Wheel revision (From The Argus)

Wheel revision

5:50pm Wednesday 14th September 2011 in Your Argus

IN A previous letter (September 5), I incorrectly referred to the forthcoming Brighton wheel as second-hand. I have now learnt that it is actually fourth-hand.

It was previously located in Paris in 2008, Copenhagen in 2009 and Cape Town in 2010.

It stood in each of those cities for less than a year, so why must Brighton be lumbered with it for five years?

Why didn’t our planners follow the example of these cities and license it for one year only?

I also described it as “45 metres tall”. This was based on the developers’ planning application, which was for the construction of a “45- metre-high observation wheel”.

But I notice Paramount Attractions’ own website speaks of it as 50 metres high.

The makers of the wheel, reporting its installation last year in Cape Town, said it “will reach 50 metres high into the sky”, and various South African websites, likewise, reported it at 50 metres high.

It is possible the wheel’s diameter is 45 metres, and that the base, landing stage and capsules add five metres to the total height. However, the fact remains that permission has been granted for a structure “45 metres tall” and not for one that is 50 metres tall.

I also noted this from the South African previous owner’s website: “Extensive branding and advertising opportunities exist – after all, the wheel has more than five kilometers of LED lighting for this purpose.”

The prospect of 50-metre-high flashing, commercial slogans on Madeira Drive is too ghastly to contemplate.

I do hope the planners, who have yet to pass the wheel’s lighting strategy, make a point of at least ruling this out.

Graham Chainey, Marine Parade, Brighton

I AM amazed work has begun on a giant ferris wheel on Brighton seafront, not dissimilar in size and shape to a wind turbine.

But how different its fate would be had the latter been proposed.

It would incur a raft of objections including noise, driver distraction, harm to birds and hazard to aircraft.

But this time the jury is silent. The decision to allow this ferris wheel makes a mockery of the usual objections levelled at sustainable bids.

At the very least, Paramount Attractions could ensure the wheel is powered by solar energy or other renewable sources.

Otherwise, it seems that, once again, it’s a case of if it’s grey, it’s in; if it’s green, it’s out.

Dave Degen, Whippendell Road, Watford, Herts

Selma Montford writes that there are several ways to find out about planning applications such as the Brighton wheel (Letters, September 6).

Unfortunately, though, The Argus is not read by everyone, some of us do not receive The Leader and the majority of people don’t have the spare time or the inclination to pour over websites showing planning applications.

It is the duty of Brighton and Hove City Council to undertake public consultation on planning applications.

In the case of this ferris wheel proposed for the seafront, a few residents were informed of the application.

Many of those residents wrote to the council objecting.

That is why we were allowed the three minutes to put our case to the planning meeting. Regretfully, other residents did not know.

The podcast of the council planning meeting shows quite clearly that a number of councillors, as well as residents, were concerned at the speed with which the application had been rushed through.

As one councillor said, she would “go bonkers if it was placed in front of her home”.

Many residents are aggrieved that the council failed in its duty to inform them that they would be subject to a structure not only 50 metres high, but brightly lit 24 hours a day.

Audrey Simpson, Marine Parade, Brighton