'public' good and the i360 is.......private![/p][/quote]Makes you wonder just how much the PWLB actually knows about this particular project. I suspect it has been granted to B&HCC as a safe investment - which of course it is, Brighton i360 Ltd goes bust, we simply take up the loan repayments.[/p][/quote]Chillingly good point about being a safe investmnt. saveHOVE
  • Score: 4

9:23pm Mon 17 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

In the days when viewing towers used to be built, they didn't have Google Earth that lets you home in on the satellite views of anywhere from the comfort of your laptop. Right down to roof level.
In the days when viewing towers used to be built, they didn't have Google Earth that lets you home in on the satellite views of anywhere from the comfort of your laptop. Right down to roof level. saveHOVE
  • Score: 5

9:36pm Mon 17 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

saveHOVE wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf


ield.com/wp-content/


uploads/2014/03/BHCC


-QA.pdf

Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given.

ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..
Interesting reference to "joint ticketing to ensure people visit OTHER attractions". You have to laugh. Joint ticketing is the only way people will bother with it after they visit whatever else the "joint ticket" gives admission to. How much will BHCC have to pay towards the "joint ticketing" through its marketing budget....paid for by the public?
And Corporate Events are not 'ticket sales' are they so I guess BHCC will get no income from them....
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Latest updated briefing written by Marks Barfield for West Pier Trust - http://www.marksbarf ield.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/BHCC -QA.pdf Different figures and projections again! Now they say the 2006 planning permission figures are wrong and the new projections do not need further appraisal! 300,000 extra visitors a year and nobody knows the Transport Impact?? Incredible..this is 50,000 beneath last weeks predictions when money was sought from BHCC - guess estimates can afford to drop now the loan is given. ooking forward to what next weeks forecasts predict..[/p][/quote]Interesting reference to "joint ticketing to ensure people visit OTHER attractions". You have to laugh. Joint ticketing is the only way people will bother with it after they visit whatever else the "joint ticket" gives admission to. How much will BHCC have to pay towards the "joint ticketing" through its marketing budget....paid for by the public?[/p][/quote]And Corporate Events are not 'ticket sales' are they so I guess BHCC will get no income from them.... KempyLocals
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

E for Idiot says...

Green_Girl_1990

I've got to say top trolling once more.
Green_Girl_1990 I've got to say top trolling once more. E for Idiot
  • Score: 1

2:35pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

E for Idiot wrote:
Green_Girl_1990

I've got to say top trolling once more.
Go on Green Girl tell us how green the i360 is please? Keep asking but still no reply - what are the consequences of 500,000 or 550,00 or 750,000 or 800,000 or even 850,000 per year visiting (all the above predictions have been given by David Marks) so they have all been assessed? Right? Can you show us where?
[quote][p][bold]E for Idiot[/bold] wrote: Green_Girl_1990 I've got to say top trolling once more.[/p][/quote]Go on Green Girl tell us how green the i360 is please? Keep asking but still no reply - what are the consequences of 500,000 or 550,00 or 750,000 or 800,000 or even 850,000 per year visiting (all the above predictions have been given by David Marks) so they have all been assessed? Right? Can you show us where? KempyLocals
  • Score: 4

8:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Nothing yet then Green Girl? Can you show us all how green i360 is with your superior intellect? Can the newly rich Mr Marks help? What about BHCC? No? Nobody? Surprise.....
Nothing yet then Green Girl? Can you show us all how green i360 is with your superior intellect? Can the newly rich Mr Marks help? What about BHCC? No? Nobody? Surprise..... KempyLocals
  • Score: 5

2:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Nothing more from Green Girl then?
Nothing more from Green Girl then? KempyLocals
  • Score: 2

10:46pm Fri 21 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Nothing more from Green Girl then?
Perhaps she took a look at the i360 petitions out there...three that I have seen. The saveHOVE petition this evening saw Malcolm Dawes, the
Chairman of the Brighton Society, sign it.

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/pu
blic-works-loan-boar
d-uk-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront

If the link is a problem google i360 petition and access it from there.
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Nothing more from Green Girl then?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she took a look at the i360 petitions out there...three that I have seen. The saveHOVE petition this evening saw Malcolm Dawes, the Chairman of the Brighton Society, sign it. http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/pu blic-works-loan-boar d-uk-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront If the link is a problem google i360 petition and access it from there. saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Wed 2 Apr 14

rosieroose says...

I would be utterly livid if any elected member in my area voted to waste my money on this private enterprise. It should be funded by private enterprise END OF.
As a complete outsider who stumbled across this issue by pure chance (and thank goodness I did because who'd ever believe that your Councillors could be worse than we have over here in Australia.)
I would not have been able to see the Cr A Kitcat calling her electorate inbred or interpretation she has SAVED them from inbreeding)
THANK YOU Brighton and Hove for making my night here down under..
I would be utterly livid if any elected member in my area voted to waste my money on this private enterprise. It should be funded by private enterprise END OF. As a complete outsider who stumbled across this issue by pure chance (and thank goodness I did because who'd ever believe that your Councillors could be worse than we have over here in Australia.) I would not have been able to see the Cr A Kitcat calling her electorate inbred or interpretation she has SAVED them from inbreeding) THANK YOU Brighton and Hove for making my night here down under.. rosieroose
  • Score: 3

3:48pm Wed 2 Apr 14

rosieroose says...

rosieroose wrote:
I would be utterly livid if any elected member in my area voted to waste my money on this private enterprise. It should be funded by private enterprise END OF.
As a complete outsider who stumbled across this issue by pure chance (and thank goodness I did because who'd ever believe that your Councillors could be worse than we have over here in Australia.)
I would not have been able to see the Cr A Kitcat calling her electorate inbred or interpretation she has SAVED them from inbreeding)
THANK YOU Brighton and Hove for making my night here down under..
I am off to sign the petition. I have visited Brighton numerous times. Not only a waste of your rate payers money but an eyesore too.
[quote][p][bold]rosieroose[/bold] wrote: I would be utterly livid if any elected member in my area voted to waste my money on this private enterprise. It should be funded by private enterprise END OF. As a complete outsider who stumbled across this issue by pure chance (and thank goodness I did because who'd ever believe that your Councillors could be worse than we have over here in Australia.) I would not have been able to see the Cr A Kitcat calling her electorate inbred or interpretation she has SAVED them from inbreeding) THANK YOU Brighton and Hove for making my night here down under..[/p][/quote]I am off to sign the petition. I have visited Brighton numerous times. Not only a waste of your rate payers money but an eyesore too. rosieroose
  • Score: 3

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