Funfair rides on the Palace Pier in Brighton are past their sell-by-date and plummeting in popularity, the owners have told an inquiry.

The Noble Organisation, owners of Brighton's Palace Pier, told a government inspector they needed two 40m-high rides to bring in enough cash to safeguard the structure's future.

However, the firm complained the pier would have to be on the verge of collapse before council planners would let them.

Lawyers for Noble also accused Brighton and Hove City Council of treating them "scandalously" and demanding they run the pier like a charity rather than a business.

A two-day public inquiry into whether the two proposed "booster rides" should get the go-ahead ended last night with the council insisting the rides would ruin the pier's appearance.

Councillors refused planning applications for the two rotating rides last February, prompting Noble to appeal to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.

Chartered surveyor Peter Gwilliam yesterday told inspector Katie Peerless the high rides were essential so the pier could keep up with the amusement industry's "freefall mania".

He said: "Demand for high-rise rides over the past two years has been dramatic."

He said Noble faced intense competition from theme parks such as Chessington, while having the difficulties of maintaining the grade II listed pier. The pier's annual maintenance budget was said to be £850,000.

If approved, the boosters would replace the existing Ventura and Ranger rides, which Mr Gwilliam described as "past their sell-by date".

He also revealed that the fairground at the end of the pier was running at a loss, because the appeal of the old rides was waning.

He said though revenues improved in 2000-2001, they had been declining since then and three exciting new rides were needed to stem the losses.

The two boosters would stand either side of a 35m-tall Megadrop ride, which has already won planning permission but not yet been built.

Mr Gwilliam said: "The Ventura is showing a fairly steep decline. The Ranger was reprieved after the fire on the pier last February and, because of that, has shown a slight increase in numbers using it. But I think the trend will continue to go downwards."

He said Noble had run the pier at a loss for the 12 years after buying it in 1984, investing £25 million. It now wanted it to become self-sufficient or a profit-maker.

Mary Macpherson, for the council, accused Noble of exaggerating the threat to the pier's future.

She cited data provided by Noble showing the pier had four million visitors a year, was the fourth most popular visitor attraction in the UK and employed more than 500 people, compared to 120 two decades ago.

She accused the firm of wanting unfair "leniency" and "preferential treatment" and said there was no obligation on the pier to become self-sufficient, as Noble had other resources.

Richard Phillips, representing Noble, described that as "an astonishing suggestion". He said: "It's insulting that Noble is being asked to act in effect as a charity organisation."

Ms Macpherson said the proposed rides, which would be double and even triple the heights of existing rides on the pier, would "harm the character and appearance of the pier and its conservation area setting".

Ms Peerless is due to make her recommendations to Mr Prescott by the end of this month, for a final decision at a later, unspecified date.

Friday November 07, 2003